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

[dave2008]

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.

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

 

[mellored]

If the only thing I could optimize was eye and hair color, I would optimize that.

Edit; BTW, it's dark green.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

As a role-player who primarily plays competent character, which may come off as power-gaming to some, I would welcome a game with a lot of meaningful options that were of equal power. It's actually really hard to do that with a game.

The danger that most such games run into is that they don't include meaningful options. They basically go out of the way to ensure that your unlimited options are meaningless. To use an example, Gamma World 7E gives you meaningless options in terms of weapons and armor - you can use any sort of heavy melee weapon you want, from a zweihander to a stop sign, and it won't affect the efficacy of your attacks in any way.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

A Simple Questions for Power Gamers, Optimizers, and Min-Maxers:

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.

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

Nope, not if I'm understanding you correctly. An option without a cost/benefit tradeoff isn't a real choice, it's just cosmetic. If all weapons do d8 damage, but you can pick between hammers (which do bludgeoning damage, to which 1/3 of the monsters you meet are resistant) or picks (which do piercing damage, to which 1/3 of the monsters you meet are resistant), that isn't an interesting choice.

If you're going to simplify character creation, just simplify it and have done. Don't add complexity just for the sake of complexity. That doesn't increase fun.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[jaelis]

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.

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

I don't consider myself an optimizer or power gamer, but I think it would be pretty boring if every character had essentially the same capabilities. Would it be fun for you?


You might be trying to get at the question: would you still have fun if you weren't allowed to optimize? If so, i think a better lever might be: "Could you still have fun playing if you had to use a pregen character?" To which I would say, "Yes."

 

[Blue]

There's a lot of assumptions built into this. For example, I play poker which I can't "optimize" - I can easily enjoy a well run game regardless of options. Played a game where we just wrote up backstories and knew nothing of mechanics, they were kept purposefully hidden. Almost killed my character experimenting with magic. Loads of fun.

I enjoy making characters who can hold up their weight. I've also intentionally detuned characters that were more powerful then the party to put everyone on more even footing and keep everyone relevant and engaged

I'll often reskin - a choice that has no mechanical repercussions but allows me to present my character differently to the world. That adds to me and is meaningful, just not mechanically differentiated.

So to sum up: Yes, I can see a game with meaningful but mechanically-neutral choices to be a lot of fun. (If it's a fun game in the first place. If it's boring it's still boring. Hated playing Candyland or the card game War with my kids because there are literally no decision points. Taught them better games. )

 

[Zardnaar]

I would like it if the options were close in power, maybe not the exact level.

 

[Tony Vargas]

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

So, say, all the options in all the CharOp guides in all the forums in all the world (yeah, I went there) would be the same color - no matter how radically different those options might be from eachother?

Not really possible (if there's a meaningful difference, it's likely to be better in some ways/worse in others, more appealing (thus subjectively 'better') to some players than others, or situationally better/worse), but as an hypothetical ideal, sure. Balance is more conducive to fun than imbalance.

You might be trying to get at the question: would you still have fun if you weren't allowed to optimize? If so, i think a better lever might be: "Could you still have fun playing if you had to use a pregen character?" To which I would say, "Yes."

I definitely don't enjoy playing a pregen as much as an original character. Which is downright hypocritical of me, since, when I run at conventions, I always provide pregens....

 

[dave2008]

Nope, not if I'm understanding you correctly. An option without a cost/benefit tradeoff isn't a real choice, it's just cosmetic. If all weapons do d8 damage, but you can pick between hammers (which do bludgeoning damage, to which 1/3 of the monsters you meet are resistant) or picks (which do piercing damage, to which 1/3 of the monsters you meet are resistant), that isn't an interesting choice.

If you're going to simplify character creation, just simplify it and have done. Don't add complexity just for the sake of complexity. That doesn't increase fun.

No that is not what I am going for. I want meaningful choices too. But what if the higher damage weapon also ha less of a chance to hit,or what if the through the life of a campaign the increased damage of large weapon is offset by increased number of attacks from a light weapon, or if the difference between a light and heavy weapon is only 1d6 vs 1d12 throughout a campaign?

Basically there is always a cost benefit analysis to an individual choice, but ultimately they all basically even out so everyone is equally as effective (or nearly so) as everyone else. Basically minimizing, if not completely eliminating, the difference between a "bad" build and a "good" one.