D&D 5E Can my table focus on making things fun instead of optimizing?

[DMZ2112]

No doubt. Course, I tend to not use the word "selfish" or "ruin" about players.

I don't know why not. Selfish players have been ruining games for a lot longer than D&D has been around. Gameplaying is a cooperative exercise, generally speaking. I don't understand the live-and-let-live roleplaying philosophy. We are one community, but like any community we support a thriving subculture of complete a**holes.

Some of us do not play the game to become better ourselves or to demand others to become better. We play the game to have fun. Even in a "bad groups".

I find that the correlation between effort and fun is positive and exponential, in roleplaying. Phoning it in is worse than not showing up at all; committing to the experience pays dividends. The problem is, again, it's a cooperative exercise.

These are all close friends who I've been gaming with for near 30 years though.

Just so we're clear, if anyone here thinks I'm advocating booting long-time friends from the gaming table...

...that is exactly what I'm doing. I wish I had the moral fortitude to tell some of my oldest friends to get lost. Just because I like someone doesn't mean I want to roleplay with them. It's like any other enterprise -- some people just aren't good at it, others just have a different sense of how it should be done.

 

[KarinsDad]

I wish I had the moral fortitude to tell some of my oldest friends to get lost.

So, you don't practice what you preach?

Just because I like someone doesn't mean I want to roleplay with them. It's like any other enterprise -- some people just aren't good at it, others just have a different sense of how it should be done.

Actually, I don't play D&D to roleplay. Roleplaying is a fraction of D&D to me. Combat is a fraction. Figuring things out is a fraction.

And quite frankly, I do suck at roleplaying. That doesn't stop us from having fun though.

 

[jodyjohnson]

I want to take my theory to the OP.

jodyjohnson would you agree or disagree that your players have metagamed away anything interesting about their characters? Do you think this is an apt description for how you feel?

I'm fine with meta-gaming to an extent. I really don't even need the characters to be interesting. I'm looking for the time around the table to be interesting - humor, camaraderie, shared story-telling, badasserie (usually gained through optimization away from the table), and the unpredictable or dramatic element. I'm less interested in having players use table time to 1) prove how broken the game is/how stupid the designers are, or 2) field test their build. This is what I find uninteresting during play.

Gaming the DM is part of power gaming/optimization, I would say honestly one of the most important parts.

I would think slipping in a little post-hypnotic suggestion now and then would help too.

Perhaps I should have titled this:
"Can my group focus on making things fun around the table instead of solely optimizing?"
But that ship has sailed.

Lots of good advise here.

 

[DMZ2112]

So, you don't practice what you preach?

No. But I hope that by encouraging others to do what I can't that I can help them understand they're not alone in feeling the way they do.

And quite frankly, I do suck at roleplaying. That doesn't stop us from having fun though.

I feel you. I am and have always been terrible with rules. But I was referring to roleplaying the hobby not roleplaying the activity.

 

[Oliver Shead]

I like this idea, really. Because I feel the same way. Sure, some people like to min/max, and that's okay, but for me I find the real joy is in the story itself. Making it rich, entertaining and heart-pumping. Combats should feel unique, brutal and vivid each time. I think with an AC-based game it's a bit hard for that to happen, outside of the DM giving cool descriptions and the players thinking up different attack combos. This is a personal viewpoint, but I find that systems like WoD where you've got to use an action even for defence make the battles more intense, and vary things up. In reality, you can't punch a taller guy whilst he's punching at you - or you'll just get smashed in the face every time, and probably still miss. So you've got to think up some sort of strategy to get in close to him.
Also, with fewer HP comes intensity, which is fun (that's not inevitable, because you can fight bigger things, but it's usually more intense).

But yeah, I find that story over mechanics is more fun every day of the week.

 

[edhel]

http://www.reddit.com/r/rpg/comments/2l69tp/ama_mike_mearls_codesigner_of_dd_5_head_of_dd_rd/cls8996

I feel like this hits my main complaint as a DM. I don't mind optimization at the table and expect it, however it can suck what makes the games entertaining for me out of the game.

Usually it leads my players to want to speed through the levels because they want that next optimization point over just having fun playing the game - including failing and having things go sideways.

People learn bad habits and wrong expectations from both rpgs and computer games. One way to address this is to switch games even for a while. Fiasco is - in my humble opinion - one of the best ways to teach people to improvise and show how much fun it can be. You could also play any rpg that has little to no stats that you can optimize. Horror games are usually good at this.

