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

[innerdude]

I only read the first 6 pages, so if some of this has been covered in pages 7-15, please forgive me . . . or don't forgive me and hurl insults and rotten fruit my way, whichever suits your fancy.

This is actually an interesting hypothetical. For instance, would I personally be willing to play a game where every check ever made would be a straight "2d6, keep the highest die and discard the lowest" but there were absolutely ZERO modifiers to the roll, EVER?

Want to make a climb check? 2d6, keep the highest, no modifiers. Make a hand-to-hand attack? 2d6, keep the highest, no modifiers. Roll a straight Intelligence check? 2d6, keep the highest, no modifiers. And every other player was under the exact same constraints. No matter which skills we chose, which weapons we chose, there would be no differentiation.

Or perhaps we need some basic differentiation, so let's say you roll 2d4, keep the highest if "untrained," roll 2d6 and keep the highest if "trained." There are no other differentiators for player characters.

Would I actually want to play that game?

Frankly, the answer would be, "No. Not if I have no other avenue for controlling the destiny of my character." And believe me, it's almost painful for me to say that, because I am a staunch advocate of character-driven, actor-stance, "verisimilitudinous" roleplaying.

Now, the alternative to giving control to players through their characters mechanically is to give them control over the fiction directly.

There's some basic implications about the nature of a "game world" using a highly generic system like the one I hypothesized. Taken in a vacuum, a system of that nature seems to imply that "All things considered, everyone is equally good or bad at a particular skill under nearly any circumstance." And we recognize from a "real world" perspective that this certainly isn't the case. All things considered, Computer Programmer A and Computer Programmer B may have a lot of "equal skill" overlaps in some cases, but will have radically different skill levels in others.

Would such a game even remotely approach a "classic" roleplaying experience? Or is it aiming for a different experience? Without true mechanical differentiation, the only "locus of control" becomes over the fiction itself. At that point does it basically come down to "fictional token passing" or "conch sharing" between players and GM to ask for any potential circumstantial bonus? Genericized, unoptimized systems seem like they would dramatically shift the dynamics of play. This type of thing pushes things dramatically toward a "shared storytelling" model, since "control of the fiction" becomes what matters, not control of the mechanics/dice/character abilities.

There's a fairly deep fundamental question at work here, which is, "How much 'game' must actually exist in a Role Playing Game for it to appropriately and recognizably produce an experience that is fundamentally different from shared storytelling?"

And once a minimum level of "game" is reached, optimization will occur. It just will. It's human nature. I've long felt that at their most basic core, the so-called "narrativist" and "gamist" impulses are fundamentally at odds, but that an RPG presents a unique avenue for merging those two impulses into a single shared social dynamic.

 

[TwoSix]

I've started doing that as well. I will Min/Max support as my table just want to play a certain thing/way and I'm insurance that they will live as well as be generally useful. Been thinking about rolling a pally polearm master with sentinel and dipping into lock to cheese darkness and devil's eye mechanics.

The great thing about building a support character is that you can go crazy with your optimization and it's unlikely anyone will care, because you're simply making the other party members stronger and keeping them from dying. It's the main conceit behind the "god wizard" builds in 3.5, for example.

 

[Boscogn]

Which is why communication is key. In an ideal situation, people discuss the issues and some type of compromise is met.

Compromise usually isn't of the form, "IMA HAVE MY FUN AND Y'ALL DEAL WITH IT."



Well, it's usually a little more nuanced than that. When some players talk about not caring about their character's power, what they are saying is that they aren't overly concerned with min/maxing. This could be for a number of reasons, including but not limited to:

a. enjoying pizza and beer more than math;
b. enjoying roleplaying more than numbers;
c. wanting to create characters without worrying about particular builds (I just want to play a kinda cool bladelock);
d. opting out of a "keeping up with the Joneses" arm race; or
e. other reasons.

In essence, the objection becomes that if there is just one (or two, at a larger table) min/maxers, they are playing the heroes, or the Gary Stues, to everyone else's support. They will "turn the tides of battle" while the rest of the party twiddles their thumbs. Which gets ... boring ... after a while. And the DM will be in a bit of a bind, because the party is essentially unbalanced; you can't target the Gary Stues with really hard encounters because of the rest of the party, and the things that are challenging for the rest of the party get destroyed by the Gary Stues (which continues with the whole hero narrative).

Most people play D&D to have fun. As always, the fun should be had by all, and if you aren't having fun, find a table that better supports the type of fun you prefer, or try to communicate and see if there is a half-way compromise, instead of insisting that your fun must be acquiesced to by the table.

