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

[Krachek]

I would call the thread : « Character preparation style », rather than using play style.
I’m using your second option, preparing and leveling my character based on the current party and the current adventure rather than applying an initial plan based on hypothetical optimal play.

 

[the Jester]

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

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.

Dude. The earliest editions of the games explicitly encouraged optimizing. It was mechanically supported. I'll give you just a few examples.

• In early editions, you could trade a penalty in one stat for a bonus in another stat that was more optimal for your class. Usually it was -2 to +1, but this could vary.
• After rolling stats, you chose your class and race, and this is a point at which you can optimize. Racial ability modifiers made some races better at being certain classes.
• Thieves included modifiers to their main abilities by race, so you could optimize your thief for a given thief skill.
• Weapon Specialization allowed you to optimize your fighter for damage at range or close up, as you saw fit, and some choices were clearly mechanically superior.
• Unearthed Arcana included the ridiculous "best 3 of 9d6 for Strength" character generation method, which certainly optimized your ability scores.
• Gygax explicitly stated that you should reroll starting characters who didn't have at least, what, one 16 or higher? IIRC- it might have been even better stats than that.
• Weapons weren't balanced against each other at all until 3e, so there's another form of optimization available.
• Early-edition multiclassing. Why make hard choices when you can have everything?

I could go on, and I could go on at length. Your claim that early editions didn't support or encourage optimization is incorrect.

 

[Faolyn]

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

Open up the 5e PHB. Look at Chapter 1. Look at ability scores: It describes what stats are important for what class, and what race gives bonuses to that class.

Look at Building Bruenor. He's a dwarf (+2 Strength). Strength is important for fighters. Bruenor maxes out his Strength score, "since he's a fighter."

Then move to Chapter 3. Look at the Quick Build for each class. It tells you where to put your highest stats.

Obvious Intent: If you want to play a class, you should look at the associated stat, pick a race that gets a bonus to that stat, and max it out by putting your highest number in that stat. Now, if the example character had been an elf fighter who went for Strength-based weapons instead of finesse weapons, or a stealthy half-orc rogue, you might have a point. But right from the start of the book they're showing readers to go for the optimized build.

Now open up the 5e DMG. Look at the introduction, under Know Your Players. What types of players are there? Players who like acting, players who like exploring, players who like instigating, players who like fighting, players who like optimizing, players who like problem-solving, and players who like storytelling. And each type of player contains a list of ways the DM can engage that sort of player.

Later on, in Chapter 8, under "Engaging the Players, it gives tips on how to make sure that action-oriented players (such as optimizers) have fun in RP-heavy sessions.

Obvious Intent: The book recognizes and supports the idea that some players want to optimize, and not only is that an accepted game style but you, the DM, should make sure that you're helping the player have fun by making sure that they get new toys to play with and encounters where they can show off their optimization, and giving them things to do at times when they can't.

But hey, since you claim they say "don't optimize," why don't you show it. Show us the passages that support this claim.

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).

Sure, some of them are cheating. But you really think they all are? And I've known people to come with under-average stats. In one of my games, we have a player who is fully and enjoyably RPing his 6 Wisdom. My friend had a 6th- or 7th-level bard with 19 hp because he deliberately dump-statted Con and also deliberately kept all the low rolls he got when he rolled for hp when leveling up. I'm enjoying my low-Int rogue with no Investigation proficiency, and the DM in another game let me shuffle some numbers around so I didn't have to have a warlock with a ton of high stats that yes, I legitimately rolled but didn't really want.

So here: you can say that you've seen someone who in a forum who has under-average stats.

But hey, maybe they're apologetic because people like you automatically assume that they're cheating.

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.

Every single one of your posts, including this one, has you looking down your nose at people. Like right now, where you're claiming that people are wrong in how they read the book, and that nobody is actually having real fun because they're optimizing.

Did it ever occur to you that maybe other people have different types of fun? Or that some people don't have fun if their characters are failing rolls more than succeeding? Or that some people have fun RPing high stats as well as low or average ones? Or that some people have fun building the "best" character? Or that some people have fun by acting out particular character ideas, and to do that, they want to have a particular built?

Which is a good thing, go and read them again and you will see that you lied about their contents.
D&D General - No More "Humans in Funny Hats": Racial Mechanics Should Determine Racial Cultures

Funnily, I did read them again. You're very condescending and, as with this post, you assume that anyone who doesn't play your way isn't having real fun and isn't playing the game the way it was intended to.

Guess what? I don't care what Gygax intended. Everything I've read about him, he's not a person I particularly would like to game with anyway, since I doubt I'd like his DMing style and I'm sure he'd hate my playing style.

I also don't really care about what the designers of 5e intended, either.

Again, learn to read. There is a clear perspective about the design intent of the game.

Again, learn to prove your assertions. Also, I once got a red-letter mod note for saying "learn to read" to someone, so maybe you should stop being so rude before you get one as well.

