D&D 5E Dealing with optimizers at the table

[Mort]

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.

Unfortunately Poe's Law makes it nearly impossible to tell in these circumstances. I've seen the exact same advice given in absolute seriousness!

 

[Non-Proficient]

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”.

First off, and directly to the point- your situation falls under the "MORE SERIOUS PROBLEM" category here. I don't know of anyone at this point that is arguing otherwise.

As to the other condition, I see where you may have gotten confused. I had originally separated those concepts as reasons behind banning things, but due to my recent experience with my very own Trivial Personal Preference DM™, I combined the concepts in a later edit. Our group can not play Aasimar, Halflings (they are mutated to rat-men), Orcs (half-orcs get a pass so it's not mechanical-based restrictions), and a few other races. At that point, even though it is conducive to their homebrew world, it is stepping on player concepts at that point for very little gain. I can't get inside their head, so I'm unsure if pruning the race tree fits into their fantasy vision, or they just don't like halflings*, etc. I'm assuming a little of both. I personally decided it wasn't worth quitting over even though I think it's stupid. I hate homebrew worlds. Hire a staff of authors and artists to flesh it out some then publish it on a blog so your players can access it at least. That's my own trivial personal preference that you can cash at the bank (I have overdraft protection). Still, it's not worth kicking up dust over.

DM fiat can be trivial. Show me a DM without trivial preferences they put in their campaigns and I'll show you a strict published content DM. (even then there will be ways they run it that are unique to them) Trivial doesn't automatically slant pejorative† unless your bias in not accepting everyone at the table to agree with you about it bothers you. My character concepts are trivial to most everyone not at the table and some that are. The same goes for your opinion on how to run your game whether you recognize it or not. Use a different currency & exchange rate for every city in the region? Trivial‡. Bother with exchange rates, but not encumbrance? Still trivial. Cause bowstrings to break 5% of the time on critical misses? Triv- no, that one is just flat-out dumb. Not trivial to you of course, not to the players happy with how you envision your game world (probably) -you likely aren't taking a scalpel hacksaw to the PHB on races like mine is. But you do seem to have an issue with a couple of friends about your stance on munchkins. Not saying THAT is trivial, in fact, that's okay- you have Rule 0. You've obviously trivialized the way they approach your game in your statement, (again, okay, but your elitism is showing) but you haven't invoked your DM authority to clamp down on it whether they, we, or I agree with your decision or not. I in fact stated in my post that your preference is beyond players' ability to override rules-wise§ (trivial or not). The point being Rule 0 applies even when it's trivial. No matter. But with that, just like great responsibility coming with great power, so too does the issue of resentment or distaste aimed at you when you are forced to use it to better your game (in your opinion). Don't take it personally, it's part of the craft.

You (and I'm assuming most of your players) value your concept over a video-game mentality, I happen to agree with you on that for my own RPG time (heck I'd rather be playing B/X!), but I can also get where your friends are coming from. Not being comfortable in making the hard decisions to weed out players who see it differently from you is where you will have to examine your own personal situation and deal with it. That was the crux of the post you quoted -the tough personal choices ahead of you, but you zeroed in on the word trivial†. I hope this follow-up explains where I am coming from at least.


* unless it's the tiny feet, I'm on board with that...
†edit: on further review with a thesaurus, I'll admit the negative connotation associated with the word is overreaching, but keep in mind I have a personal ax I'm grinding with my own DM when I am typing this, not specifically you. I can't yet find a better substitute. Blame my American education <:-|
‡quibble: that sliver of historical detail turned mechanical nightmare %$#! is annoying to the point that it kills immersion rather than adds to it. The same is often said of encumbrance but at least that serves important game functions like making STR matter but it's so often handwaved away as inconvenient which facilitates dumping the stat that much easier. YMMV
§ Sort of, I mean by the account you gave they are still breaking your requests, so either you didn't put the true hammer down, or they are balking at the measure, not sure which. Did you lose control of your game or are you still stepping softly with the big stick?

 

[pemerton]

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.

