D&D 5E Where does optimizing end and min-maxing begin? And is min-maxing a bad thing?

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[cmad1977]

No, you said go out of your way to target players if they make a character you disagree with. Then entire game world warps into one where only their weaknesses are targeted. That's not the choice of the player, that's your choice as DM.

You are a bad DM, I get it. No need to make excuses, as there are none. I certainly wouldn't play in your game, I'd find more productive uses of my limited spare time. The game is supposed to be enjoyable for both the players and the DM, not just a way for the DM to play out their god fantasies and dole out arbitrary punishment on a whim.

Classy. And totally ignoring what the guy said. Or at least taking what you read to completely illogical extremes.

Classy.
Trust me, if this is the way you behave at the table, no one would miss you if you didn't play. If this is just the way you behave on the internet... well it says an awful lot about you.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Caliban]

Classy. And totally ignoring what the guy said. Or at least taking what you read to completely illogical extremes.

Classy.
Trust me, if this is the way you behave at the table, no one would miss you if you didn't play. If this is just the way you behave on the internet... well it says an awful lot about you.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, as misguided as it may be.

I called him a bad DM based on the fact that he was actively gloating about how he was planning on punishing the players for the entire campaign for having a single "dump stat". You think that's a sign of a good DM? I certainly don't.

He now claims he meant something other that what he actually said. Maybe he's telling the truth now, maybe he's not.

 

[cmad1977]

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, as misguided as it may be.

I called him a bad DM based on the fact that he was actively gloating about how he was planning on punishing the players for the entire campaign for having a single "dump stat". You think that's a sign of a good DM? I certainly don't.

He now claims he meant something other that what he actually said. Maybe he's telling the truth now, maybe he's not.

I guess he just doesn't run games that cater only to his players strengths. Nothing more boring than a DM who only makes 'challenges' target the heroes strengths. I guess some people run games that way.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Caliban]

I guess he just doesn't run games that cater only to his players strengths. Nothing more boring than a DM who only makes 'challenges' target the heroes strengths. I guess some people run games that way.

Maybe some do. I certainly don't. But I also don't run games where I specifically target a player's weak points because I don't like their character. An intelligent opponent in the game world might do that, if they are aware of it. But the game world itself isn't suddenly aware of their weaknesses and how to target them. That's the DM Metagaming, and in a bad way.

I throw a variety of challenges at the players when I'm running the game. Some will be harder, some will be easier, depending how their characters are built and played. If the party is smart, they will work together to cover all their bases and overcome the challenges before them.

But if I see that the players all share a common weakness, I don't change the game to specifically target that weakness - and then gloat about it on a message board. That just seems like poor sportsmanship. (I also don't change the game world to ignore that weakness.)

 

[cmad1977]

Maybe some do. I certainly don't. But I also don't run games where I specifically target a player's weak points because I don't like their character. An intelligent opponent in the game world might do that, if they are aware of it. But the game world itself isn't suddenly aware of their weaknesses and how to target them. That's the DM Metagaming, and in a bad way.

I throw a variety of challenges at the players when I'm running the game. Some will be harder, some will be easier, depending how their characters are built and played. If the party is smart, they will work together to cover all their bases and overcome the challenges before them.

But if I see that the players all share a common weakness, I don't change the game to specifically target that weakness - and then gloat about it on a message board. That just seems like poor sportsmanship. (I also don't change the game world to ignore that weakness.)

Nobody cares how you run your games. You don't have to justify yourself to anyone.
Basically the only thing people care about re: your posts is your inability to be 'non-dickish'.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Gradine]

"I actively and gleefully go out of my way to punish players who dump stat" is a pretty reasonable interpretation on the post in question, but I could also see how that could be a misinterpretation or misrepresentation (or purposeful/accidental tonal exaggeration for effect). I think it's also reasonable to give someone the benefit of the doubt when they say they're being misinterpreted but you can't exactly say that the original interpretation came out of nowhere; it really did sound like you were gloating about targeting such players.

That said, even if that were your DMing style I wouldn't say it would be fair to call that "bad DMing". D&D as an adversarial game between DM and players is a legitimate play style that many people seem to get enjoyment out of. There are plenty of asymmetric games (board games, video/computer games) that offer similar experiences that people seem to enjoy. It's nowhere close to my personal cup of tea (at least not as far as D&D goes) but calling that "bad DMing" is the very definition of "badwrongfun", and people being unable or unwilling to move beyond "this isn't the way I enjoy playing the game so it must be BAD" is the whole reason a thread like this exists in the first place.

In the immortal words of LMFAO (emphasis added): "we get money / don't be bad / now stop / hatin' is bad"

 

[Caliban]

Nobody cares how you run your games.

Oh, that's not true. My players definitely care, but then they seem to enjoy my games - as they make a point of telling me after every game.

You don't have to justify yourself to anyone.

I don't really think I was "justifying myself" to you or anyone else. You brought the subject up with your passive/aggressive taunt "Nothing more boring than a DM who only makes 'challenges' target the heroes strengths. I guess some people run games that way."

Since you seemed to want to know, I explained how I prefer to run my games.

Basically the only thing people care about re: your posts is your inability to be 'non-dickish'.

I'd say you hurt my feelings, but that would be dishonest.

I understand you are unhappy with me right now, but claiming to speak for all other people on the subject is a bit much.

 

[Hussar]

Maybe some do. I certainly don't. But I also don't run games where I specifically target a player's weak points because I don't like their character. An intelligent opponent in the game world might do that, if they are aware of it. But the game world itself isn't suddenly aware of their weaknesses and how to target them. That's the DM Metagaming, and in a bad way.

I throw a variety of challenges at the players when I'm running the game. Some will be harder, some will be easier, depending how their characters are built and played. If the party is smart, they will work together to cover all their bases and overcome the challenges before them.

But if I see that the players all share a common weakness, I don't change the game to specifically target that weakness - and then gloat about it on a message board. That just seems like poor sportsmanship. (I also don't change the game world to ignore that weakness.)

See, the truly hilarious thing about this is, I wrote the adventures before I saw the characters. The next adventure I'm running is a module for Primeval Thule which I didn't even write. And, again, I had chosen this module before I even saw the characters that were being played.

I have no idea where you got this notion that I was going to change things to target the character's weaknesses. I don't have to change a thing. Just running good adventures sees to that.

Look, this is the third time that I've pointed out that you're completely wrong in your interpretation. The first post I made was more tongue in cheek than anything else. You took it very wrong and I explained. Twice.

Now, it's on you. If you continue to ignore subsequent clarifications, it makes communication rather difficult.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

So, anyway, does anyone increase point buy in 5e?

I know in 3.5, as well as in star wars Saga Edition, we added 3-4 points to the point buy, because the math of the game made it hard to make a well rounded, reasonably effective character with point buy. SWSE, IIRC, has a pb of 25 points? That's harsh. even just boosting it to 28 makes it a lot easier to play things like a smart force user, or an Ace Pilot that doesn't suck at everything but piloting, etc.

ie, noticably low point buy reletive to the system math can, IME, encourage min/maxing, and other forms of "metagamey" character creation thinking. But then, so does the back loaded nature of some systems, where you have to plan your character out to level 8 just to be sure you'll be able to play the basic character concept you want.

Seriously, especially with stuff like martial arts in SWSE, you couldn't be even reasonably effective at it before level 8, until the very last book that came out game force using martial artists a break, and even then it still sucked to try and make an effective non force using martial artist without a prestige class.