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

[Caliban]

It's not the place of the DM to decide that an encounter, whether social or otherwise, should or should not happen. Seeking or avoiding social encounters is a decision to be made by the players and their characters. It's not the place of the DM to decide that something is or is not a challenge; that's a matter of perception, whether or not any given player sees it that way, and again it is irrelevant. The only thing the DM needs to worry about is describing the environment, how to play their NPCs, and how to adjudicate the resolution of uncertain actions.

If that works for you go for it. Doesn't really sound fun or interesting to me, but that's just me.

I tend to prefer a more dynamic, involved DM'ing style than "Neutral Observer who occasionally rolls dice for the NPC's."

Edit: Actually - I have a question for you. Do you mainly run pre-written modules, or do you create your own dungeons and storylines for your games?

 

[Tony Vargas]

... keep presenting it as if it's the objectively correct way to play DnD, when it very clearly is nothing more than a way to play, but at this point I'm getting used to that around here.

It's strange when you consider the emphasis placed on supporting MORE play styles, both leading up to and all through the playtest.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Edit: Actually - I have a question for you. Do you mainly run pre-written modules, or do you create your own dungeons and storylines for your games?

I would never run a pre-written module. Without having created the world or its NPCs for myself, I would not have confidence in my ability to adjudicate uncertainty whenever the players deviate from the script.

 

[Gradine]

You have fun with that. Hopefully your players either enjoy that sort of thing, or have access to other people to play with.

It's weird how you keep presenting it as if it's the objectively correct way to play DnD, when it very clearly is nothing more than a way to play, but at this point I'm getting used to that around here.

Without One-True-Wayism there wouldn't be arguments on the internet about RPGs at all. And then where would we be?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

It's weird how you keep presenting it as if it's the objectively correct way to play DnD, when it very clearly is nothing more than a way to play, but at this point I'm getting used to that around here.

Meta-gaming in an RPG is objectively bad, and no amount of debate will ever change that. If your method of playing D&D involves meta-gaming, by using out-of-game factors to determine the in-game reality, then you are very clearly not doing a good job of role-playing.

Whether your goal is to role-play and you are simply failing, or whether you are succeeding to play it as some sort of board game or collaborative storytelling exercise, is a matter of perspective. There is no objectively correct way to have fun, but if you don't approach D&D as though it was an RPG, then nothing you say is relevant to its treatment as such.

 

[Satyrn]

Meta-gaming in an RPG is objectively bad, and no amount of debate will ever change that. If your method of playing D&D involves meta-gaming, by using out-of-game factors to determine the in-game reality, then you are very clearly not doing a good job of role-playing.

Whether your goal is to role-play and you are simply failing, or whether you are succeeding to play it as some sort of board game or collaborative storytelling exercise, is a matter of perspective. There is no objectively correct way to have fun, but if you don't approach D&D as though it was an RPG, then nothing you say is relevant to its treatment as such.

Intriguing.

 

[Caliban]

Meta-gaming in an RPG is objectively bad, and no amount of debate will ever change that. If your method of playing D&D involves meta-gaming, by using out-of-game factors to determine the in-game reality, then you are very clearly not doing a good job of role-playing.

Whether your goal is to role-play and you are simply failing, or whether you are succeeding to play it as some sort of board game or collaborative storytelling exercise, is a matter of perspective. There is no objectively correct way to have fun, but if you don't approach D&D as though it was an RPG, then nothing you say is relevant to its treatment as such.

Oh, That's a can of worms right there.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using EN World mobile app

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'm not really upset at Saelorn for that bit of OneTrueWay drivel, it's his thing, it's all he knows.

But I'm a little miffed at several of you for quoting it, because that means I see it, again.

 

[Hussar]

Good grief. [MENTION=6703052]SA[/MENTION]crosanct STILL has me on ignore, but is insisting on arguing against my point? What's the point of putting someone on ignore and then keeping on arguing with them? FFS, you're already screwing up how the page loads for me [MENTION=26510]SAN[/MENTION]crosanct, can you at least have the decency of actually ignoring me?

 

[Gardens & Goblins]

For what is a gamer, what has he got?
If not themselves, then they have naught.
To say the things for teh feelz;
And not the words of one who kneels.
The record shows I took the blows -
And I played it myy waaaaaaaaaaaaaay!