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

[iserith]

I think that your comment about an innate sense of fairness captures a good deal of the debate, which is often overlooked.

I'd like to address your last question. It really goes to how the table plays. There are tables that view this as a game, and the character is, for lack of a better word, the Heroic embodiment of YOU. It is you, awesomer, elvier, stronger, less jerky, etc., and winning! It is an alter ego to a certain extent, but it is also how someone imagines they would be, if they were ... you know, that character. In that way, stats, etc., are just numbers used to accomplish things (like rolling to recall lore).

Others prefer to play characters more as the characters themselves. In other words, they consider the character as a completely separate creation; an entity with its own drives, and feelings, because that aspect is interesting to them. They don't think about what they would do tactically, but what their character (with the benefits and limitations of that character) would do tactically. The ability scores help define the character in their mind; it's more than just a stat to roll against.

I present this as two binaries, but most people play somewhere between the extremes. For example, the alter ego players will create backstories, have flaws, and so on, as that's part of the game. And the "characters as characters" are necessarily limited by the fact that, well, they probably don't know what an elf really thinks, and can't possibly play all ranges from a 6 - 20 intelligence, and so on. But they are different view points.

It bleeds into other aspects of the game as well. IMO, it may also correlate with the amount of "roleplaying" (as in talking through things) vs. roll-playing (as in use the dice to determine social encounters), but that's just a guess.

As you say, most likely sit in the middle of those two approaches for the reasons stated. What is notable about the bit I bolded above is that there may be a perception that you are required to impose limitations on your decisions based on some idea of what a particular ability score represents. Failing to do so is "unfair." This goes beyond the realm of mere preferences, I think. In theory, people in the two camps you outline above should have no problem with each other at the same table. It's when there's a perception of unfairness that suddenly Bob is telling Mike how he needs to play his character because Int 8.

And if that is so, then the solution as I see it (if there is one) is to get at why it's seen as unfair and resolve it. Could it be past editions of the game, I wonder? Did past editions of the game suggest there was a way to correctly play a particular score (read: fair) and this has carried over into more modern versions of the game?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

First off the problem of min maxing came in with the point buy system, it encourages those things. We use the old method, 4d6 drop lowest. You can get some good scores and some bad ones also, but you are sort of stuck with what you get unless the rolls are so off the DM won't approve it. Point buy does nothing for the game but encourage min/max of scores line you have done.

No one in my group min/maxes their scores, yet we always point buy. You are simply incorrect.

Point buy allows the player to control what exact character they are playing. IME, point buy does precisely the opposite of what you propose. Rolling stats lead to a lot of "well, I have to put the 15 in Dex, cuz I'm a rogue, and it's my highest roll. Need good con, and decent wisdom for perception, bc no one else is gonna get this traps...so the 13s will have to go there. Looks like my idea of being clever and charismatic will have to wait for another character. Maybe I could switch to primarily ranged, and have a low con? No that just hurts too much. Balls." Ie, metagamey thinking about stats.

Point buy leads to, "ok, he is a tinker-thief, and con artist. I can ignore Strength, but not dump it, because he basically lives on rooftops, con good enough to not die, Dex 14 or higher, Cha has to be decent, and wisdom can't be a penalty, but Expertise can make up the difference if I have to...Int 12 just because a tinkerer and amateur inventer should be smarter than average." Ie, making stat decisions based on the concept, including making less optimal decisions because the concept is more important.

Except in 3.5, where the stats seemed so tight and that they needed to be so high to be useful that it literally felt, for many players, like it wasn't even helpful toward representing the concept to have a 12 in something.

You are so right, and indeed if you think about it, we are all on spectrums, which is why the human tendency to create divides is contra to what it is to be human. So, let's run with the idea that it's a spectrum, and we all sit on that spectrum but differ through time, between games, between systems, and so on. It's still a useful concept to throw around, which of those two statements are you leaning towards in the game you are playing, and does that help you understand how or why someone else is playing or talking about playing in a different way?

I guess I don't feel like I lean more toward one than the other at all, so the whole idea seems strange, to me.

Like...I don't even see where any natural tension lies between the two. There is, as far as I can tell, no actual conflict between the two types you proposed. The coexist just fine, and compliment eachother.

Id also add, though, that the player that ignores the "game" aspect of the RPG, isn't viewing the game holistically, or as a whole. They are ignoring a significant aspect of the game, just like the proposed "focus on the numbers" guy.

 

[nswanson27]

I think that your comment about an innate sense of fairness captures a good deal of the debate, which is often overlooked.

I'd like to address your last question. It really goes to how the table plays. There are tables that view this as a game, and the character is, for lack of a better word, the Heroic embodiment of YOU. It is you, awesomer, elvier, stronger, less jerky, etc., and winning! It is an alter ego to a certain extent, but it is also how someone imagines they would be, if they were ... you know, that character. In that way, stats, etc., are just numbers used to accomplish things (like rolling to recall lore).

Others prefer to play characters more as the characters themselves. In other words, they consider the character as a completely separate creation; an entity with its own drives, and feelings, because that aspect is interesting to them. They don't think about what they would do tactically, but what their character (with the benefits and limitations of that character) would do tactically. The ability scores help define the character in their mind; it's more than just a stat to roll against.

