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

[Caliban]

I think you are reading into his comments things that are not there a think. He doesn't want to control other players, he simple said he would prefer to play with players like himself/herself. Pretty much the same thing you said.

Except that's not what I said. I play with all sorts of other players. It would be boring if I only played with people who played the way I do.

I only dislike playing with people who deliberately make gimped characters and then complain about being outshined by everyone else, or who can't seem to grasp basic game mechanics and then complain about everyone else powergaming.

 

[dave2008]

It being a game implies some level of competition. Your fighter vs. the monsters, your rogue vs. the traps, your bard vs. their social scores, in some cases the players vs. the DM for those who enjoy antagonistic playstyles. So in order to succeed at the game (not necessarily "win" but succeed at whatever your objective is), most people look for at least a basic level of optimization from among the options available to them.

A game can be simply to have fun, competition is not necessarily required, but I agree some degree is usually desired. The groups that I have played with get there competition enjoyment from playing their characters not building them. I, on the other hand, as the DM tend to get as much, or more, enjoyment out of building my monsters, adventures, worlds, etc. I think if I played a PC I might be a power gamer, but I don't and my players are definitely not optimizers or power gamers.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

With an Int of 10?

Your Int score determines how good you are at math. It doesn't determine your ability to make rational decisions; that part is always on the player.

Given that the entire 3-18 range describes functional adult humans who can speak and perform standard tasks, the amount of stupidity required to not realize that a longsword is more dangerous than a short sword (when applied with Strength) is inexpressible within the language of the system. If you're smart enough to be a PC, then you're smart enough to pick the right weapon.

 

[dave2008]

The rules of any RPG reflect the reality of its game-world, within certain limits and assumptions. Even 4E makes some sense, within its own limited context (though it falls apart like a house of cards if you challenge any of its assumptions).

If the rules of the game didn't reflect the reality of the game world, then we'd have no idea of how the game world actually worked. If the in-game reality was different from what the rules of the game tell us, then the outcome of a situation would depend on whether or not we apply the rules, so the rules themselves would be useless toward telling us what actually happens in any situation. There would be no point in having rules at all!

I simple don't agree with your opinion. Yes some rules do, but many (I would say most) rules don't. IMO, they are there so you can play a game that simulates a world based on your shared fantasy which tends to somewhat reflect the real world from which you can fill in the gaps.

Your opinion doesn't trump mine and I have seen enough of your post to know I will not convince you otherwise (I've seen better people try), and you will not convince me (I've seen better people try that too). As I said, we will have to agree to disagree. Thank you for the conversation.

 

[dave2008]

The rules of any RPG reflect the reality of its game-world, within certain limits and assumptions. Even 4E makes some sense, within its own limited context (though it falls apart like a house of cards if you challenge any of its assumptions).

If the rules of the game didn't reflect the reality of the game world, then we'd have no idea of how the game world actually worked. If the in-game reality was different from what the rules of the game tell us, then the outcome of a situation would depend on whether or not we apply the rules, so the rules themselves would be useless toward telling us what actually happens in any situation. There would be no point in having rules at all!

Just realized the "Grand Druid" trumps the "Great Druid," so I guess we need to defer to [MENTION=6799753]lowkey13[/MENTION]

 

[RangerWickett]

I'm obviously way too late in this thread to fully contribute, but my preference is that a game should generally not allow someone who scours the rules for edge cases to get an advantage that isn't obvious and intended. I'm fine with system mastery (e.g., you know that against an enemy with high AC, don't use Sharpshooter, but the feat is good against someone with some sort of damage resistance), but I very much disliked 3rd edition and Pathfinder's style of "Okay, let me get +1 AC from this item, that feat, this synergy, that item, this other item, and this contentious reading of a conditional effect of this third item."

Like, a well-designed game lets you as a player accomplish what you want. If I want to make a character who is good at archery, it should be clear how to do that. That might require giving up some other skills or powers, and there should ideally be a couple options that are better in one circumstance or another (maybe you fire poison arrows that are good vs. animals, or you fire radiant arrows that are good vs. undead, or you are better at skirmishing through combat, or are better at sniping from afar), but once you decide what type of character you want, there shouldn't be tricks or dead ends that sound good but are actually bad.

For example, in 3e it was discovered that you were often better off making tons of attacks with a pair of light weapons and stacking damage bonuses, rather than using a single big weapon. The game should make it clear whether big slow weapon or small fast weapons deals more damage, and make the choice meaningful.

 

[Caliban]

A game can be simply to have fun, competition is not necessarily required, but I agree some degree is usually desired. The groups that I have played with get there competition enjoyment from playing their characters not building them. I, on the other hand, as the DM tend to get as much, or more, enjoyment out of building my monsters, adventures, worlds, etc. I think if I played a PC I might be a power gamer, but I don't and my players are definitely not optimizers or power gamers.

I enjoy building optimized characters not out of a sense of competition with other players or the DM (although there is probably some of that underneath everything), but more the way you might enjoy completing a puzzle or building a model. Done right, everything fits together and works together without any extraneous bits.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

But the whole reasoning back to the conclusion that the in-game characters would naturally optimize based on the rules (that are unknown to them) and the math (that they don't know) and that to not fully optimize would be meta-gaming is just ... justification for what you want to do.

Characters don't (necessarily) know the rules or the math, even in approximation. They don't need to. They know the in-game reality of which the rules and math are but a pale reflection. You don't need to be able to quantify injury in order know that a bigger sword creates a bigger wound.

It has nothing to do with being the very best, like no-one ever was. It has to do with not dying. When you go down into a hole full of monsters, you would have to be phenomenally stupid to trust your life to an obviously inferior weapon. It's not rocket science. It's the absolute most basic common sense. And sure, some people really are that dumb.

All I'm saying is that, Player Characters aren't that dumb. They can be some lesser form of dumb, perhaps, but there's a threshold for which the other PCs can tolerate such obvious incompetence - which is necessary because they are at least somewhat competent - and choosing the obviously inferior weapon is crossing that line.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Sure. I would also enjoy riding on a flying unicorn.

Probably a viable option in such a hypothetical version of D&D.


("...would you settle for a one-horned pegasus?")

 

[Caliban]

Probably a viable option in such a hypothetical version of D&D.


("...would you settle for a one-horned pegasus?")

One of my characters actually has a celestial winged unicorn as his paladin mount. (Not my doing - the DM gave it to my character because another character in the party has an ongoing feud with all unicorns and he knew it would annoy him...)