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.

Except for everything you have said on the topic.

You keep claiming that all you're saying is "you don't have to optimize." But that's not what you're saying. Who is telling you to not talk about fun RP experiences with unoptimized characters? Who is telling you that not optimizing is bad or wrong or unfun? You're getting pushback because you're telling people that it's not OK for them to play they way they do.

But you are repeatedly telling people that optimizing is "not recommended" and goes against the "intent" of the game.

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.



Then please show it in the conversations.

I have. That you disagree doesn't mean I'm ignorant.

 

[Lanefan]

Dude. The earliest editions of the games explicitly encouraged optimizing. It was mechanically supported. I'll give you just a few examples.

• In early editions, you could trade a penalty in one stat for a bonus in another stat that was more optimal for your class. Usually it was -2 to +1, but this could vary.
• After rolling stats, you chose your class and race, and this is a point at which you can optimize. Racial ability modifiers made some races better at being certain classes.
• Thieves included modifiers to their main abilities by race, so you could optimize your thief for a given thief skill.
• Weapon Specialization allowed you to optimize your fighter for damage at range or close up, as you saw fit, and some choices were clearly mechanically superior.
• Unearthed Arcana included the ridiculous "best 3 of 9d6 for Strength" character generation method, which certainly optimized your ability scores.
• Gygax explicitly stated that you should reroll starting characters who didn't have at least, what, one 16 or higher? IIRC- it might have been even better stats than that.
• Weapons weren't balanced against each other at all until 3e, so there's another form of optimization available.
• Early-edition multiclassing. Why make hard choices when you can have everything?

I could go on, and I could go on at length. Your claim that early editions didn't support or encourage optimization is incorrect.

While that's an imposing-looking list when written out like that, it still pales to the point of near-invisibility in comparison to what a similar list for 3e would look like.

5e is somewhere in between.

 

[Mannahnin]

While that's an imposing-looking list when written out like that, it still pales to the point of near-invisibility in comparison to what a similar list for 3e would look like.

5e is somewhere in between.

It's true. The game has always supported both optimization and the contrary, going back to the LBBs in 1974 giving extra xp if you have a high ability score in your class's Prime Requisite, and suggesting that if you roll a high Str, Int, or Wis you should consider (but don't have to) picking the corresponding class.

Definitely some editions have more options and more scope for CharOp than others, but it's always been a facet of the game, and among the range of skills that folks like Gygax talked about as part of being a good player.

 

[Lyxen]

Deleted.

 

[DND_Reborn]

<snip>

FYI, not a good idea to post this in the thread. Send the moderator a private message about it. I would delete this ASAP and write privately.

Just some friendly advice from someone who knows.

 

[Lyxen]

Open up the 5e PHB. Look at Chapter 1. Look at ability scores: It describes what stats are important for what class, and what race gives bonuses to that class.
Look at Building Bruenor. He's a dwarf (+2 Strength). Strength is important for fighters. Bruenor maxes out his Strength score, "since he's a fighter."
Then move to Chapter 3. Look at the Quick Build for each class. It tells you where to put your highest stats.

And you call this optimising ? They are not making it any sort of requirement, just telling you how not to make an ineffective character. Where does it tell you to make the best possible one using the stat ? Nowhere.

Obvious Intent: If you want to play a class, you should look at the associated stat, pick a race that gets a bonus to that stat, and max it out by putting your highest number in that stat.

Wrong. Please show where it says that you have to pick a race that gives you a bonus. I'll be waiting, especially since there are counter example for almost every class described, see below.

Now, if the example character had been an elf fighter who went for Strength-based weapons instead of finesse weapons, or a stealthy half-orc rogue, you might have a point. But right from the start of the book they're showing readers to go for the optimized build.

Wrong again, I just look at the examples at the start of each class:

• Gnome Bard
• Elf Cleric
• Elf or half-elf druid

The examples showing you are wrong are all over the place.

Now open up the 5e DMG. Look at the introduction, under Know Your Players. What types of players are there? Players who like acting, players who like exploring, players who like instigating, players who like fighting, players who like optimizing, players who like problem-solving, and players who like storytelling. And each type of player contains a list of ways the DM can engage that sort of player.

So this means that all players have to be optimisers, yeah, sure... But does it recommend the approach ? Certainly not.

Later on, in Chapter 8, under "Engaging the Players, it gives tips on how to make sure that action-oriented players (such as optimizers) have fun in RP-heavy sessions.

Obvious Intent: The book recognizes and supports the idea that some players want to optimize, and not only is that an accepted game style but you, the DM, should make sure that you're helping the player have fun by making sure that they get new toys to play with and encounters where they can show off their optimization, and giving them things to do at times when they can't.

Actually, the examples only show that the game is meant to be inclusive, which is all I'm asking for, and that means not looking down your nose at people who do not optimise. Now, does the game even recommend that approach ? No, it tells you how to specifically cater for them, because they will be encountered. and you need to know how to deal with them.

