D&D 5E Where does optimizing end and min-maxing begin? And is min-maxing a bad thing?

[JonnyP71]

I feel like both sides of the issue have legit points. Gotta find the happy middle ground, which differs by group.

The reason session 0 is crucial at the start of a game. And if a player is joining a game in progress, both the player and the DM should ask the relevant questions, and if the fit is not right, neither should be afraid to say no.

 

[iserith]

I guess I didn't quite get my complete point across - if someone joined our group, dumped Intelligence, and then proceeded to try to play a clever character it *would* be picked up on, gently at first, but a DM might for example, eventually insist the stats were rearranged to better suit the way the character is being played.

... because the numbers do exist when creating a character, his/her strengths and weaknesses, and so on...

I guess I just don't have it in me to care how other people play to their ability scores. I'm more interested in how they play up their personal characteristics (personality traits, ideals, bonds, and flaws), race, background, class, or intraparty ties. Though of course I don't tell them how do play to any of this or suggest they make changes to their sheets to better align my perception of how they're playing and how I think that should be reflected mechanically.

 

[Satyrn]

Well, I'm not sure why. Unless arcane archers are inherently unoptimised archers. Which in itself seems a design flaw.

It was Pathfinder. The arcane archer was one of the earliest avaliable options. I believe that there's an enormous bit of power creep in the system after so many supplements.

The optimiser was bringing in a new character every session he played, built from essentially every Pathfinder source, optimising the heck out of his builds. I think he was bound to hit on several builds that were better in nearly every way than the arcane archer - unless the arcane archer was optimised heavily (and I get the impression he wasn't) or the optimiser just sucked at optimising.

tl;dr: Pathfinder.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I guess I just don't have it in me to care how other people play to their ability scores. I'm more interested in how they play up their personal characteristics (personality traits, ideals, bonds, and flaws), race, background, class, or intraparty ties. Though of course I don't tell them how do play to any of this or suggest they make changes to their sheets to better align my perception of how they're playing and how I think that should be reflected mechanically.

Not even if you have vastly more experience at the game and they are looking for guidance?

Sent from my LG-D852 using EN World mobile app

 

[iserith]

Not even if you have vastly more experience at the game and they are looking for guidance?

Sent from my LG-D852 using EN World mobile app

Guidance on how to play up ability scores? I don't have any to offer except to interpret your own character how you like, based on whatever criteria you like, and leave others to do the same. If everyone's playing in good faith, it'll work out fine! That's what I'd say if asked.

 

[Tersival]

... he called me a min maxer. I don't think he meant it in a derogatory way, but that's how I feel about the term min-maxer. To me, I'm just optimizing a good tough Cleric....

he called me and I don't think are pretty much the crux. I think Tglassy gives a great summary of different interpretations but no matter how the "community" defines these terms, it may or may not align with your DM's opinion and any meaning he may or may not have meant to imply with his comment.

With all respect to others well thought out and presented replies here, it's probably more important to discuss with your DM what his opinion/s are before the game starts (if thats still possible) and be sure you have the opportunity to play a character you're happy with that won't be "unfairly targeted" because it didn't match some standard your DM forgot to explain ahead of time.

Mastering the "rules" is one thing, but being happy sitting at a table interacting with a group of other people also requires a rapport that goes beyond anything that can be put in a rule book.

Whatever the game unfold in your favor regardless!

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Because, y'know, there are quite a few players and DMs who see the stats as more than just 'something that affect in game dice rolls', and actually use them as a key part of character creation, in the background, in the choice of style of play, and in the general portrayal of the character.

And when I say 'quite a few', I mean a hell of a lot..... including everyone I've gamed with in the last 6 years since I came back to the hobby and played RPGs in mainly adult groups.

It might be a key point that none of us ever use point buy, so we don't get to pick and choose in such a 'scientific' manner, we roll the dice, arrange, adapt and play what we have. Because, to us, that's a core aspect of roleplaying... a low Int character making intentionally wrong choices, a low Cha character roleplayed as being abrasive/awkward when dealing with NPCs, a low Str character refusing to attempt heavy lifting because of a 'bad back' or similar excuses, and so on.

That's great. As long as you don't try to tell me how to play my character.

And the dichotomy you try try to establish here is false. We play with stats as representational of actual in game qualities, too. We just don't believe we have any right to tell another player how to do so. I've played stupid characters, and smart characters, and characters for whom I don't think about intelligence either way. How, exactly, I choose to represent a given Int value is up to me. Period.

I get it. You shouldn't have to put up with that. It's why I did away with INT, WIs and Charisma scores when designing my Eldritch RPG.

That is one way to do it, certainly! In my modern magic RPG, Quest For Chevar, the stats are resources you can draw upon in dire straights, like Hero Points or Force Points. If you have low Intellect, it means you don't have much intellectual reserves to draw upon. What that means in detail is up to you.

A person with low Strength could be physically weak, or have had joints, or lack core strength but have well developed leg and upper body strength, or whatever you decide.

Your skills probably paint a more detailed picture, but the skills aren't tied directly to the stats, unlike DnD. You just have skill ranks and specialization ranks.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Guidance on how to play up ability scores? I don't have any to offer except to interpret your own character how you like, based on whatever criteria you like, and leave others to do the same. If everyone's playing in good faith, it'll work out fine! That's what I'd say if asked.

Well, that IS guidance (what you just said) but I was speaking more generally than "playing up ability scores". What if "however you like" is utterly meaningless to someone who has never played and has no idea what they like?

I assume you might tell them "some people do it this way, others that way" or the like?

Sent from my LG-D852 using EN World mobile app

 

[iserith]

Well, that IS guidance (what you just said)

I feel like this takes us dangerously close to pedantry. Hopefully this can be avoided.

I assume you might tell them "some people do it this way, others that way" or the like?

I might.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I feel like this takes us dangerously close to pedantry. Hopefully this can be avoided.



I might.

I agree about avoiding pedantry. I just think that there is a large gray area between guiding/teaching/helping others to find good/interesting/enjoyable ways to play before it becomes telling them what to do.

A lot of people here seem to be so sensitive to anyone suggesting anything to them it leads me to believe:

They think the way they play is so perfect, they have nothing to learn.

Or

They have been burnt by bossy jerks enough to be overly sensitive.

Or both.

Sent from my LG-D852 using EN World mobile app