Optimization and optimizers...

[Retros_x]

Optimized for me means Optimized within the confines of the entire game, not just a class. I.e. you play Bugbear Polearm Master Sentinel Opportunity Attack Fighter because it is broken because there is a 0% chance this happens naturally without browsing Reddit.

I agree with you, but the entire game includes to me also DM restrictions and limitations. I never even played in a game where Volos races were allowed. And usually in my games a build needs to be explained by roleplay limitations and causes too like backstory, world setting etc. As I wrote, roleplay and optimization can get fusioned. With those limitations, you still can optimize your build, the optimal values are just different.

A GM with optimizers in the group who allows everything and needs no roleplay will have a party full of broken builds like the one you suggested, but that is not the problem with people who like to optimize, its a problem with the game itself. And usually everyone will realize pretty quickly that this is not very fun and optimizer players without problematic personalities will agree and accept a stricter ruleset where they optimize on new grounds.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

but the entire game includes to me also DM restrictions and limitations. I never even played in a game where Volos races were allowed

A GM with optimizers in the group who allows everything and needs no roleplay will have a party full of broken builds

By "needs roleplay" do you mean "needs a backstory justification"?

 

[prabe]

By "needs roleplay" do you mean "needs a backstory justification"?

I would say connections to/in the setting and goals and defined personality things (if not the BIFTs in 5e) would qualify--though the first of that is arguably backstory, it doesn't need to have a lot of narrative attached to it. I mean, the idea that a build without a personality isn't really a character seems defensible to me, even if it's not my exact position.

Obviously, the person you're responding to might have different ideas, and so might you..

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I mean, the idea that a build without a personality isn't really a character seems defensible to me, even if it's not my exact position.

Oh I tend to agree, you need a personality/backstory which is compatible with the mechanical character, but the idea that a build has to have a 1:1 correlation with full backstory explanations for literally every mechanical element which seems to possibly be implied would be bonkers (but not so bonkers I can dismiss it!).

 

[prabe]

Oh I tend to agree, you need a personality/backstory which is compatible with the mechanical character, but the idea that a build has to have a 1:1 correlation with full backstory explanations for literally every mechanical element which seems to possibly be implied would be bonkers (but not so bonkers I can dismiss it!).

Yeah, that 1:1 correlation is way beyond where I'd go in that direction, too..

 

[Seramus]

I'm reminded of a World of Darkness conversation I wasn't even involved in:
"Why is your character starting with a 5 in Intelligence?"
"Talent, I guess."
Angry Storyteller glares.

 

[Retros_x]

By "needs roleplay" do you mean "needs a backstory justification"?

That or just some sort of connection between the narration and the mechanics. When a paladin multiclasses into a warlock, there should be story implications by that and not just done for the crazy build the player hopes for.

but the idea that a build has to have a 1:1 correlation with full backstory explanations for literally every mechanical element

No, that would be too much - although I enjoy finding narrative reasons why my character gains a feat or new ability, its a cool creative exercise. But I would not enforce that.