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

[Lyxen]

No. But it isn't like they are the boss of me. I am not playing the game for them. The author's intent is neither magical, nor binding. Indeed, in some cases (especially older ones) I'd question whether the work actually meets the stated intent! Just because they are the author doesn't actually mean they are correct about its best uses - to assume so fits the logical fallacy of "argument from authority".

You can assume what you want, still, the game has a clear design intent that permeates the rules. And my perspective is that it's a very skewed perspective to not only consider part of the rules as absolutely binding and others as totally unimportant, but also to look down at other people for taking everything as intended, just a game with guidelines about having fun.

In contrast to this is the fact that, with most arts, what people can do with or get out of the piece is often far larger than the artist's stated intent.

Good for them, and good for you with the game. HOWEVER, what I don't like is for people to come in and tell me that optimising is required, that what I'm doing is either optimising in disguise or that it is irrelevant to discuss. Because not only is that way beyond the intent, it is CONTRARY to the intent.

There's far more powerful arguments than waving authorial intent around. But even then, those powerful arguments are best used in terms of identifiying a specific need someone has, and helping them fulfill it, not as Decree on How the Game Should Be Played.

And this whole thread is about how the game should be played, as long as you optimise, otherwise, it's irrelevant.

On the other hand, advice from people who don't know you or your players is often of limited utility. Which is where you fall flat - however weak authorial intent is as an argument, you aren't even the authority yourself. You are rhetorically beating people over the head with someone else's authority.

It's still way better than being totally dismissive of playstyles that are not optimised in one way or another, because pray tell me where the authority for THAT comes from ? Don't tell me how to play my game (especially if it's not even the stated intent of the game itself) and I won't tell you how to play yours.

Setting aside that such a generalization is not a universal truth, we have the fact that as a tool, D&D, like most RPGs, is not a focused tool, like a hammer. It is a pocket knife, a multi-tool, intended to be used for a wide variety of things, in a wide variety of situations. It is a highly flexible tool.

And so are other editions of the game, and so are other roleplaying games. Still, despite being flexible, there are limits, which make each edition/game more or less suitable to be played in a certain way. For example, in another thread, someone is (again) complaining about the encounter difficulty calculator. If you want to play a more "combat as sport" game (but still with some level of roleplaying), you can sort of do it in 5e but honestly, it's way inferior to 4e for that, because you will not be frustrated by the encounters being off for the challenges that you present.

 

[Faolyn]

You can assume what you want, still, the game has a clear design intent that permeates the rules. And my perspective is that it's a very skewed perspective to not only consider part of the rules as absolutely binding and others as totally unimportant, but also to look down at other people for taking everything as intended, just a game with guidelines about having fun.



Good for them, and good for you with the game. HOWEVER, what I don't like is for people to come in and tell me that optimising is required, that what I'm doing is either optimising in disguise or that it is irrelevant to discuss. Because not only is that way beyond the intent, it is CONTRARY to the intent.

Have you ever even read early-edition books? Optimization was very much expected--to the point that you had to have stats of a specific level in order to qualify for classes, you got bonus XP for high stats, if you were nonhuman, you often couldn't advance to higher levels in your class unless your stat was high, and there were alternate rolling methods were if you wanted to play, like, a barbarian you would roll 9d6 for Strength and keep the highest three dice.

And if you don't like being told that optimizing is required, do you think other people like being told that optimizing is "contrary to the intent"?

Because in previous discussions I've had with you, you've gone as far as to say that picking a good race/class combo is powergaming and bad. Not that you don't like it, or that you prefer to not do that, or even that you don't think it's necessary. but that's it's actually wrong. You're doing the same thing here, by saying that you're not supposed to optimize, that the game doesn't "intend" for you to do so. Do you really think that people are going to be happy with you telling them that they're actually playing wrong?

 

[Lyxen]

Have you ever even read early-edition books? Optimization was very much expected--to the point that you had to have stats of a specific level in order to qualify for classes, you got bonus XP for high stats, if you were nonhuman, you often couldn't advance to higher levels in your class unless your stat was high, and there were alternate rolling methods were if you wanted to play, like, a barbarian you would roll 9d6 for Strength and keep the highest three dice.

I probably read then before you were even born, and there was no such optimisation since you rolled your stats anyway, so what was there to optimise there ? So no, optimisation was not expected, since there was NOTHING to optimise. Today, unless people cheat at dice or use very "personal" methods (because, for some reason, all their dice rolling only produces stats awy over the average), all the optimisation is from point-buy anyway.

And if you don't like being told that optimizing is required, do you think other people like being told that optimizing is "contrary to the intent"?

The main difference is that I can prove it, through the designers' intent. Pray tell, how do you optimise if you don't even read all the rules ? Now prove to me, from any rulebook in any edition that the designers expect you to optimise to play the game. I'll be waiting.

