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

[Caliban]

If I gave a substantial amount of role-play experience, I would develop a level equality problem. I and other DMs in my group have tried this over the years with little effect. The people that enjoy role-playing do it the most and the best and those that don't continue to lag behind. So I don't bother since the level equality problem would be more problematic.

I think it's generally more enjoyable (for the RP'er) to reward good roleplay with in-universe roleplay awards, rather than XP.

The good RP'er has a better in-game reputation amongst the NPCs (either friendly or feared depending on what they go for), forms alliances or friends that will pay off later, may get a better reward because the NPC's are more impressed with them, etc.

The combat monster gets their enjoyment from curb-stomping monsters, or pulling out a win when the odds are against them. They'll barely remember RP rewards, much less care about them.

(This is an extreme example, as there are players who care about both RP and combat effectiveness.)

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[dave2008]

You might not be able to mitigate with optimization the arbitrary randomness of 5E's overwhelming focus on die rolls, but you can certainly build a character that is objectively and significantly stronger than the one the player sitting next to you has.

That is were I think Hemlock and CapnZapp can help you. I'm pretty sure you can optimize / power game to minimize the "arbitrary randomness of 5E's overwhelming focus on die rolls,.." At least that is what I have seen from their examples in the past.

Also, since I am not familiar, how do other games reduce the randomness of die rolls? Do you want to use die polls? Obviously advantage provides this to an extent, but that is not really a thing in D&D.

 

[dave2008]

I would avoid that. Just my two cents, but I would note that the definitions are somewhat ... skewed to a certain perspective. You might note that the perspective assumes that many people are trying to "win" the game in one way or the other by stating that "RP nerds" are trying to beat the game by exploiting the DM.

While I am sure that there are those who are trying to do that, it is also true that we aren't seeing a movie appear on a screen at the cinema; just a projection.

Good points, thank you

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Horwath]

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?

You can always optimize if you want to.

Even if all choices are the same power, the combination of choices makes the optimization.

It's never one thing, or almost never(GWM,SS, looking at you) that pushes the character over the accepted optimization line.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

I would avoid that. Just my two cents, but I would note that the definitions are somewhat ... skewed to a certain perspective. You might note that the perspective assumes that many people are trying to "win" the game in one way or the other by stating that "RP nerds" are trying to beat the game by exploiting the DM.

While I am sure that there are those who are trying to do that, it is also true that we aren't seeing a movie appear on a screen at the cinema; just a projection.

A true optimizer combines mechanical optimization, quality tactical/strategic play, and gaming the DM. "RP nerds" tend to get envious when they have comparatively less success at the table than somebody pursuing all three. Gaming the DM isn't a specific thing unique to "RP nerds", it's just the one of the three that they are most likely to actively perform.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

That is were I think Hemlock and CapnZapp can help you. I'm pretty sure you can optimize / power game to minimize the "arbitrary randomness of 5E's overwhelming focus on die rolls,.." At least that is what I have seen from their examples in the past.

Also, since I am not familiar, how do other games reduce the randomness of die rolls? Do you want to use die polls? Obviously advantage provides this to an extent, but that is not really a thing in D&D.

The arbitrary randomness can be reduced compared to other options within 5E, but not so much compared to other systems. In 4E randomness was mitigated by stretching tasks over a multitude of rolls, which greatly lessened the impact of any single roll. In addition, bounded accuracy didn't really apply to skill checks, as it was fairly trivial to get your success rate with 1-3 skills to 80-100% against moderate DCs, especially at higher levels. Other systems allow you to either brute force rolls, stacking a modifier that overwhelms the die roll, or give you more numerous and more decisive "I win" buttons.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

That is were I think Hemlock and CapnZapp can help you. I'm pretty sure you can optimize / power game to minimize the "arbitrary randomness of 5E's overwhelming focus on die rolls,.." At least that is what I have seen from their examples in the past.

Also, since I am not familiar, how do other games reduce the randomness of die rolls? Do you want to use die polls? Obviously advantage provides this to an extent, but that is not really a thing in D&D.

Yeah, 5E combat essentially isn't random at all. Good play utterly swamps die roll randomness, at least within non-uberdeadly combats. The most important thing you can do is first gain an advantageous position; after that the die rolls are just details.

Generally, if you want to minimize the effects of random chance, you need to increase the number of die rolls involved. (Law of Large Numbers.) If an entire adventure hangs on a single DC 20 skill check that can only be made once, then that adventure is going to be swingy and won't feel like it has much agency. If the skill check just controls whether you go in the front door or the back door, or if you can make separate checks for each door and either works, it will feel less swingy. Similarly, if you need to succeed on 8/10 DC 15 skill checks, and those skill checks are affected by situational modifiers (from player choices), then even though some randomness exists, it will feel like there is a high degree of player agency and a low degree of randomness, because that's just how probability works.

One reason 5E combat isn't very as random-feeling as skill checks is because there are so many rolls that results come out close to the expected values.

I didn't read Curse of Strahd very closely but I don't recall it being written with this insight in mind. I'm not particularly surprised to hear that it feels swingy for the DM; I expect that you'd need to rewrite it slightly, using a good understanding of probability, to get it to feel less random. Add multiple paths to success, and add multiple gates to success along each path, etc.

On the other hand, if the combats are feeling swingy, then the players just aren't playing efficiently. Which might be just fine with them BTW. Not everyone likes to think in terms of decision matrixes and probability densities--some people really do enjoy playing Chutes and Ladders, where the biggest excitement is seeing what numbers come up on your dice this turn.

-Max