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

[FormerlyHemlock]

Depends on how the character views "self-optimization".

For many characters, "self-optimization" for survival may very well lead to a boring game from the player's perspective. Fun PCs tend to be adrenaline junkies. Nobody I know actually wants to play a PC who collects treasure vicariously by (e.g.) supplying hirelings with treasure maps exchange for a 30% share of the overall profits and then sits at home safely having a wealthy Aristocratic lifestyle.

 

[shoak1]

Oh, I dunno. I'm a natural powergamer* (as a player, which I don't get to do regularly but dream of often) and I mention it occasionally on these forums. I don't remember getting any serious pushback for it. Certainly nothing "raucous" has registered in my memory. Every once in a long while you'll run across someone who gets defensive because they think you're criticizing them for not powergaming, but that tends to be more "querulous" than "raucous", and it's rare anyway.

The heavy bias in these forums toward purist rpg mentality comes thru rather heavy and consistently. Normally it doesn't bother me, but sometimes it does, because balance is a huge issue to a power gamer, and any attempt at a meaningful discussion to fix a problem gets swarmed by a deluge of rpgers saying

"the DM is responsible for balance - just add monsters" or
"the problem is you're too combat-centric - so quit whining and just fix it at your table" or
"why try to analyze it? D and D has too many moving parts" or
"Math? poppycock - math is subjective"
"Gee I don't see a problem - in fact we rarely even use that feat (because we spend our time in more meaningful non-combat situations)"

So when EVERY time there is a balance issue posted or every time a new DM asks about a particular problem, he gets inundated by that stuff, its rather aggravating. If someone posts he perceives a balance/exploit problem, its a pretty good indicator he's got some power gaming in him, so why do we need posts telling us math is subjective, or the DM's wand can fix anything? Do you really think its helpful? It's like we cant even discuss balance problems or issues with the game without being reminded we just don't get it, that the DM's wand can fix everything. And yeah, when this happens ad nauseum, it resembles dismissiveness of our playstyle.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

The heavy bias in these forums toward purist rpg mentality comes thru rather heavy and consistently. Normally it doesn't bother me, but sometimes it does, because balance is a huge issue to a power gamer, and any attempt at a meaningful discussion to fix a problem gets swarmed by a deluge of rpgers saying

"the DM is responsible for balance - just add monsters" or
"the problem is you're too combat-centric - so quit whining and just fix it at your table" or
"why try to analyze it? D and D has too many moving parts" or
"Math? poppycock - math is subjective"
"Gee I don't see a problem - in fact we rarely even use that feat (because we spend our time in more meaningful non-combat situations)"

So when EVERY time there is a balance issue posted or every time a new DM asks about a particular problem, he gets inundated by that stuff, its rather aggravating. If someone posts he perceives a balance/exploit problem, its a pretty good indicator he's got some power gaming in him, so why do we need posts telling us math is subjective, or the DM's wand can fix anything? Do you really think its helpful? It's like we cant even discuss balance problems or issues with the game without being reminded we just don't get it, that the DM's wand can fix everything. And yeah, when this happens ad nauseum, it resembles dismissiveness of our playstyle.

We must be different kinds of powergamers.

 

[Corwin]

The heavy bias in these forums toward purist rpg mentality comes thru rather heavy and consistently. Normally it doesn't bother me, but sometimes it does, because balance is a huge issue to a power gamer, and any attempt at a meaningful discussion to fix a problem gets swarmed by a deluge of rpgers saying

"the DM is responsible for balance - just add monsters" or
"the problem is you're too combat-centric - so quit whining and just fix it at your table" or
"why try to analyze it? D and D has too many moving parts" or
"Math? poppycock - math is subjective"
"Gee I don't see a problem - in fact we rarely even use that feat (because we spend our time in more meaningful non-combat situations)"

So when EVERY time there is a balance issue posted or every time a new DM asks about a particular problem, he gets inundated by that stuff, its rather aggravating. If someone posts he perceives a balance/exploit problem, its a pretty good indicator he's got some power gaming in him, so why do we need posts telling us math is subjective, or the DM's wand can fix anything? Do you really think its helpful? It's like we cant even discuss balance problems or issues with the game without being reminded we just don't get it, that the DM's wand can fix everything. And yeah, when this happens ad nauseum, it resembles dismissiveness of our playstyle.

