D&D 5E A simple questions for Power Gamers, Optimizers, and Min-Maxers.

[FormerlyHemlock]

Me too i guess, as that is the only type I have

It's also the one more closely tied to immersion in the game. Skill at play is something that a PC can have; you can roleplay someone who is very good at knowing the best tactics to defeat orc hordes; to use the Alexandrian's terminology, it's skill with an associated mechanic, which is the core of roleplaying. Skill at building PCs is not something a PC can have, at least not in the way players experience it; a given PC presumably isn't directly opting to "take a level of Wild Sorcerer" and suddenly discover magic in his bloodline. From the PC's perspective, it's just something that happens to him.

Roleplaying is more fun for me when you spend more of your time focusing on stuff that happens in your character's head and from his own perspective, and less time on dissociated mechanics and decisions. It's why I have a love-hate relationship with the Lucky feat--mechanically it's awesome, but every time you consider whether to use it, it yanks you out of the character's head. It might even be better to just set a policy and be done with it: "my luck triggers whenever I get critted, or fail a saving throw, or blow a stealth check." Then the PC just notices that he's disproportionately lucky somehow at stealth and not getting stabbed in the throat--the bad guys always throw their Fireballs right after he happens to glance in their direction, etc.

 

[Uchawi]

It might even be better to just set a policy and be done with it: "my luck triggers whenever I get critted, or fail a saving throw, or blow a stealth check." Then the PC just notices that he's disproportionately lucky somehow at stealth and not getting stabbed in the throat--the bad guys always throw their Fireballs right after he happens to glance in their direction, etc.

That is a good way to handle luck. You could even let the player set what their character is lucky at (within reason).

 

[dave2008]

Well, that quite possibly explains why you don't understand the optimizer perspective.

Arguing if D&D is a game of numbers? No. But you can't talk about optimization without talking about numbers, because that's what optimization boils down to. Even you have addressed this point earlier in your thread by suggesting that an "equal" game would provide only very small benefits from taking any option.

I never intended to talk about the mechanics of optimization or power gaming, just the psychology of it. I guess you have made the point that to an optimizer it is psychological "a game of numbers."

I suppose whatever the case is, to answer your original question: I wouldn't enjoy playing D&D where all options were "equal". I would likely enjoy a "every option is equal" game in some other system that was much less numbers focused. I think RP often suffers at the hands of the math, and the math often suffers at the hands of the RP. It's nice to play games where math isn't even a question. I tell you what ability I have and what I want to do with it we role-play the results.

To clarify I wasn't saying the system was any current or past version of D&D. What I meant was a fantasy role-playing game, not D&D in particular. I should have been more cleat about that.

Anyway, I wanted to go back to this question for a moment because I feel it's probably one of the better questions asked so far. Yes, skilled play can most certainly trump skilled character creation. For me, even as someone who enjoys optimizing, the end result is to have fun, and that fun is usually predicated on overcoming challenges in-game and having a good social experience at the table. So obviously for me, optimizing is not my only route to "fun" in D&D. I will always enjoy a game more with people who are good players. For this context I shall define a "good player" as someone who is creative, spirited, personable and generally quick on their toes on their turn. I'm much less likely to notice or even care about badly build characters if I'm having a good social experience.

Yes, i think that is what I really want to figure out (not that we are in a few posts). Can an optimizer / power gamer enjoy a game where the only (majority) optimization / power gaming comes from how you play your character, not how you build it.

Thank you for your response!

 

[Shasarak]

You clearly haven't met the one guy I play PF with....
He has an extremely effective killing machine he calls his character. Virtually everything on his sheet is geared towards either hitting things, or damaging them once they've been hit. He can reliably punch most things for 200-500 pts of damage.
Yes, technically the character has a name, is listed as being male, & is known to have a sister. And that's IT as far as the RP goes for this player. Trust me when I tell you that the PG & RP are separate in this player.

His character has a Sister? Does not sound very optimized to me.

 

[Lanliss]

His character has a Sister? Does not sound very optimized to me.

She is obviously the Optimized Back up PC.

 

[Uchawi]

I believe part of this is you can not take the player out of the character, so your life experiences greatly influence how you approach character generation and actions (whether you admit to it or not). The game or rules will not change that. In addition, we tend to base our friendships and who we play with using the same mindset.

 

[Shasarak]

She is obviously the Optimized Back up PC.

But only one?

A truely optimized family will either be 0 or at least 12.

 

[Lanliss]

But only one?

A truely optimized family will either be 0 or at least 12.

They will get introduced one at a time, as a part of each successive characters backstory, otherwise the DM might notice something is up, and the player has a dozen character sheets.

 

[Celebrim]

What sort of choices are optimal, depends on the game you find yourself playing. If you optimize to beat things with a stick, and you find yourself playing a game where problems can't be solved just by beating people up, then your character is not that optimal. If you optimize your character to persuade, trick, and impress, and find yourself in a game where the obstacles are traps, constructs, mindless zombies, and oozes your optimized personality will seem rather pointless.

That suggests it's simply not possible to design a system for open ended gameplay, and have all options be equally good. We could do a better job than we do, but too much of what makes a character optimal are assumptions about how a game will be played.

The real problems in RPGs tend to be not so much whether different builds are capable - whether its a meaningful choice to build a Bard, Barbarian or Paladin - but whether there exists builds that are both highly capable and broad or so capable that they render some problems meant to be challenging trivial. What I think you are really asking is whether power gamers want all possible builds to be on the same 'Tier' (everyone is Tier 3), or whether the game is better when you can use system mastery to build characters that are of higher 'Tier' than usual (a clever build is tier 1 or tier 2).

I don't think complete balance is possible because whether your character contributes depends a lot on the situations you find yourself in, but I do want all builds that aren't deliberately suboptimal (a 1e M-U that wears armor, thus negating his ability to cast spells) to be on about the same tier.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

That is a good way to handle luck. You could even let the player set what their character is lucky at (within reason).

My thinking is that all the rules for Lucky as written in the PHB would still apply--but you just remove the dissociated decision-making by moving the decision to metagame time. The player could make literally any decision about what to be lucky at and it would still be fine. "I'm lucky at dodging blows from red-headed women" => "my luck triggers whenever a red-headed woman attacks me and doesn't miss" is 100% legitimate (and pretty bizarre). As usual per Lucky feat, if a red-headed woman attacks you with enough determination, eventually your luck will run out.

Ideally, your luck trigger could be written on a piece of paper and given to the DM and executed without any game-time decision making from the player at all. If that happens, then Lucky is no longer a dissociated feat. You've "fixed" a problem with it by voluntarily restricting its power and flexibility, in order to increase your fun.