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

[Hussar]

Oh sure, [MENTION=6785785]hawkeyefan[/MENTION], the DM could. Thing is, though, the module, at least as far as we've been able to determine, simply doesn't have that treasure. We've covered a good chunk of the module and just not found one. Now, we have found multiple magic weapons, just not that particular one. No reason, I think, just luck of the draw.

To me, it starts getting a bit too... predictable? No, that's the wrong word. Pat, I guess is the right word here. Player receives X, not because it makes any particular sense in the game, but, just because it's helping the PC? Sure, absolutely the DM can do this. And, to be fair, I've probably done it myself more than once.

OTOH, I do like the very old school feel of just having to make do with what you find. One of my favorite campaigns was my Worlds Largest Dungeon campaign. One of the best things about it was that you couldn't buy or manufacture magic items. There just wasn't any way to do so. So, characters had to make do with what they found. And it meant that you saw players get pretty open to the idea of Macgyvering solutions. Like the one time they beat a were rat to death with a chunk of silver, simply because the party had no other weapons capable of actually hurting it.

I think the game gets more memorable in adversity, rather than catering to the strengths of the PC's. Sure, I'd love to have a magic bow for the ranger. Would solve all sorts of problems. But, OTOH, I'm not sure that the campaign would be anywhere near as memorable if I had never had to deal with the problem.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

I wouldn't say it's the DM's job to design around advantages or disadvantages...but I would expect that most DMs do it to some extent. I would think that at most points of design....unless a DM designs an entire campaign before the players have created characters...the DM is aware of the character's strengths and weaknesses.

I'm sure there are folks who would say that doesn't apply to them, that they design their adventures for some general party of PCs, much in the way that published modules are designed. But I would expect such an approach to be used far less often, especially since the DM may subconsciously consider the specific party in question.

Agreed. I'm sure I do as well, although not intentionally. For things that are to be published, I think that it is more of a factor, not less. A published adventure has to be playable by many class combinations, so there needs to be a little something for everyone. But for my home campaign, I present options and provide information. I prefer a relatively "realistic" approach to my design. So if they are exploring a natural limestone cavern, there will be lots of tight spaces - great for the halflings, not so great for the larger creatures. Passages to explore are at many different levels, so those skilled in climbing will find things easier, too. If nobody thought about getting rope, then they may be limited in their options if certain characters can't climb well. The same thing applies to swimming (not every character knows how to swim in my campaign). It's not uncommon for there to be underwater passages in a limestone cavern. So there will be obstacles that might exclude some characters depending on their choices.

Being "some people" I want to clarify that I don't necessarily look at it as the DM's responsibility to rectify such situations, just that it's within his ability. You went on in your post to point out how the player could address the situation through ASI assignment or Feat selection. And that's fine...those certainly would help mitigate the situation.

But it's also within the DM's ability to solve...and in a much simpler manner. I mean, why do the other players have magic weapons? Because the DM rewarded them with those items. So the question is why reward some players and not others? Why not drop a quiver of +1 arrows into a treasure hoard somewhere? Seems far easier than expecting the player to take on a new class or to change his approach to ASI/fear allocation. After all, the other players did not have to concern themselves with such considerations.

Now, this is not to say that there can't be a compelling reason for one PC to lack a magic weapon...I'm sure that there can be a variety of reasons. And I don't reward such items all at once in my campaign either, so there are always times where such imbalance is present. And my players are fine with it....but I tend to want to reward them all with cool stuff as they go along, so it's usually something that gets addressed sooner rather than later.

So whether or not it's actually a problem for the table or not, if it is, there are ways that the player can address it that require a pretty significant expenditure of character resources, yes. Or, more simply, the DM can throw that player a bone like he has the others.

