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

[Ancalagon]

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

I can sort of understand that some PC designs have low defensive capacities vs others, but when you have a bard with no con bonus, midling dex, almost no armor, no defensive spell, no special mobility, no defensive magical item... at least do *something*!

 

[Caliban]

I usually try to make characters who are optimized in interesting ways, to do interesting things. Sometimes its to be able to use a certain combination of skills/feats/spells/etc reliably, sometimes it's to do a lot of damage, sometimes it's to be able to absorb damage or not get hit. But I always prefer that they have something different, some special trick or technique that sets them apart.

I want to play a memorable hero, not the average soldier. Usually that means being optimized in some fashion. If the system allows me to do that, I don't much care if I'm actually "optimized" or not. But I have yet to play an RPG where trying to make an effective, memorable character doesn't involve optimization.

 

[FarBeyondC]

Would you enjoy playing a version of D&D where you had a lot of character creation and customization options; however, these options do not add up to any additional benefit. That is to say, all options are equally good from a mechanical, optimizing, power gaming point of view.

No. In fact, I'd go further and say I would not play (or would stop playing) any version of anything where all options are equally 'good'.

Basically, would the game be fun for you if you could only build a different character, but not a "better" character?

No. The realization of the inability to build a better- or worse- character would kill- and has killed in other games- any motivation to continue playing the game. Differences without distinction are absolutely uninteresting.

 

[dave2008]

No. In fact, I'd go further and say I would not play (or would stop playing) any version of anything where all options are equally 'good'.



No. The realization of the inability to build a better- or worse- character would kill- and has killed in other games- any motivation to continue playing the game. Differences without distinction are absolutely uninteresting.

Thank you for the input. I would just add that differences can have distinction and still be equally good. Those are not mutually exclusive.

Simple example : cold attacks or fire attacks can be equally good, but provide distinct differences. Depending on the situation, one may be superior to the other, but at face value they could be equal.

 

[Blue]

My preferred option is that there aren't preferred options which is also why I make a significant effort to rebalance system mechanics in my own game. The only reason I optimise or encourage it, is because there even is a gap at all and I don't want my players to suffer simply because of a "wrong" choice at one point or another during character advancement.

If the playing field is level and there are no superior options, then you don't have to optimise and all choices add interesting options rather than power development or delay. Obviously some builds will always be better in some circumstances, but that's not the balance I'm talking about. Variety is interesting, being good at something is interesting, but when there is clearly an optimal choice across multiple instances, then that really isn't a choice anymore.

The problem is that it's not about something being strong. Those are easy to identify and moderately easy to fix. It's that X plus Y plus Z is strong, Y plus Z plus W is moderate, and X plus W plus U is suboptimal. Trying to rebalance mechanically is a failing proposition or at best an arms race. Full stop.

Balancing socially is a much more realistic method of doing it. Instead of nerfing things that might be interesting on their own, try just talking to your players. And keep it up. "You know, that combo you got last level makes you really outshine everyone else. Can you reign it in some?"

 

[FarBeyondC]

Thank you for the input. I would just add that differences can have distinction and still be equally good. Those are not mutually exclusive.

Simple example : cold attacks or fire attacks can be equally good, but provide distinct differences. Depending on the situation, one may be superior to the other, but at face value they could be equal.

Wait, face value equality? As in, equality in theory, but not in actual practice?

 

[Rhenny]

I'm late to this thread and only read a few pages of it, but here's my take.

I'm not what most would call a powergamer, although one of my favorite aspects of D&D is making choices for my PC when it levels up. I define "more powerful" as granting my PC more interesting and potentially useful skills, powers, spells, etc. I think that there are a wide variety of players who could be considered "power-gamers" but for different reasons, and because there are so many options for leveling a PC, I think the fun for a powergamer is developing an effective PC that contributes mightily to game play.

I think the big draw is the synergy between skills, powers, spells, attack combinations and intended focus (for example, a high Charisma, player who takes "Actor" as a feat and plays a Bard, and dips into rogue to get quicker expertise so he can stack up his persuasion, bluff, etc. may be horrible in combat, but still a powergamer who whats to be the best at social interaction). As long as a player can still choose for that, I think the powergamer would be happy about it. If the choices don't allow for maximizing what they really want to maximize than they would not be happy at all...so, to answer the OP, if all choices were equal, but they spanned different aspects of the game and the player could still choose which aspect he/she wanted to excel at, I think it would be ok for the powergamer.

 

[dave2008]

Wait, face value equality? As in, equality in theory, but not in actual practice?

Ugh, I keep letting myself get dragged into a discussion on game mechanics when that is not what this tread is about.

Anyway, I mean equality can be complex. A simple example is: one attack does 1d10 cold damage and another does 1d10 fire damage. The damage is equal, but one can be more powerful depending on the situation (like when fighting a red dragon). But it can be more complex. What if the cold attack also slowed the opponent (or restrained it or some other effect) and the fire attack did ongoing fire damage. These may be equal on face value (or not), but they are distinct and depending on the situation one can be more or less effective than the other.

 

[dave2008]

I'm late to this thread and only read a few pages of it, but here's my take.

I'm not what most would call a powergamer, although one of my favorite aspects of D&D is making choices for my PC when it levels up. I define "more powerful" as granting my PC more interesting and potentially useful skills, powers, spells, etc. I think that there are a wide variety of players who could be considered "power-gamers" but for different reasons, and because there are so many options for leveling a PC, I think the fun for a powergamer is developing an effective PC that contributes mightily to game play.

I think the big draw is the synergy between skills, powers, spells, attack combinations and intended focus (for example, a high Charisma, player who takes "Actor" as a feat and plays a Bard, and dips into rogue to get quicker expertise so he can stack up his persuasion, bluff, etc. may be horrible in combat, but still a powergamer who whats to be the best at social interaction). As long as a player can still choose for that, I think the powergamer would be happy about it. If the choices don't allow for maximizing what they really want to maximize than they would not be happy at all...so, to answer the OP, if all choices were equal, but they spanned different aspects of the game and the player could still choose which aspect he/she wanted to excel at, I think it would be ok for the powergamer.

Thank you for the explanation!

 

[Uchawi]

Sure, but I am not trying to figure out the perfect game. I am just curious if people can accept being equals or do they need to feel "better." If a power gamer will only enjoy having a character that is "better" than everyone else or better than the game expects then there is no point for a "balanced" game for them.

The question is simple: Does a power gamer need to power game to have fun?

I was not speaking about a perfect game, just one that is easy to learn and digest based on consistent rules. With random dice roles and choices someone is always going to be better at any given time. However, with clear and consistent rules you hopefully temper the system mastery issues that always leads to better options across the board.