D&D 5E Dealing with optimizers at the table

[pemerton]

Optimizers always weaken something to get that good. If the DM isnt capitilizing on that at least occasionally then sure they plow through everything.

I don't think this is true. Part of optimisation is finding synergies. And the whole point of a synergy is that a new strength emerges from existing elements that are worth having on their own account.

RPGs aren’t like 10-pin bowling or like basketball. In both those game, there is one clear objective and clear rules about how to obtain it.

In RPGs, devoting resources to crushing each combat can, depending on the table, be completely beside the point.

I don't think that generalisations about RPGs per se are helpful here. Because different RPGs can be very different.

In Classic Traveller there is not really such a thing as optimisation: almost all of PC build is random, and one of the few points of choice is to allocate generic combat skills to particular weapons. There is scope for optimisation here - because different weapons have stat ratings below which a penalty is incurred and above which a bonus accrues - but it's not very complicated.

Prince Valiant is another RPG in which there is no scope for optimisation. PC build is just choosing skill ranks. It's not a system that has a number of interacting mechanical parts. There are no synergies.

D&D stands out, to me, as a RPG which has almost absurdly many interacting PC build elements and the same number of interacting subsystems. This is what creates the scope for optimisation; and also what creates the scope for building sub-optimal PCs if a player picks a build element that on its face seems to speak to what the player wants his/her PC to do, but which doesn't actually generate that pay-off in play because of the way it interacts with other elements of build and resolution framework.

 

[billd91]

In Classic Traveller there is not really such a thing as optimisation: almost all of PC build is random, and one of the few points of choice is to allocate generic combat skills to particular weapons. There is scope for optimisation here - because different weapons have stat ratings below which a penalty is incurred and above which a bonus accrues - but it's not very complicated.

Oh, there's more than that - it's just not as tightly under player control because it's dependent on a mini-game. But you can definitely try to optimize your chances of getting a starship. You can certainly try to go the distance with more terms of service under your belt, risking death and/or stat reduction due to age, all to improve your chances of getting more money, a pension, a starship, or even membership in the TAS when mustering out.

 

[NotAYakk]

Oh, there's more than that - it's just not as tightly under player control because it's dependent on a mini-game. But you can definitely try to optimize your chances of getting a starship. You can certainly try to go the distance with more terms of service under your belt, risking death and/or stat reduction due to age, all to improve your chances of getting more money, a pension, a starship, or even membership in the TAS when mustering out.

Also, there is the trick of "I don't like this character" and act in ways that they are more likely to get killed (I swore the version I played had a chance for character death in the character creation system)

 

[billd91]

(I swore the version I played had a chance for character death in the character creation system)

It did. Later editions softened it to mean forced to muster out due to injury.

 

[pemerton]

But you can definitely try to optimize your chances of getting a starship.

In Book 1 there are two services that permit a ship: Merchant (provided you get to rank 5, which is hard with a 10+ roll for promotion) and Scout. Supplement 4 adds Nobles, Scientists, Pirates, Hunters and Belters to this list.

All require a roll of 6 on the mustering out table.

If you count choosing a service which has the option you want and then trying hard to roll a 6 as optimisation, then OK I guess. I really doubt that this is what the OP has in mind.

You can certainly try to go the distance with more terms of service under your belt, risking death and/or stat reduction due to age, all to improve your chances of getting more money, a pension, a starship, or even membership in the TAS when mustering out.

Sure, you can gamble in PC gen. How is this optimisation?

 

[pemerton]

Also, there is the trick of "I don't like this character" and act in ways that they are more likely to get killed (I swore the version I played had a chance for character death in the character creation system)

Every service has a survival roll. Choosing a service with a lower (ie easier to meet) roll required means your PC is less likely to die during generation. Is that what we mean by optimisation now? So a D&D player who choose a fighter rather than a MU because s/he wants to fight Orcs up close and personal is an optimiser?

 

[pemerton]

Coffeelock was exactly that sort of bad-faith gaming. It relied on having a weak DM who lets you get away with never resting, not on actual rules.

To me it seems to rely on something else also: the interaction of two elements of PC build rules that don't actually correlate to anything in the fiction, nor take inputs from the fiction, nor generate fiction as an output.

It's the presence of these sorts of things in D&D PC build that makes it particularly vulnerable to breaking compared to many other RPGs.

 

[QuentinGeorge]

1. Separate your characters, ie "split the party"
2. Have your optimisers faces many non-combat encounters for which they are not "optimised" for
3. Have the remainder of your party face combat encounters

Continue until they get the message.

Either that or have both your optimised characters get "cursed" by some sort of evil creature that gives them vulnerability to all types of damage.

 

[Mort]

1. Separate your characters, ie "split the party"
2. Have your optimisers faces many non-combat encounters for which they are not "optimised" for
3. Have the remainder of your party face combat encounters

Continue until they get the message.

1. Splitting the party for extended periods usually results in one of the groups just sitting there twiddling their thumbs bored and should be avoided. Sure there are ways to combat this but they involve player engagement that's not happening here.

2. In game solutions to out of game problems don't work, the OPs true problems are above the game;

3. DMing to "teach your players a lesson" is generally bad faith DMing and just results in angry players;

Either that or have both your optimised characters get "cursed" by some sort of evil creature that gives them vulnerability to all types of damage.

Singling out the players "in game" for punishment is, again, bad faith gaming and just adds to the problem. The players will almost certainly realize they are being singled out and react badly. Much better to have a mature conversation ironing out the issues. If that's not possible, or doesn't work? Better to part ways, honestly. Not all people are compatible in all groups.

 

[NotAYakk]

In Book 1 there are two services that permit a ship: Merchant (provided you get to rank 5, which is hard with a 10+ roll for promotion) and Scout. Supplement 4 adds Nobles, Scientists, Pirates, Hunters and Belters to this list.

All require a roll of 6 on the mustering out table.

If you count choosing a service which has the option you want and then trying hard to roll a 6 as optimisation, then OK I guess. I really doubt that this is what the OP has in mind.


Sure, you can gamble in PC gen. How is this optimisation?

If the PCs you don't want to play are dead before you play them, you get to play more of the PCs you want to play.

It isn't as controlled, but yes it can be optimization.