Thomas Shey
Legend
You also need to watch out for people who are prone to not pushing back on things they may be dubious about, or worse, people who genuinely think they're good with things that in play, they find out they don't like.
D&D General Optimistic Thoughts on Optimizing
- Thread starter Snarf Zagyg
- Start date
You also need to watch out for people who are prone to not pushing back on things they may be dubious about, or worse, people who genuinely think they're good with things that in play, they find out they don't like.
FitzTheRuke
Legend
You know who the worst sort of optimizers are? The ones that aren't actually good at optimization themselves, but find OP builds on the internet and try to play them.
Desdichado
Hero
You've always been an optimizer and you don't think optimization is the problem. Well, of course not.
Warpiglet-7
Hero
Why play the game? There is a wargame potential. We want to be challenged in solving a problem….or we want to roleplay and pretend to be something else…
All of this is on a continuum I think.
I do not like playing, dm ing or being in anprty with characters that are in the tails. Weak and a total liability to all combat encounters? Or super stacked in silly ways that break immersion?
Either way it’s not so fun for me. Optimizing to the point that it’s immersion breaking or challenge obviating misses the point for me.
I want my choices to matter! Yes. I want “reasonable chances” of success when I make a reasonable choice.
the most fun sapping up thing in the modern game’s zeitgeist (for me!) is the restrictive thinking and avoidance of cool choices because another choice gets you a +2 somehow.
Even playing wargames, we used to argue over and want to play underdogs for the challenge and thrill.
5e at its baseline is easy survival for experienced players (statistically anyway). Why make it degrees easier? How long until the novelty wears off?
If you see people griping about boring characters they often are falling prey to a he recommended “efficient” course.
Play a warlock or sorlock with eldritch blast a while. Then do something else when it feels “meh.” Don’t box yourself into a little advantage that becomes boring…what is the point?
All of this is on a continuum I think.
I do not like playing, dm ing or being in anprty with characters that are in the tails. Weak and a total liability to all combat encounters? Or super stacked in silly ways that break immersion?
Either way it’s not so fun for me. Optimizing to the point that it’s immersion breaking or challenge obviating misses the point for me.
I want my choices to matter! Yes. I want “reasonable chances” of success when I make a reasonable choice.
the most fun sapping up thing in the modern game’s zeitgeist (for me!) is the restrictive thinking and avoidance of cool choices because another choice gets you a +2 somehow.
Even playing wargames, we used to argue over and want to play underdogs for the challenge and thrill.
5e at its baseline is easy survival for experienced players (statistically anyway). Why make it degrees easier? How long until the novelty wears off?
If you see people griping about boring characters they often are falling prey to a he recommended “efficient” course.
Play a warlock or sorlock with eldritch blast a while. Then do something else when it feels “meh.” Don’t box yourself into a little advantage that becomes boring…what is the point?
I want poke at that "establish silence" comment before I get to the rest of the post. That seems like you are suggesting that you interpreted my post as suggesting session zero should be a do now for all things or else the gm just needs to silently accept it when it was a post saying that session zero is pushed too hard to the point where it has unrealistic expectations placed on the gm and an unreasonably low bar granted to players. Those unrealistic expectations happen in both directions because the community so often so quickly throws session zero out as some kind of divinely blessed solution for all issues unless the gm failed by not being enough of a diviner to predict a specific thing.
I think that bold bit is where the disconnect starts forming. Session zero has evolved into this unholy abomination where the players can bring up anything they want to bring up while the gm needs to should or is supposed to bring up an ever expanding list of ground rules. Saying use session zero is why we have stuff like the eleven page six thousand word session zero checklist mentioned in Seth's video.
Reddit - The heart of the internet
www.reddit.com
I'm not even going to check if the optimization level expectations is on there but it shows how unreasonable it is for "use session zero for this" sentiments pushing GM's into an expected role that needs to function as diviners while players are allowed the option of being passive spectators and duplicitous participants in session zero. Ultiyit just enshrines 'well you should have/never bought that up in session zero -> yea he's right" stonewall should the GM bring up issues that develop or get demonstrated later. If optimization levtis an any time discussion then it's impossible for that discussion to also be a good example of why session zero exists. Reflexively checking issues out from a thing reasonable for ongoing discussion as the game develops through the glass∆ onto session zero along with the other Divination Master responsibilities just adds one more item to the above 11 page six thousand word session zero checklist mentioned in Seth's video and strengthens the case for a player being called out when they get grumpy about it not being covered in session zero.
∆ it's a hockey thing.
James Gasik
We don't talk about Pun-Pun
I've seen the opposite problem as well- the player that refuses to optimize. They have their character and backstory perfectly in mind, and it doesn't matter to them if they can't contribute in normal ways. They will continue to play their character, their way, to the bitter end.
This can be fun. It can be engaging. It can create great moments in the game. But it can also make the player an anchor around the party's neck. There's a video on YouTube I saw once that made my eyes bleed. It was something like "Why it's rude to be bad at World of Warcraft".
The gist of it is, WoW is a team game, and if you are bad at the game, you're making the game harder for your teammates, less fun, and possibly wasting their time when they could be doing anything else. I didn't care for the insinuation, but there is a point to it.
But D&D is only partly a team game. It's also a social event. So I really can't see demanding everyone play the best possible character or always make the correct decisions. But what to do with someone who seems insistent on playing the worst possible character (and making, if not always the worst, a good number of bad decisions).
This can be the inverse of the "but I'm playing my character" argument- to which my usual reply is "yes, you are playing your character with Wis 7 as a complete and utter pain in my haldz. However, the problem with that is that you decided to make your character this way."
