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

[Caliban]

Nod. And, really, at bottom those're just the kinds of concessions game makes to being played by a group, rather than a solo player & DM. Class is another.

True. And really, while most of my post was tongue in cheek, there are certain character concepts that really only work in a solo game where your character is the focus of all the action and plots.

Or just don't work in a "game" setting at all - they are meant for characters in a story and many story tropes simply don't work reliably in a game were dice rather than author fiat determines the outcome.

The plucky underdog who survives by luck and outwitting his opponents? Dead in the first round. A crit by an orc with a greataxes doesn't care how smart or plucky you are.

The brooding lone hero? Killed by the first pack of goblins he runs into. He may be a badass, but numbers count for more.

D&D at it's base is a game about a group of mercenaries killing monsters and taking their stuff. We layer background stories and RP concepts on top of that, but your character needs to be able to function in that role in addition to whatever else you want for them or you generally will have a bad time.

Other game systems handle low-combat, highly social stories better than D&D. D&D handles fantasy combat and monsters better than most.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The plucky underdog who survives by luck and outwitting his opponents? Dead in the first round. A crit by an orc with a greataxes doesn't care how smart or plucky you are.

The brooding lone hero? Killed by the first pack of goblins he runs into. He may be a badass, but numbers count for more.

Hit points help with both of those, of course, but they really need more of those sorts of 'plot coupon'/luck-as-a-player-resource type mechanics to be viable.

Another concept that D&D just doesn't accommodate: the reluctant hero.
"Oh, the five of you are going into the caverns of unpronounceable? Well, better you than me, I have a harvest to bring in..."

 

[Corwin]

Another concept that D&D just doesn't accommodate: the reluctant hero.
"Oh, the five of you are going into the caverns of unpronounceable? Well, better you than me, I have a harvest to bring in..."

I don't think D&D cares one way or another.

Besides, there's a difference between playing a reluctant hero who gets caught up in the adventure, and asking the rest of the players at the table to drag your reluctant hero through the adventure.

 

[Caliban]

I don't think D&D cares one way or another.

Besides, there's a difference between playing a reluctant hero who gets caught up in the adventure, and asking the rest of the players at the table to drag your reluctant hero through the adventure.

It's just hard to do without either having a special session just to convince the "reluctant hero" that they need to heed (or cannot avoid) the "call of adventure" - or recruiting one or more of the other players to do the convincing (perhaps by manufacturing in-world reasons why their characters feel they need the reluctant character).

It may not just be the reluctant hero, it could also be the greedy mercenary ploy. "Obviously you recognize my skills and need them, so what do you have to offer me to join your group?"

or any other scenario where the players vision of their character leads to the question of "why would I join this group of ruffians?"

If the group is on board with it the idea it could work...but I've yet to see it happen. Usually this type of situation ends up with the other players complaining about the "prima donna" and wanting to leave them behind.

 

[Corwin]

or any other scenario where the players vision of their character leads to the question of "why would I join this group of ruffians?"

If you* (the player of any such a character) isn't doing all the heavy lifting, on coming up with reasons to motivate such a character into participating in the adventure, you are the problem. Not the character. IMNSHO.


[*generic "you"]

 

[Caliban]

If you* (the player of any such a character) isn't doing all the heavy lifting, on coming up with reasons to motivate such a character into participating in the adventure, you are the problem. Not the character. IMNSHO.


[*generic "you"]

No argument there. But it comes down to the fact that D&D (and all similar RP systems) is a goal oriented (clear the dungeon, kill the dragon, etc) and group oriented game. My point was that character concepts that don't play into that generally don't do well (regardless of point buy or rolled stats).

Despite this, many players attempts to shoehorn them in, because they are trying to recreate a character from a story, anime, or movie. I've done it myself, rarely with good results.

 

[Corwin]

I've done it myself, rarely with good results.

Your anecdote is unfortunate. My condolences.

 

[Tony Vargas]

It's just hard to do without either having a special session just to convince the "reluctant hero" that they need to heed (or cannot avoid) the "call of adventure"

I think the classic D&D adventure, the dungeon, is just innately passive, it calls for adventurers to take the initiative and plumb its depths for whatever reasons.

Similarly, the classic ethos of 'skilled play' calls for intense motivation, at least on the part of the player.

And, of course, the 0-to-hero arch of a level-gaining, item-accumulating D&D character is not like that of the reluctant hero, who is probably hero'ing on a one-time-only basis - maybe, at the outside, a coming-out-of-retirement thing.

It just doesn't fit unless 'fate' - either in the person of the DM (weaving the overarching plot with hooks to drag the reluctant hero in based on the things he cares about) or the player ("in director stance" as the Forge would put it that is, not immersing in the character but pushing it in the direction of the story, including deciding on things that happen to it, as well as things it does) - intervenes to keep the reluctant hero involved. And, like the other two concepts you mentioned, above, would call for a lot more mechanical support for that kind of thing, too.

or recruiting one or more of the other players to do the convincing (perhaps by manufacturing in-world reasons why their characters feel they need the reluctant character).

Hopefully not - as Corwin has pointed out, that's just burdensome to the other players.

 

[Caliban]

Hopefully not - as Corwin has pointed out, that's just burdensome to the other players.

I also pointed it out, a few sentences later:

"Usually this type of situation ends up with the other players complaining about the "prima donna" and wanting to leave them behind."

 

[Gradine]

No argument there. But it comes down to the fact that D&D (and all similar RP systems) is a goal oriented (clear the dungeon, kill the dragon, etc) and group oriented game. My point was that character concepts that don't play into that generally don't do well (regardless of point buy or rolled stats).

Despite this, many players attempts to shoehorn them in, because they are trying to recreate a character from a story, anime, or movie. I've done it myself, rarely with good results.

The "reluctant hero" is only one of a bevy of character tropes that don't fit well with goal-oriented, teamwork-centered games like D&D. I think it just happens to be the most benign. There are others, the glory-hound, the "paladin", the mercenary, the double-agent, the "chaotic neutral", the kender. Even these could be well-intentioned, say with an eye towards a character arc ("No see, they're eventually going to learn the power of friendship!") but they break the central conceit of the game nonetheless. I've been guilty of a few of these myself, and have allowed such characters in my game in the past as well, with predictably terrible results.

I think it's helpful to establish early on (especially with new players) that D&D is in fact a game (not necessarily first and foremost) one that is based around establishing and meeting goals through cooperation and teamwork. That said, building characters that specialize is more or less encouraged in that regard; certainly in a system where point-buy (or even rolling for stats but then getting to assign them) allows for meaningful character choices at the start. This was true in past editions too; I know I rarely played "athletic" characters, and routinely dump-statted Strength and Constitution for most of my 3.5 PCs. These characters fulfilled specific roles (both out of and in combat) that helped the team accomplish their goals. This type of character design is, once again, very much encouraged by D&D as a system (in any edition, though certainly the WotC era with its embarrassment of riches in character options).