D&D 5E D&DN going down the wrong path for everyone.

[Dannyalcatraz]

Yes, those are huge assumptions - that players gravitate toward optimization is pretty contentious.

From my own (subjective) experience, I find this to be true with only a few exceptions for 32+ years.

I have found more of a mixed bag in my similar amount of time, with myself being the strongest counterpoint among experienced games- IOW, excluding novices who don't know how to optimize and/or don't have guidance in how to do so.

Even so, by my recollection, at least partial optimization occurs in at least the simple majority of players' characters. Part of that HAS to be because one of the strongest tropes involving heroism is that heroes are very good at something they do, possibly even being among the best in the world or even history at whatever it is.



(Quick check: did my answer equivocate enough? Maaaaaybe.)

 

[pming]

Hiya.

From my own (subjective) experience, I find this to be true with only a few exceptions for 32+ years. I must admit, as the DM I tend to encourage it which is one of my many (many [many {many}]} faults as a DM. And the reason I tend to encourage it is that I expect the players to want to do it themselves anyway so we may as well start with an optimised group....

Not to try and derail the thread...but just a quick comment on the optimization drive. My main reason for "intensely disliking" optimization (either as a Player or as a DM) is the end result at the end-game. Basically, if you have a uber-optimized character, you will absolutely *rock* any situation that you can overcome with your optimization. If combat oriented (very likely), you will "kill everything"...up to the point where you encounter something that you have a distinct weakness in...and then you die. Usually quickly. This results in two things: (1) as a player, you feel cheated because "there was no way I could beat it/him/that", and (2) as a DM you feel guilty because the player is pissed off and there was no challenge or chance of success from the PC.

It's kinda like Superman. He wins. Always. As DM, it may be annoying. Eventually leading you to have Supe's get trapped in the middle of 5 kyptonite pillars; he drops to the ground...villain walks over and stabs him in the head with a kyrptonite dagger. Result: Player pissed off because "it was impossible for me to win", and DM feeling guilty because that was so true.

So...yeah...optimization is *BAD* for *ANY* campaign. I have -never- seen an optimized character "die well"...they always die hopelessly outmatched and pathetic because of their "one weakness", which leads to disappointment on all fronts.

Ok, now back you your regularly scheduled thread...

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Balesir]

I have found more of a mixed bag in my similar amount of time, with myself being the strongest counterpoint among experienced games- IOW, excluding novices who don't know how to optimize and/or don't have guidance in how to do so.

Even so, by my recollection, at least partial optimization occurs in at least the simple majority of players' characters. Part of that HAS to be because one of the strongest tropes involving heroism is that heroes are very good at something they do, possibly even being among the best in the world or even history at whatever it is.

From this and [MENTION=45197]pming[/MENTION]'s post following it, I think it's at least partly dependent on definition. If you take "optimisation" to mean "making a character the absolute best at one thing, ignoring all else" then optimisation has serious flaws (as pming nicely explains).

I am increasingly getting used to thinking of "optimisation" in economist's terms, though. We pretty much all optimise our economic decisions, but it's not simple optimisation. We take into account (a) what we want, and even what we think we will someday want, which is subject to change without notice, and (b) that many future events and outcomes are uncertain, so that we base decisions on our opinions of what the probable outcomes are and what the probabilities of various events are.

This latter optimisation is non-determinate and, to some extent, is subjective - but it's still optimisation behaviour, and I think it is (almost) ubiquitous. Designing or making character development choices to build a character that will be the best possible in terms of play enjoyment (according to your current desires) over (what you see as) the likely probability distribution of future game situations I would say comes naturally (and without nearly as much thought as this description implies) to most, possibly even nearly all, roleplayers. And it's a form of optimisation.

(Quick check: did my answer equivocate enough? Maaaaaybe.)

If the word "partial" is not given high accord then probably not, since it still indicates majority optimisation, but given that the "partial" is italicised, maybe - but then there are also the words "at least" in there, so maybe not. Perhaps.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I don't really see how this is not "dictating outcomes", myself. The die roll, as interpreted via the to hit matrices (AD&D) or the BAB/AC rules (3E, 4e) dictate the outcome of whether or not you hit.