A year or two ago (maybe longer, time is meaningless and space is bendable) I made a post about my friend Guy (yes, really). Guy considers himself an old school role-player who hates "WotC D&D" with a passion (I keep telling him it's been 25 years, he really should let it go). He tried (and failed) to get us to play 2e (I was on board but the other players quickly developed Jacky Chan confused faces). We managed to get him to consider playing 5e, but he then instantly went against any sort of conventional wisdom when creating his character, an orphan former cutpurse who stowed away on a ship, got stranded on a desert island, and was rescued by the PC's. You may wonder what his actual chosen Background was.
Fisher, from Ghosts of Saltmarsh. See he had to fish to stay alive...
Also, he was a Ranger. Who had fairly middle of the road Strength and Dexterity, but good Con and Wisdom. And low Charisma due to a horrible scar he received on the high seas (from a guy who should know his Charisma from his Comeliness).
To try and shorten this anecdote a bit, the essential problem was everyone liked Guy. They thought his antics were entertaining. What they did not care for was how he almost got their characters TPK'd.
His response was mostly that, when dealing with a mixed group, it's up to the DM to figure out how to balance things. That's what he's done for many years as a DM.
The DM (not me) was flummoxed. "How do I do that? Do I budget encounters as if he's not there? He still gets a share of the xp for everyone else's work!"
Meanwhile, in private, Guy was complaining about how he didn't understand younger gamers, always having to min/max. Now I'm not one to care too much if someone doesn't always put their aces in their places- I have a Kobold Wizard who has higher Dex than Int, for example. But he was griping that the party's priestess had a 15 Strength despite not even owning a melee weapon, just so she could get the best AC from her half-plate.
"So what are you saying, that she should just dump strength and wear light armor?"
"She's a priestess, she should be wearing robes or something."
"On an adventure!?"
"Doesn't matter. Her faith should be her armor."
In everything, there should be balance. Snarf's OP is basically saying that. Try to match what the other players are doing. If everyone is playing Ace Rimmer "What a guy!", then things are fine. If everyone is playing Arnold Rimmer, well, second verse, same as the first.*
*even if, in both cases, you basically have to ignore CR completely. But doesn't everyone?
But if your campaign is starting to look like Gilligan meets the A-Team, it's time to have a nice chat with your players about expectations vs. reality.
This can be fun. It can be engaging. It can create great moments in the game. But it can also make the player an anchor around the party's neck. There's a video on YouTube I saw once that made my eyes bleed. It was something like "Why it's rude to be bad at World of Warcraft".
The gist of it is, WoW is a team game, and if you are bad at the game, you're making the game harder for your teammates, less fun, and possibly wasting their time when they could be doing anything else. I didn't care for the insinuation, but there is a point to it.
But D&D is only partly a team game. It's also a social event. So I really can't see demanding everyone play the best possible character or always make the correct decisions. But what to do with someone who seems insistent on playing the worst possible character (and making, if not always the worst, a good number of bad decisions).
This can be the inverse of the "but I'm playing my character" argument- to which my usual reply is "yes, you are playing your character with Wis 7 as a complete and utter pain in my haldz. However, the problem with that is that you decided to make your character this way."
A year or two ago (maybe longer, time is meaningless and space is bendable) I made a post about my friend Guy (yes, really). Guy considers himself an old school role-player who hates "WotC D&D" with a passion (I keep telling him it's been 25 years, he really should let it go). He tried (and failed) to get us to play 2e (I was on board but the other players quickly developed Jacky Chan confused faces). We managed to get him to consider playing 5e, but he then instantly went against any sort of conventional wisdom when creating his character, an orphan former cutpurse who stowed away on a ship, got stranded on a desert island, and was rescued by the PC's. You may wonder what his actual chosen Background was.
Fisher, from Ghosts of Saltmarsh. See he had to fish to stay alive...
Also, he was a Ranger. Who had fairly middle of the road Strength and Dexterity, but good Con and Wisdom. And low Charisma due to a horrible scar he received on the high seas (from a guy who should know his Charisma from his Comeliness).
To try and shorten this anecdote a bit, the essential problem was everyone liked Guy. They thought his antics were entertaining. What they did not care for was how he almost got their characters TPK'd.
His response was mostly that, when dealing with a mixed group, it's up to the DM to figure out how to balance things. That's what he's done for many years as a DM.
The DM (not me) was flummoxed. "How do I do that? Do I budget encounters as if he's not there? He still gets a share of the xp for everyone else's work!"
Meanwhile, in private, Guy was complaining about how he didn't understand younger gamers, always having to min/max. Now I'm not one to care too much if someone doesn't always put their aces in their places- I have a Kobold Wizard who has higher Dex than Int, for example. But he was griping that the party's priestess had a 15 Strength despite not even owning a melee weapon, just so she could get the best AC from her half-plate.
"So what are you saying, that she should just dump strength and wear light armor?"
"She's a priestess, she should be wearing robes or something."
"On an adventure!?"
"Doesn't matter. Her faith should be her armor."
In everything, there should be balance. Snarf's OP is basically saying that. Try to match what the other players are doing. If everyone is playing Ace Rimmer "What a guy!", then things are fine. If everyone is playing Arnold Rimmer, well, second verse, same as the first.*
*even if, in both cases, you basically have to ignore CR completely. But doesn't everyone?
But if your campaign is starting to look like Gilligan meets the A-Team, it's time to have a nice chat with your players about expectations vs. reality.
Similar Threads
