D&D 5E How cognizant are you of the rules of the game?

[MG.0]

I DM far more than I play, but when I do I like to make oddball characters.

Stats/abilities are mostly irrelevant, except to reinforce a look and feel to my characters.

 

[ccs]

I'm not saying it was wrong, because you were just a kid, but what you are describing is not role-playing. You were making decisions based on your own, out-of-character opinion of what is cool. Role-playing is defined as making decisions from the character's perspective.

The in-character perspective would be to look at what the character knows, and determine what the character would do based on that information. The character can observe that a long sword causes more grievous wounds than a short sword does, increasing the chance of felling an opponent, without a meaningful depreciation of applicability. The character can see that muscle mass improves the ability to wield a long sword, in ways that nimbleness does not, and thus chooses to exercise in the appropriate fashion such as to gain Strength +2 upon hitting level 4.

The characters are aware of the in-game reality which the rules reflect, and given that I won't make a character who is suicidally incompetent, there is no conflict between Optimization and Role-Playing. A character who chooses a sub-optimal weapon, merely because it is "cool", is a fool and a liability that shall not be suffered by the other individuals in the group.

Seriously, building an incompetent character is a jerk move to everyone else at the table. Don't do that. If you fail to kill the dragon because your sword only does a d6 instead of a d8, and then the dragon breathes fire and kills the whole party, then that TPK is entirely your fault and you should feel bad. There are millions of ways to build and play a character that isn't incompetent; it is not a meaningful limit on your freedom of expression.

OK, fine, whatever the edition, I'll make up an in-story reason my character likes using a Themes mace (the flanged ones, sometimes you see them with crosses/flur-de-lys {sp?} cut in the flanges).
It won't change the fact that in real life I think its a cool looking weapon & is the actual reason I choose to have a lot of my characters wielding maces....
And since I can't get away with smacking people with a mace here IRL? I guess I'll have to settle for doing it in game - even if another weapon would cause more damage. (maces have not always been the most optimal weapon over the editions)

 

[MG.0]

So I occasionally DM for the young'uns, and I have noticed that they rarely, if ever, optimize. They play whatever seems fun. And I was reminded of how my playstyle changed.

When I first started out, I played just for the fun. I picked a class/race (or the same thing, when BECMI!) just because it seemed cool. I didn't worry if it was the right thing to do, or if I had picked the weapon that did the most damage, I just picked the things that seemed awesome.

Then, as I gained rule mastery, I started optimizing. I made the selections that allowed me to be the best within the rules. I would carefully consider the synergies between different abilities, items, rules, and so on, and choose the stuff that most allowed me to kick posterior.

After a while, that stopped being enjoyable. But here's the thing- I still knew the rules (you can't unlearn something, can you?). So now I concentrate on building fun character concepts (fun to me, at least) and making them interesting. Now, I don't make terrible selections, but I will make interesting selections that aren't optimal.

Of course, it is my anecdotal experience that "full" optimization is much more common than it used to be. I could posit many reasons for this- more people have grown up playing video games (where optimization is, um, kind of important), the use of the internet (if one person analyzes the rules and writes it up, everyone knows), the use of lingo and jargon (DPR, nerfed, nova). But it certainly seems that way. Yet, as I read the threads, I see a consistent tension between those who optimize and those who don't (or say they don't- again, I think it's hard to be unaware of the rules, so perhaps it's better to say those who chose not to optimize).

My experience mostly mirrors yours.

As far as the lingo goes...I blame Everquest. I played Everquest back in beta in the late 90's and those god-awful terms started popping up like toadstools after a rainstorm: nerf, tank, buff, etc.

 

[MG.0]

The characters are aware of the in-game reality which the rules reflect, and given that I won't make a character who is suicidally incompetent, there is no conflict between Optimization and Role-Playing. A character who chooses a sub-optimal weapon, merely because it is "cool", is a fool and a liability that shall not be suffered by the other individuals in the group.

Seriously, building an incompetent character is a jerk move to everyone else at the table. Don't do that. If you fail to kill the dragon because your sword only does a d6 instead of a d8, and then the dragon breathes fire and kills the whole party, then that TPK is entirely your fault and you should feel bad. There are millions of ways to build and play a character that isn't incompetent; it is not a meaningful limit on your freedom of expression.

