D&D General Has the meaning of Roleplaying changed? my own thought.

[Willie the Duck]

Did I ever say anything to the contrary, in and of itself ? It's just that, as with any way to play (extreme "roleplaying" is another one for example), it's not something that you should impose on others, that's all. If you are open about your preferences and what you are doing, and people at your table agree that it's OK, then it's OK. But if they tell you that it's not OK, then it's not OK. Too many people around forums take it as an assumption that if it's allowed by the rules, then it's bad to forbid it. But extreme "roleplaying" is certainly not covered by the rules either, but you would still be a wangrod at most tables for imposing it.

As long as you are conscious that it's a playstyle, and as long as you don't want to enforce it on a community, whether online or at a table, then it's fine. Never said anything different.

You are correct. You did not. This is a tempest in a teapot invented from whole cloth not of your doing.

Sure, no one ever, ever min-maxed before 3e. I mean, min-maxing was a term I first learned during the 1e-2e changeover. But, sure, it's because of 3e and 4e and 5e saved it with natural language except for all those badwrongfunners.

Successful rebuttal to non-existent opponent position notwithstanding, it is correct to say D&D has had min-maxing ever since there was any ability for players to choose character traits (which, arguably, existed since the beginning since you could trade out one stat for another at various ratios, or just play reckless with your poorly rolled character until they died and you could reroll), no question. What did occur, slowly over time, was a tendency to increase the amount of control a player had over their character's build-- be it weapon specialization in 1e's UA, or NWPs (which slowly over time starting including more and more combat-beneficial options), or eventually 2e's Player's Option modular systems. 3e and later just took this existing trend and took it to the next logical step down that trendline (and put more of the new structures in the core books, which may or may not be relevant). None of that initiated min-maxing, nor necessitated it, but it does facilitate the process and make it more directly beneficial. I'd say probably up to the end of AD&D-- while you could min-max with player-controlled levers of control-- a couple good HD rolls at level-up or a lucky treasure drop would more greatly contribute to overall character success. 3e made character build choices competitive to those factors, but that's it. The rest is how people decided to use each system, not the system itself (and on that I think those of use who spend entirely too much time online probably have a skewed view).

 

[Ovinomancer]

Did I ever say anything to the contrary, in and of itself ? It's just that, as with any way to play (extreme "roleplaying" is another one for example), it's not something that you should impose on others, that's all. If you are open about your preferences and what you are doing, and people at your table agree that it's OK, then it's OK. But if they tell you that it's not OK, then it's not OK. Too many people around forums take it as an assumption that if it's allowed by the rules, then it's bad to forbid it. But extreme "roleplaying" is certainly not covered by the rules either, but you would still be a wangrod at most tables for imposing it.

As long as you are conscious that it's a playstyle, and as long as you don't want to enforce it on a community, whether online or at a table, then it's fine. Never said anything different.

Ah, cool, then, so people powergaming in 5e are not wrong or trying to play a prior edition, they're just playing 5e. Glad we cleared that up.

 

[Lyxen]

Ah, cool, then, so people powergaming in 5e are not wrong or trying to play a prior edition, they're just playing 5e. Glad we cleared that up.

And again, did anyone say it was wrong as a playstyle in any edition ? What I see is lots of people certainly not wanting to say that they are powergaming (has anyone here admitted it, except for me ?), but I don't think I've seen anyone say that, in itself, it was bad.

 

[Ovinomancer]

And again, did anyone say it was wrong as a playstyle in any edition ? What I see is lots of people certainly not wanting to say that they are powergaming (has anyone here admitted it, except for me ?), but I don't think I've seen anyone say that, in itself, it was bad.

I'm just glad that I totally misunderstood you saying that people trying to engage in optimization in 5e are playing the game like a previous edition, when what you meant to say was this was perfectly fine and good play. My bad.

 

[Lyxen]

Successful rebuttal to non-existent opponent position notwithstanding, it is correct to say D&D has had min-maxing ever since there was any ability for players to choose character traits (which, arguably, existed since the beginning since you could trade out one stat for another at various ratios, or just play reckless with your poorly rolled character until they died and you could reroll), no question.

I honestly do not count this as min-maxing, as trading out stats at various ratios is not something that I think I've seen officially in D&D before 3e and point-buy (unless it was some obscure option, please correct me here, but I've never used it), as for being reckless would not count it as min-maxing, I'm not even sure what you are maxing here apart from your death count.

What did occur, slowly over time, was a tendency to increase the amount of control a player had over their character's build-- be it weapon specialization in 1e's UA, or NWPs (which slowly over time starting including more and more combat-beneficial options), or eventually 2e's Player's Option modular systems.

OK, I would agree that the (in)famous black books had the seed of this.

3e and later just took this existing trend and took it to the next logical step down that trendline (and put more of the new structures in the core books, which may or may not be relevant). None of that initiated min-maxing, nor necessitated it, but it does facilitate the process and make it more directly beneficial. I'd say probably up to the end of AD&D-- while you could min-max with player-controlled levers of control-- a couple good HD rolls at level-up or a lucky treasure drop would more greatly contribute to overall character success.

