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

[The Crimson Binome]

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?

That's not my perspective. That's the perspective of all professional adventurers within the game world, who are capable of observing the difference between a hostile enemy and one which has been beaten into unconsciousness. It's a quantifiable fact of their reality that a warhammer is an objectively superior weapon over a mace, in the hands of anyone who knows how to use it.

Granted, there are plenty of people within the game world who might not be aware of that fact. Fortunately, none of them are going to know how to use a warhammer anyway, so they aren't generally at risk of committing such an egregious lapse of judgment.

 

[MG.0]

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.

It is also a jerk move to build only neurotic, anal-retentive, perfectionist characters. The party I DM for would probably consider that character to be under some sort of curse and either try to get him cured...or kill him...out of mercy.

 

[CanadienneBacon]

[MENTION=6775031]Saelorn[/MENTION] is better than the polarizing rhetoric he posted earlier today. I would enjoy hearing his preferred method of character generation.

Always happy to hear alternate perspectives, and to learn new things. I'm willing to bet he is, too.

 

[S'mon]

I tend to mostly optimise, with one non-optimised thing that gives flavour. Eg I loved my 4e E-Thief a lot better because he only ever used a dagger, than if he had used the optimal rapier + shortbow with all the hassle of switching between them. The 5e Barbarian I just made is mostly combat optimised but has CHA 13 at the expense of only DEX 10, because I wanted a likable sort of character, +1 to Cha checks at the expense of lower Init and being hit more often.

 

[Phantarch]

When I first started gaming in my early 20's, I was really drawn to the rules and focused a lot on optimizing. I still enjoy it, and it plays a significant part in my character development. I usually will find a cool combination and work backwards to develop a good character around it. However, my main concern now is balance with the other players in my group (some of whom don't care about optimizing, some who think they do but aren't particularly good at it). I've personally found that the campaigns are more enjoyable when the players are all of a similar power level and encounters are a good challenge for everyone.

 

[S'mon]

That's not my perspective. That's the perspective of all professional adventurers within the game world.

Maybe when the mace is off-screen reality takes over and it's a superior weapon for mashing through plate armour, while the sword bounces off... there's no reason the game rules should determine the physics of the world. People often assume this in FRPGs, it seems much rarer in modern-day RPGs.

 

[CanadienneBacon]

I usually will find a cool combination and work backwards to develop a good character around it.

I've done this. Lots of fun.

 

[steeldragons]

I bet I know who the 1 "completely" responder iiiissss.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

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.

In-game, my character would probably inquire as to why this other character has made such a decision. The tone of the question would depend on the nature of my character, but regardless of how condescending it may or may-not sound, a "bad" answer would likely make my character doubt the competence of this individual.

Saying that it is an enchanted mace, once wielded by the great priest Zyzzyva to depose the cruel tyrant Quijibo, is a "good" answer which is likely to garner some respect. Anything that has to do with tradition, sentimentality, or coolness, would be a "bad" answer. This is literally a matter of life-and-death. You need to demonstrate a modicum of common sense if I am to trust you with my life.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Maybe when the mace is off-screen reality takes over and it's a superior weapon for mashing through plate armour, while the sword bounces off... there's no reason the game rules should determine the physics of the world. People often assume this in FRPGs, it seems much rarer in modern-day RPGs.

There's a reason why "modern" RPGs have built a reputation as silly games for hippies. Really, the division goes back to the old GNS theory, with modern games skewing far over toward Narrativism and traditional games being somewhere between Gamist and Simulation.

In any proper Simulationist game, such as every version of D&D prior to 4E, the rules of the game are a reflection of the in-game reality. It might vary, how accurate that reflection is, but there's no possible way that the outcome of an action could depend on whether it takes place on-screen or off-screen. This is straying from the topic at hand, though, and I would refrain from pursuing this matter for now.