Optimization and optimizers...

[Gradine]

Really?

I would say 5E reaches far above that.

Assuming you put your highest stat as your primary, and increase that from time to time, D&D's worst combination of race/class/subclass is probably like, a 5.5/10 where the best is probably a 10/10 (excluding multiclassing for now). And that's abnormal. If you only include likely/PHB races/classes/subclasses it's more like between 6.5/10 and 10/10, or even 7/10 and 10/10 if you're being generous.

And I don't even like 5E all that much. I preferred 4E, but it was nowhere near as balanced, even with constant balance updates. Worst was easily 3.XE, where you could make a totally legit sensible lore-appropriate, right stats in right place character and they'd be like 2/10 on a good day, and someone else could do the same, and be like 10/10 easy by comparison or like 12/10 if PrCs got involved.

I mean, you're necessarily making a relative comparison by talking about "poorly balanced", so what's your point of reference? I'd say "mainstream traditional RPGs over the last 30 years" is mine, and by that reference point, D&D 5E is one of the most balanced RPGs on the market, and thus cannot, for me, be defined as "poorly balanced".

If, however, I was comparing D&D to like, big, successful MMORPGs, D&D would not be particularly well-balanced, sure. But that seems to a questionable comparison to me.

Well, I was responding to someone talking about poor balance in what, I think at least at the time, was a reference to 5e. I agree that 5e is the most balanced version of D&D. Especially the 2024 version. That's a really low bar, and one it doesn't clear by a lot, but I definitely think it's true.

Of course, I also don't happen to think that D&D needs to be well balanced. I don't think any TTRPG particularly needs to be well balanced. My point is that such lack of balance isn't, or at least doesn't have to be, a bug, and might even be a feature, particularly as a response to the types of "don't mix the player types" "truisms" that lead to things like the 3.X tier list-style "never have a fighter and a wizard in the same party" mantras that are, I would hope we could agree, absolutely ludicrous in retrospect.

So, imagine that the quote you're responding to is actually saying "There has never been and will likely never be a D&D game that reaches above "poorly balanced" (positive).

 

[Bill Zebub]

I'm intrigued by this.

What positive motivations could you even conceive for someone actively trying to "win" D&D, at the cost of the fun of both other players, and themselves (because we've already established they're not even having fun in any conventional sense as part of the premise)?

Unless you can answer that, you're just doing the reverse of making someone up to be mad at - which is to say, defending objectively bad behaviour on the basis that there might be some explanation that even you can't come up with.

What are you going with? Like TTRPGs are inherently bourgeois and ruining TTRPG sessions is class struggle or something? That's about as positive a motivation as I can come up with lol.

It's got nothing to do with "sharing preferences", has it? The only "preference" relevant to this specific point is:

"Do you prefer to actively ruin the fun of others (and yourself) in order to "win" at RPGs?" with a binary yes/no answer lol.

If you're not talking about TTRPGs and not talking about people trying to "win" at all costs, then you're just getting mad at something no-one even said, least of all me.

EDIT - The best I can say is that people doing this - playing when they're not even having fun, trying to "win" the game in the sense of completely dominating it and ruining it for others are usually acting out from emotional issues not related to the game. The one player in my main group who went through a "munchkin" phase was dealing with a ton of stuff with his family (which he minimized at that age), and was essentially "acting out" in game, where he had more power. That doesn't mean his behaviour wasn't childish or immature - on the contrary it was. Like, when I was a young teen or maybe 12 I once punched my poor brother in the face, quite intentionally, but the real reason I did it was because I was mad about stuff nothing to do with him (he was just being mildly annoying). There were reasons, but it was still childish, immature, and destructive, and I felt very guilty for it as an adult (or indeed by about 15). So I'm struggling to come up with any possible reasons which don't eventually come back "dealing with some stuff" and "acting out" due to "emotional immaturity". And that's kind of the best case. The worst case is more like being a genuinely nasty person who enjoys seeing others suffer and games ruined.

I don't feel a need to come up "reasons." Because I'm sure I know only a tiny bit of what's going in the heads of the players at my own tables, let alone trying extrapolate to the thousands of people I will never meet who exhibit related behaviors.

I'm content with saying, "I've played with people who do X and it affects me as Y."

I don't understand the point in conjecturing about what's going on with them emotionally, or denigrating them for their behavior.

And, along those lines, I won't try to intuit why you do want to do that. I'll just point out that it doesn't actually add to the conversation.

 

[prabe]

I know you're not disagreeing, but I've definitely seen the other though; when we started playing D&D 4e, my wife wanted to build an effective ranger-archer, and took advice from our most notorious local power gamer. It worked (it was a somewhat notorious power build in the 4e community), but it was built around one particular ability that was so good, there was rarely a reason to ever do anything else, which got pretty dull for her.

On some level, this feels like "I've solved being a good archer and now I want some other problem to solve," but that's almost certainly projecting my tastes and preferences onto someone else--it's a POV/headspace thing, in other words, that different people will see differently.

 

[Thomas Shey]

On some level, this feels like "I've solved being a good archer and now I want some other problem to solve," but that's almost certainly projecting my tastes and preferences onto someone else--it's a POV/headspace thing, in other words, that different people will see differently.

I don't entirely disagree, but class systems are not notorious for making it easy to branch out.

 

[Maxperson]

If optimizing wasn't encouraged behavior by default the game shouldn't make optimizing good.

