D&D 5E Dealing with optimizers at the table

[pemerton]

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.

How is this any different from the player of a 1st level D&D PC charging the first group of goblins the GM mentions?

I really don't think this is what the OP has in mind in referring to optimisation. I think that the reference is to the combination of multiple PC build elements that involve multiple interacting subsystems so as to generate synergistic effects. A simple example of what I mean would be using Archery style to offset the penalty from the Sharpshooter feat; all the tricks that involve playing around with the warlock vs other caster rest cycles are more complex examples.

I've played a lot of 4e D&D (which for present purposes somewhat resembles 5e), and a lot of Classic Traveller. There's simply no comparison between them in this particular respect. There is simply nothing of this sort to be found in Classic Traveller.

 

[Horwath]

1. Separate your characters, ie "split the party"

Do not split the party if all players are not on board for that.
As @Mort mentioned, it leaves players with nothing to do except playing with their phones. You lose immersion in the game.

Also some player could also feel that their group is longer out of spotlight, and you pile one extra problem on your head.

2. Have your optimisers faces many non-combat encounters for which they are not "optimised" for

If only spec you have is the hammer, then all your problems are nails. You might find yourself in combat situation you are not prepared.
You could go easy road then and just kill the PCs or try to make a deadly but challenging and winnable encounter if played right. It's lose-lose for DM if unprepared.

3. Have the remainder of your party face combat encounters

Now, you are punishing players optimized for RP and social encounters,

Continue until they get the message.

Maybe the message could be conveyed easier if social encounter are solved by PCs who are more specialized for social encounters while combat-optimizers are present. They can see value of different specializations. That is why you have 4,5,6 PCs, so every situation could have a different PC that is best for that.

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.

Bad DMing is bad DMing.

 

[billd91]

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?

Optimization is all about building a character around a goal - better at combat, better at interpersonal skills, better at economic skills, or even being more likely to own a starship and being in full control of your destiny in Traveller. And that merchant or scout gets to roll on that mustering out table once per term of service (more for being a higher rank of merchant), so you can significantly improve your odds of getting it by staying in the service longer as well as improving your number of skills and likely cash benefits at the end. So, yeah, it's an optimization strategy even if it's a softer one than in a game system in which you are in full control of character generation.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Other options:

• Create more puzzle combat encounters. Monsters that must be targetted in a particular place or who are immune to all damage except for specific types (which can be pretty esoteric: monster can be defeated by quoting passages from a particular religious book). This rewards players for treating monsters like actual creatures rather than bags of HP, but optimizers still have an important role to play: protecting the party while they discover the monster’s weakness, luring it away from weaker characters, rolling high enough to target the one weak scale in its armor.
• More encounters that mix in skills and traps rather than just combat. Some players optimize because they don’t see the value of a well-rounded character. Show them. A fight that takes place on slick rocks above green slime against enemies that make contested Ath checks to knock you into green slime reward characters that didn’t dump Str or Dex, but the penalty isn’t sufficiently severe that optimizers will feel like they are being nerfed specifically. Unraveling magic zones can make spellcasting more dangerous, forcing certain characters to consider whether they are better avoiding spells for a couple of fights, and environmental effects can force players to adapt, such as fog forcing everyone to fight blind, or thunderstorms forcing concentration checks every round.

 

[Non-Proficient]

Bad DMing is bad DMing.

Yep. If they do anything besides grumble, this is how my DM tries to fix it. The power to reign it in is just a Thanos Snap away, but they don't -probably out of fear that we will leave the table (and new players are difficult to come by in our backwater area these days). My current plucked-from-the-internet optimization is more of a means to nudge them out of 5e: I'm so bored with the way my table plays it: DM is so annoyed by the power level of Tier 2 and above on even regular joe characters that we rarely touch it and then it all resets. I've never seen level 8 in 5e. Even though many would say that's a problem with the DM, something out of my control, I favor viewing it as my own problem that I have options on how to deal with it. Up to now, I have been ok just rolling with it and playing Tier 1 games bi-weekly for the past 6 years. I've burned out at this point.

I've never had the opportunity to play Champions or Mutant's & Masterminds (since my group = 5e drones), but compared to OSR, 5e feels like a superhero game to me. Is it common for players in superhero games for players to bemoan the Hulk-ish bruiser builds damage output on mooks or feats of strength when their concept was a phase-shifting scout, mentalist, or jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none gadget type? Turning that concept on its head: if the mechanics of the game are a bit loose & imperfect and resulted in the speedster player exploiting rules that put them above the brawlers in DPS, crimping their very concept and deflating their enjoyment, what is preventing the GM from using their Infinity Adjudication Gauntlet to correct the issue? As has already been stated: Personal issues.