The most satisfying thing to me is to make a character with some thought of OK this is what I'm good at. It's such a kick in the balls when I fail that thing I'm good at but doesn't mean I can't fail in hystericaly bad fashion. It's the DMs job to create challenges to satisfy that player's need to be good at what they do. If a min/maxer wants to 1 shot encounter bosses. Have something more challenging perhaps bull rush the PC and have a duel over in the corner. That timid druid player who loves like LOVES their familiar. Wrap in a challenge that is suited for the familiar like grabbing a thing during a fight you can't win but the objective isn't the creature but the thing. I don't get DMs who have each players character sheets but just roll random generic encounters that might be too easy for min/maxer and too hard for casual skillbox player or don't add content to challenge each player's things they are good at. Sorry for going off subject it just seems there is a strong anti min/max opinion here were really it's the DMs responsibility to either power check character at creation or tailor content to accommodate the table.

Sent from my HTC6545LVW using Tapatalk

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Lanefan]

And it's all about your fun. No one should be better than you, and since you deliberately play sub-par characters, other people should be forced to as well?

Er...put words in my mouth much?

When rolling up (yes, rolling up - no point buy 'round here) a character I'll usually have some vague concept in mind, while at the same time being on alert that the dice might make that concept redundant and point to another one. Taking that concept and what the dice give me, out comes a character. The run of play will eventually tell me whether it's sub-par, at par, over par, or dead; but it's really not much of a concern going in. That said, I don't go in with an intention to "deliberately play sub-par characters"; but if that's what the dice give me...well, so be it.

You seem to think other people are making optimized characters in order to better than your character.

Why else are they doing it other than to be "better"; be it either better than the other characters in the party or better than the game world around them?

Like I said, I like to play heroes, not gimps. ... Gimp characters get other characters killed, optimized characters have a chance at turning the tide when things go south.

Which right there strongly implies your reasons for optimizing: you either want to be better than the others in the party...to be the one that saves the day and wins the "most valuable character" award, OR you want to force the rest of the players to optimize right along with you whether they want to or not. Either way, that turns your argument that my views are all about me right back at ya.

As for why I don't optimize (at least not intentionally; once or twice I've come up with very effective "builds" just by fluke)...

a. enjoying pizza and beer more than math;
b. enjoying roleplaying more than numbers;
c. wanting to create characters without worrying about particular builds (I just want to play a kinda cool bladelock);
d. opting out of a "keeping up with the Joneses" arm race; [and]
e. other reasons.

...these all apply.

Lan-"but ask me about taking a character's *personality* over the top, rather than its numbers, and you'll get a completely different answer"-efan

 

[Boscogn]

A good DM always tries and meets the party's expectations, both as a party, and by putting in things for the individual characters.

Which leads to two separate observations-

1. This should give some ... pause ... to the hero fallacy that some (not all, or most) min/maxers have. As I stated in my first post, D&D is dynamic. If the entire party is min/maxing, then the encounters will be harder. If they aren't, they won't be. But the challenge will be the same. It's the arms race aspect- if everyone is min/maxed, then the encounters have to be harder to challenge them; all that happens is that the party encounters harder (and more) creatures at earlier levels.

2. It is difficult to DM for a party that has wildly different "power levels." You are correct that the DM can, and should, put in touches for the individual characters. But if we are to assume that there is a single min/maxxer, then the DM is forced to construct every encounter artificially, such that "Big Bad" goes after the min/maxer, while minions attack the party (or some other conceit).

To address your last sentence; I can only speak for me, but I don't have "strong anti min/max opinion{.}" What I have is a strong opinion that is both contrarian and against people who would impose a particular play style on others. I have min/maxxed, and I enjoyed it. I think that it's a perfectly valid playstyle. Just like I know that there are people that play in PvP campaigns and enjoy them. Or people that play "rules lite" narrative and enjoy it. There's no wrong way to play.

What often seems to come up in threads like this is an insistence that min/maxing isn't just an acceptable way to play (which it is), but that:
(1) players who don't min/max are playing it wrong;
(2) tables that don't enjoy min/maxing should just suck it up, because min/maxing is fun;
(3) if someone is min/maxing, then regardless of what the table wants, it's the DM's job to change everything in the game for that player.

