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

[payn]

If the campaign is about effective combat characters defeating dangerous foes, then building a combat-weak character is actively undermining the campaign ethos, and so is "the wrong way to have fun", because it hurts other people's fun.

And, TBH, most traditional D&D style games are about effective combat characters defeating dangerous foes, so you should build at least a competent character. Your GM should make it clear whether or not the campaign is going to require optimized characters.

Some editions of the game make the gulf between optimized and not quite large. So, I get some of this statement, though how folks treat each other is huge. Most of the stuff in the OP is just awful.

 

[Gorgon Zee]

Some editions of the game make the gulf between optimized and not quite large. So, I get some of this statement, though how folks treat each other is huge. Most of the stuff in the OP is just awful.

Definitely. Above all, be excellent to one another.

 

[Li Shenron]

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

She's completely right.

I used to optimize back in the past (heck I played a Drow Incantatrix with Greater Spell Focus in 3.0) but I gradually learned that it wasn't that fun for me to succeed almost always with too little effort. 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. Sure it's best for a whole group to be on the same page, but still I wouldn't let anyone at my table patronize another on how they should design their PC.

 

[Krachek]

I don't begrudge people playing whatever characters they want - unless they're doing it to annoy the other players or be problematic in other ways. In which case, it's not their character - it's the player being a jerk.
One of my most fun, memorable characters was a gully dwarf who was terribly ineffective at most things. However, he was good at sneaking and gathering intel because he usually passed unnoticed. He just wasn't bright enough to interpret the intel in a meaningful way, so the other characters would have to make sense of what he saw.
"There's a door. There's a group of more than two people standing around the door. They're not really doing anything though. They're not going into the door and not knocking on it."
"So there's guards?"
"Why would they be guarding a door? A door would be hard to steal. I could try, but someone would have to help me carry it."

It is the same level as Draxx in the guardian of the galaxy!
in fact it takes a pretty smart players, to push punchline, and idea from a low int character that are useful and fun for the group.
The same way it takes a full cooperative players to play a selfish character and make it a useful and fun character for the rest of the party.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

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.

 

[J.Quondam]

And, TBH, most traditional D&D style games are about effective combat characters defeating dangerous foes, so you should build at least a competent character. Your GM should make it clear whether or not the campaign is going to require optimized characters.

To be fair, there's a very traditional and very beloved approach to D&D that starts with "roll 3d6, in order." That's not really a game about running "competent" characters. That's a game about making the most with what you've got.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Just reading the OP’s first block quote:

1) What a jerk. I agree with @overgeeked’s assessment that this person is still bitter that the hobby moved on from OD&D.

2) However, I also sometimes read posts about how “those mean power gamers bullied me” and I think, but don’t say, that the person is probably both intentionally causing drama with their suboptimal play AND exaggerating the reaction. (In fact, probably describing the reaction that they were hoping to provoke but failed to do so.)

In my experience I’ve seen roleplayers make suboptimal choices, and optimizers get a little impatient with those choices, but never on either side rising to the level of outright drama. Somehow people manage to coexist and have fun.

 

[aco175]

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.

 

[MGibster]

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

Yes, there are jerks who try to force people to optimize their characters. Not only during character generation, but even during game play when the "helpful" person will tell a player what action his or her character should take sometimes becoming irate when the player chooses an action that isn't optimal from a certain point of view.

I despise those players. I want players to make characters they think are interesting. That said, I do expect players to make competent characters. i.e. If your character is a mechanic then I expect them to be a decent mechanic. They don't have to be the best mechanic in the world, but they should be able to effectively repair the ship when its damaged. (Though I'll note that one player made an incompetent character for a campaign of mine and it was one of the most memorable and favored PC ever. So this isn't a hard and fast rule.)

 

[Blue]

As a DM, I find that I can easiest consistently challenge the whole party when all of them are in the same rough neighborhood of power. And it really doesn't matter how optimized or not the group is. If one of the character is either a lot more powerful or a lot weaker, it is more difficult for me to give everyone satisfying group scenes in terms of spotlight and feeling accomplishment and that they are carrying their weight. I can still balance spotlight in other scenes that focus on specific character, but the group scenes are harder to make satisfying for all of my players on a consistent basis.