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

[Caliban]

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.

Doesn't sound like what you said in the post I originally responded to, but sure. Things like that do happen.

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.

See, this is what makes me doubt your story. You said, point blank "And, I have every intention of making them pay for that decision throughout the campaign. "

And yet you claim that you have "no idea" how I would think you were planning on specifically targeting their weaknesses from here on out? Please.

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.

Did I though?

First it was "I make absolutely no excuse for that." Now "it was tongue in cheek". No excuses...except that you didn't really mean what you said. Your story keeps changing.

If I took it wrong, it was with a lot of help from you.

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

So even though you were bragging about how you came down on your players and planned to do so for the entire campaign in your first post, and declared "no excuses" - now you are "clarifying" things to make it clear you were just running the game and it's all their fault for their character choices and you had nothing to do with it. (Which is actually a DM'ing philosophy I can agree with - it's just not one you presented in the post I originally responded to.)

And if I have any doubts, it's all on me, not you. Yes sir, DM Trump.

A) I am sorry for calling you a bad DM. I stand by everything else I've said, but that crossed a line. I was on a roll and it sounded good at the time I was writing it. My apologies.

B) Bragging/Gloating about how you punished your PC's, not because they made a poor in-game decision, but because they all happened to make characters with a similar weakness...that's just bad form. Especially when you follow up with "I have every intention of making them pay for that decision throughout the campaign." That's almost the definition of adversarial DM'ing. You've tried to walk it back since then, and you may not have actually meant it (despite your "no excuses" statement) but that is what inspired my negative opinions on your post.

 

[Sacrosanct]

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

Maybe I missed it, but Caliban never said he only makes challenges that go after PC strengths. What he said was that he finds it to be a bad DM if the DM only targets weaknesses. Saying "It's bad DMing to intentionally target player weakness" does not mean he only caters to player strengths. This isn't a two option thing, where if you disagree with one stance you HAVE to agree with the other. There's a ton of middle ground there.

For example, I don't like DMing that specifically is out to get PCs based on how the player build them (which certainly seems like what Hussar was saying), and I don't like DMing that caters to the PCs and players. As the DM, I create the game world and adventure completely separate of whatever PC a player happens to be running. There will be varied challenges, and some times some PCs may find it very easy, and others they may find they regretted min/maxing. But it's all organic to the actual adventure itself, not something I as the DM did just to be for/against a certain player.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Doesn't sound like what you said in the post I originally responded to, but sure. Things like that do happen.



See, this is what makes me doubt your story. You said, point blank "And, I have every intention of making them pay for that decision throughout the campaign. "

And yet you claim that you have "no idea" how I would think you were planning on specifically targeting their weaknesses from here on out? Please.



Did I though?

First it was "I make absolutely no excuse for that." Now "it was tongue in cheek". No excuses...except that you didn't really mean what you said. Your story keeps changing.

If I took it wrong, it was with a lot of help from you.



So even though you were bragging about how you came down on your players and planned to do so for the entire campaign in your first post, and declared "no excuses" - now you are "clarifying" things to make it clear you were just running the game and it's all their fault for their character choices and you had nothing to do with it. (Which is actually a DM'ing philosophy I can agree with - it's just not one you presented in the post I originally responded to.)

And if I have any doubts, it's all on me, not you. Yes sir, DM Trump.

A) I am sorry for calling you a bad DM. I stand by everything else I've said, but that crossed a line. I was on a roll and it sounded good at the time I was writing it. My apologies.

B) Bragging/Gloating about how you punished your PC's, not because they made a poor in-game decision, but because they all happened to make characters with a similar weakness...that's just bad form. Especially when you follow up with "I have every intention of making them pay for that decision throughout the campaign." That's almost the definition of adversarial DM'ing. You've tried to walk it back since then, and you may not have actually meant it (despite your "no excuses" statement) but that is what inspired my negative opinions on your post.