What? Wow. Just wow.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

OK, fine, whatever the edition, I'll make up an in-story reason my character likes using a Themes mace (the flanged ones, sometimes you see them with crosses/flur-de-lys {sp?} cut in the flanges).
It won't change the fact that in real life I think its a cool looking weapon & is the actual reason I choose to have a lot of my characters wielding maces....
And since I can't get away with smacking people with a mace here IRL? I guess I'll have to settle for doing it in game - even if another weapon would cause more damage. (maces have not always been the most optimal weapon over the editions)

I'm not the one you need to convince that your character is competent. It's the other adventurers in the game who need to be able to trust that you aren't a liability. Nobody likes an escort quest, and if you're not willing to carry your own weight, then there's no reason you should get any of the reward.

Although, as far as 5E is concerned, a mace is a perfectly fine choice for a Cleric of the Life domain. For contrast, a Fighter would be fantastically stupid to wield a mace rather than a warhammer, and such an individual would be laughed out of the guild if anyone ever witnessed such foolishness.

 

[Shiroiken]

I vote 'a little' but that isn't very accurate.

I end up with a character concept, and then I optimize that concept as much as I can. The concept itself is often a bad idea as far as the rules go.

Ditto, sort of.

I normally come up with a character with only a little bit of mechanics in mind. I never play a bad concept, however, unless it's for a one shot. They seem fun, but lose their appeal after a few session, IME.

 

[steeldragons]

Although, as far as 5E is concerned, a mace is a perfectly fine choice for a Cleric of the Life domain. For contrast, a Fighter would be fantastically stupid to wield a mace rather than a warhammer, and such an individual would be laughed out of the guild if anyone ever witnessed such foolishness.

And that would beeee...from your perspective/apparent mode of play, because members of the in-game world guild, you think, somehow KNOW that they are dealing a potential 2 HP less by using a d6 weapon (mace) instead of a d8 (warhammer)? That's your justification for calling anyone stupid who plays and makes "in-game/character decisions" based on what they like/want vs. what the numbers say?

Just making sure we're all clear on your rationale for calling everyone not doing it your way [edit to correct misquote: you did not actually call anyone "stupid"] "fools", "liabilities"[/edit], "jerks" and "suicidally incompetent."

 

[Shiroiken]

I'm not the one you need to convince that your character is competent. It's the other adventurers in the game who need to be able to trust that you aren't a liability. Nobody likes an escort quest, and if you're not willing to carry your own weight, then there's no reason you should get any of the reward.

Although, as far as 5E is concerned, a mace is a perfectly fine choice for a Cleric of the Life domain. For contrast, a Fighter would be fantastically stupid to wield a mace rather than a warhammer, and such an individual would be laughed out of the guild if anyone ever witnessed such foolishness.

How do you not know it's not a magic mace? A Mace +1 is a far superior weapon to a non-magical warhammer.

Just curious, how would your character react if someone in your game did choose to play "sub-optimally?" Would you refuse to adventure with them? Would you agree if the rest of the party did? Would you be mad when the chaotic evil sling using assassin cuts your throat in your sleep? Or the mace fighter murders your family because you wouldn't let him join you? Again, just curious.

 

[Phantarch]

This is not a thread to argue that optimization or roleplaying is better or worse (or even mutually exclusive). They are both wonderful.

Again, however, this an opportunity to talk about how you are playing- not a platform to disparage how others play. We're all good and honorable gamers, here.

Followed by:

A character who chooses a sub-optimal weapon, merely because it is "cool", is a fool and a liability that shall not be suffered by the other individuals in the group.

Seriously, building an incompetent character is a jerk move to everyone else at the table. Don't do that.

And then...

A Fighter would be fantastically stupid to wield a mace rather than a warhammer, and such an individual would be laughed out of the guild if anyone ever witnessed such foolishness.

Could somebody please define FAIL for me?



Sidepoint:

If you fail to kill the dragon because your sword only does a d6 instead of a d8, and then the dragon breathes fire and kills the whole party, then that TPK is entirely your fault and you should feel bad.

There is something SERIOUSLY wrong with an encounter that breaks down with the variation of a d6 to a d8.

 

[was]

...IMO, I think that it really depends on the group that you're gaming with. I have found some groups to be extremely combat-focused, where the maximum optimization of a character is necessary to keep pace with the group. Other groups are more laid back, or they incoporate greater role-playing opportunities where interesting character concepts can flourish. I generally prefer interesting characters to maximized characters, but I usually adjust to the playstyle of the group.