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

[Ancalagon]

It seems like a better way to ask that might be to see if a optimizer has more fun playing with players who are better optimizers, or with players who are worse optimizers?

I can tell you as an an "optimizer light" player that playing with another player who's creation is an incredibly fragile PC (for no good reason) is frustrating.

 

[dropbear8mybaby]

I can tell you as an an "optimizer light" player that playing with another player who's creation is an incredibly fragile PC (for no good reason) is frustrating.

Even when there is a good reason, it's still frustrating. You're meant to be playing heroes, not farmers.

 

[matskralc]

Listen, I'm not trying to design a game - I am interested in the mindset.

I know. That was a specific criticism. You seemed to indicate that a meaningless choice could be made meaningful by adding complexity. Your counterexample to Hemlock wasn't much more than just restating his example back at him.

Fortunately i think you have tipped your cap with your assumptions about meaningful. Does meaningful to you = significant mechanical benefit? Meaningful might be you can play an archer more effectively or you need to find a way to use tactics to increase your chance to hit with a great sword.

You framed the question in terms of making decisions that increase or decrease character effectiveness and for which a cost/benefit analysis would be appropriate. For the purposes of this discussion, that's what I take a "meaningful" choice to be: it is one that has an impact on on the character's ability to accomplish the goals of the game, i.e. beat up bad guys, take their stuff, and hope we save the world at the same time.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Hemlock, thank you for the lengthy and thorough response.

I guess my follow up question would be how broken? Is it fun to send a lot of time to get a little benefit or do you need it to be truly broken?

Spending time isn't really the issue--optimization is quite fast. At least, in 5E it is. (I'm not talking about games with lots of fiddly little mechanics; I suspect I'd find such games tedious and gamist, and wouldn't play them.) The question is whether the options are sufficiently differentiated.

The only way I know to answer your question is to give an example:

Life Cleric Healers are somewhat better than average at healing, and averageish at other tasks. They can heal 34.5 HP with a single Cure Wounds V spell, plus another 7 HP to the cleric himself. Marginal utility, not interesting. (Plus, I hate clerics.) Lore Bards who steal Aura of Vitality are superior to all pure clerics at healing. They can heal 70 HP with a single Aura of Vitality spell--twice the output for about 2/3 the cost. That's interesting enough to want to play, especially considering the rest of the Lore Bard package. Life Cleric/Sorcerer/Lore Bard hybrids are superior to everyone at healing. They can heal 240 HP with a single Extended Aura of Vitality spell--less than the Life Cleric Healer spends on Cure Wounds V. That's an order of magnitude improvement, and extremely interesting. It turns out that this hybrid is also surprisingly gishy and versatile to play, especially when combined with Warlock levels. It's counterintuitive, quirky, and powerful--I would love to play one.

Life Clerics would be worsened, not improved, if you had to spend a lot of time to get the marginal benefit that they give.

On the other hand, Necromancers give a lot of benefit, in a fairly obvious way, just by exploiting Animate Dead's fantastic concentration and action economies. Necromancers are fun, for a while, but then it's just too easy and I look for something more challenging, such as a melee necromancer who is his own tank, or a 3d6-in-order necromancer with the worst stats I could get in fifty rerolls and a personality based on Giuseppe Zengara.

So having a huge easy benefit is not necessarily fun either, any more than a difficult tiny benefit is.

It seems to be the case that I enjoy finding counterintuitive, non-obvious tactics and builds that provide a large benefit over the obvious strategies. E.g. just the other day I realized that you can get about twice as much effect out of caltrops when you're retreating from monsters if you drop them at a specific point halfway through your move.

To me, that's what makes powergaming fun. And like any creative exercise, it's only fun as long as you continue to discover new things. At some point I'll have mined all the fun I can out of powergaming 5E and will stop.

I'm not trying too design a game, just want to understand what makes an optimizer tick And to be clear I'm not interested in balance. I personally think the game should be more unbalanced, but for me that is not a power game, optimization issued.

I think you may have changed the subject there. I'm a natural powergamer; I notice powerful combinations in 5E as easily as other people recognize colors in real life, and I'm often tempted to exploit them even when they conflict with my roleplaying instincts. (Case in point: I hate clerics with a burning passion, yet I still want to play the above-mentioned Sorcerer 3/Life Cleric 1/Lore Bard 6 superhealer someday and just rationalize away the "cleric" part as "not really like those other clerics that I hate. Barely a cleric at all really." It's a clear case of powergaming desires overcoming roleplaying desires.)

