D&D General Playstyle Enjoyment: Build Optimization or Play Optimization?

[Lyxen]

Why are you even playing/using a given system (instead of another, or even no system at all) if the tools it provides don't facilitate the game you're trying to play/run?

Because they provide a reasonable simulation of the world that my character lives in ? Once more, the devs' own words: "To play D&D, and to play it well, you don’t need to read all the rules, memorize every detail of the game, or master the fine art of rolling funny looking dice. None of those things have any bearing on what’s best about the game."

How are you engaging with the world your character is a part of if you don't even fully understand how to engage with anything in the system you're using for engagements?

Because the rules are not the world. The world is the world, just as in the real world where the "laws" of physics are only approximations of what really happens, the rules only provide an approximation, but they are not the world. And that's the problem with optimisers, they only think in term of rules and therefore they only see the part of the world that the rules approximate, and even then through a more or less narrow filter.

If you don't know or understand the limitations of what characters can and can't do, you can't know if said character is even playing their role correctly.

Because playing one's role is only about what the character can technically do ? Case proven, see above. Moreover, as a person, I know that I'm fairly good with a bow, and that is enough for me to roleplay myself when archery is involved. I can't know how good I exactly am, and I don't need that to function in the world.

That's called optimizing for character internal consistency.

Not at all, it's just called roleplaying, which is the actual intent of the game.

 

[Ancalagon]

There are two playstyles that I've seen and one seems to be more popular than the other. Though, I'd like to see what the community prefers:

Play Optimization: You're more moment-to-moment about your kit. Why you take a feat/ability has less to do with always having an answer and more to do with having a preferred character concept. So sometimes, you'll choose less optimal abilities because it's more apt to your playstyle. But when you play, you're constantly thinking about how to push even the smallest bits of flavor text to their maximum potential in all scenarios. So you might have Dancing Light to try to lure an enemy into an ambush or you might remove your heavy armor and place on Breastplates in situations where the consequences of being caught in stealth is not just combat. In other words, you thrive in maximizing in the most niche situations into your favor by thinking creatively or using every tool in your arsenal.

I have bolded the BUT here because I think there are a few elements here that I want to comment and it will help.

First of all, your second style is actually TWO styles - divided by the "but".
1: Making character choice based on RP and playstyle
2: Using your abilities creatively and manipulating the environment.

These are not related. You could have a player that does a lot of 1 but not 2, or vice versa.

Second of all, #2 is very dependent on the style of the GM, specifically "combat as a sport" vs "combat as war" - in the second, manipulating the environment is key so you can, as you say, lure the enemy into an ambush.

 

[Arilyn]

I build my characters depending on who they are as they take shape in my imagination. Some I plan out details ahead of time because I have a very clear image of what abilities and skills they'll end up with, others grow as we play. Some are "optimized" because as people they are very focused. Others end up with a mish mash of feats and skills because that's who they are. I'll often take less powerful feats or have mediocre stats if it fits my image of the character. Other times they'll have that 20 in their primary stat.

 

[Lanefan]

Not optimizing = not fully engaging with the system.

The game is more than just the rules system, though.

I can fully engage with the game - the RP aspects, the combat, etc. - without doing any real optimizing at all.

Further, I can - if I want - fully engage with the system to make/play an intentionally non-optimal character that hews closer to my vision for what that character is intended to be.

This is fine (definitely not forbidden), but isn't really worth discussing to any deep extent.

Making a controversial claim like your first line above and then saying it's not worth discussing in the next line just ain't gonna fly around here...

 

[Lanefan]

It's possible to do both, but I wanted to know, if given the choice, which do you lean.

It's not like if you choose one side, you can never or will never do the other, it's just when you're playing the game, do you find the most enjoyment from one playstyle or the other?

Also, I chose the word "lean" and the concepts of "slightly" or "heavily" so people don't feel confined by these two ideas, like it's a restriction rather than a preference.

I did avoid the choice "both" though, as this way does force someone to choose, even if it's not an easy choice or they feel its wishy-washy.

You also avoided "neither", which would have been my vote had it existed as an option.

 

[Asisreo]

You also avoided "neither", which would have been my vote had it existed as an option.

True. It's not to exclude anyone, it's just to force the whole "Okay, but I have to make a choice...I guess I'll choose this" which at least shows a leaning.

It's also important to know it's not that the definitions are "I have to have the utmost perfect build" or "I must use every single opportunity to be resourceful." Even the most decisive answers are less definitive than "I am this" or "I am that."

It's like Alignment. A Lawful Good character might still go out on a revenge quest or a chaotic evil character may rescue the princess out of love. But it's a general tendency.

 

[TwoSix]

I'm sorry, but no you can't, because when the time comes to make a choice, I can guarantee that whoever thinks about optimisation will make the optimised choice. It's easy to create an optimised character and to retrofit all you want to a backstory that looks somewhat reasonable, but in particular in combat, if you're thinking about are "your kit" or your pre-programmed responses, that's what you will try to use. There are even worse cases of people influencing the game so that their favourite combo comes up, for example starting fights when they think the circumstances are technically right, with no regards for (for example) what the other characters are trying to accomplish in terms of social or stealth.

I know we've had this disagreement before, and I'm sorry you've played with people who don't know how to do both successfully, but you're simply incorrect.

 

[overgeeked]

There are two playstyles that I've seen and one seems to be more popular than the other. Though, I'd like to see what the community prefers:

Build Optimization: This is optimizing your character from creation and carefully adjudicating their progress through the levels. It's the type where you practically already know your future spells and feats. Most of the time, you can rely on cause-effect type abilities like a card game. For example, you have Shield so you always have the cause->get attacked->effect->cast shield option. In other words, you offload your thinking to before the encounter has begun.

Play Optimization: You're more moment-to-moment about your kit. Why you take a feat/ability has less to do with always having an answer and more to do with having a preferred character concept. So sometimes, you'll choose less optimal abilities because it's more apt to your playstyle. But when you play, you're constantly thinking about how to push even the smallest bits of flavor text to their maximum potential in all scenarios. So you might have Dancing Light to try to lure an enemy into an ambush or you might remove your heavy armor and place on Breastplates in situations where the consequences of being caught in stealth is not just combat. In other words, you thrive in maximizing in the most niche situations into your favor by thinking creatively or using every tool in your arsenal.

In reality, most players are a little in both, but I want to see which person leans one way or another.

Neither. I don't optimize. I make a character and play it. Whatever spells, feats, or advancements I take are about what makes logical sense to the character. What would the character pick or what is supported by the diegetic choices made during play. This is decidedly not play optimization. It looks like you're also mixing in combat as war with your play optimization. While I enjoy that style (combat as war) the rest of the description of play optimization simply doesn't apply.

 

[Asisreo]

I might start a thread in the indefinite future about the types of roleplay playstyles, types of combat playstyles, and types of exploration playstyles.

And the options presented are not meant to be all-encompassing. They're isolated to focus on them, not to discredit others. So you may see: scene roleplayers vs improv roleplayers sometime later, for example. This doesn't mean someone who does neither is "wrong." It just means we're focusing on those two, which can exist together, but I'd be interested in where the community leans.

 

[Lyxen]

I know we've had this disagreement before, and I'm sorry you've played with people who don't know how to do both successfully, but you're simply incorrect.

And simply saying I am proves nothing. There are varying degrees of this, obviously, but look at the way the alternatives are proposed in this thread, they are all about making a technical choice for technical advantage. This is why we banned "explaining you action" at our table, so that people would not be pressured into making that kind of choice.