For me, that's the biggest distinction, before 3e, it was mostly luck, after that, it became extremely deterministic with the apparition of builds.

 

[Lyxen]

I'm just glad that I totally misunderstood you saying that people trying to engage in optimization in 5e are playing the game like a previous edition, when what you meant to say was this was perfectly fine and good play. My bad.

Sarcasm will only get you that far when you have nothing to stand on, in particular because no-one ever said that it was a bad thing to play an edition as if it was the previous one. For example, we tried really hard to get the feel of D&D when playing 4e, and we failed. Was it a bad thing ? No, we just couldn't find our playstyle in that edition, that's all. But I'm sure some people enjoyed it. Do I judge anyone here ? I don't think I am, but you are certainly doing your best to judge me.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Sarcasm will only get you that far when you have nothing to stand on, in particular because no-one ever said that it was a bad thing to play an edition as if it was the previous one. For example, we tried really hard to get the feel of D&D when playing 4e, and we failed. Was it a bad thing ? No, we just couldn't find our playstyle in that edition, that's all. But I'm sure some people enjoyed it. Do I judge anyone here ? I don't think I am, but you are certainly doing your best to judge me.

Sure. What was the point of mentioning it then?

 

[Lyxen]

Sure. What was the point of mentioning it then?

I was responding to someone who was mentioning that min-maxing was strong with 5e, to which I simply responded that it's much less than in previous editions, with the rationale behind it, and that for me it's a tail-end effect, not something growing out of 5e. The reason as I see it is that, contrary to 4e which had very little in common with 3e, 5e shares a lot - at first glance - with 3e, but is actually built on very different basic principles, so it's comparatively easier to revive the spirit of the previous edition in 5e. But still, as the principles are different, it requires quite a bit of work (in particular choosing specific interpretations and recording these as house rules rather than leaving them for rulings as intended) to make it work that way.

Does it make it bad ? No, and still there are games which are as modern as 5e in which, because it's part of the basic design to have precise rules, for example, it's ingrained in the game design, and therefore much easier if it's what you are looking for. This is also why, while there are a lot of good things in 4e that were not taken on board by 5e, we abandoned it when 5e came out. Did that make 4e bad and 5e good, certainly not, it's just that it's usually much easier to use a system that is congruent to your style of play.

And again, no judgement here, we continued to play Runequest at really high Rune Levels despite the fact that the system sort of broke down there, because Hero Wars took completely different paradigms in terms of game play and we loved the technicalities of Runequest combat. It made it harder, it was not intended for it and we had to work quite a bit, but we still had tons of fun.

So would it be too much to ask for you to stop being so judgmental and actually contribute to the discussion ?

 

[Ovinomancer]

I was responding to someone who was mentioning that min-maxing was strong with 5e, to which I simply responded that it's much less than in previous editions, with the rationale behind it, and that for me it's a tail-end effect, not something growing out of 5e. The reason as I see it is that, contrary to 4e which had very little in common with 3e, 5e shares a lot - at first glance - with 3e, but is actually built on very different basic principles, so it's comparatively easier to revive the spirit of the previous edition in 5e. But still, as the principles are different, it requires quite a bit of work (in particular choosing specific interpretations and recording these as house rules rather than leaving them for rulings as intended) to make it work that way.

Does it make it bad ? No, and still there are games which are as modern as 5e in which, because it's part of the basic design to have precise rules, for example, it's ingrained in the game design, and therefore much easier if it's what you are looking for. This is also why, while there are a lot of good things in 4e that were not taken on board by 5e, we abandoned it when 5e came out. Did that make 4e bad and 5e good, certainly not, it's just that it's usually much easier to use a system that is congruent to your style of play.

And again, no judgement here, we continued to play Runequest at really high Rune Levels despite the fact that the system sort of broke down there, because Hero Wars took completely different paradigms in terms of game play and we loved the technicalities of Runequest combat. It made it harder, it was not intended for it and we had to work quite a bit, but we still had tons of fun.

So would it be too much to ask for you to stop being so judgmental and actually contribute to the discussion ?

You phrased in a way that said that people trying to minmax in 5e are still trying to play a different edition. Also, I strongly disagree that minmaxing in 5e requires loose readings of the rules -- there's plenty of very strong combination that are possible with strict readings and actually require the GM to issue houserules to avoid -- most involve sorlocks and warpals. Although the battlemaster fighter has a nice setup with GWF and using precision strike. It's not like it's terribly hard to optimize in 5e. The real difference is in the lows -- 5e has shallow lows compared to 3e.