From what I've seen, I think "optimizer" refers to something different. I'm about 80% sure that optimizers seem to focus mostly on chargen-time activities, whereas powergamers as I use the term are equally interested in analyzing and occasionally exploiting all facets of mechanical effectiveness (you can think of it as a subset of wargaming). Also, optimizers often seem to shortsightedly focus on easily-measured metrics like DPR instead of operational effectiveness. They do stupid, pointless things like analyze what the maximum theoretical AC for a 5E character is. Therefore, for me at least, "optimizer" has a bad connotation, as if you'd written "munchkin" or "talentless hack with no imagination."

 

[dave2008]

Sure. This is just disproving dave2008's theory of the perfectly balanced game, though, and isn't my point.

I never said that, and don't even want that. I have no theory of a "perfectly balanced" game. I just want to find out what optimizers want.

 

[dave2008]

Even when there is a good reason, it's still frustrating. You're meant to be playing heroes, not farmers.

Obviously off topic, but not everyone wants to play a traditional "hero," maybe just an adventurer or explorer even.

 

[dave2008]

If a choice is meaningful then it has an impact. If it has an impact then it can be optimized.

For instance, in the weapon example: An optimizer with a high-damage/low-accuracy weapon would seek ways to maximize accuracy bonuses, and focus attacks on low-AC opponents. An optimizer with a low-damage/high accuracy weapon would seek ways to maximize damage bonuses, focus attacks on high-AC opponents. (Presumably the optimum strategy would be to switch between weapons based on the opponent's AC.) The optimizer's character will then do more damage than another player, who always uses the high-damage weapon and only tries to accumulate damage bonuses.

If you prevent that optimization, say by denying all bonuses and making all opponents have the same AC, then the weapon choice is no longer a meaningful one.

This is off topic, but I'm all for optimization in game play as you are describing, I am more curious about relationship to build optimization.

 

[Sunseeker]

Obviously off topic, but not everyone wants to play a traditional "hero," maybe just an adventurer or explorer even.

So? That doesn't mean you can't be good at what you do. You can optimize the heck out of non-DPS attributes. I've made several very fun, very competent characters whose focus was social interaction, exploration and problem-solving.

It's frustrating to play with people who don't know how to function in D&D. You don't have to be a DPS monger to function (unless I suppose you're playing a combat-heavy game, then it's probably ideal) in D&D. Indeed I'd encourage most parties to have at least one character optimized for exploration, adventuring and socializing. I'm further argue that you didn't optimize properly if your character isn't capable in at least one of those areas as well as damage. Indeed often times succeeding outside the combat realms is an incidental effect of power-gaming. Wisdom-based classes will tend towards being good at spotting and scouting. Intelligence-based classes will tend towards good problem-solving skills. Charisma-based classes will tend towards good social skills.

Honestly if you're so optimized you can only every do "one thing", I'd argue you're not actually optimized at all.

 

[dave2008]

It seems to be the case that I enjoy finding counterintuitive, non-obvious tactics and builds that provide a large benefit over the obvious strategies. E.g. just the other day I realized that you can get about twice as much effect out of caltrops when you're retreating from monsters if you drop them at a specific point halfway through your move.

But what if the were no large benefits (only small ones) and/or no obvious strategies? I guessing such a game wouldn't be as much fun for you, am I correct?

I think you may have changed the subject there. I'm a natural powergamer; I notice powerful combinations in 5E as easily as other people recognize colors in real life, and I'm often tempted to exploit them even when they conflict with my roleplaying instincts. (Case in point: I hate clerics with a burning passion, yet I still want to play the above-mentioned Sorcerer 3/Life Cleric 1/Lore Bard 6 superhealer someday and just rationalize away the "cleric" part as "not really like those other clerics that I hate. Barely a cleric at all really." It's a clear case of powergaming desires overcoming roleplaying desires.)

From what I've seen, I think "optimizer" refers to something different. I'm about 80% sure that optimizers seem to focus mostly on chargen-time activities, whereas powergamers as I use the term are equally interested in analyzing and occasionally exploiting all facets of mechanical effectiveness (you can think of it as a subset of wargaming). Also, optimizers often seem to shortsightedly focus on easily-measured metrics like DPR instead of operational effectiveness. They do stupid, pointless things like analyze what the maximum theoretical AC for a 5E character is. Therefore, for me at least, "optimizer" has a bad connotation, as if you'd written "munchkin" or "talentless hack with no imagination."

My apologies, I am neither an optimizer nor power gamer. From my perspective they have a lot in common, but I understand the distinction you are making, though I don't think it is quite so rigid.

 

[dave2008]

It's frustrating to play with people who don't know how to function in D&D.

I guess I just haven't experienced that. In 25+ years of playing D&D I've only played with 2 groups and none of us have ever optimized a character for anything. We just pick what we want and play and have great time. That is why i'm trying to understand the power gamer and optimizer mindset. It is completely foreign to me.