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

[Faolyn]

And you call this optimising ? They are not making it any sort of requirement, just telling you how not to make an ineffective character. Where does it tell you to make the best possible one using the stat ? Nowhere.

Please show where anyone has said that the book has a rule requiring optimization. Because I certainly didn't say that. What I said is that the book supports optimization and assumes that the players will optimize, that it's an accepted game style, and that DMs should accommodate for it.

At this point, you are either deliberately or accidentally misunderstanding me--and probably deliberately misquoting me as well. Supposedly that's a no-no.

Wrong again, I just look at the examples at the start of each class:

• Gnome Bard
• Elf Cleric
• Elf or half-elf druid

Bards use Dex as a secondary stat (it's recommend you put your highest stat in Charisma and second-highest in Dex). Forest and deep gnomes get a +1 Dex. Clerics and druids use Wisdom as a primary stat. Wood elves get +1 Wisdom, and half-elves can put +1 into Wisdom, if they want.

So, I'm right again.

So this means that all players have to be optimisers, yeah, sure... But does it recommend the approach ? Certainly not.

Show me what approach it does recommend. I've been waiting for you to show me some evidence. I've looked up several things for you. You could actually copypaste some sentences in return.

Actually, the examples only show that the game is meant to be inclusive, which is all I'm asking for, and that means not looking down your nose at people who do not optimise. Now, does the game even recommend that approach ? No, it tells you how to specifically cater for them, because they will be encountered. and you need to know how to deal with them.

It doesn't tell you how to "cater to" or "deal with" them. It tells you how to play with them.

Easy, I've given you the quote multiple times now, just read the introduction to the PH, where reading all the rules (which I think you need to optimise) is not required to get what's best in the game.

You've never given me the quote. And I've read and reread the introduction. I see nothing that says that "don't bother to optimize." And how on earth are you jumping from "you don't have to read all the rules" to "don't optimize" or even "optimizing isn't what's intended"?

No, I'm saying that people can be very creative about their dice rolling, rolling multiple times, etc.

So what? Is this bad or wrong? Does it alter your enjoyment if somebody in someone else's game gets their stats differently from you? Why do you even care?

It's not just because people have "looked down on you." There's clearly more to it.

I would really like to see the sheets. Because having a low stat does not mean that one does not have stratospheric ones in other stats. So just publish the sheets.

Lets see your first.

And honestly, this is just sad. It's like you're demanding that people get your approval before they're allowed to have fun with their character.

Yes, I'm looking down at people who purposefully misquote me, sue me. I never said anything like the above, I've just quoted the PH to you, and the fact that you did not recognise it (despite me indicating this multiple times) shows that you might want to read it again, it's just in the introduction.

Also, you are awfully defensive about all that.

Nice deflection!

And again, where did I say that it was the wrong sort of fun ? What I don't want, however, is the reverse, people being looked at as inferior because their characters are technically inferior.

Post #9 in this thread:

That's the kind of stupid restrictions bought about by rules which prevent fun when playing. I understand that some people like optimising, but this has never been the intent of the game, which is playing it with friends. If that kind of optimisation prevents you from actually enjoying the game when you play it, I find it really really sad.

You made an assumption that optimizing prevents you from enjoying the game.

Later, TwoSix said "One can "roleplay as your character" as well as optimize," to which you replied

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.

Again, you made an assumption: that it's impossible for someone to both roleplay and optimize while building a character. Presumably this means that you think it's impossible to optimize and have fun with your friends at the same time as well. You then go on to say

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 ).

Which suggests to me that you have a very hostile DM v. PCs mentality at your table, where anyone who steps out of line is punished for it. (This is supported by you saying that you ban "explaining your action" at your table.)

Likewise, you say to Umbran and others

The designers of said game had an intent when creating it.

With the implication that we--meaning every gamer--are supposed to follow the creators' intent. I specifically asked you why we're supposed to care about their intent. You didn't answer. Instead (to other people) played the victim and say that people are telling you that not-optimization is bad and they're so mean to you by treating you as inferior. I've asked you to show me where people have said that. You haven't answered that, either.

Well, it's up to you, but because their intention permeates the whole design and allows one to understand it better and make it more effective, I think it's a good thing to understand it as well.

And again, I'm asking you to point it out. To me, specifically, not to someone else and then say that you already quoted it. The thread is moving fast enough it's hard to find individual responses when I don't know the keyword.

Contrary to you, I always support my assertion with facts, and real one. For example your assertion that "If you want to play a class, you should look at the associated stat, pick a race that gets a bonus to that stat" is easily disproven as on the contrary, the rules show examples of characters that do not follow it.

PHB, Choose a Race: "Your character's race grants particular racial traits, such as special senses, proficiency with certain weapons or tools, proficiency in one or more skills, or the ability to use minor spells. These traits sometimes dovetail with the capabilities of certain classes (see step 2). For example, the racial traits of lightfoot halflings make them exceptional rogues, and high elves tend to be powerful wizards. Sometimes playing against type can be fun, too. Halfling paladins and mountain dwarf wizards, for example, can be unusual but memorable characters."

