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

[Lyxen]

For arcane casters, spell selection and loadout were (and still are) quite optimizable.

I think we need to distinguish between optimisation of your character build, and the much more simple choices that you make when playing it. At the time, I don't recall anyone spending hours in his basement dreaming about builds. You came to the table, you rolled your stats, and you started playing (compared to other games for example like Chivalry and Sorcery or Traveller, where there was actual building of the character and potential optimisation).

Spell selection was not a difficult choice and daily loadout was for all casters, and usually fairly standard unless you had a good idea what you were going to encounter. I would hardly call that optimisation.

For martials, weapon proficiency selection could be optimized as well, but only to a point.

Again, very simple choices with few consequences.

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.

I would hardly call putting your best score in the one important score for your class "optimisation".

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

Yes, I thought I would mention these as they were really the proto-3e, but I am not sure how many people actually played with them to any serious degree.

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.

Again, I would not call this even mild optimisation, I suppose it's a question of vocabulary, for me it's simply not gimping your character on purpose.

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

Indeed.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Slightly favor "Build Optimization," but that's mostly because:

1. I tend to be optimizing for a story premise that I want to see unfold. I see these build choices as setting the starting point of the journey, not defining absolutely every aspect of it to the nth degree;
2. rarely if ever have I had a game where the story premise I wanted to see unfold either got replaced by one I wanted to see more, or became so untenable that I had to pursue something else.

Note that I'm not talking about a full plotted-out story. I'm talking about things like "noble and kind paladin finding his way between the perils of zealotry and complacency" or "inquisitive and adventurous bard pushing the boundaries of her skills, whether mundane or magical." Stories that can fit into nearly any context. Obviously, I do what I can to tweak them so they fit more fully into the setting provided (assuming there's enough info to do so), but the over-arching premise is usually timeless and worthy of exploration for its own sake.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

{snip}

Again, learn to read.

{snip}

Honestly, your arguments might hold more weight if you skipped the rude personal attacks like this and replaced them with a simple “I disagree, here’s why”.

 

[Lyxen]

Honestly, your arguments might hold more weight if you skipped the rude personal attacks like this and replaced them with a simple “I disagree, here’s why”.

I'm sorry, but I tried that, but in out of patience with people who not only put words in my mouth but also who seem to be offended when shown simple quotes from the PH introduction. Once more, if you like optimising, that's fine, but I think it's time for some people to stop thinking that you are not a good player if you don't optimise, that's all. It's never required not recommended by any edition of the game (and the people above skink away when asked whet they think it was), whereas simply having fun with friends, using the rules only when needed and ignoring some of they get in the way is, in contrast, recommended in every edition. If one can't face these simple facts, and insist on optimisation being the one true way, or at least the only one worth discussing, I suggest that one stop insulting and misquoting me at every turn.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

I didn't see a big deal with the questions in the survey. I'm kind of interpreting Build optimization as optimizing your character for combat and/or your role in the party.

I lean towards build optimization in general but, for me, it really depends on which GM I'm playing with.

One DM is very loose with the rules and tends to say 'yes' a lot. It's fun and I rarely feel challenged in combat and can, therefore make choices with my character that wouldn't be mechanically optimal. "Sure I'll take this random feat that I might rarely or never use because that's what my character would do and it will be fun when/if the situation arises."

So, some might consider that a squandered choice.

I have another DM who is very adept with the combat system and balances encounters on a knife's edge. I tend to lean towards optimization in his games because TPK is a real threat. It's fun but in a different way. It's way more dangerous and I feel I need to optimize for combat. (NOTE: his social encounters and overall campaigns are excellent so maybe this need to optimize for combat is just a result of my own perception and not actually a requirement for his games.) In any case, I tend to plan my character out in a bit more detail from the beginning.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

For me it is a mix.
I usually start with build optimization, but that always gets adjusted in play.

But "Builds" often come together at the wrong time. So usually I am drifting away from my build idea, for short term optimization, for story reasons, because of a certain item I found or because of the decisions from my party members (or their deaths).

So I voted slightly towards play optimization.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

For me it is a mix.
I usually start with build optimization, but that always gets adjusted in play.

But "Builds" often come together at the wrong time. So usually I am drifting away from my build idea, for short term optimization, for story reasons, because of a certain item I found or because of the decisions from my party members (or their deaths).

So I voted slightly towards play optimization.

Actually, I find the same thing but never really thought about it like that.

 

[Umbran]

Then please show it in the conversations.

Mod Note:
Your repeated accusations that folks who disagree with you are ignorant are becoming a problem. It is time for you to stop making them.

 

[DND_Reborn]

IMO optimization has certainly existed in every edition of D&D, but each edition keeps offering more and more places you can choose to optimize, with 4E being the peak (from what I've heard, I never played it and could be wrong, maybe 3.5???).

I don't see optimization as a bad thing at all. After all, IRL history people have always optimized. Consider weapons and armor. Using the more deadly weapons and having the best armor makes sense for your survival.

When it comes to ability scores, playing to your strengths is encouraged by rewarding you for doing so. In AD&D if you had a good prime requisite, you earned bonus XP. In 5E, a melee fighter (non-finesse) gets a better chance of hitting and deals more damage with higher Strength. Nothing says you can't enjoy playing a melee fighter with a STR 10, of course.

So, I do believe designers encourage optimization by rewarding making those choices, whatever they are. But it is important to remember that not optimizing doesn't mean you won't enjoy your game.

The only real issue I've encountered is when one player optimizes and another doesn't, then the second player's character sometimes feels inadequate compared to the optimized character, and the second player seems to not be having as much fun. In such cases, the second player might feel compelled to optimize, just to "keep up".

EDIT:

I'll add that one of the most memorable and enjoyable PCs I got to play was Benson Miller, whose family trade was milling and he was the son of Ben. He was an AD&D Cleric with WIS 12. He ACTUALLY had a 5% of spell failure every time he cast a spell! He also, of course, had no bonus spells for a better Wisdom. Finally, all of his ability scores ranged from 9 -12, with the average just under 11.

I loved that PC and played him all the way to name level, High Priest (9th), build a temple and such before I retired him.

For quick reference about the Wisdom, here's the table:

 

[Mannahnin]

IMO optimization has certainly existed in every edition of D&D, but each edition keeps offering more and more places you can choose to optimize, with 4E being the peak (from what I've heard, I never played it and could be wrong, maybe 3.5???).

3E CharOp left 4E optimization in the dust. 4E had a ton of options, but still far less scope for build optimization, as power was deliberately flattened and it was kind of difficult to build a bad character, and virtually impossible to build a broken character.