I do volunteer work with abuse groups and shelters. Sort of a passionate thing with me. And if I'm honest, what Hussar has been doing is textbook gaslighting. He says something that can easily be taken as offensive by some, and when confronted with it, pulls the "What!? I never said that. I actually meant this. Something is wrong with you for thinking that. I was just kidding anyway, and if you don't agree, then you're the one in the wrong, not me. And your continued disagreement makes me the real victim."

Literally textbook.

 

[Satyrn]

The general population probably shouldn't be rolling 4d6. For that matter, most NPCs, even if adventures, probably shouldn't be generated exactly like PCs. So that's just silly. It might 'make sense' to roll the general population on 3d6, but that's a lot of rolling to no particular purpose. ;P

Early 3e. Well, any stretch of 3e that wasn't early was 3.5. But I digress . . .

3e. I had a binder full of NPC statblocks summarizing every last citizen of the city my urban campaign was set in. Every adept, commoner, expert, noble, warrior, barbarian, bard, cleric . . . yeah, every class, of every available level, their skills pointed out, their feats taken, their spells (where applicable) known and prepped.


I got a little carried away with a generator.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Early 3e. Well, any stretch of 3e that wasn't early was 3.5. But I digress . . .

3e. I had a binder full of NPC statblocks summarizing every last citizen of the city my urban campaign was set in. Every adept, commoner, expert, noble, warrior, barbarian, bard, cleric . . . yeah, every class, of every available level, their skills pointed out, their feats taken, their spells (where applicable) known and prepped.


I got a little carried away with a generator.

More power to you.

 

[Satyrn]

More power to you.

Well, I was trying to imply I was being silly doing all that unnecessary work. Because I went to my one page of pregenerated* names rather than the binder of stats.

*not randomly generated. Hand selected names from Shakespeare plays. Fun fact: The most common NPC name in my game is Pistol.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Sacrosanct]

Not to put to fine a point on it, but when you're discussing playing styles for Dungeons and Dragons on the internet, and someone says that this is akin to gaslighting like you see in domestic abuse ...

Well, something has gone horribly wrong.

Can we all just take it down a notch?

I'm not saying the two are equivalent (God no). Just that the technique is textbook.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Also,...

I'm wondering about a thing.

So...what exactly is wrong with avoiding letting the game "punish" the players for building a bunch of "dex monkeys"? Everyone, except me, seems to be on the same page here, and I'm at a loss as to where ya'll are coming from.

Like, what would be wrong with providing ways around the heavy climbing and swimming, or boulder pushing, or whatever? I mean, it's not a big issue for me, because I always make sure my character has some competence in a decent range of activities, but I'm curius what the mindset is, in the first place.


If I had a group of jugheads, and the adventure I picked ahead of time* featured a lot of Investigation and lore skill challenges, and a chase that was primarily going to challenge their agility and coordination, of course I'd tinker those challenges to not be a complete fish out of water goose chase? I don't understand why you wouldn't? What fun is there in running one type of adventure with a group designed for a completely different type of story?



*I would never do this. I might have a short list of adventures that I'll choose from depending on the party, but I can't imagine running a game that isn't designed to be interesting for the player characters at the table. Obviously that includes challenging them, giving them the spotlight, giving them meaningful agency related to their character's goals, and obstacles in the way of achieving those goals, etc.


I'm currently running The Mark of Prophecy, from the back of the 4e Eberron Campaign Guide, to kick off a new/relaunched 5e Eberron campaign. The challenges mostly track fine into 5e with very little conversion work, and more importantly, the adventure as designed works really well for the player characters I had at the table.

I also talk to the players beforehand to let them know what kind of challenges are my strong suite/preference, so they know that a brute character should probably still have Nature, or History, or Perception, or Insight, or some kind of skill for interaction and/or investigation/research.



But, I also don't allow characters to be made separate from the group, outside of weird circumstances, and I discourage characters with no ties to the setting or campaign, or other player characters, etc.