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

[nswanson27]

I completely agree!

Of course, in my personal and anecdotal experience, a table usually has a certain playstyle. Thus, it would be a new player who is disruptive, and therefore judged. But that's how life works ... and not just at gaming tables.

If a table is forming, that's why people talk. Most problems can be solved with conversation. The rest require beer.

And I in turn agree as well, especially the beer part.

 

[iserith]

Well, if you adopt the character concept, it's because someone isn't playing the character as a separate entity.

It would be the same as a person "playing" an 8 charisma as a charming, strong-willed person, who just happens to fail some mechanical social checks.

But as to why? Well, this is under the "don't be a jerk" rubric. If your playing style is significantly different than the majority of the table, then, socially, the onus is on you to conform your playstyle (or, at the very least, to talk to everyone and find some middle ground). It's the same the other way around- if you have a table full of hardcore "alter ego" players who are playing to the dice but otherwise making optimal decisions, and one person is playing Simple Jack, well ... that's kind of jerky on the part of Simple Jack. The other players would rightfully get annoyed when Simple Jack breaks concealment to walk up to Orcus and say, "You m-m-m-mmm-m-make me happy."

This still doesn't get at where this position comes from though which is what I'm interested in. At some point, people had to have learned to prefer one way or another. My guess is that this comes from previous versions of the game. Or from people who learned from other people who played previous versions of the game. Versions of the game that explicitly stated there was a "correct" way to play to an ability score. But I don't have any of those old books around anymore so I'm not sure how they handled it.

To me, the guy playing the 8 Charisma character as a charming, strong-willed person will gain no benefit from doing so - the ability checks will sort that right out at some point. I see no reason to get annoyed at that guy. Nothing in the rules of THIS game tell me he's doing anything wrong.

At the same time, Simple Jack breaking stealth would just be amusing to me. I would hope that his player wrote a flaw that allows him to get Inspiration for doing this because we're probably going to need that shortly!

I think I'm okay with either of the way these players play because I don't attach it to fairness. That's my theory anyway. That anyone who simply can't sit at the same table with someone like the 8 Charisma character above considers that play to be unfair.

 

[nswanson27]

This still doesn't get at where this position comes from though which is what I'm interested in. At some point, people had to have learned to prefer one way or another. My guess is that this comes from previous versions of the game. Or from people who learned from other people who played previous versions of the game. Versions of the game that explicitly stated there was a "correct" way to play to an ability score. But I don't have any of those old books around anymore so I'm not sure how they handled it.

To me, the guy playing the 8 Charisma character as a charming, strong-willed person will gain no benefit from doing so - the ability checks will sort that right out at some point. I see no reason to get annoyed at that guy. Nothing in the rules of THIS game tell me he's doing anything wrong.

At the same time, Simple Jack breaking stealth would just be amusing to me. I would hope that his player wrote a flaw that allows him to get Inspiration for doing this because we're probably going to need that shortly!

I think I'm okay with either of the way these players play because I don't attach it to fairness. That's my theory anyway. That anyone who simply can't sit at the same table with someone like the 8 Charisma character above considers that play to be unfair.

And furthermore the stats still get rolled on - they aren't absolutes by themselves. An 8 INT will still roll high and succeed sometimes. An 8 INT fighter will sometimes beat a 20 INT wizard at a check. That's what the rules are, and where they stop.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Manbearcat]

Depends. There are two separate issues here.

The first is the one I outlined above- that is to say, the "characters as characters" contingent. This wouldn't solve the problem, as they would still complaint about people who weren't even trying to play to their ability. However, it might mollify them somewhat only in that Intelligence was no longer a dump stat for most characters (for whatever reason, a 12 intelligence, say, is different than an 8 when it comes to believably ... I'm not defending the position as internally consistent, just describing what I've seen ... the difference between good at tactics and, um, "Goodbye mama, now you can have ice cream in heaven! I'll see you again tonight when I go to bed in my head movies. But this head movie makes my eyes rain!").

The second are more rules-oriented, and just don't like having a single stat for dumping. This dovetails with my observation of Charisma creep; mechanically, charisma and dex are useful for everything, while intelligence and (to a lesser extent) strength aren't.

Yup. I agree.

It just boils down to what % of the whole the two camps are.

If the latter are the majority, then "much" would apply. If the former, then "not so much." But, it would still be "some."

I would be interested in hearing their position if such a change were to take place (in light of the fact that Intelligence as mechanical arbiter would now probably pack more process simulation punch than all the other statistics...certainly well more than Strength). A PC with Int as dump stat would now be eating:

a) Negative to Initiative (in Rocket Tag, short combats like 5e, that is a significant impact).
b) Suffering in a key Saving Throw (if Int saving throws were made more prolific, they would surely be bad status effects).
c) Suffering Disadvantage on a few Ability Checks per day at GM's discretion (especially crappy if its on shtick/niche Ability Checks).

That makes "oh yeah and you also have to intentionally be all HERP DERP when we're solving puzzles and engaging in strategic discussion (an essential component of the classic D&D experience)" less tenable from both a social contract perspective and a game design perspective. "Hey Patty, remember how you used to have to intentionally HERP DERP, how that intentional HERP DERPING was supposed to somehow not impact your immersion (HERP DERPING for HERP DERPERS is natural, not willfully mechanized), and through that HERP DERPING you weren't allowed to engage in seminal components of play? Well, we're cranking the HERP DERP up several notches! Enjoy!"

This is, of course, compounded (as you note) with its internal consistency already wobbly given the D&D Ability Score model's (specifically, and D&D mechanics generally) inability (you can thank me later for that one) to coherently model biological/psychological processes...compounded further again by its arbitrary granularity in some areas and arbitrary abstraction in others.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Boscogn]

Watch out, man! You're coming perilously close to inviting a giant thread about dexterity and strength, complete with hundreds of pictures!

I agree. Most of this is kind of silly; after all, it's the whole reason I only play characters with an 8 charisma (SHUT UP!). I can't even imagine roleplaying a character with a 20 intelligence.

Well isn't that part of the fun playing a 20int pc when irl you're maybe a 10int? haha. You get to do smart things when normally they'd be mediocre. You then get to say because I have 20int!

Sent from my HTC6545LVW using Tapatalk

 

[iserith]

To quote Cool Hand Luke, "What we have here is a failure to communicate."

This is becoming increasingly clear. However:

{Edit- but fwiw, in a prior thread I pointed out that one of the first Dragon magazine articles ever published was about how to successfully roleplay your character as someone different than yourself; this is a conversation that has gone on for a very long time.}

This is the sort of thing I'm after as it may pertain to the origin of why people do what they do.

Where exactly did Bob learn to become annoyed at Mike when Mike does not impose limitations on his character choices the same way Bob does? And if it's based on a feeling that Mike isn't playing fair, where does that come from?

Or from my own perspective, why did I side with Bob back in the day and nowadays I don't give a flying flumph what Mike does?

This requires some serious reflection and memory-jogging for some, but I think it's a worthwhile endeavor.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*