Note the use of the word sometimes there, and calling out halfling paladins and mountain dwarf wizards as unusual characters. Not typical characters, but unusual ones. Definitely playable, but the intent is that typical adventurers pick a good race/class combo.

The intent is a holdover from AD&D, when races where limited to certain classes. That's why 3x had favored classes.

DMG Creating a New Race: "Here are our basic goals for the aasimar: Aasimar should make effective clerics and paladins." DMG aasimar get +2 Cha, +1 Wis, both of which are good for clerics and paladins. In other words, this race was built to play a certain class, and got ASIs to support that class. Likewise, tieflings had a Charisma penalty in 2e and 3e, but when warlocks became a core class in 4e, and it required Charisma, tieflings turned that -2 into a +2, so they could play devil-worshipers.

Again, if you think that the rules are recommending optimising, prove it. Please show me where it says that optimising is good for the game, that it's the intent, etc. Otherwise, the only thing that can be said is that the game does not recommend it (whereas it clearly tells you that rules are not important and that reading them all is not necessary to get the best out of the game). It's a simple fact.

In fact, I called up the PHB and did a search on the word "rule." Of the 91 instances I found of that word, none of them were part of a sentence that said anything like "you don't have to read them all." Closest I found was "you don't have to memorize them," and that was in the DMG--which does say you should at least familiarize yourself with all of them.

 

[Faolyn]

I do think you're reading this with the wrong emphasis and it may be why you keep talking past each other. The game doesn't say that optimization is "not recommended", rather the game doesn't recommend optimization as the intended play style because it doesn't recommend any specific orientation with respect to optimization. Rather, it recommends ways to include different play styles so that different types of players can all have a good time.

I said this specifically.

 

[billd91]

I said this specifically.

Doesn’t particularly look like it from where I’m sitting. It looks to me that you‘re interpreting Lyxen the way I’m describing yesterday and today. If it didn’t, I wouldn’t have said anything.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

To be fair, this whole argument over whether or not the game’s intent is to have players optimize is kind of distracting to the actual topic which was pooling people’s opinion.

 

[Faolyn]

Doesn’t particularly look like it from where I’m sitting. It looks to me that you‘re interpreting Lyxen the way I’m describing yesterday and today. If it didn’t, I wouldn’t have said anything.

I said it last page. Here's my quote:

Now open up the 5e DMG. Look at the introduction, under Know Your Players. What types of players are there? Players who like acting, players who like exploring, players who like instigating, players who like fighting, players who like optimizing, players who like problem-solving, and players who like storytelling. And each type of player contains a list of ways the DM can engage that sort of player.

Later on, in Chapter 8, under "Engaging the Players, it gives tips on how to make sure that action-oriented players (such as optimizers) have fun in RP-heavy sessions.

Obvious Intent: The book recognizes and supports the idea that some players want to optimize, and not only is that an accepted game style but you, the DM, should make sure that you're helping the player have fun by making sure that they get new toys to play with and encounters where they can show off their optimization, and giving them things to do at times when they can't.

 

[the Jester]

While that's an imposing-looking list when written out like that, it still pales to the point of near-invisibility in comparison to what a similar list for 3e would look like.

5e is somewhere in between.

Oh, absolutely, with 4e around the level of 3e (imho).

 

[the Jester]

I would really like to see the sheets. Because having a low stat does not mean that one does not have stratospheric ones in other stats. So just publish the sheets.

If you're asking for evidence of anyone playing below average pcs when rolling stats, I'll play- here's my first 5e pc that wasn't just a one off, Friendo (later Friendly Kentwood): S 8, D 10, C 19, I 14, W 8, Ch 11. So, one good stat, two below average stats. Those are her stats at 9th level btw, after two ASIs, only one of which went to a feat. (He's a wizard, by the way.)

 

[billd91]

I said it last page. Here's my quote:

And that says nothing about how you're reading Lyxen, which is the issue I'm addressing. It looks to me like you're reading his posts as saying the game recommends not optimizing. And it doesn't look to me like he's saying that, hence my post.

 

[Faolyn]

And that says nothing about how you're reading Lyxen, which is the issue I'm addressing. It looks to me like you're reading his posts as saying the game recommends not optimizing. And it doesn't look to me like he's saying that, hence my post.

Have you not read all of their posts? He spent many, many posts saying how the developers intended the game to not involve optimization, and how the books say that you aren't supposed to optimize.

 

[Lyxen]

Have you not read all of their posts? He spent many, many posts saying how the developers intended the game to not involve optimization, and how the books say that you aren't supposed to optimize.

And you obviously did NOT read my posts, so please go back and read them, I sais nothing of the kind. You are putting words in my mouth, if you want to appear the least bit serious, provide an exact quote because at the current time, you are just blowing hot air. @billd91 wrote it exactly like me, please consider the difference between "the game does not recommend optimising (because the game only recommends a number of things like not caring too much about the rules)" and "the game recommends not optimising" which is completely different.