Well, when it comes to magic items, I don't reward them to anybody. They find them, and it's up to them to figure out who gets what. I have a lot of magic items in my campaigns, although more often than not they are consumable items. For permanent items, it's up to them to determine their best use, and who can make the most of them. If they are focused on the group, and group goals, then there tends not to be issues. If they are more focused on who has the most power, then it can become a problem. I'm not suggesting they pick particular feats, etc. In fact, I prefer that their ability selection is based on who the character is, not what they think will play well in a given adventure or with a particular group.

If they choose to search out and plunder a tomb of a fallen warrior, then they aren't likely to find new spellbooks or wands for the wizard. I'm not going to place them there just for balance purposes or to be "fair." If they want to explore the tower of an evil wizard, they may not find a magic sword. I'm not saying they couldn't, or even won't. But their choices also have an impact on what they find, not just deciding who gets to use it.

Of course, at some point they will find a permanent magic item that's useful to them. But if the fact that they've found three permanent magic items and there are four characters is a problem to them, then I think there's a different underlying issue at play. Particularly when we're talking about a 5% or 10% boost in combat efficiency. In fact, one of my complaints about 5e is the exact opposite. It's that everybody has the same combat efficiency when it comes to "to hit" numbers. I much prefer the idea that a 8rd level ranger has a much better "to hit" value than a 8th level wizard. Back in AD&D the ranger was 25% better at that level.

 

[Satyrn]

• Take a level in a caster class and cast my own Magic Weapon spells, at least a few times per day, and still have cantrips to rely on when the bow doesn't work.
• Take the Magic Initiate feat and again, cast my own Magic Weapons spells.
• Burn one of my ASI's to bump my 12 Str (see, I didn't dump stat) to a 14, pick up one of the other magic weapons in the party and stab things when my bow doesn't work. Heck, burn the two ASI's on Str, have a 16 Str equal to my 16 Dex and be a fairly decent melee combatant.

why not just use a magic weapon with that 12 Str?

 

[hawkeyefan]

Oh sure, @hawkeyefan, the DM could. Thing is, though, the module, at least as far as we've been able to determine, simply doesn't have that treasure. We've covered a good chunk of the module and just not found one. Now, we have found multiple magic weapons, just not that particular one. No reason, I think, just luck of the draw.

To me, it starts getting a bit too... predictable? No, that's the wrong word. Pat, I guess is the right word here. Player receives X, not because it makes any particular sense in the game, but, just because it's helping the PC? Sure, absolutely the DM can do this. And, to be fair, I've probably done it myself more than once.

OTOH, I do like the very old school feel of just having to make do with what you find. One of my favorite campaigns was my Worlds Largest Dungeon campaign. One of the best things about it was that you couldn't buy or manufacture magic items. There just wasn't any way to do so. So, characters had to make do with what they found. And it meant that you saw players get pretty open to the idea of Macgyvering solutions. Like the one time they beat a were rat to death with a chunk of silver, simply because the party had no other weapons capable of actually hurting it.

I think the game gets more memorable in adversity, rather than catering to the strengths of the PC's. Sure, I'd love to have a magic bow for the ranger. Would solve all sorts of problems. But, OTOH, I'm not sure that the campaign would be anywhere near as memorable if I had never had to deal with the problem.

Yeah, I can get that....as I said, there can be reasons for the imbalance. And it can also be mitigated in other ways...other non-weapon magic items can be granted, and so on. And I agree with adversity.

I don't know if awarding magic items has to be pat, though. Certainly no more pat than having to rely on a monster's resistance to non-magical weapons in order to create adversity.

I would think in most campaigns, if they go on with any length, then eventually all the PCs get magic items. Now, 5E has a slightly altered expectation in this regard....it's less certain in this edition, I think. But likely still expected. PCs should get cool stuff through their adventures....I think that's pretty much a default expectation of the game. Now, there can be fun in subverting expectations or like I said, other cool stuff can be provided instead of a weapon...but awarding treasure is like gaining levels, it's pretty much baked into the game.