I don't forbid you to optimise, but please don't tell me how to play my game, or look down your nose at people not optimising.

Because in previous discussions I've had with you, you've gone as far as to say that picking a good race/class combo is powergaming and bad.

That is a simple lie, prove it. HOWEVER, I've never seen a powergamer pick anything else than a good race/class combo, thereby forbidding himself to explore 90% of the game possibilities, which I find stupid (especially when it's along the lines of "whine whine, the game does not have enough possibilities"). That is a completely different thing.

Not that you don't like it, or that you prefer to not do that, or even that you don't think it's necessary. but that's it's actually wrong. You're doing the same thing here, by saying that you're not supposed to optimize, that the game doesn't "intend" for you to do so. Do you really think that people are going to be happy with you telling them that they're actually playing wrong?

I've never said that they are playing it wrong, if you read my posts, but YOU ARE THE ONE TRYING TO TELL ME THAT I'M PLAYING IT WRONG FOR NOT OPTIMISING, or telling me that it's not even worth discussing not optimising, since it's obviously so much an inferior way of gaming.

By the way, I'm not expecting you to be happy, but I'm at least expecting you to real the rules of the game, all of it, before discussing it seriously. And these rules, all over the place, just tell you not to bother seriously about the rules, that it's not what is best about the game, etc.

 

[the Jester]

And this whole thread is about how the game should be played, as long as you optimise, otherwise, it's irrelevant.

That's not how I read it.

 

[Mannahnin]

That's not how I read it.

Yeah, that's definitely not what it's about.

The OP is talking about character/build optimization vs. "optimizing" by exploiting the environment and your resources during play of the game, and asking which of those people focus on more. The latter is kind of an unconventional use of the term "optimize", and Character Optimization has been a well-known term for what, 15+ years? So that may be confusing some folks.

 

[Composer99]

Well, I'm pretty sure this thread wasn't meant to be about any of the following, going by the original post and the poll:

• What the designers expect will be the primary focus of gameplay
• Whether or not the game ought to be played writ large with char-op in mind
• What the game is even about in any philosophical or practical sense

And yet those things are taking over the thread.

---

Anyway, accepting the stated premise of the thread (which I'm happy to do for the purpose of the OP's intent), I have voted that I lean slightly towards build optimisation. I'm happiest if my characters are able to competently fill the niche I have in mind for them.

Apropos of MGibster's telling of the story of Bug, though, that niche does not have to be "competent at the primary mechanical levers of the class/archetype/what-have-you provided in the game".

 

[Faolyn]

I probably read then before you were even born,

Since AD&D1e was published after I was born, unlikely. Unless you have a time machine. In which case, use it for something other than reading D&D books before I was born, okay?

and there was no such optimisation since you rolled your stats anyway, so what was there to optimise there ? So no, optimisation was not expected, since there was NOTHING to optimise. Today, unless people cheat at dice or use very "personal" methods (because, for some reason, all their dice rolling only produces stats awy over the average), all the optimisation is from point-buy anyway.

Shockingly, you can optimize with rolled stats. And also shockingly, people don't cheat just because you don't like their stats. And also shockingly, you can very easily optimize from rolling dice. In fact, one of the reasons why many people don't like rolling dice is because it's so easy to optimize that way--and that even with rolling 3d6 down the line, you can get incredibly high stats. More so when you can roll 4d6 drop the lowest and assign.

Heck, I knew a guy in college who--when watched, using other people's dice, even just dropping the dice instead of trying for a fancy roll--would always get high stats, like nothing lower than a 13 and usually higher. He would get high stats when he used a random number generator. He would get high stats when he made Deadlands characters and drew cards that other people had shuffled and were holding, like mostly face cards and spades. He was just amazingly lucky when it came to random generation.

The main difference is that I can prove it, through the designers' intent. Pray tell, how do you optimise if you don't even read all the rules ? Now prove to me, from any rulebook in any edition that the designers expect you to optimise to play the game. I'll be waiting.

I don't forbid you to optimise, but please don't tell me how to play my game, or look down your nose at people not optimising.

You can't forbid people from optimizing. You're not the God of Gaming. But you are telling others how to play their game and you are looking down your nose at people who aren't playing the way you prefer. You don't recognize the hypocrisy here?

That is a simple lie, prove it.

Many of your posts in this thread.

HOWEVER, I've never seen a powergamer pick anything else than a good race/class combo, thereby forbidding himself to explore 90% of the game possibilities, which I find stupid (especially when it's along the lines of "whine whine, the game does not have enough possibilities"). That is a completely different thing.

Maybe you haven't looked hard enough. I've encountered very few people like that myself, and never in real life. Nobody in my group refuses to "less optimal" combos.

