D&D 5E Characters are not their statistics and abilities

[Mort]

This comes down to something pretty simple "Don't be a jerk."

If the player is putting their own enjoyment ahead of others at the table - they're likely being a jerk.

That's what this issue seems to boil down to.

 

[Mercule]

I consider the notion of making a character purposefully inept to be in fundamental opposition to the co-operative nature of the game and also to the inherent concepts of heroism within the fantasy trope. To me, it's rude and inconsiderate to bring a character into a game that is incompetent and doesn't pull their weight as a team player.

I don't think you're going here, but I'm going to throw this out:

I consider optimizing a character well past the capability/interest of the rest of a gaming group is equally rude as not knowing your spells and other character abilities. Building characters by willful exploits that fly in the face of common sense turns a cooperative, social endeavor into a competitive event. At the very least, it creates very distinct possibilities of 1) hogging the limelight, which is unsportsmanlike; 2) directly or indirectly belittling those around you; and 3) creates an environment that is overtly hostile to learning and discourages the propagation of what is already a niche hobby.

That isn't to say you shouldn't build competent characters or that it isn't possible to build such an inept character that the group wants to strangle you. Either way, the short form is: It's rude to be a dick. Don't be a dick.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

If you're a group of friends, you acknowledge and accept each others flaws. That's what decent people do. I generally have everyone decide WHY they're already hanging out with each other beforehand. The fighter may be physically weak, but why do you all still work together?

You can accept someone as a friend without also trusting them to guard your back in a dungeon. Adventuring is a matter of life or death for everyone involved. I might feel bad about turning away my buddy in favor of the gruff stranger with the big axe, but I also don't want my friend to die, and I know my friend doesn't want me to die.

 

[Corwin]

If only there were examples out there, or some kind of trope we could make up, where the average Joe--or inept nobody even--found themselves swept up into a grand adventure. Where the character slowly grew and developed into a hero through their experiences, and overcoming ordeals. Can you imagine? And then, if that could be a thing someday, I'd wish there were a game out there that could emulate such a thing. Woe is us. If only.

 

[Willie the Duck]

I consider the notion of making a character purposefully inept to be in fundamental opposition to the co-operative nature of the game and also to the inherent concepts of heroism within the fantasy trope. To me, it's rude and inconsiderate to bring a character into a game that is incompetent and doesn't pull their weight as a team player.

Some people seem to think that this comes from a basis of focusing on the combat aspects of D&D and that by doing so I am somehow a traitor to the roleplaying aspects.

Who are these "Some people" making these horrid judgments about the way you play, and how are they worse than your own judgment of the way others play?

So sure, go ahead and keep insisting (while your play style sits atop the D and D throne) that D and D is a straight RPG. Just remember the Vegas odds on D and D stopping at 5 editions is about....[calculating]....... 0%

Who exactly are you having this argument with?


This entire thread seems to be predicated on a nonsensical "no, I'M the REAL picked on party!" logic against an undefined opposition party. I'm not going to say that playing optimized characters is in any way wrong, nor in choosing a group that shares your own preferences. However, I do not see this as a big issue, and I certain do not see optimizers as an undeservedly persecuted group.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

To many of us, it IS about winning/losing, killing monsters, leveling up, and getting loot. Always has been - at least to me and many others, since the 70s. D and D was not conceived as a pure RPG. It began as a miniatures game, then meandered around, came back to being a miniatures game (3.5), went into leveling up/power gaming mode in 4.0, and now, in this brief interlude in history, is absolutely owned by RPGers who seem intent on throwing out the history books and re-defining D and D as a pure RPG.

It was certainly about killing monsters and getting loot, back in the 70s. It wasn't until AD&D 2E came around that they really started to understand what role-playing was, as it's known in the modern sense of the term. With 3E, they tried to have it both ways by taking things "back to the dungeon" without ever changing the definition of the term; you could argue that 3E wasn't really about role-playing, though it would be a matter of significant debate.

If you want to make the same argument about 5E, then you could certainly do that, but the part that you quoted from me (about not winning or losing) is paraphrased almost directly from the intro to 5E Basic Rules - it's what the designers think the game is supposed to be about.

 

[Krachek]

There is plenty of tool for a DM to boost a character with poor rolled stat.
The are several items that give 19 in a score.
These items look meeh if you already have a 20, but for some character these items can be a rebirth.

It is much funnier to slowly increase your stat by item or boon, than to have a career plan for stat, feat and MC.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Who exactly are you having this argument with?

This entire thread seems to be predicated on a nonsensical "no, I'M the REAL picked on party!" logic against an undefined opposition party. I'm not going to say that playing optimized characters is in any way wrong, nor in choosing a group that shares your own preferences. However, I do not see this as a big issue, and I certain do not see optimizers as an undeservedly persecuted group.

Sometimes people make the suboptimal choice to be overly sensitive!

 

[iserith]

AFAIC, this is the only metric worth considering. If a player's inept actions result in an undesired TPK, I can see a few well-deserved sour glances shot his/her way. But until everyone dies, the group is prevailing. And having fun making it to the next adventuring day should be the only goal that matters.

You know, I wonder if there is some other metric that is being prioritized. If everyone survives with little to no permanent cost and some members of the team are un-optimized, is that still a bad thing for players like the OP? Or is it like when I used to play RTS games and I would try to get the best kill to loss ratio or fastest time to a milestone? I knew I would ultimately prevail in the conflict, but I wanted to see if I could win by some other standard.

If everyone at a table of mixed players - some optimizers, some not - survives a harrowing adventure, do the optimizers secretly (or perhaps even loudly) fume that they could have been just a bit more efficient? I wouldn't imagine so, but I could be wrong.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Colour and resolution are sometimes connected, sometimes not. When playing D&D, I think that colour is often not taken into account in combat resolution (eg it makes no difference to my attack roll how bloodthirstily or energetically I describe my PC's attacks), but often is taken into account in non-combat resolution (eg if I describe my PC's knowing wink at the NPC, this might factor into the GM's adjudication of my influence attempt).

I may be unusual in this, but I'd let you make a "bloodthirsty" or "reckless" or "energetic" attack. -5 to hit, +5 to damage if you do hit.