Has anyone got any flak for buildung a character that wasnt optimized?

[Sacrosanct]

Mostly only online, and mostly during the 3e era. After that, it died down a lot. But back then, the most common thing I heard was how if I wasn't optimizing, I was hurting my other players.

 

[overgeeked]

I agree that players should make characters that are competent, but not need to be optimized. The game itself is designed for average PCs and falls when the whole group is optimized. I like my group with nobody taking some of the big feats that seem a problem and they are still quite powerful.

It’s almost impossible to make an incompetent character in 5E. Worst you could do is put your lowest stats in your class’s primary stats. Everyone gets at least four skills. The only way to screw that up is to also put those in skills with your lowest stats. Even then, you end up with an average character who’s not laser focused on their assumed area of expertise. That’s a character being not amazing, that’s not the same as incompetent.

 

[John R Davis]

Everyone should make the PC they want, " rules allowing"

It's how they are then played is what counts. If it is played to be "hilarious", a dick, counter to the pcs etc, then badwrongfun is possible. But that's likely the player not the character.

 

[Arilyn]

I have watched some other Ginny Di videos and enjoyed them but it seems to me that the blog referenced is not really a response to Ginny Di's video more a projection of the authors issues onto that video. At least as far as I have read it.
It appears to me that Ginny Di posted her less than optimised warlock on social media somewhere and got pushback and then posted on twitter and got dogpiled.
She decided to make a video about and why wouldn't she, she has a hungry algorithm to feed. Is it real, I suspect so, it has happened to me after all. I suspect that it happens more often to women (even if the character is not actually sub-optimal, just unorthodox). That is called out and made fun of in "The Gamers: Dorkness Rising" movie.

Yes, I really like her videos as well. I imagine posting "sub-optimal" characters tend to get a lot more push back on social media, it being what it is. The worse I ever got was the occasional eyebrow raising back in 3e days. (Dwarf bard? Are you sure?) I play with people I know really well, however, so my experience is limited.

And this guy. Just wow. Ginny Di's channel is about cosplay, D&D, skits and fantasy themed song parodies. It is really obvious that this would not interest him, yet he watched the video and then took time to post a very long rage/hate filled rant dripping with misogny and contempt. It's sickening.

 

[GreyLord]

2. I've seen it.

It sounds as if the person the OP posts has PTSD from some jerks at the game table that were not reigned in by the DM.

I have NOT seen it often, and if I've seen it at my tables I reign it in, but on occasion there has been THAT player that decides it is their job to tell everyone what to do and how to do it. I've not experienced it often at my tables that I've recruited players normally, but I HAVE seen it at other tables where I've joined a game.

This individual will tend to try to tell others how they should create or advance their characters. They will dictate at the table how the party should do things and go. In many cases they tend to be rather disruptive.

If you combine this with the very occasional individual that feels that they need to tell a woman at the table what to do (Whether or not the woman needs it or not, in fact she may know exactly what she's doing, but it won't matter to that type of individual) and you probably have a perfect scenario to make a woman feel just like the one in the OP is feeling.
In that instance, though it's still not a great thing to hear, I can understand WHY a woman would be like this and say things like this. Heck, there are some guys that feel like this because of these experiences without the overly leering personality of someone hitting on them at the same time.

Without a DM to stop the scenario above, I can absolutely understand how someone may come to the attitude expressed in the OP and declare it in the way they did.

 

[Jd Smith1]

I watch new players closely; if they show signs of being a min-max'er, I boot them. Luckily, it doesn't seem to be as prevalent outside of D&D.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Most of the stuff in the OP is just awful.

Yes.

As to the question asked? Also yes, and it’s been me, more often than not.

The reason is, having played some form or another of D&D (and other RPGs) since 1977, I’ve played many of the popular, optimized class & race combinations. I’ve seen that movie before, many times.

So for the past couple of decades, my characters have been less and less about stereotypes and optimization and more about exploring what different combinations do. For instance, I started playing a Drow almost as soon as that option was presented in Dragon magazine (something like 4 years Pre-Drizzt). I’ve tried Minotaurs, Githzerai, and other unusual races. I’ve made Orcish paladins, bards and sorcerers. Halfling barbarians. A specialist diviner who used a whip. A sorcerer who used scale Mail armor and a maul. A Geomancer. An “arcane Paladin”. Etc.

All of those oddballs- and others not mentioned- got the “oh no, not one of your ’specials’ again” groan from at least one other player.

Thing is, not one of those PCs failed to make a positive contribution to the game. I guess the critics keep expecting my PCs to fail, and keep getting disappointed.

 

[the Jester]

When I get to be the player, I sometimes roll my PC stats and features just to see what comes up, and play whatever I get. It's NEVER unplayable.

With the one exception of the time I played in Olgar Shiverstone's game and he used point buy only for character generation, I haven't made a pc without rolling my stats in order since, I believe, 2e at least.

 

[jdrakeh]

I've been balked at by two different players for not having what they considered the most optimized build for my character (once for a warlock, once for a sorcerer).

 

[aramis erak]

But is he right? Is this woman complaining about nothing, or are there jerks who try and force people to "optimize" or some such?

I had to take someone aside in AL play for going off that other D&D players at the table weren't optimizing their characters for combat damage.
There are a strong minority of D&D players for whom optimization matters. A subset of those are preachy about it. A smaller subset get pissy when others don't optimize.

As a GM, I take perverse pride in breaking builds of players who whinge on about lack of optimization..

Largely, by seeing to it their "optimal condition" is rare, or quickly morphs due to natural combat flow and so lasts only a turn or two.

At the same token, if a player asks me a build optimization at the table, I'll make 2-3 suggestions, and explain the pros and cons.

As a perverse optimization, I once figured out a build for 3.x D&D that, by 20th, had many attacks and a 60% chance of crit... Monk, bladed gauntlets...and all the appropriate feats to optimize the hell out of them...