The attack roll is basically a simple equation; a model for how attacking someone works. The numbers you plug into that equation are what determine the outcome.

Doesn't this then generate a question of "who is comparable to whom"?

Yes, it very much does. Ultimately, if D&D is a level-based game, there ought be only one kind of level, and it ought to mean the same for everyone. 3.5 almost got us there, but not quite.

With the proviso that I want the meaningful choices to be player ones - ie real life choices - rather than PC ones - ie in-fiction choices, I agree.

That's a really big difference.

And I don't get why the characters aren't the nexus, rather than the players. It is a roleplaying game, the whole point of having players is that they are supposed to adopt the in-fiction perspective of a character.

I agree with this too. I run a 4e game in which the players make choices all the tmie that affeect their odds of success. Choosing to flank would be the most trivial example, but there are many more interesting choices going on than just that.

It's not an absolute, but wouldn't they be making a lot fewer choices than players of other rpgs? Isn't the "balance" that 4e supposedly provides explicitly antithetical to those kinds of choices?

 

[Ahnehnois]

From my own (subjective) experience, I find this to be true with only a few exceptions for 32+ years. I must admit, as the DM I tend to encourage it which is one of my many (many [many {many}]} faults as a DM. And the reason I tend to encourage it is that I expect the players to want to do it themselves anyway so we may as well start with an optimised group....

I guess I'm only 12 years or so (who's counting?), but I've seen very few players who really made an effort to optimize their characters.

And even fewer who actually did so effectively.

On the other hand, I've seen plenty who simply have a narrative concept in their head and will just find whatever mechanics they can to bring their character of choice to life. Some who just design something simple and no-frills. Some who just pick whatever sounds cool. Some who don't care and will just as happily let someone else build a character for them. And occasionally some who explicitly will take a suboptimal, small-niche concept, and try to make something of it.

And this is with me crushing them with difficult battles and pushing them to optimize more and referring them to charop guides. Whatever subculture it is that min/maxes (I'm guessing people with backgrounds in miniatures games or MMOs), I clearly haven't found it. Perhaps I'm just lucky?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I don't think that's true, or at least I think that's overstated.

I know I generally make monsters and NPCs without knowing exactly what level the PCs will be when they come into play, what circumstances they will appear in, or what will happen when they do. And I'm definitely not running a sandbox.

This is an inherently improvisational format after all. Frankly, I think the less I consider what the PC's level or abilities are relative to the challenges they face, the better I get at DMing. Trying to get rid of any remnants of that notion is actually a specific goal for me in my next campaign prep.

And yet the mighty dragon will not be on the PCs doorstep coming after them, and if its lair IS easily accessible to them it will have a large easily read "here be the big dragon what will eat'cha if you goes in this here cave" sign. Sure, you might make up the dragon's lair without knowing exactly when and why the PCs will venture there, but you'll darn well know they'll be something like "around level N" and if not you're going to be giving them hints, plot hooks that lead elsewhere, etc before they hit the door.

I mean, I'm not saying these things to diss anyone's style of play or preferences. It is just not practical in a D&D game where there is such a wide power curve to do otherwise. For low level PCs the vast majority of the things they could run into are instantly lethal. A game where the only likely result of the PCs embarking on an adventure is horrible and almost unavoidable death is just not a fun game (I guess you could play it in the vein of dark humor ala Paranoia, hmmmmm that might be a fun idea). We all squirrel away the nasty stuff in places that starting characters are unable, unlikely, or easily made unwilling to go. If the PCs ARE going to be set up to meet the dragon right off, then certainly you will structure that encounter in such a way that the dragon's main interest is something besides eating tasty armored morsels on that day. However, even that IS the same sort of thing.

