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

[The Crimson Binome]

Okay, so why do they optimize?
Because you, Saelorn, want them to optimize! Because you are creating a world populated with (optimized) heroic, super competent fantasy types!

If you don't want your D&D game to be full of awesome power-fantasy heroes, then that's fine and it invalidates my premise. I'm not going to pass judgment on you for wanting to play an actually-flawed (and not merely heroically-flawed) character. I would argue that D&D probably isn't the best system to encourage that kind of experience, but it's flexible, and you can certainly make it work.

What I take exception to is the accusation that optimization is akin to meta-gaming, when the rationale is actually just role-playing. I'm not saying that you are guilty of such an accusation, but that is the insult which I must vociferously defend myself against.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Lanefan]

If you don't want your D&D game to be full of awesome power-fantasy heroes, then that's fine and it invalidates my premise. I'm not going to pass judgment on you for wanting to play an actually-flawed (and not merely heroically-flawed) character. I would argue that D&D probably isn't the best system to encourage that kind of experience, but it's flexible, and you can certainly make it work.

And that right there is the beauty of D&D - well, 0e 1e 2e and 5e anyway - in that it *is* flexible enough and malleable enough to allow for all these playstyles and more....which is why discussions like this can even happen with any relevance at all.

And for my part, I don't mind my game being full of awesome power-fantasy heroes once the campaign is near its end and we've played their journey out from much more humble beginnings. But if they're such all-powerful heroes right from the start...well, where do you go from there?

Lan-"and sometimes it's fun to play the sort of character real heroes would normally try to kill on sight"-efan

 

[dave2008]

I hadn't considered the OP from this perspective, and I think it changes my answer. I don't want system mastery to be a factor in character effectiveness. I want paladins and rangers and great-weapon fighters and dual-wielders to be equally effective at what they do.

I don't want to encourage zaniness, though. I don't want a mop to be as effective as a katana.

Thank you for the response - perhaps I need to update the OP

 

[Lanefan]

...
Its simply talking about their preference on the issue in a thread discussing preferences of the issue.
Unless you know that Lanefan actually tries to enforce those preferences on the other players in an actual game then all of those accusations are without merit.
And to be frank, come across more as personal attacks rather than reasoned discussion.

Thanks for the defense, Cap'n. You said it better than I could have.

And people do play the same game in vastly different ways. For example, one of the players in our crew is absolutely fixated on wealth...he's not happy until and unless his characters are richer than kings, and he takes the loss of possessions about as well as most other players take the loss of levels (which are much harder to come by!). Another player almost always wants to play the noble paladinic lawful type (both in and out of game), sometimes leading to interesting times whe he ends up in a game with one or more of our more chaotic types. And so on...yet it's all the same game.

Which is what makes forums like this interesting. I mean, if we all thought the same, what would be the point?

Lan-"did someone call for a loud low-charisma Dwarf with a Scottish accent? Coming right up!"-efan

 

[thecasualoblivion]

I'm coming into this thread, and responding to the original post here:

I'm a power gamer, and powergaming is how I play. The question is if the game allows major customization but that customization doesn't increase power level, how does this affect me. I have two answers to this. First is that games aren't perfect, and the more options you create the the more "good" options inadvertently happen. As a powergamer, I will tend to find and exploit those "good" options. The second answer, hypothetically in response to mechanical optimization not being possible, is that regardless of circumstances, powergaming is how I play. While I would think that mechanical optimization being impossible in an option heavy game is unlikely, I have played simple or low-option games where mechanical optimization was difficult. If mechanical optimization is unavailable, powergaming takes other forms. The focus becomes either strategy/tactics or psychology, or both. Psychology means winning the social game, and "playing" the DM and other players to your advantage. I'll find some other way.

 

[Celtavian]

You ask for the impossible. I believe this was already attempted in 4E where each power was only slightly differentiated by flavor text from other class abilities, but essentially did the same thing for the same damage. I found that model utterly boring.

You have to understand why powergaming is what it is. There is a certain subset of players that care for absolutely nothing but combat. They disengage or don't even want to play if a campaign is not heavily combat focused. Very few people care if you're powergaming social or non-combat abilities because they could care less about the outcome of non-combat events even if the DM tries his best to make them important to the campaign. They would rather not even play if the game is not focused on combat. They will find something else to do like playing a video game or watching a movie rather than engage a social encounter or non-combat encounter in D&D. I don't know what specific percentage this is, but based on my experience I would put it in the 70 to 80% range of players that prefer combat over all other aspects of the game.

A powergamer does not want someone else to do what he does as well as he does it. It would be unsatisfying to both powergamer 1 and powergamer 2 if they were doing the exact same damage, even if one was doing it with magic and the other with a sword. They would feel like they weren't unique. Most powergamers want to feel powerful and unique. It's a huge reason they do what they do. It's not enough to just be powerful, it has to be uniquely powerful. If everyone around the table made exactly the same optimized character (same class, same abilities, same customization options), the other powergamers would choose different options just to be unique, yet seek to optimize those options to the best of their ability.

To answer your question, no, I do not think that reskinning equally effective options would satisfy powergamers. They want to be uniquely powerful. That means doing more damage or something vastly better, while being uniquely powerful in a way the other players can't match. That's what feeds the eqo of powergamers. They want to standout in the group. They want to be the most powerful and effective in combat. They want to feel empowered in a way they can't in the real world. I don't think there is a good way to balance that in an RPG, especially a tabletop RPG.

I would prefer they spend more time focusing on other aspects of the game like enemy design to match the power levels of high-level characters. I would love D&D to finally make a game that worked past level 10 or so without so much modification.