Was there ever a TTRPG that didn't require the people at the table to establish their own ideas and preferences for balance?

 

[Yunru]

Was there ever a TTRPG that didn't require the people at the table to establish their own ideas and preferences for balance?

Munchkin?

 

[jasper]

Hmm. People and Dm like different game styles and pc risks.
I am Star aka Captain Kirk immunity. PC is only challenge on it strong points and death is never really on the line.
Star Cast immunity. The PCs as a group are only challenge on the strong points so if one is weak in one field the other player has it covered. Death is only on the line if player is tired of PC.
We are the heroes. Most of game is set give the pcs encounters with a few encounters playing on the pcs weakness.
Every day heroes. The encounters are balance against the PC abilities and weakness. Death can be on the line.
Are we heroes? A few encounter are built by the dm to challenge the current pcs but most don’t have spys in the pcs camp.
We are in a world not of our own making. The encounters don’t care what level the pcs are. Run away is always an option.

 

[Sunseeker]

Depends on how the character views "self-optimization".

I would argue: Getting better at what that character thinks will bring them success in life. It's going to be subjective but even if your Captain Lightning should have diversified to overcome damage reductions, he felt it was better to just shoot more lightning, because LIGHTNING!!! That's perfectly fine. People don't generally look too far outside their box for solutions, so a rogue who thinks thievery is the key to happiness might double down on thievery after messing up and getting arrested, instead of considering that being a thief might not be his path in life.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Munchkin?

Munchkin actually codifies in the rules that the ideas and preferences of the game-owner trump everyone else's, in the case of disputes.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I would argue: Getting better at what that character thinks will bring them success in life. It's going to be subjective but even if your Captain Lightning should have diversified to overcome damage reductions, he felt it was better to just shoot more lightning, because LIGHTNING!!! That's perfectly fine. People don't generally look too far outside their box for solutions, so a rogue who thinks thievery is the key to happiness might double down on thievery after messing up and getting arrested, instead of considering that being a thief might not be his path in life.

I hear what you're saying. Still, within the context of:

Just a whimsical thought - should a low-Wis character be less good at self-optimisation?

How does your argument cut? As I played him in his adventuring group, he was resistant to the suggestions of other PCs to diversify. Was he being better or worse at self-optimization?

To my mind, he was both: better to HIM, but worse to everyone else he knew.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Was there ever a TTRPG that didn't require the people at the table to establish their own ideas and preferences for balance?

Yes. All of them. Unless you consider never giving it a thought and not caring when the game 'went out of balance' as doing so, in which case, fine, they all
'require it,' but trivially so.

We must be different kinds of powergamers.

Heh. Balance, and overcoming it?

Normally it doesn't bother me, but sometimes it does, because balance is a huge issue to a power gamer,

It's and issue of the quality of the system, sure. How huge that is depends on the system. D&D has generally been able to do pretty well on its First RPG laurels and name-recognition.
But, in the context of 5e, specifically....

and any attempt at a meaningful discussion to fix a problem gets swarmed by a deluge of rpgers saying

"the DM is responsible for balance

In 5e, the DM is responsible for balance, not the system, the system isn't even fully formed until the DM steps ups and decides what to use, what to skip, and how much to change - and even then much of the system depends on judgement exercised by the DM, in the moment.

- just add monsters" or
"the problem is you're too combat-centric - so quit whining and just fix it at your table" or
"why try to analyze it? D and D has too many moving parts" or
"Math? poppycock - math is subjective"
"Gee I don't see a problem - in fact we rarely even use that feat (because we spend our time in more meaningful non-combat situations)"

So when EVERY time there is a balance issue posted or every time a new DM asks about a particular problem, he gets inundated by that stuff, its rather aggravating.

But, yeah, I hear you. Maybe, at some point, we'll be able to come up with some kind of code that makes it clear when a DM is asking for information/opinions about the system, to inform his role as sole arbiter of that system at his table, and thus there's no need for such defensive shout-downs?