I present this as two binaries, but most people play somewhere between the extremes. For example, the alter ego players will create backstories, have flaws, and so on, as that's part of the game. And the "characters as characters" are necessarily limited by the fact that, well, they probably don't know what an elf really thinks, and can't possibly play all ranges from a 6 - 20 intelligence, and so on. But they are different view points.

It bleeds into other aspects of the game as well. IMO, it may also correlate with the amount of "roleplaying" (as in talking through things) vs. roll-playing (as in use the dice to determine social encounters), but that's just a guess.

But really neither of these extremes has anything to do with the problems that show up. I've seen plenty of tables where both sides get along just fine, and everyone has fun.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Manbearcat]

I think some objections to optimization may be rooted in fairness which could explain why some people get so riled up over it. Even lower-order mammals have a concept of fairness, so I can imagine this may be where some of the fierce reactions we see to, say, other people intelligently playing a low-Intelligence character comes from. It strikes some as unfair. But when pressed as to how exactly that player "should" be playing to make it "fair," you get a ton of different answers. For those who don't see such play as unfair, the inconsistent answers about how they "should" be playing their own character is a complete non-starter.

So the question, to me, becomes "Why is this seen as unfair in the first place?" I'm of the camp that says it is not unfair to optimize then choose not to make poor decisions with a low ability score as a basis for doing so. There is nothing in the rules of the game that state one way or another how one must make decisions for the character except to say it is up to the player. When I make solid decisions for my dump-Int fighter, I'm not breaking any rules. When I try to do things like recall lore, then I'm at a disadvantage compared to a character with a better Int score. This seems just fine to me. I see nothing unfair about it.

If there's anyone out there that does object to optimization on these grounds, I'd be interested to hear your take on why it's seen as unfair to dump a stat and not make decisions in accordance with what that ability score could mean fictionally.

You have to wonder if Intelligence interfaced more significantly with the resolution mechanics if much of this stuff would go away. Obviously Initiative is the easy (and more intuitive) one as it (a) devalues the already (too?) powerful Dexterity and (b) it makes sense for folks who are looking for some kind of causal logic (mental processing speed makes up for physical speed disparity, and then some, in sports). More Int saving throws. Maybe some sort of "Elementary My Dear Watson" deal where players get a # of Advantages on Ability Checks = to their Intelligence modifier (and maybe the GM gets to impose Disadvantage at their discretion if the PC has a negative), refreshed at Long Rest.

Stuff like that. Not that any/all of those are a good idea, but they are potent enough to frame the hypothetical. If that was in effect would folks still complain about players with low Int scores getting involved in puzzle challenges/problem solving?

 

[iserith]

Like I wrote, it has to do with preferences. Many, many posts ago, I likened it to cellphone use at the table.

There are tables where everyone is totally happy with cellphone use, and people are using D&D apps to help with play, or posting on social media about the game, or just checking the Final Four scores.

Other tables hate having phones at the table, and have a rule against it; it's face time, not FaceTime (Apple Trademark).

And there are other tables that are in between. There isn't a good, or a bad, just preferences- social preferences for the group.

Same here. One thing I have noted is that some people don't seem satisfied that there are these different preferences; that there is an issue to "resolve." But it's not amenable to that resolution. It's like saying, "Hey, if I like chocolate ice cream, and you like butter pecan ice cream, we are going to resolve this by figuring out why you should like chocolate ice cream." It doesn't work that way. Sometimes, you just have to end up by saying, "Look, we all like ice cream. Maybe if I'm hanging out with the Butter Pecan people, I'll be good with that. Or maybe we can all agree to just eat pistachio gelato."

People like what they like.

I'm not trying to "resolve" preferences though. People like what they like, as you say.

What I'm trying to resolve is why some folks think, for example, a character with a low Intelligence must have both a penalty to whatever mechanic interacts with that score AND a self-imposed limitation on what sorts of decisions that character can make. Where does this come from? And on what grounds can I get annoyed when I'm making poor decisions for my Int-8 fighter, Beau Fletcher, when Mike doesn't do the same for his Int-8 barbarian. If this is a matter of fairness, how did I come to think about it in those terms? How did others who have more or less the same experience I do with this game come to think about it another way?

To be clear, I'm interested in the origin of things. I'm not interested in criticizing someone's preference.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[nswanson27]

Like I wrote, it has to do with preferences. Many, many posts ago, I likened it to cellphone use at the table.

There are tables where everyone is totally happy with cellphone use, and people are using D&D apps to help with play, or posting on social media about the game, or just checking the Final Four scores.

Other tables hate having phones at the table, and have a rule against it; it's face time, not FaceTime (Apple Trademark).

And there are other tables that are in between. There isn't a good, or a bad, just preferences- social preferences for the group.

Same here. One thing I have noted is that some people don't seem satisfied that there are these different preferences; that there is an issue to "resolve." But it's not amenable to that resolution. It's like saying, "Hey, if I like chocolate ice cream, and you like butter pecan ice cream, we are going to resolve this by figuring out why you should like chocolate ice cream." It doesn't work that way. Sometimes, you just have to end up by saying, "Look, we all like ice cream. Maybe if I'm hanging out with the Butter Pecan people, I'll be good with that. Or maybe we can all agree to just eat pistachio gelato."

People like what they like.

You are right that there are no issues to resolve as far as personal playstyle preference goes. There is definitely an issue to resolve when that "preference" extends into judging others and disrupting the table for their preference - which I say has nothing to do with preference and everything to do with that person needing an attitude check.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*