It's been pointed out that besides a dozen or fewer of the worst examples optimization isn't something that should be causing an issue unless you have a sensitive table. The PC's are fighting the monsters - PVE, not PVP. Regardless the designers fully expect you to police any corner-case issues at your table -Rule 0: The Nuclear Option- which you have not stated whether or not you have used beyond talking to them, which is not equivalent to applying Rule 0. Don't want to firmly kill the handful of breaking builds and give them the choice to comply or leave? It's Sophie's Choice to be sure: put off the table or your 2 other friends. Unless you want to go to the other side of the table and encourage role-playing it away in their mind or similar, and you have given up reasoning with the other pair, you're stuck with that choice. Your power-gaming* friends have given you an unspoken ultimatum. Getting out of this pickle will require more than complaining about optimization.

No character build is beyond Rule 0 -and no player is forced to play at your table, but if they don't respect Rule 0, they have no place there anyway. Aspiring DMs that eschew invoking Rule 0 have still adjudicated on any matter that puts its use into question.

*non-judgemental

 

[fearsomepirate]

I think this thread is using "optimization" two different ways. The OP sounds like he's really talking about "munchkinism," where you make weird choices to try and exploit rules to produce unexpected results (Coffeelock, Palalock, Nuclear Wizard, etc). Other people are talking about "optimization" to basically mean "making good choices consistent with their intent," like choosing Sharpshooter for your ranged Fighter or whatever. The former is really annoying and typically needs to be dealt with; the latter is just playing the game.

 

[Non-Proficient]

I think this thread is using "optimization" two different ways. The OP sounds like he's really talking about "munchkinism," where you make weird choices to try and exploit rules to produce unexpected results (Coffeelock, Palalock, Nuclear Wizard, etc). Other people are talking about "optimization" to basically mean "making good choices consistent with their intent," like choosing Sharpshooter for your ranged Fighter or whatever. The former is really annoying and typically needs to be dealt with; the latter is just playing the game.

I agree, but since the OP used that term and putting quotes around "optimization" would get tiresome, its use has become shorthand for the type of builds in question in this thread. [Run macro replacing optimization w/munchkinism]. OP also doesn't want to call his players with accounts here munchkins out of respect in case they figure it out.

Factoring in motivation by breaking intent out on its own continuum - labeled "munchkin" on one end and a non-pejorative for the lesser "making good choices" types:

_______________________________________________________________________Optimization Intent_____________________________________________________________

_______ Concept Realizer <------------------------|-----------(|)--------|--------|----|-|-------------> Munchkin

...imagine red marks where different DMs might feel the need to step in and correct a perceived problem -starting on the left with specific feats and working rightward through strong combos and table meta-warping loopholes. This is why hashing out the level of optimization is moot: as long as the DM feels a desire to invoke Rule 0, be that out of a trivial personal preference conducive to the theme of their campaign, or a more serious problem, it's up to the players under them to abide or find a new group. In that, there is the risk for drama, hard feelings, etc. that should be calculated as to whether or not it is worth correcting. Take a vote if you are unsure as long as you as a friend & DM will comply with the outcome. Optxit.

 

[overgeeked]

as long as the DM feels a desire to invoke Rule 0 be that out of a trivial personal preference conducive to the theme of their campaign, or a more serious problem

I think this shows another glaring split between gamers. Those who want their games to be nothing more than in-person video games and those who want their games to be more than that. I don’t see making decisions “conducive to the theme of the campaign” as “trivial personal preference”.

 

[fearsomepirate]

I agree, but since the OP used that term and putting quotes around "optimization" would get tiresome, its use has become shorthand for the type of builds in question in this thread. [Run macro replacing optimization w/munchkinism]. OP also doesn't want to call his players with accounts here munchkins out of respect in case they figure it out.

Factoring in motivation by breaking intent out on its own continuum - labeled "munchkin" on one end and a non-pejorative for the lesser "making good choices" types:

_______________________________________________________________________Optimization Intent_____________________________________________________________

_______ Concept Realizer <------------------------|-----------(|)--------|--------|----|-|-------------> Munchkin

...imagine red marks where different DMs might feel the need to step in and correct a perceived problem -starting on the left with specific feats and working rightward through strong combos and table meta-warping loopholes. This is why hashing out the level of optimization is moot: as long as the DM feels a desire to invoke Rule 0, be that out of a trivial personal preference conducive to the theme of their campaign, or a more serious problem, it's up to the players under them to abide or find a new group.

I think the main difference is between people who make straightforward choices and people looking for mistakes to exploit, whether they are mistakes in design, SA rulings, or DM rulings. Someone who chooses a feat & subclass to be very good at damage isn't really different than someone who chooses options more geared at influencing NPCs and whatnot. It's like the difference between a speedrunner who is just very, very, very good at a game, and a speedrunner who found a glitch to clip through the floor and get to the end of the level in 1.03 seconds.

 

[QuentinGeorge]

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;



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.

My suggestions were mostly not serious since realistically it appears the OP has tried to reason with the players and failed but also doesn’t want to boot them, leaving them at an impasse. So in jest I’m suggesting to annoy the players into quitting.