 

[Ahnehnois]

And yet the mighty dragon will not be on the PCs doorstep coming after them, and if its lair IS easily accessible to them it will have a large easily read "here be the big dragon what will eat'cha if you goes in this here cave" sign. Sure, you might make up the dragon's lair without knowing exactly when and why the PCs will venture there, but you'll darn well know they'll be something like "around level N" and if not you're going to be giving them hints, plot hooks that lead elsewhere, etc before they hit the door.

Not necessarily. After all, why would such a dragon kill a PC that presented no threat? And why would a dragon have a lair that a low-level character could find/walk into? A more likely progression is that characters of radically different power levels will encounter each other, but that the terms of that encounter will be dictated in part by their abilities and it will proceed based on what the two think of each other.

It is just not practical in a D&D game where there is such a wide power curve to do otherwise.

Combat is only likely occur if both parties think they can win and want to defeat the other guy for some reason. And once it starts, if one side is losing badly, they'll very likely be in run/negotiate mode.

That aside though, I do find that many of my encounters, if I had created them under the CR/EL system, would fall outside the levels where there even is a suggested XP award. I don't find it uncommon at all to fight a battle where one side's basic combat numbers are higher than the others by double digits or similarly extreme disparities in special abilities exist. The game still plays fine. World doesn't stop turning.

For low level PCs the vast majority of the things they could run into are instantly lethal.

To be fair, this is one reason why I like vp/wp. The one-hit kill factor is vastly decreased.

However, even that IS the same sort of thing.

Again, not necessarily. While in many cases, you might be right that characters of disparate power are unlikely to fight to the death and a high PC mortality rate bogs the game down, I don't think the game is much fun unless, at least on occasion, the PCs are legitimately up against the odds. I find it quite thrilling as a DM to throw a battle at the party that I truly don't think they can win. For a variety of reasons, those usually turn out well.

To be fair, I occasionally do the reverse as well, though no one ever seems to talk about battles that are too easy.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yes, those are huge assumptions - that players gravitate toward optimization is pretty contentious.

Yeah, not really. Show me any table and I'll show you players that will optimize if given a chance, and others that will resent the results of that optimization. Even my players, who are generally speaking interested in the story and role-playing aspects of the game, will absolutely pick the more numerically or tactically advantageous options. The knowledge of this fact is so ingrained into the game culture you may not even be aware of it. However, given the fact that Gygax felt it necessary to comment on optimizers MANY times in various places (1e is replete with this, too many to even mention) we can see that it has clearly been a central part of gamer's agendas from day 1. YOU can find it contentious, but 99.9% of the gaming community just consider it a trivially truth of gaming.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Even my players, who are generally speaking interested in the story and role-playing aspects of the game, will absolutely pick the more numerically or tactically advantageous options.

Not the same thing as optimization though. Your 3e fighter certainly is going to pick Power Attack over Skill Focus (Craft [Basketweaving]). He'll consistently pick it over Toughness, even, because Toughness sucks. But if he was "optimized", he wouldn't be a fighter, he'd be some kind of CoDzilla monstrosity summoning meat shields to do his fighting for him. Big difference.

YOU can find it contentious, but 99.9% of the gaming community just consider it a trivially truth of gaming.

We're already getting kind of a bell curve of replies to that post. Somehow, if you started a poll on the subject I think much less than 99.9% would agree with you, regardless of how you worded it.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

I guess I'm only 12 years or so (who's counting?), but I've seen very few players who really made an effort to optimize their characters.

And even fewer who actually did so effectively.

On the other hand, I've seen plenty who simply have a narrative concept in their head and will just find whatever mechanics they can to bring their character of choice to life. Some who just design something simple and no-frills. Some who just pick whatever sounds cool. Some who don't care and will just as happily let someone else build a character for them. And occasionally some who explicitly will take a suboptimal, small-niche concept, and try to make something of it.

And this is with me crushing them with difficult battles and pushing them to optimize more and referring them to charop guides. Whatever subculture it is that min/maxes (I'm guessing people with backgrounds in miniatures games or MMOs), I clearly haven't found it. Perhaps I'm just lucky?

I know a lot of people who pick what sounds cool and I find them to be the most fun to play with.