D&D General Playstyle Enjoyment: Build Optimization or Play Optimization?

[Lyxen]

Not optimizing = not fully engaging with the system.

And please tell me where engaging with the system is defined as being the intent of the game ? How about engaging with the world your character is a part of, you know, like playing the role of the character ?

This is fine (definitely not forbidden), but isn't really worth discussing to any deep extent.

To the contrary, it's worth discussing extensively, because it's really annoying that it's being considered better and almost mandatory to "engage with the system" or optimise. How about making decisions in character, because it's what he would do considering the circumstances, what he knows about them, what is happening to his friends, etc ? For me, it's way more interesting than pushing tokens on a grid, but to each his own.

 

[Asisreo]

How about not optimising ? Is that a forbidden playstyle ? How about the designers telling you that reading all the rules (which you probably need to optimise, otherwise you might miss that optimum) is not what's the best about the game, which I totally agree about ?

If it came across that I think these two are the only valid playstyle, I apologize.

I'm just curious that, out of those that enjoy these two playstyles, how many of them enjoy one or the other.

It's not necessarily invalidating other playstyles, it's just to highlight a comparison of popularity between the two.

 

[Lyxen]

If it came across that I think these two are the only valid playstyle, I apologize.

No worries, but I think it's fairly significative that optimisation is a major concern of a number of players.

It's not necessarily invalidating other playstyles, it's just to highlight a comparison of popularity between the two.

The thing is that there is at least the case of "playing as your character" which I hope is at least as present as the other two...

 

[TwoSix]

The thing is that there is at least the case of "playing as your character" which I hope is at least as present as the other two...

Yea, but they're orthogonal to each other. One can "roleplay as your character" as well as optimize, both during character creation and during play.

 

[MGibster]

That was only with rigid DMs who did not allow you to do a little backtrack and a few changes as long it did not become an optimising game in itself (which thankfully, we only had one case of, kicked out of our tables).

Okay, rules as written you had to optimize from day one. When I ran 3rd edition, I made players jump through all the hoops for their prestige classes. But that's because I tend to run games using RAW.

 

[TwoSix]

Personally, I think D&D works best with a more HeroQuest/Talisman model, where characters have relatively low amounts of differentiation (and low amounts of build choice) at the start of the game, but more options and paths open up during play.

D&D-style play works better if your character becomes a necromancer because they find a wand of animate dead and choose to play with it, rather than just picking a subclass at level 3.

 

[Lyxen]

Yea, but they're orthogonal to each other. One can "roleplay as your character" as well as optimize, both during character creation and during play.

I'm sorry, but no you can't, because when the time comes to make a choice, I can guarantee that whoever thinks about optimisation will make the optimised choice. It's easy to create an optimised character and to retrofit all you want to a backstory that looks somewhat reasonable, but in particular in combat, if you're thinking about are "your kit" or your pre-programmed responses, that's what you will try to use. There are even worse cases of people influencing the game so that their favourite combo comes up, for example starting fights when they think the circumstances are technically right, with no regards for (for example) what the other characters are trying to accomplish in terms of social or stealth.

Optimising does not prevent roleplaying, but the DMs at our tables have no problem spotting the optimiser and anticipating what he's going to do (which can be fun in a way, because they are usually very predictable and can be efficiently trapped ).

 

[FarBeyondC]

And please tell me where engaging with the system is defined as being the intent of the game?

Why are you even playing/using a given system (instead of another, or even no system at all) if the tools it provides don't facilitate the game you're trying to play/run?

How about engaging with the world your character is a part of, you know, like playing the role of the character?

How are you engaging with the world your character is a part of if you don't even fully understand how to engage with anything in the system you're using for engagements?

If you don't know or understand the limitations of what characters can and can't do, you can't know if said character is even playing their role correctly.

To the contrary, it's worth discussing extensively, because it's really annoying that it's being considered better and almost mandatory to "engage with the system" or optimise. How about making decisions in character, because it's what he would do considering the circumstances, what he knows about them, what is happening to his friends, etc ? For me, it's way more interesting than pushing tokens on a grid, but to each his own.

That's called optimizing for character internal consistency.

 

[Yora]

Both approaches seem very strange to me.

 

[Oofta]

Not optimizing = not fully engaging with the system.

That's an odd stance to take. A lot of people have a pretty laid back approach to the game, and where does optimization end and "fits the vision of my PC" begin? Do I have to have a 16 or higher in my primary stat at level 1 to be considered fully engaging with the system? Can I not choose keen mind for my variant human because it gives me a cool PC origin story?

To me fully engaging with the system is building a character that suits your vision of the PC, even if it's not "optimized".