 

[Tony Vargas]

You ask for the impossible. I believe this was already attempted in 4E where each power was only slightly differentiated by flavor text from other class abilities

Your belief is mistaken. There were certainly a few powers within a given source that were virtually-duplicated between two classes, but nothing near the number of spells classes had traditionally shared outright (and do so to an even greater extent in 5e). While 4e used a smaller number of mechanics, conditions, & damage types than 3e, the many possible combinations of them, along with exception-based additions, produced thousands of unique 'powers' - which could be further cosmetically customized by changing flavor text (which may be what you're thinking of).

4e was better-balance than D&D has otherwise been, but no where near either the ideal/perfect state hypothesized for the sake of discussion by the OP, nor the degenerate state of total imbalance that you postulate. (Yes, imbalance, because meaningless cosmetic-only choices are as imbalanced as meaningless obvious-best choices make all others.)

You have to understand why powergaming is what it is. There is a certain subset of players that care for absolutely nothing but combat.

Well, OK, there is. But you can powergame other aspects of the game than just combat (cf 3.x 'Diplomancer' builds!).

Very few people care if you're powergaming social or non-combat abilities because they could care less about the outcome of non-combat events even if the DM tries his best to make them important to the campaign. They would rather not even play if the game is not focused on combat. They will find something else to do like playing a video game or watching a movie rather than engage a social encounter or non-combat encounter in D&D. I don't know what specific percentage this is, but based on my experience I would put it in the 70 to 80% range of players that prefer combat over all other aspects of the game.

That's quite another issue, and it's debateable whether the preference is innate, or driven by how poorly D&D has generally handled (and balanced PCs in) non-combat challenges.

A powergamer does not want someone else to do what he does as well as he does it. It would be unsatisfying to both powergamer 1 and powergamer 2 if they were doing the exact same damage, even if one was doing it with magic and the other with a sword.

Y'know, it occurs to me that the OPs question was personal, and you're speaking for all 'powergamers.' There's not even a definitive meaning attached to it (for instance, I consider a powergamer to be like a 'power user' in the 90s, someone who can get the most out of a system - a label denoting ability, not motivation).

That's what feeds the eqo of powergamers. They want to standout in the group. They want to be the most powerful and effective in combat. I don't think there is a good way to balance that in an RPG, especially a tabletop RPG.

Indeed, the desire to approach a game involving several other players in a way that allows only one of them to have fun with it is not amenable to balance in any sense.

They want to feel empowered in a way they can't in the real world.

You don't have to dis-empower the rest of the table to get this bit, though. The fantasy genre offers many such opportunities.

I would love D&D to finally make a game that worked past level 10 or so without so much modification.

It did, but only for a few years - and you hated it. ;P (Actually, I know it's highly debatable, but I feel like 5e can work for a bit beyond 10th... and so could 3e, unmodified, if you had a strong DM and players who exercised some consideration and restraint.)

 

[dave2008]

I'm coming into this thread, and responding to the original post here:

I'm a power gamer, and powergaming is how I play. The question is if the game allows major customization but that customization doesn't increase power level, how does this affect me. I have two answers to this. First is that games aren't perfect, and the more options you create the the more "good" options inadvertently happen. As a powergamer, I will tend to find and exploit those "good" options. The second answer, hypothetically in response to mechanical optimization not being possible, is that regardless of circumstances, powergaming is how I play. While I would think that mechanical optimization being impossible in an option heavy game is unlikely, I have played simple or low-option games where mechanical optimization was difficult. If mechanical optimization is unavailable, powergaming takes other forms. The focus becomes either strategy/tactics or psychology, or both. Psychology means winning the social game, and "playing" the DM and other players to your advantage. I'll find some other way.

Thank you for sharing - that is very helpful!

 

[dave2008]

You ask for the impossible. I believe this was already attempted in 4E where each power was only slightly differentiated by flavor text from other class abilities, but essentially did the same thing for the same damage. I found that model utterly boring.

You have to understand why powergaming is what it is. There is a certain subset of players that care for absolutely nothing but combat. They disengage or don't even want to play if a campaign is not heavily combat focused. Very few people care if you're powergaming social or non-combat abilities because they could care less about the outcome of non-combat events even if the DM tries his best to make them important to the campaign. They would rather not even play if the game is not focused on combat. They will find something else to do like playing a video game or watching a movie rather than engage a social encounter or non-combat encounter in D&D. I don't know what specific percentage this is, but based on my experience I would put it in the 70 to 80% range of players that prefer combat over all other aspects of the game.

A powergamer does not want someone else to do what he does as well as he does it. It would be unsatisfying to both powergamer 1 and powergamer 2 if they were doing the exact same damage, even if one was doing it with magic and the other with a sword. They would feel like they weren't unique. Most powergamers want to feel powerful and unique. It's a huge reason they do what they do. It's not enough to just be powerful, it has to be uniquely powerful. If everyone around the table made exactly the same optimized character (same class, same abilities, same customization options), the other powergamers would choose different options just to be unique, yet seek to optimize those options to the best of their ability.

To answer your question, no, I do not think that reskinning equally effective options would satisfy powergamers. They want to be uniquely powerful. That means doing more damage or something vastly better, while being uniquely powerful in a way the other players can't match. That's what feeds the eqo of powergamers. They want to standout in the group. They want to be the most powerful and effective in combat. They want to feel empowered in a way they can't in the real world. I don't think there is a good way to balance that in an RPG, especially a tabletop RPG.

I would prefer they spend more time focusing on other aspects of the game like enemy design to match the power levels of high-level characters. I would love D&D to finally make a game that worked past level 10 or so without so much modification.

Thank you for your response. This is the response I expected from most power gamers; however, if you read through this thread you will see that it is not the majority of the responses I have received. I think you may need to rethink your assumptions about power gamers - I know I have!