So, by this measure it is optimisation in D&D to build a fighter if I want to play a warrior character, or to build a rogue if I want a sneaky character?

 

[billd91]

So, by this measure it is optimisation in D&D to build a fighter if I want to play a warrior character, or to build a rogue if I want a sneaky character?

So blatant obtuseness is your play in this discussion?

 

[Lanefan]

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.

Not if you run them on different nights.

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

Agreed, for the most part; though more often you'll end up with some of the players supporting what you're doing and others - usually those you're doing it to - opposing it.

 

[Lanefan]

Making a character good at what it's supposed to be doing within its niche is one thing, and generally not any big deal.

To me, the truly bad side of optimization comes from trying to (ab)use game mechanics to make a character be good - as in as good or better than anyone else in the party - at everything.

 

[prabe]

Agreed, for the most part; though more often you'll end up with some of the players supporting what you're doing and others - usually those you're doing it to - opposing it.

I suspect that if, in DMing to "teach the players a lesson" you find that some of the players are supporting it and others are opposing it, they're all going to be angry--at each other, with at least some of them being angry at you.

Making a character good at what it's supposed to be doing within its niche is one thing, and generally not any big deal.

To me, the truly bad side of optimization comes from trying to (ab)use game mechanics to make a character be good - as in as good or better than anyone else in the party - at everything.

I think this is some of it. I think another part of it is--as has been mentioned before--when the optimizer's character is better than another player's character at the second character's schtick/role. How much of a problem the other part of optimization is, is likely to depend on how people around the table feel about niche protection; it also seems more likely to be a thing, the more actual input the player has over the shape of the character (so, something that's total point-buy it's a big problem, something like Traveler with extensive tables for char-gen, not so much).

 

[Mort]

Not if you run them on different nights.

I don't know about you, but it takes moving heaven and earth levels of planning just to fit in our monthly game (covid has actually moved it up to twice a month). Everyone has families, most with multiple kids. I couldn't imagine trying to fit in 2 games.

Agreed, for the most part; though more often you'll end up with some of the players supporting what you're doing and others - usually those you're doing it to - opposing it.

Well sure, right up until they start thinking/realizing that your bad faith DMing might hit them next - singling out characters will do that. It's not a good move.

 

[Non-Proficient]

To me, the truly bad side of optimization comes from trying to (ab)use game mechanics to make a character be good - as in as good or better than anyone else in the party - at everything.

At lower tiers, this can sort of be attempted with a knowledge domain cleric casting enhance ability on themself for advantage on the skill check. It only lasts for 10 minutes once per day though. I don't think that goes far enough for what you mean, so might I inquire about any more egregious examples that exist in 5e that make excelling at everything possible? Preferably something coming online pre-10th level that doesn't rely on theory-crafting like some proposed power-builds involving the unlikely availability of a minecraftesque purple worm farm for venom in their calculations...

A quick search uncovered a few skill-monkey builds that aimed to get all the skills, some variants attempting to get expertise on many skills but it took all ASI levels grabbing feats and level 18 to fully realize. You give up being a combat god of course, and reverse construct your build from a mechanical gimmick instead of organically developing a solidly grounded-in-the-lore thematic character first and foremost but that's good in that role-playing purists at the table will have cause to feel superior. I don't see a problem. Half-elves breeding with gnomes. There's your problem.

WWGGS?
Does Robilar Dream of Eclectic Munchkins?

 

[Lanefan]

At lower tiers, this can sort of be attempted with a knowledge domain cleric casting enhance ability on themself for advantage on the skill check. It only lasts for 10 minutes once per day though. I don't think that goes far enough for what you mean, so might I inquire about any more egregious examples that exist in 5e that make excelling at everything possible? Preferably something coming online pre-10th level that doesn't rely on theory-crafting like some proposed power-builds involving the unlikely availability of a minecraftesque purple worm farm for venom in their calculations...

I wasn't specifically thinking of 5e; more of 3e where such things were quite possible, and of 1e where it's kinda possible if the DM lets it happen.