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

[iserith]

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

In any case, I double down on my view that there is a self-evident difference between, say, offering advice that is solicited, being an example of one of many good ways to play, and taking someone's sheet and changing their stats because they aren't playing as dumb as you think they should be given that 8 Int.

It is to the latter or similar tacts that we see the most objection in my experience.

 

[Manabarbs]

Granted, 8 is only a little below average, but you should still play 'a little below average' - not blithering idiot, not genius, not even 'quite clever'.

But if, as most tables still do, you roll stats and get something like 16, 15, 13, 11, 10, 5 - and put the 5 as Intelligence, surely then you are talking about a character who at the very least, struggles to read and/or write. They may have a terrible memory and/or be incapable of adding up. They would certainly struggle to form a tactical plan!!!

In my old grognard head, to play an Int in the range of 3-6 as anyone other than intellectually lacking in some way is wrong.

3-6 is a bit below average. When you start to get into the realm of -3 or -4, you're starting to get into the range where the difference in the spread starts to be perceptible. It'd still be a pretty severe fiction disconnect to play such a character as outright unintelligent, however. Under d20 rules, a person with 5 intelligence will beat a person with 10 intelligence at an int contest about 34% of the time. The smarter character will win about 62% of the time. If you're okay with a character who has trouble with addition, reading and writing doing better than an average person at int checks about a third of the time, then it's correct to play them that way. If you think it's silly for a character who is seriously intellectually lacking to pretty regularly be the person who happens to be the smartest at something, then you shouldn't play it that way. (If int checks are never regularly rolled in your games, then it doesn't matter one way or another, because the stat isn't affecting anything in that case.)

If you get a 5 and you're playing that person as seriously impaired, then you're either playing a game where Int has no mechanical effect to begin with or you don't care if there's a huge discrepancy between how you're playing a character and what actually happens in the game. Playing a character with 5 int as a seriously impaired individual who couldn't be expected to ever really contribute on that front is exactly the opposite of roleplaying what you get in a sensible manner, and is precisely as silly an incorrect as playing them as an exceptionally smart person. (If you're using a system where 5 int represents a much larger penalty than -3, of course, then that all goes out the window.)

A difference of +8 is where you get to the stronger character outperforming the weaker one 80% of the time, so it's certainly correct to play a character with 20 Int as being reliably somewhat brighter than a character with 5.

 

[Nathal]

In any case, I double down on my view that there is a self-evident difference between, say, offering advice that is solicited, being an example of one of many good ways to play, and taking someone's sheet and changing their stats because they aren't playing as dumb as you think they should be given that 8 Int.

It is to the latter or similar tacts that we see the most objection in my experience.

Yeah, man I'd be pissed if the DM grabbed my sheet and said "you are not playing an 18 INT well, so I'm changing it to a 7". I think I'd fall over! It would be funny in a The Gamers episode though!


Sent from my iPhone using EN World mobile app

 

[Shasarak]

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 think that I could probably point to a few people in real life who dumped their Intelligence and yet still insist on trying to play as a Genius so it is not just a problem in DnD.

 

[Hussar]

All this thread demonstrates is what I said earlier. The issue isn't min/maxing, or not playing your stats. The issue is a misalignment of expectations at the table. Clear up those misalignments and it's smooth sailing at your table.

As far as giving a helping hand to new players, why wouldn't you do it by example? "Here's how I play my character. That's how Bob plays his character. Which way do you like?"

 

[JonnyP71]

3-6 is a bit below average. When you start to get into the realm of -3 or -4, you're starting to get into the range where the difference in the spread starts to be perceptible. It'd still be a pretty severe fiction disconnect to play such a character as outright unintelligent, however. Under d20 rules, a person with 5 intelligence will beat a person with 10 intelligence at an int contest about 34% of the time. The smarter character will win about 62% of the time. If you're okay with a character who has trouble with addition, reading and writing doing better than an average person at int checks about a third of the time, then it's correct to play them that way. If you think it's silly for a character who is seriously intellectually lacking to pretty regularly be the person who happens to be the smartest at something, then you shouldn't play it that way. (If int checks are never regularly rolled in your games, then it doesn't matter one way or another, because the stat isn't affecting anything in that case.)