Alternatively, it was nearly impossible to powergame in 4e, but you listed that as a continuation and increase in powergaming availability from 3e. I'll agree 3e was the most favorable for combinations, but this was more a matter of rules bloat than basic system design -- core book 3e wasn't bad at all. The disparity there was mostly due to all the trap choices than effective powergames. So, who knows, after another few years of 5e splatbooks (the pace of which has supposedly increased?) maybe 5e will be in a similar boat to 3e. But, again, 4e wasn't a powergamer's fantasy edition, in fact quite a lot of powergamers from 3e disliked 4e because it did put everyone on pretty much an even field. You could get creative, but tactics was far more important (and team synergy) than individual build in 4e.

 

[Lyxen]

You phrased in a way that said that people trying to minmax in 5e are still trying to play a different edition.

Yes, they are, it's obvious. Just as I've been trying to play AD&D 1 e in 2e (what a mess), in 3e (OK up to lvl 10 or so, after that we had to take measures), in 4e (did not work at all), and in 5e (works like a charm).

Exactly how offensive is that factual statement ? 3e was built for min-maxing, and 5e inherits a number of words from it, but is based on completely different principles (natural language, bounded accuracy, DM empowerement, rulings more than rules, and the latter much much simpler, TotM as the basic way of playing, etc.) and the devs themselves have drawn its ancestry not to 3e but to the original D&D editions. It's just a fact.

And I'm doing it, I've been doing in forever, how is that a criticism of others' way of playing ?

Also, I strongly disagree that minmaxing in 5e requires loose readings of the rules -- there's plenty of very strong combination that are possible with strict readings and actually require the GM to issue houserules to avoid -- most involve sorlocks and warpals.

I think you have my position wrong, I'm not saying that minmaxing in 5e requires loose readings, I'm saying that it requires extremely strict and orientated readings of rules which have on purpose been written loosely in natural language.

The fact that some minmaxing can be done on barely a few combos is unfortunate, but it goes to show that, contrary to 3e where there was an explosion of builds in all directions, it's very much limited in 5e, and honestly some less strict reading of the rules and simple rulings really limits the power gap that you can obtain.

Although the battlemaster fighter has a nice setup with GWF and using precision strike. It's not like it's terribly hard to optimize in 5e. The real difference is in the lows -- 5e has shallow lows compared to 3e.

Overall, the power gap between optimised and casual is way, way lower in 5e than in 3e, which in turns helps limit the problem, especially if you consider that feats, multiclass, and Variant Human (and even more Floating ASIs) are OPTIONS, and therefore can be controlled by a DM who is conscious of the power gaps potential effects and want to limit it.

Alternatively, it was nearly impossible to powergame in 4e, but you listed that as a continuation and increase in powergaming availability from 3e.

You're sort of right about this, I did not write it clearly. What I meant is that 4e was a very, very technical game, in a sense even more than 3e, and they limited the powergaming through the denial of the openness of D&D in general. It was a different approach, it stayed technical but acted on another cursor, and I agree that in 4e the power gap was very manageable. Still, there were tiers of classes, see here for example.

I'll agree 3e was the most favorable for combinations, but this was more a matter of rules bloat than basic system design -- core book 3e wasn't bad at all.

As mentioned above, the simple combination of having even in the core books so much customisation for characters, between point-buy, feats, multiclassing (and level dipping), prestige classes, etc. meant it was already an optimiser's dream come true. And of course the power drift in the further books enhanced that even more.

The disparity there was mostly due to all the trap choices than effective powergames. So, who knows, after another few years of 5e splatbooks (the pace of which has supposedly increased?) maybe 5e will be in a similar boat to 3e.

However, 5e is certainly not going the same way. First, as mentioned above, the game design is fundamentally different. As a DM, I have all the tools I need to shut down ruleslawyers and powergamers instantly if I want to.

Moreover, consider:

• 3e, dead in 3 years due to badly written concepts over exploited so quickly (attributes buff spells in particular).
• 3.5, dead in 4 years due to uncontrollable bloat
• 4e, dead in 3 years due to the necessity to limit options
• 4e essentials, dead in 2-4 years due to lack of openness of the world and system
• 5e, still alive and kicking with so limited power bloat that powergamers complain all the time about the lack of crunchiness of every single book, after SEVEN YEARS.

The designers are conscious of that, and I know that people still think JC is an idiot for his sometimes contradictory and fluffy rulings on tweeter, but the guy (and the whole staff) are doing this absolutely on purpose, because they don't want to give tools to powergamers to abuse in their builds, they just want to give all DMs ideas about potential rulings (again, rulings, not rules).

And no, the pace has not increased, in terms of the more "crunchy" books, Xanathar was Y+3, Tasha Y+6, and as far as I know there is none other in the works. Again, the designers are aware of all that, and controlling it masterfully.

But, again, 4e wasn't a powergamer's fantasy edition, in fact quite a lot of powergamers from 3e disliked 4e because it did put everyone on pretty much an even field. You could get creative, but tactics was far more important (and team synergy) than individual build in 4e.

I agree, my main problem is that it stayed very technical and that it limited the openness of the world.