You should also look hard at your game and see if there actually is any fun in your game. If the focus is in killing because that's the only meaningful thing to do, then of course players will do it.

Finally, you should always discuss these matters openly with your players. Tell them how you feel, and don't expect these to be resolved any time soon.

 

[Oliver Shead]

People learn bad habits and wrong expectations from both rpgs and computer games. One way to address this is to switch games even for a while. Fiasco is - in my humble opinion - one of the best ways to teach people to improvise and show how much fun it can be. You could also play any rpg that has little to no stats that you can optimize. Horror games are usually good at this.

You should also look hard at your game and see if there actually is any fun in your game. If the focus is in killing because that's the only meaningful thing to do, then of course players will do it.

Finally, you should always discuss these matters openly with your players. Tell them how you feel, and don't expect these to be resolved any time soon.

Too true. And Fiasco is SUCH a good game for that!

 

[Tony Vargas]

http://www.reddit.com/r/rpg/comments/2l69tp/ama_mike_mearls_codesigner_of_dd_5_head_of_dd_rd/cls8996

I feel like this hits my main complaint as a DM. I don't mind optimization at the table and expect it, however it can suck what makes the games entertaining for me out of the game.

No offense but it sounds like straight-up, "kids these days" grognard elitism. My guess is it's what Mr. Mearls thinks (probably with very good reason) that his target demographic wants to thear. Not that I mean to paint your observations with the same brush, though...

Usually it leads my players to want to speed through the levels because they want that next optimization point over just having fun playing the game - including failing and having things go sideways.

I think you can roleplay and roll play but I may need to make a motivational poster that says, "Be interesting and entertaining" on the wall.

In the 90s there was a Role not Roll debate going the presaged the intensity of the edition war. It's not any more valid now than it was then, and, as you observe, you can absolutely do both. You can roll the dice and still RP. You can optimize, mechanically, to fit a character concept, or even just be to 'efficient' without sabotaging the game for everyone else. You can apply system mastery without spoiling anyone's fun.

It mostly just requires a little consideration for your fellow players.

4e is a favorite system, but Mike's comment matches what I saw at the table - players asked for options and then did the exact same options every single encounter. The script repeated fight after fight. I found it very unentertaining as a DM. PF and 3.5 went very much the same way.

Find a good effective combo and repeat ad nauseum.

Relatively few combos are equally good in all situations, and RPGs, by their nature, are very open to variety. Players and DMs - groups - can get stuck in ruts or hemmed in by 'group think,' but they can also break free of it. The more the system empowers players to make meaningful decisions, the more it needs to keep those decisions balanced to avoid 'obvious best' ruts. The more latitude the game gives you, as the DM, to vary situations without needing to change the system, the easier it should be to experiment and shake them out of those ruts.

In 3.5 you can use a targeted dispel magic to break up a lot of combos, for instance. In 4e, you can't repeat a problematic encounter power every round or a daily every combat - they're not like problematic spells that you can keep casting until you run out of slots or charges in your wand or whatever.

In 5e, you can shake things up just by ruling against the combo the second time (or whenever you notice it getting tired). Fighting system mastery with system modification. That may not be what you're looking for - I think you're more looking to shift the culture of your group - but it's an option in DM-empowering 5e.

 

[Uchawi]

Players are going to take advantage of the mechanics, and use reliable patterns of play, regardless if an ability is at-will, refreshes every 5 minutes, 1 hour, or an entire day. They will just change their resource management tactics to fit the need. Therefore, it is more important that the DM mixes things up and takes the players outside their comfort zone whenever possible. My biggest problem with systems like AEDU was limiting the amount of growth or options available to the characters in comparison to previous editions. That has more do with doing the same thing over and over, versus having a predictable structure. And 5E has the same problem when discussing martial characters. At least with casters they go it right by adding more choices, but also allowing flexibility of choices when considering spell slot use, rituals, etc.

As to the overall experience at the table, the DM has to decide whether they are entertaining themselves or the players at the table. A DM the focuses on the latter has a greater chance for a successful game, if they strive for the former then all their bias comes out in full force. At that point, it may be better for them to join another game, so they can express themselves as a player. When I did play often, we always had a rotating DM with a couple different campaigns. That allowed each DM to get a break, and enjoy the other side of the table.

 

[jodyjohnson]

No offense but it sounds like straight-up, "kids these days" grognard elitism.

Thanks for all the advice.

My solution ended up being replacing all my old players with kids and youngsters.