D&D 5E (2014) Where does optimizing end and min-maxing begin? And is min-maxing a bad thing?

[cmad1977]

Which says nothing about the people who get 'gaslit' by another's DMing choice.
I mean... really?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Tony Vargas]

So...what exactly is wrong with avoiding letting the game "punish" the players for building a bunch of "dex monkeys"? Everyone, except me, seems to be on the same page here, and I'm at a loss as to where ya'll are coming from.

They're bad monkeys, they need to be punished. ;P

Seriously, though, apart from the game not really punishing them at all because DEX is so...

...

OK, really, seriously this time:

Nothing. This is 5e. You're Empowered. If you want to tailor challenges to the abilities of the party, that's fine. It means your games will generally be, well, challenging.

Like, what would be wrong with providing ways around the heavy climbing and swimming, or boulder pushing, or whatever? I mean, it's not a big issue for me, because I always make sure my character has some competence in a decent range of activities, but I'm curius what the mindset is, in the first place.

It might just be the subtle distinction between 'provide' and 'allow.'

If you confront a party with a highest STR of 11 amongst them with a dungeon sealed by a large boulder, they're not going to move the boulder by main strength.

You're not obliged to have readily available alternate means. But, if the players come up with some ideas - finding things to use as a lever & fulcrum, going back to town for a couple of draft horses, etc, etc - you can let them work, rather than block them.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Two people arguing over the internet and misunderstanding each other isn't gaslighting.

No, it's not, and I never claimed it as such. But the progression of that argument from Hussar is literally the textbook definition of gaslighting. That's all I'm saying. Say something offensive and then deny you ever said it despite clear evidence you did all the while accusing the other person of being crazy for even thinking you said it, then shift to saying you were just kidding anyway, so they are even more wrong than they were before, and then position yourself as the actual victim if they don't let it drop. I'm just making the observation that the behavior is exactly the same, because it is, by how gaslighting is defined. I'm not accusing Hussar of being an abuser or that an argument on the internet is just as bad as abuse or anything remotely like that.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

So...what exactly is wrong with avoiding letting the game "punish" the players for building a bunch of "dex monkeys"? Everyone, except me, seems to be on the same page here, and I'm at a loss as to where ya'll are coming from.

Like, what would be wrong with providing ways around the heavy climbing and swimming, or boulder pushing, or whatever? I mean, it's not a big issue for me, because I always make sure my character has some competence in a decent range of activities, but I'm curius what the mindset is, in the first place.

At a basic level, it breaks the fundamental concept of fairness, which is that the DM is supposed to present the world honestly and without bias or consideration for external (metagame) factors. The only adventure that is worth the time and energy of playing through is the adventure that happens naturally, based on the premise that represents the internal forces of the world.

Consider the alternatives. If the DM goes out of their way to hit the PCs in their weak spots, then the players aren't failing based on their own decisions (either choices about what character to make during character creation, or their role-playing choices during the game); they're failing because the DM is a jerk. If the DM goes out of their way to avoid attacking their weaknesses, then the players aren't succeeding based on their own decisions either; they're succeeding because the DM is causing them to succeed, and there's no sense of accomplishment in that. In both cases, the decision by the DM essentially makes any decision by the players meaningless, because the outcome is already determined ahead of time. And even if the DM decides to take a balanced approach and throw things that they think will present a reasonable challenge for you to overcome, your success or failure still hinges entirely on what they think is reasonable for you; if you fail, it's because they mis-judged you, rather than because of any choice you made.

If we want our choices as players to matter, then the only alternative is for the DM to not take those choices into consideration. That way, you can succeed or fail based on your own ability to anticipate and overcome the obstacles in your path, rather than based on the whim of the DM. It is far better to fail based on your own merit, than to succeed by DM fiat.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[jasper]

hMM I going to use the next generation Suspicions episode where Dr Crusher suddenly becomes a shield tech guru. (note I hear a rumor it was suppose to be a heavy levar burton episode but was changed to give gates more screen time. )
doctorBadwolf is saying he is going to change the plot, and challenges. So Crusher can have a chance and a good time.
Saelorn is saying, I wrote the story around La Forge. I am not changing anything. Crusher is going have to think her way out of the problem.
There is no wrong way. But I have my thumb and pinky on Saelorn's side of scale. Write the adventure and let the pcs pass/fail on their stats vs look at the pcs stats then write the adventure.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Two people arguing over the internet and misunderstanding each other isn't gaslighting.

To a certain extent, I would question the sanity of anyone getting into a debate on the internet, but that has nothing to do with deliberate psychological manipulation. Just the wisdom of arguing on the internet.

Degree of severity, or seriousness of topic/circumstance, are irrelevant to whether a tactic is a given tactic. If it employs the rhetorical ploys and hooks of gaslighting, to gain the effect of gaslighting, it is gaslighting.

Now, I would say that at worst [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] is unintentionally gaslighting, and there is no need to keep spinning in circles about his exchange, but none of that changes of the definition of gaslighting.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I'd see no problem at all with making players face some consequences for their choices at character generation. I don't think that the DM would really need to go out of his way to do that, but at the same time, when I DM, I create encounters to challenge the PCs. If they have a weakness, then that certainly plays into challenging them. Not every encounter needs to revolve around the weakness, but I woudl expect it to come up from time to time.

I don't think it's antagonistic to do that through play. As long as the DM also plays to their strengths and lets them shine at times, then there's no issue.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*