Case in point: Swords & Wizardry Complete Revised
View attachment 410180

Does having high dex matter? Yes. Does it matter all that much above a 14? Also no.

Here's 5e

View attachment 410181

Do higher ability scores matter? Yes. Do they ever stop mattering? No.

Getting mad at people for optimizing at 5e/PF2e style games (when no other style of play is agreed upon) is kind of like getting mad at people for shooting goals at soccer instead of enjoying the scenery. The games are character builder fantasies.

The important part is that everyone needs to be on the same page. Either everyone goes heavy RP and unoptimized or everyone is optimized to their build. I agree that they don't mix.

They really don't matter much at all. Most games never get to 10th level, so the vast majority of players never see fighters reach 3 or more attacks.

For low levels, the difference between that 14 and that 18 is +2. Out of every 20 swings on average, that PC will hit 2 more times. A typical fight is about 5 rounds or 5 swings at low level. So those 2 extra hits are spread out over 4 fights. Fights that usually have multiple monsters that in 5e are big bags of hit points, so the extra hits will rarely matter much. the same with the piddly +2 damage per hit.

The game is balanced not around bonuses to hit and damage, but instead is balanced around the actual class abilities. That's why the person with a 14 in his main stat will still easily cruise through the game.

You can rush to 20 in the stat to get your +5 if you want to, but it will ultimately mean FAR less in combat than something like great weapon master, sentinel or most other feats. With the added bonus of the feats being far more fun to use and actually visible to the player. The player will usually never know which 2 hits were the extra ones.

Optimizers who go after stats are wasting their energy making an already easy game a little bit easier, instead of getting more useful feats.

 

[Maxperson]

My take--and this is just my take, I'm not speaking for anyone else, here--is that having people who are optimized to different extents can be a problem, and it's more likely to be a problem than if everyone is optimized to the same extent. This is especially the case if someone is kinda en passant stepping on someone else's niche-toes, while still rawking out at their primary thing. If the person who's optimizing the hardest is also a spotlight hawg, it's almost certainly going to be a problem.

That's never an optimization problem. There are so many ways to go, that if a player is picking up things to step on someone else's niche, that's a player being a jerk problem, not an optimization problem.

 

[prabe]

That's never an optimization problem. There are so many ways to go, that if a player is picking up things to step on someone else's niche, that's a player being a jerk problem, not an optimization problem.

If it's intentional, yeah, it's a jerk thing. It's not always intentional--at least, I've seen instances that I didn't think were.

 

[bloodtide]

This is a nonsensical statement. "Thrive" is relative. Non-optimized PCs benefit more and "thrive" more in a game that is "made easy for them". Optimization is less fun, less interesting, and makes less of a difference in a game where everything is "made easy", so the idea that optimizers "thrive" in such games is extremely strange.

As I said, the bulk of the jerk optimizers what to be a super star in the game. And they can only do that in an easy game. Again, please note there is nothing wrong with having and running an easy game. If it is your idea of fun it is fine.

I think you're confusing optimization with extreme specialization. PCs who are built to do one thing extremely well, at the cost of everything else, do tend to play better in relatively "easy" campaigns, because their weaknesses aren't exposed. But that's not how most optimization is - most optimization is directed towards a more general approach to success.

It is rare to see well rounded characters, even with optimizers. Most optimizers fall into the optimization trap is always wanting more, so even if they have a DC 30 effect...they still want that ability/feat/item that gives them a +2 more. And you so see this with damage.

This idea that optimized PCs and good roleplaying are somehow in opposition to each other is, frankly, not only pernicious and a little bit offensive, but demonstrably and obviously wrong a simple factual level, and even on a basic rational level! At best it's essentially a superstition that denigrates perhaps the majority of people playing TTRPGs. The cold, undeniable fact is that you can good at both, just like you can be a really fit, athletic person, and be really smart, much as some people desperately cling to "dumb jock"/"smart nerd" nonsense.

It is simple enough:

An Optimizer only cares about playing the pure mechanical game, it's the whole game to them. When you put a lot of time and effort into a mechanical character, the last thing you want to do is sit back and just role play...the 'acting' type of role play where you do nothing but talk.

And easy way to tell is just suggest to the players "hey lets level the books and sheets here and go out on the deck and just pure role play".....and what the Optimizer object, whine and complain.

People can say "Oh well my experience is that..." but come on, that's so much hot air when you're asserting things about entire massive groups of people (again, probably the easy majority of people who play TTRPGs), especially things that are definitely not factual! It is really no better than assuming because someone is sporty/fit/healthy, they're an absolute dunce.

Sure it is Anecdotal, but then so is anything anyone says too....

 

[Laurefindel]

Optimizers who go after stats are wasting their energy making an already easy game a little bit easier, instead of getting more useful feats.

If they’re wasting character resources and letting go better feats, they’re not very good optimizers.

Min-Maxers will try to get the highest bonus and leave the biggest weaknesses wide open. Oftentimes that is less than optimal. These builds don’t score high on my optimizer scale…

 

[Thomas Shey]

Sure it is Anecdotal, but then so is anything anyone says too....

Contrary to what some people will tell you, a large enough collection anecdotes are data unless you distrust the whole population the anecdotes are from. So when one person tells you X and twenty people tell you Y, its not generally the one person you should be going by, and that's true even if the one person is yourself.

So unless you have some reason to believe the majority of this thread are all lying to you and/or confused, perhaps you should reassess here.