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

[Lanefan]

I might start a thread in the indefinite future about the types of roleplay playstyles, types of combat playstyles, and types of exploration playstyles.

And the options presented are not meant to be all-encompassing. They're isolated to focus on them, not to discredit others. So you may see: scene roleplayers vs improv roleplayers sometime later, for example. This doesn't mean someone who does neither is "wrong." It just means we're focusing on those two, which can exist together, but I'd be interested in where the community leans.

The problem with picking just two of many options and focusing only on those is that you won't end up with a communal view on anything.

It's like asking people whether they prefer red or green - sure you might get more votes for red than you do for green but that doesn't tell you anything if the community's general preference is in fact for purple.

 

[Asisreo]

The problem with picking just two of many options and focusing only on those is that you won't end up with a communal view on anything.

It's like asking people whether they prefer red or green - sure you might get more votes for red than you do for green but that doesn't tell you anything if the community's general preference is in fact for purple.

Well, I'd argue the information does provide insight.

For your example, It could be interesting to see why people prefer red over green with a large margin. Intuitively, it's as random as preferences go, but the data would show otherwise. And it's usually used to extract info about a subset of the population: those that like red or green. While the purple-lovers may feel left out, it could still be conclusive to those interested in which Christmas color should be in the foreground and which in the background.

In this thread, it's interesting to see if, and why, the community leans to one playstyle over the other because it shows that one playstyle is, for some reason, more attractive than the other.

The two styles from this poll could help someone that's, say, creating a new TTRPG. Because if the community shows alot of preference to Build Optimization, it's very important to have every class have a diverse and unique yet powerful and balanced set of options. But if they prefer Play Optimization, then having general rule guidelines that allows a player to think more tactically in-the-moment would be necessary. And while it would be fantastic to have both, it's easier to know where your priorities should be.

 

[Yaarel]

The wording of the survey felt off.

To me, "build optimization" means customization to build exactly the character concept that one wants.

Re what the survey seems to ask for, maybe call it "planning out build decisions", versus, "making build decisions during the adventure".

 

[jgsugden]

The answer will depend upon the PC. However, it all depends upon the story we're telling with the PC. The story comes first.

If I am playing a wizard, most of their character ability development is going to be in their spells chosen at each level. Those are spells they get to create and select. As intelligent beings, they're going to make intelligent choices about what they want to do - and their goals will differ from wizard to wizard. Clerics, similarly, are going to be planning out their day to day spell selection to suit their current needs.

However, a sorcerer is gaining their powers through less planned methods - at least, less planned by the PC. While the player may select the abilities, the PC often does not. However, different sorcerers may have different stories for how and why they are gaining powers. To that end, the way those abilities are selected may differ wildly. I have a Gloom Stalker 5 / Cleric of Order 1 / Divine Soul Sorcerer X. Her Divine Soul spells were laid out before I started to take those sorcerer levels and were selected to tell a story about how she is falling deeper and deeper into the Thralls of Asmodeus and Glasya. I picked spells that evoke those Arch Fiends.

Then I have a Human Vairant Monk with a Supernatural bent. I wanted the monk to feel different than other monks, so I gave him the Warlock Adept feat at level one and he took Fey Touched at higher level to give him 3 spells and 2 cantrips. That creates a very different feel for the monk. I had originally planned to have the monk gain more supernatural abilities through multiclassing, but the inclusion of the Fey Touched feat in the game gave me another option to consider that suited the story I was telling with the PC.

 

[FarBeyondC]

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".

The only thing 'odd' here is the seeming insistence that there's only one way to optimize. General performance/power isn't the only thing one can optimize for, and often isn't even the most fun thing to optimize for.

The game is more than just the rules system, though.

The relevant parts of the game entirely involve the rules system because the rules system is what makes the game a game as opposed to just collaborative storytelling.

I can fully engage with the game - the RP aspects, the combat, etc. - without doing any real optimizing at all.

If you're talking standard optimization, sure.

Further, I can - if I want - fully engage with the system to make/play an intentionally non-optimal character that hews closer to my vision for what that character is intended to be.

You're still optimizing here, just not for the things that people normal refer to when they talk about optimizing.

Making a controversial claim like your first line above and then saying it's not worth discussing in the next line just ain't gonna fly around here...

Because you failed to understand it, I'll rephrase:

Not fully engaging with the system is fine, but isn't really worth discussing to any deep extent.

 

[Lyxen]

The only thing 'odd' here is the seeming insistence that there's only one way to optimize. General performance/power isn't the only thing one can optimize for, and often isn't even the most fun thing to optimize for.

And what you absolutely fail to grasp, or even worse, consider it not worth discussing, is that optimising is not the intent of the game, not as designed, and not for at least some gamers, possibly a majority of them.

Because you failed to understand it, I'll rephrase:

And because you fail to either properly explain or just consider beneath you to discuss, I'll rephrase again too.

Not fully engaging with the system is fine, but isn't really worth discussing to any deep extent.

Then, please, if it's not worth discussing it, why are you still doing it, and furthermore without any reason for it ?

 

[Umbran]

How about not optimising ? Is that a forbidden playstyle ?

No, it isn't.

You should leave room for discussions that aren't about your thing.

 

[Arilyn]

The only thing 'odd' here is the seeming insistence that there's only one way to optimize. General performance/power isn't the only thing one can optimize for, and often isn't even the most fun thing to optimize for.

I think this is a good point. Optimization is almost universally considered a thing players do to squeeze every iota of power from the rules, but you can optimize for many other things as well. I've optimized to make one of my fighter characters balanced because he was into zen and balancing himself as a whole person. It meant his wisdom was higher than his strength, which stayed at a 14, while I worked toward getting other stats to a 14.

I used the rules and feats to build the image I had of my character. Knowledge of the ruleset let me create him to my satisfaction. He certainly wasn't "optimized" in the classical sense, but he had no glaring weaknesses either which was useful. I optimized my understanding of all the available options to get as close to the image of him as I could get.

Guess I'm an optimizer after all. Huh...

 

[Lanefan]

The only thing 'odd' here is the seeming insistence that there's only one way to optimize. General performance/power isn't the only thing one can optimize for, and often isn't even the most fun thing to optimize for.

I - and I think most people here - see the word "optimization" and take it to mean the act of (ab)using the system mechanics to make one's character as powerful as possible, based on whatever the system in use sees as being more powerful and with little or no regard for characterization or personality.

If you're talking standard optimization, sure.

You're still optimizing here, just not for the things that people normal refer to when they talk about optimizing.

Again, you're defining "optimizing" as something different than most of us, I think.

Because you failed to understand it, I'll rephrase:

Not fully engaging with the system is fine, but isn't really worth discussing to any deep extent.

And I still disagree, but so be it.

 

[Umbran]

Not optimizing = not fully engaging with the system.

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

So, you'd have been a lot better off if you'd noted it wasn't the purpose of the thread.

There's a whole lot of deep discussion that can be had about the difference between "engaging with the system" and "engaging in play", and how they aren't always the same, and some times may be better for one than another.

I will buy that this thread isn't the place for it, but you've done a good job trying to assure that the thread will now be about it, regardless.