D&D General Optimistic Thoughts on Optimizing

[tetrasodium]

I'm a fan of thoughtful charop but Optimization/build guides have become a problem for d&d because 5e tried so hard to streamline & simplify everything. Knowing how to optimize without being a disruption requires the player to understand the system well enough to metaphorically read the cards in play between themselves the monsters and (most importantly) the other players to know how & when it's time to break the safeties and go all out right when everyone is thrilled to see it.

Back in 3.x players could read all the guides and learn all the tricks but they still needed to understand their resulting build well enough to avoid being so excited to pop their cork that they waste it in a situation where it doesn't apply or is totally unneeded, most of the hyperoptimized builds in 5e though are rushing beyond the curve every round of every combat & often dominating in social/exploration pillars because of the dominance of charisma+diplomasncy skills being overly condensed or stealth+dex.

Have a solid grasp on the how & when if they wanted to be particularly effective in ways that matter is no longer the important part of build guides so you don't need to consider anything like the old OTT CODzilla & lion totem/charge/shocktrooper type builds so players just default to just "I use [pwn]" in every single situation without needing the luck of aquaman's contrived whiteroom scenario because it is an often an always ready at will that also applies to nearly every situation

 

[EzekielRaiden]

And I think it's a great question for people to ask themselves (IMO)- if you were asked to tone something down in play, would you? Or would you argue that you have the right to push as hard and as far as the rules allow, because that's the optimal way to play?

Firstly, before answering the question here, I am quite surprised to say I have very few notes. Not quite "no notes", but shockingly close. This may be the first time you and I genuinely just...agree on stuff right off the bat. It's a nice change of pace.

For me, the answer to this question depends on context. Consider the following:

GM: "Hey. Your character is stupidly OP. You need to play something that isn't...that. And whatever else you play, it also needs to not be...like that. Got it? Because if you don't change this, we're kicking you out. Sorry, that's just how it is. Send me your new character sheet at least a day in advance so I can approve it first."

vs

GM: "Hey. I've been talking with the other players, and we're all feeling a little frustrated. Your character is...really powerful, and that's causing us issues. It's really hard for me to make a combat that's interesting for you without pasting the others, and folks are feeling frustrated that they aren't really getting to contribute. We need to talk about what changes we can make so the rest of us are happy, without just taking away your character outright. Do you have time to do that now? This needs to happen sooner rather than later."

Now, obviously, the first example is by construction EXTREMELY blunt, aggressive, unsubtle, has a clearly insincere "sorry", etc., while the latter is conciliatory perhaps to a fault, much more longwinded, etc. These are polar opposite extremes, meant to illustrate the point. A GM who approaches me with the second message? I'm going to walk with them as far as I'm able, and I'll likely be willing to make sacrifices I might otherwise not make, because they've shown they care. They've shown that what matters isn't throwing their weight around, but finding common ground, and building something better than what we currently have. I respect that. I don't want to be a pain in the butt. I'm often concerned about whether or not I am a "problem" or a "burden" to others, so someone approaching with understanding and respect matters, a LOT, to me.

'Course, if my behavior has been really crappy, or if I've been warned multiple times before and nothing has changed? Yeah, a response like the top one is probably warranted. That's not "ARE YOU RESISTING ARREST?!?", but rather "WAKE. THE F---. UP."

In brief, if the GM comes to me and tries to find common ground, I'll honestly probably give them more than I really have to. But if they come at it slamming down the gavel? I'm going to resist, and I'm probably going to give less than I think is warranted just because I resent such heavy-handed tactics.

 

[evilbob]

I think this is a good way to put it. If you're not concerned with table dynamics, all manner of discomfort and hurt feelings can come about. Be that from an optimizer who dramatically overshadows other players, to an aloof player who plays on their phone and needs to be reminded every turn of what's going on, to a heavy roleplayer that doesn't share the spotlight or function as a team, to a rules lawyer who mentions a rule more than once or argues with the GM.

IMO this is /thread

Optimization isn't a problem. Rules lawyers aren't a problem. Distractions aren't a problem. Role playing isn't a problem.

But any of those ARE a problem if the person playing with a group is being a problem. These are all describing the same issue, except in different flavors. It really just comes down to finding people who can play with each other amicably. This was true since we were kids.

 

[Bae'zel]

I guess I'm a bit of an optimizer, in that when I make a character, I really want them to be really extremely good at one thing, decently good at two other things.

Basically ensuring that they have a competent part to play in combat, exploration and socializing. That my character CAN reliably contribute in all three types of scenes, ya know?

And I will build their personality around that. How did they get so good at archery? Who taught them to be so stealthy? Why do they always prefer Deception over persuasion all of the time?