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

[smbakeresq]

How many of you have played or seen played a character with a great "flaw?" We have a guy in our group that just played a ranger, that couldn't speak. From a mechanical point his character was fine, but he wouldn't speak in character at the table at all since his character couldn't, he would use hand signals. That was the hook he used to build his character. I thought it was sensational.

We roll for characters, so I had a dwarf battlerager with a wisdom of 7. To me that means little thought about the consequences of his actions, so while in rage retreat wouldn't be an option at all, nor would sitting around 5 minutes discussing the perfect attack plan at the start of combat.

No powergamer would play either of those characters that way, but that's the idea of the game, to step outside yourself and play something you are not to have fun with your imagination. If you don't get that then maybe this game isn't the best for you.

In both cases the DM amply rewarded us.

 

[dave2008]

I hope you mean only "potential TPK". It might be possible to make a fun game where TPK happens regularly and unavoidably but it wouldn't be easy.

Yes, but if we really want to get rid of randomness it should be guaranteed TPKs don't you think.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

The optimizer is fine, the power gamer cares nothing except for the mathematical construct of building the character. Everyone has seen the power gamer play 8 Int character as a genius, or the low wisdom who seems to have perfect judgment. That's the player that no one really needs at their table.

Players who play a "sub-optimal" character, especially one with a flaw, should be rewarded.

I think that's a pretty reasonable definition of "powergamer". I've said before that one way I know I'm a powergamer at heart is that when my roleplaying instincts come into conflict with my powergaming instincts, I'm very strongly tempted to rationalize a roleplaying solution. (The Paladin who dabbles in the lore of Cthulhu for a Warlock 2 dip, for example. "I didn't go to Warlock 3 so I never made Cthulhu any promises! It's just knowledge, and knowledge can't hurt anyone." Yeah, right. But you don't even know what Cthulhu's agenda is, buddy, or what the effects are of drawing upon his power. Despite all your chin-stroking, and rejecting power from Oberon because you "didn't want to be beholden to anyone," we all knew you were going to wind up a Warlock 2 sooner or later, dude. You're a powergamer at heart.)

It's also why I refuse to play almost all low-Int characters--because I usually can't stand roleplaying a simpleton and making suboptimal decisions. (The exception is certain kinds of hermit Moon Druids who don't talk very much and behave more like animals than humans, and rage-filled antisocial BBEG-wannabe necromancers for whom being simultaneously dimwitted and arrogant is funny to me.) Mental stats are extremely important to my fun because they control how much I like and respect the PC that I'm playing. A PC whose player dislikes him is usually headed for trouble, unless the player also finds the PC amusing.

It's not exactly a good thing; it's not entirely a bad thing; but it is definitely an observation about a playstyle.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

I think you are mistake. I could respond more, but I think [MENTION=6787650]Hemlock[/MENTION] basically covered it in post #270 if you care to engage with someone more knowledgeable.

I will say this though, from your posts is seems as though you are less concerned about randomness and more interested in easy buttons. Would it be OK if there was little randomness, but every battle was basically a TPK?

I win buttons don't exist in isolation, they usually have a cost. You either have to spend limited character resources in having the "I win" button in the first place, or you have to spend limited in-game resources to use them, like spell slots or fate points. The idea is to give the player resources that allow them to act either independently of the die roll, or to trivialize the die roll. You the player are in control, you pay the cost.

 

[dave2008]

If we are speaking about 5E in isolation, and comparing good 5E play vs bad 5E play, I don't disagree. If I am comparing 5E randomness to randomness in other systems, I disagree.

But if you don't like randomness in 5e combat and you can be shown how to eliminate randomness in 5e combat, doesn't that satisfy what you are looking for?

 

[thecasualoblivion]

But if you don't like randomness in 5e combat and you can be shown how to eliminate randomness in 5e combat, doesn't that satisfy what you are looking for?

Eliminate how? Not compared to other games.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

If we are speaking about 5E in isolation, and comparing good 5E play vs bad 5E play, I don't disagree. If I am comparing 5E randomness to randomness in other systems, I disagree.

I'm speaking about 5E in isolation. There's a whole universe of other systems out there, some of which have zero probabilistic randomness in them at all. (E.g. Stratego.)

 

[dave2008]

I win buttons don't exist in isolation, they usually have a cost. You either have to spend limited character resources in having the "I win" button in the first place, or you have to spend limited in-game resources to use them, like spell slots or fate points. The idea is to give the player resources that allow them to act either independently of the die roll, or to trivialize the die roll. You the player are in control, you pay the cost.

And these exist in 5e. So is it an issue that there are not enough of them or that you don't know how to use them or build them or something else? Also, how about for the monsters? Do you want them always hitting the PCs? They already provide average damage (no randomness there), do you auto hit with that too? I don't think that would be fun for them, but maybe I'm wrong. I know there are games that only roll damage.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Yes, but if we really want to get rid of randomness it should be guaranteed TPKs don't you think.

The tough part is trying to build a fun game around it. Maybe some kind of dynastic thing where you know the PC is going to die sooner or later (as soon as a fight breaks out) but you're trying to ensure that your offspring will someday be in a better position than you were at their age.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

And these exist in 5e. So is it an issue that there are not enough of them or that you don't know how to use them or build them or something else? Also, how about for the monsters? Do you want them always hitting the PCs? They already provide average damage (no randomness there), do you auto hit with that too? I don't think that would be fun for them, but maybe I'm wrong. I know there are games that only roll damage.

You could make a still-fun version of 5E that didn't have any attack rolls or damage rolls. All you need is fractional HP and a way to calculate the expected value of an attack (so you can reduce the HP by the correct fraction). There would still be randomness in the form of saving throws and skill checks (Athletics especially), and eliminating that would be more difficult, but I can imagine ways to do it (especially leveraging information-hiding). Then you're left with a game where only decisions exist, not die-rolling: do I attack the Chasme or try to grapple it first? Do I hide and bide my time until nightfall, knowing that reinforcements might arrive but I'll have more success at night, or do I attack the guards right now?