I've never said that they are playing it wrong, if you read my posts, but YOU ARE THE ONE TRYING TO TELL ME THAT I'M PLAYING IT WRONG FOR NOT OPTIMISING, or telling me that it's not even worth discussing not optimising, since it's obviously so much an inferior way of gaming.

Dude, so many of your posts recently has been that people are playing it against the way it was "intended" to be played. That is literally telling people that they're playing it wrong.

By the way, I'm not expecting you to be happy, but I'm at least expecting you to real the rules of the game, all of it, before discussing it seriously. And these rules, all over the place, just tell you not to bother seriously about the rules, that it's not what is best about the game, etc.

I have read the rules.

 

[Seramus]

I will always consider "having fun" as something I can optimize. Just like DPR, Basketweaving, being a Politician, or anything else that might involve a mechanical choice I can use to realize my goals (whatever they may be in a given game).

 

[Lyxen]

Since AD&D1e was published after I was born, unlikely. Unless you have a time machine. In which case, use it for something other than reading D&D books before I was born, okay?

Then don't make any false claim about their content, like saying that they required you to optimise, or even suggested it.

Shockingly, you can optimize with rolled stats. And also shockingly, people don't cheat just because you don't like their stats. And also shockingly, you can very easily optimize from rolling dice. In fact, one of the reasons why many people don't like rolling dice is because it's so easy to optimize that way--and that even with rolling 3d6 down the line, you can get incredibly high stats. More so when you can roll 4d6 drop the lowest and assign.

Yeah, yeah, right. It's funny however how all these people coming to forums with incredibly high stats always sort of apologise by saying "but I rolled them, I was very lucky", whereas I don't think I've EVER seen someone come with under-average stat because he rolled them (I'm speaking 5e here, we had a lot of under-average rolled stat characters in AD&D).

And while there certainly was powergaming in early editions, again, as there was so little to optimise with (rolled stats, no feats, no skills, almost no class powers, etc.), it usually came from items. Optimising really took off with 3e, with all the above.

You can't forbid people from optimizing. You're not the God of Gaming. But you are telling others how to play their game and you are looking down your nose at people who aren't playing the way you prefer. You don't recognize the hypocrisy here?

Not at all, I'm not looking down my nose at anyone, I'm just asking people to remember that the game never, ever required you to optimise to play it whereas every single edition of the game actually told you that rules are not that important, and that fun is way more important. And it's funny how you cut out that part of the post.

Many of your posts in this thread.

Which is a good thing, go and read them again and you will see that you lied about their contents.
https://www.enworld.org/threads/no-...nics-should-determine-racial-cultures.682105/

Maybe you haven't looked hard enough. I've encountered very few people like that myself, and never in real life. Nobody in my group refuses to "less optimal" combos.

Good for you. However, it's been one of the many "interesting" arguments of Tasha that people could now explore combinations that were not playable before...

Dude, so many of your posts recently has been that people are playing it against the way it was "intended" to be played. That is literally telling people that they're playing it wrong.

Again, learn to read. There is a clear perspective about the design intent of the game. Does it prevent the game from being played any other way ? Certainly not. Do I tell anyone that it's bad to play it another way ? Certainly not. What I'm only reminding people is that, on the other hand, optimising is not recommended or even hinted at in the game as designed, and that therefore expecting, as a baseline, people to optimise or being considered inferior or worse players for not doing it is NOT OK.

I have read the rules.

Then please show it in the conversations.

 

[Lanefan]

And while there certainly was powergaming in early editions, again, as there was so little to optimise with (rolled stats, no feats, no skills, almost no class powers, etc.), it usually came from items.

For arcane casters, spell selection and loadout were (and still are) quite optimizable. For martials, weapon proficiency selection could be optimized as well, but only to a point.

The other major point where optimization occurred was rearrangement of stats, which IME nearly every 1e DM allowed. This one ain't a big deal to me, particularly in a system where having a good stat in your prime requisite is so important.

Optimising really took off with 3e, with all the above.

For the masses, yes. Some early birds trained up during the late 2e splatbook era.

Again, learn to read. There is a clear perspective about the design intent of the game. Does it prevent the game from being played any other way ? Certainly not. Do I tell anyone that it's bad to play it another way ? Certainly not. What I'm only reminding people is that, on the other hand, optimising is not recommended or even hinted at in the game as designed, and that therefore expecting, as a baseline, people to optimise or being considered inferior or worse players for not doing it is NOT OK.

Mild optimizing at the who-cares level - e.g. putting a high roll/number into your class' prime stat(s) and choosing feats and skills that suit your class, stats, and character idea - is fairly strongly hinted at in the PH.

What's not hinted at or suggested is the sort of all-out power-building that (IMO rightly) gives optimizing a bad rap.