...and I don't get that. At all. On the one hand, I understand the defensiveness; if you enjoy min/maxing, it can both seem like the best, most fun way to play (after all, it is the, ahem, optimal way!) and it can also seem wrong to you that others would deprive you of that joy. But D&D is a social game; part of all of this is learning that other people have different preference, and either molding your own preferences to the table (optimizing a support character), meeting the table halfway (alternating min/max, non min/max, or, perhaps, helping other players optimize a little better while you don't optimize quite as much), or, if none of that is possible .... finding a table or campaign that better supports your playing style.

Well put but there will always be that selfish person at the table who is all about me me me. Finding tables isn't easy for some so they are stuck at a table they might not be enjoying as much as they should. So my point was, without finding another table, work with the DM/group to make your table work even if you have to accommodate the min/maxer. Communication is key like you were saying but just finding a table that suits you I reject. Sometimes there is only 1 table.

Note:
I used to be really bad at trying to optimize everyone's characters for combat. I'd always say things like why not pick this over this etc. I've come to learn that is wrong and very annoying. Now if players come to me on advice I ask how they want to play and give them options from which to pick and will keep mum if it isn't optimal and point out the pros and cons of each choice.

Little did I know that there were a couple players who would play but then flake off and become uninterested. I came to find out later it was because my character would over shadow their's and the DM would just increase the CR making it tougher on them and not as fun. After working with the DM we started seeing less combat and more social challenges and then I wasnt having any fun.

I learned however it's much funner to play something you enjoy than something that is perfect. I had a human monk min/maxed to death. I then rolled a Goblin Cavalier that was the opposite of perfect and we had the most fun in pathfinder my group has had. Between being revered by other goblins for riding a dog to having to be babysat in town he was fun, dumb and only spoke goblin with a heart of gold. Besides trying to eat children. So when he died I brought the table to tears and had everyone trying to save me. That's when it clicked for me it's not how well you do in combat but how well you can interact with your party/table. Love or hate for your character can bring an interesting dynamic to the adventure.



Sent from my HTC6545LVW using Tapatalk

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[TwoSix]

1. This should give some ... pause ... to the hero fallacy that some (not all, or most) min/maxers have. As I stated in my first post, D&D is dynamic. If the entire party is min/maxing, then the encounters will be harder. If they aren't, they won't be. But the challenge will be the same. It's the arms race aspect- if everyone is min/maxed, then the encounters have to be harder to challenge them; all that happens is that the party encounters harder (and more) creatures at earlier levels.

I'll be honest, knowing that the DM felt the need to make challenges harder in order to challenge my character is a win in and of itself. That fact alone demonstrates that my build was a good one and I played it well; whether or not we win the overall campaign (or heck, even if my character survives) is really a secondary consideration. It's probably why I tend to get bored with characters after a few sessions.

 

[Caliban]

Er...put words in my mouth much?

I don't think so. You made it pretty clear that you think other players should cater to your ideas of how the game should be played.

I don't have a problem playing with people who make non-optimized characters, I do it all the time and it can be a lot of fun.

It's the players who make non optimized character and then whine about being outshined that annoy me. Sound like anyone here?

You very obviously have a problem playing with people whose characters perform better than yours, but instead of making an effort to make a competent character you'd rather tell them they are playing the game wrong.

Why else are they doing it other than to be "better"; be it either better than the other characters in the party or better than the game world around them?

There's that bias again. It's not about you. You and your character don't enter into the equation (unless we are discussing character roles before the start of the campaign, but you probably consider that another dirty power gamer trick).

It's about doing something neat, something interesting, or making a character that lives up to my vision of them. I play the character whose abilities and personality are what I decided on, not some random loser determined by die rolls.

Which right there strongly implies your reasons for optimizing: you either want to be better than the others in the party...to be the one that saves the day and wins the "most valuable character" award, OR you want to force the rest of the players to optimize right along with you whether they want to or not. Either way, that turns your argument that my views are all about me right back at ya.

No, it really doesn't. You are making what's called a strawman argument. Rather than argue against something I actually said, you are making up fictional reasons and assigning them to me and then countering your own made up reasons. i.e - putting words in my mouth and then acting as if I'd said them.

Some might call that being a hypocrite since it's exactly what you accused me of, but what do I know?

I don't do the cute little "smug remarks in the middle of my name" thing to sign off. I'll leave that to you.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Why else are they doing it other than to be "better"; be it either better than the other characters in the party or better than the game world around them?

In my case, it's because I feel like it's required of me. Just as a handle on a door would ask you to pull it, and a flat plate on a door would have you push it, so too does a series of equations beg to be solved. It's expected of all players that they will come up with one of the many local-maxima within the system described by the rules.