But hey, since you claim they say "don't optimize," why don't you show it. Show us the passages that support this claim.

Easy, I've given you the quote multiple times now, just read the introduction to the PH, where reading all the rules (which I think you need to optimise) is not required to get what's best in the game.

Sure, some of them are cheating. But you really think they all are?

No, I'm saying that people can be very creative about their dice rolling, rolling multiple times, etc.

And I've known people to come with under-average stats. In one of my games, we have a player who is fully and enjoyably RPing his 6 Wisdom. My friend had a 6th- or 7th-level bard with 19 hp because he deliberately dump-statted Con and also deliberately kept all the low rolls he got when he rolled for hp when leveling up. I'm enjoying my low-Int rogue with no Investigation proficiency, and the DM in another game let me shuffle some numbers around so I didn't have to have a warlock with a ton of high stats that yes, I legitimately rolled but didn't really want.

I would really like to see the sheets. Because having a low stat does not mean that one does not have stratospheric ones in other stats. So just publish the sheets.

So here: you can say that you've seen someone who in a forum who has under-average stats.

See above, I'm speaking about the whole stat array, not just the one dumped stat.

But hey, maybe they're apologetic because people like you automatically assume that they're cheating.

Yeah, right. I'm still waiting for people to show their actual sheets.

Every single one of your posts, including this one, has you looking down your nose at people. Like right now, where you're claiming that people are wrong in how they read the book, and that nobody is actually having real fun because they're optimizing.

Yes, I'm looking down at people who purposefully misquote me, sue me. I never said anything like the above, I've just quoted the PH to you, and the fact that you did not recognise it (despite me indicating this multiple times) shows that you might want to read it again, it's just in the introduction.

Also, you are awfully defensive about all that.

Did it ever occur to you that maybe other people have different types of fun? Or that some people don't have fun if their characters are failing rolls more than succeeding? Or that some people have fun RPing high stats as well as low or average ones? Or that some people have fun building the "best" character? Or that some people have fun by acting out particular character ideas, and to do that, they want to have a particular built?

And again, where did I say that it was the wrong sort of fun ? What I don't want, however, is the reverse, people being looked at as inferior because their characters are technically inferior.

Funnily, I did read them again. You're very condescending and, as with this post, you assume that anyone who doesn't play your way isn't having real fun and isn't playing the game the way it was intended to.

And this is where, again, I ask you to simply read what I write and stop misquoting me, this is getting tiresomel.

Guess what? I don't care what Gygax intended. Everything I've read about him, he's not a person I particularly would like to game with anyway, since I doubt I'd like his DMing style and I'm sure he'd hate my playing style.
I also don't really care about what the designers of 5e intended, either.

Well, it's up to you, but because their intention permeates the whole design and allows one to understand it better and make it more effective, I think it's a good thing to understand it as well.

Again, learn to prove your assertions. Also, I once got a red-letter mod note for saying "learn to read" to someone, so maybe you should stop being so rude before you get one as well.

Contrary to you, I always support my assertion with facts, and real one. For example your assertion that "If you want to play a class, you should look at the associated stat, pick a race that gets a bonus to that stat" is easily disproven as on the contrary, the rules show examples of characters that do not follow it.

You keep claiming that all you're saying is "you don't have to optimize." But that's not what you're saying. Who is telling you to not talk about fun RP experiences with unoptimized characters? Who is telling you that not optimizing is bad or wrong or unfun? You're getting pushback because you're telling people that it's not OK for them to play they way they do.

Again, this is just misquoting. Please show me one example where I said this. Prove your claims, for once.

But you are repeatedly telling people that optimizing is "not recommended" and goes against the "intent" of the game.

Again, if you think that the rules are recommending optimising, prove it. Please show me where it says that optimising is good for the game, that it's the intent, etc. Otherwise, the only thing that can be said is that the game does not recommend it (whereas it clearly tells you that rules are not important and that reading them all is not necessary to get the best out of the game). It's a simple fact.

 

[billd91]

But you are repeatedly telling people that optimizing is "not recommended" and goes against the "intent" of the game.

I do think you're reading this with the wrong emphasis and it may be why you keep talking past each other. The game doesn't say that optimization is "not recommended", rather the game doesn't recommend optimization as the intended play style because it doesn't recommend any specific orientation with respect to optimization. Rather, it recommends ways to include different play styles so that different types of players can all have a good time.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

For whatever reason answering the poll got me thinking. “Building” and worrying too much about bonuses has drug me down.

when I get excited about other peoples characters (and I do) it is never about how much they kick butt but rather that they are novel and interesting.

so it should be with mine too. I like challenge and immersion. All optimization does for me is make it “easier” after a certain point.

over the past few years the game has lost some mystery for me and it’s my own fault. End of self flagellation