Steps one and two are infested with metagame. And you didn't even come up with a whole paragraph for step three. So you're right, it IS simple. And that's the problem.
But whatever floats your boat, dude. I do understand how a DM might get sick of it, though. Too bad you can't. It might make your game more enjoyable.
Since I can't really quote the whole discussion between the two of you, this seems like a good enough starting point.
First, I'll point out that I'm not a munchkinizer, min/maxer, etc. and we've house ruled out most of the disassociated mechanics because we (and I'll admit that starts with me as DM) are not fans of metagaming and the rules getting in the way of the story.
But, having said that, implying that people can't have an enjoyable game if they optimize is the same as saying that you can't have an enjoyable game if you don't optimize. I also haven't heard (at least that I'm aware of) that Paraxis's metagaming is bothering his DM. His DM might enjoy it.
Each player is different, and each group is different. The game is designed for, and appeals to, a great many types of gamers. Some love optimizing, some don't. The issue at hand is not whether optimizing is good or bad. The only issue regarding optimizing that is important is whether it is interfering with the enjoyment of the game by others at the same table.
That's what the original poster was asking, and there have been some very good responses to this (including by the two of you).
When learning the game I think most people tend to optimize. That's a natural approach, particularly when there are so many choices. You narrow the focus and try to make it awesome. In addition, the primary focus of the game tends to be combat, experience, and treasure. Many people and groups evolve into something more complex, focusing on story, building a character (not just a collection of numbers), etc. 5th edition encourages this with backgrounds, etc.
But some groups and people don't move into this mode. It's easy to consider it a 'higher' level of gaming, but the reality is that it's just different. Some gamers really enjoy that aspect of the game and that's all they need or want.
If somebody likes to optimize, I try to work with that. More importantly, the whole campaign is partially designed (it's a sandbox) with the group in mind. For example, they don't have a cleric or a wizard (2 bards, a ranger, and 2 rogues - an arcane trickster and an assassin). So I take that into account and provide magic items, particularly disposable ones like potions and scrolls, to help compensate if needed. I'm not the type that likes to provide a potion of water breathing in one room of a dungeon because they'll need it in another room. It could be many sessions and many dungeons until they get around to using a given item.
So, if somebody likes to optimize for combat, then I take that into account when running the game. That's one of the beautiful things about RPGs (and particularly the 5th ed) because it can morph fairly easily. I don't believe compromise is really necessary because the game can be totally inclusive. My players select options primarily for story reasons, such as the bard that took the Actor feat. On the other hand, I've encouraged the ranger to take the Sharpshooter feat because he was looking to design (from a story perspective) somebody who is a great archer. Other decisions have been made along those lines as well.
We have some sessions that have only no combat, and others that are a slog from beginning to end. As I recounted in another post, the ranger and assassin (the two best combatants) are frequently the ones trying to stop the others from initiating a combat.
I know that the way I run my games isn't for everybody. And that's OK. I'm certainly always willing to learn, try new things, and get better as a DM. But not everybody will want to play in my game. But I think that in most cases, if you're getting together on a regular basis to play a game, you should be able to find some common ground and start from there. The goal is for everybody at the table to have fun.
Personally I try to develop an engaging story with lots of background lore and information (that the PCs discover, because it's relatively pointless otherwise. Fun, but pointless), and I encourage my players to take some notes. Since they've started taking notes, it's making more sense to them as well. I also try to have handouts that provide information (they've received a will, a couple of journal pages, etc.). These are really helpful in providing them a place to go back to 'remember' important information. If there's something important to the story line, like some lore, a person's name, etc., I'll either provide it to them again (usually in a recap at the beginning of the session), or a new clue, or a character remembering something.
One of the players has started a journal, so now he's providing the recap of the last session's events, which is even better. Another thing that I find very helpful is to provide some in-between down time. Don't shortchange the journey and exploration. I sometimes wonder if I have the right balance, but three of the last four sessions have been travelling sessions because, well, that's what they are doing. Plenty of interesting things have been happening, but out of 5 days of travel in the last session they only had three significant encounters. Some stuff happened (they could see some other campfires in the distance at night, wolves howling, signs and feelings like they were being watched, etc.) but they only encountered three additional things on the way. But that space really helps make the encounters much more interesting, but more importantly it gets them talking amongst themselves. Piecing together clues, trying to figure out what's going on, etc. Which also gets them talking about names and other things I'd love for them to remember.
Oh, there was a 4th encounter. The assassin came up with an idea of setting up a decoy camp across the road (a few hundred feet away), and having the ranger cast alarm on it. They were concealed and able to see the decoy camp in the hopes that it might lure something that was following them. It did, just a couple of hobgoblins, which they were able to snipe with arrows before they knew what hit them. They got a new clue for it as well. It was a very cool encounter that would never have happened had I skipped past the travel and jumped to the next 'planned' encounter. I say 'planned' because it's not written into the story, the PCs set the destination and the goal themselves, so it's not something that I've planned as the DM.
Ilbranteloth