If you get a 5 and you're playing that person as seriously impaired, then you're either playing a game where Int has no mechanical effect to begin with or you don't care if there's a huge discrepancy between how you're playing a character and what actually happens in the game. Playing a character with 5 int as a seriously impaired individual who couldn't be expected to ever really contribute on that front is exactly the opposite of roleplaying what you get in a sensible manner, and is precisely as silly an incorrect as playing them as an exceptionally smart person. (If you're using a system where 5 int represents a much larger penalty than -3, of course, then that all goes out the window.)

A difference of +8 is where you get to the stronger character outperforming the weaker one 80% of the time, so it's certainly correct to play a character with 20 Int as being reliably somewhat brighter than a character with 5.

We get around the wobbles in the mechanics thus:
The Int 6 character would not even attempt to decipher the dusty tome, he would pick it up, grunt displeasure that's he's found a book and not a new axe, and give it to a more intelligent character. Our DM frequently asked for skill checks and often stipulated that only those characters with relevant proficiency could even attempt it, unless it was about something in a PCs background. I roleplayed my wizard's physical frailty by simply refusing to do any lifting/pushing/pulling etc, he would sit and document details of the travels, while the uncouth 'physical' types earned their keep. That gets around the daftness of a -2 at Athletics having a chance of performing a feat that a +6 at Athletics does not - you don't have a chance if you don't even try. We weren't desperate to succeed though, if the PC with the relevant skills failed we'd accept the failure and deal with the consequences.

Plus we have a DM in that group who is superb at using failures as plot hooks - failing forward as they say.

 

[JonnyP71]

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

In our example, I'm guessing the session 0 would clear up what is expected, so no damage would be done to group harmony, and we'd be spared seeing a player who thinks your way having a hissy fit at the table.

 

[Darkness]

... we'd be spared seeing a player who thinks your way having a hissy fit at the table.

Keep it civil, please. Characterizing players who think like the user you're replying to as being likely to "[have] a hissy fit" is not cool.

 

[Hussar]

In our example, I'm guessing the session 0 would clear up what is expected, so no damage would be done to group harmony, and we'd be spared seeing a player /snip

See, right there. That's precisely what I'm talking about. A misalignment of expectations. You're presuming bad faith when the simple truth is, it's just a difference in play styles. Now, you don't like that play style and that's groovy. No worries. Me? I'm not about to start policing other people's play styles and I take a rather more relaxed approach to it. But, hey, this apparently bothers you, so, yup, a Session 0 is exactly what's needed to make everything clear.

IOW, it's not that he's wrong or you're wrong, it's simply that he shouldn't be playing at your table.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

It has indeed, and it is pertinent here. Bear with me.. have a cup of char and relax your breeches.
There are two types of players ontologically: the numbers type and the yeehah! type.
The numbers type sees the way to understand the fundamental reality of being in a game through the stats and the systems, and they are the most likely to want to control and optimise, min-max and have lots of fun through the numbers. Many don't like random, at least when it comes to character gen, but not all.
The yeehah! type, appreciates the experience, the holistic whole of the game as a journey from A to B, a reality that may or may not be arbitrated through numbers, dice, dialogue, social interplay or the mood of the players.
This is, of course, not the only way to divide gamers or gamers, it doesn't map cleanly onto GNS or any other conceptual approach, but I suggest, when you are in a cave, lit by torches, and you see the *shadow* of a dragon thrown on the cave wall... how you react will have more than a touch to do with how you fall on that divide..

* Apologies & Kudos to Parmenides, Anaxagoras, Leucippus, Plato, Ron Edwards, and Robin Laws.

I don't think that dichotomy even exists, at all.

Nearly every gamer is both of those, on some manner of overlapping double spectrum.

Ie, not 30 percent one and 70 percent the other, as in a singular spectrum.

The idea that numbers players, as you call them, don't appreciate the game "holistically", is entirely false.