Agreed. I'm sure I do as well, although not intentionally. For things that are to be published, I think that it is more of a factor, not less. A published adventure has to be playable by many class combinations, so there needs to be a little something for everyone. But for my home campaign, I present options and provide information. I prefer a relatively "realistic" approach to my design. So if they are exploring a natural limestone cavern, there will be lots of tight spaces - great for the halflings, not so great for the larger creatures. Passages to explore are at many different levels, so those skilled in climbing will find things easier, too. If nobody thought about getting rope, then they may be limited in their options if certain characters can't climb well. The same thing applies to swimming (not every character knows how to swim in my campaign). It's not uncommon for there to be underwater passages in a limestone cavern. So there will be obstacles that might exclude some characters depending on their choices.



Well, when it comes to magic items, I don't reward them to anybody. They find them, and it's up to them to figure out who gets what. I have a lot of magic items in my campaigns, although more often than not they are consumable items. For permanent items, it's up to them to determine their best use, and who can make the most of them. If they are focused on the group, and group goals, then there tends not to be issues. If they are more focused on who has the most power, then it can become a problem. I'm not suggesting they pick particular feats, etc. In fact, I prefer that their ability selection is based on who the character is, not what they think will play well in a given adventure or with a particular group.

If they choose to search out and plunder a tomb of a fallen warrior, then they aren't likely to find new spellbooks or wands for the wizard. I'm not going to place them there just for balance purposes or to be "fair." If they want to explore the tower of an evil wizard, they may not find a magic sword. I'm not saying they couldn't, or even won't. But their choices also have an impact on what they find, not just deciding who gets to use it.

Of course, at some point they will find a permanent magic item that's useful to them. But if the fact that they've found three permanent magic items and there are four characters is a problem to them, then I think there's a different underlying issue at play. Particularly when we're talking about a 5% or 10% boost in combat efficiency. In fact, one of my complaints about 5e is the exact opposite. It's that everybody has the same combat efficiency when it comes to "to hit" numbers. I much prefer the idea that a 8rd level ranger has a much better "to hit" value than a 8th level wizard. Back in AD&D the ranger was 25% better at that level.

Sure, I agree that awarding treasure can be an organic part of the story, and that's what I would try to do. As for what treasure is found....do you determine it randomly or what? I tend to select treasure rather than generate it randomly. Now, I don't simply pick things according to what will always be the most useful to the PCs....I tend to allow the fiction to help shape things, as you suggest, and other such factors. But I am not going to say that there is not some aspect of rewarding the players with stuff they will really like involved. For instance, a +1 trident....no one uses a trident. Why bother with it? It's just going to get sold or bartered....and unless you want to design some encounters around the idea of "what to do with this trident"...then that's just going to slow the game down. So in that case, I'd probably either give them a weapon one of the players may use, or just give them some other item, or a GP equivalent.

When it comes balance as it relates to team play....I don't think that having one player who is facing one challenge doesn't matter if the players aren't more competitive minded. As with any team oriented task, a weakness in one area can affect the whole team.

And as [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] describes it, the team addresses the issue. So it's working for that table, in which case I wouldn't necessarily change anything. I'm just putting forth options if it was an issue.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

At least 2E and 3.X, possibly others. Dice are only used as a mechanic because they reflect the in-game reality, not the other way around.

If you come upon a hut containing 1d4 ogres, it's because there are between one and four ogres in a family unit and the die is an impartial way of determining how many are home, rather than because the party is level 3 so that many ogres would constitute various degrees of reasonable challenge. The causal chain always starts within the game world, instead of being rooted in the real world.

That's not entirely the case in 5e, and hasn't been for a while. Mechanics like bardic inspiration, luck, and inspiration, which allow you to alter the facts after the initial roll are not reflected by an in-game reality. Even worse (RAW) is the fact that not only is the fighter the only class that can theoretically attempt to trip an opponent, they can also only do it a limited amount of times before they forget how to do it, at least until they have an hour to rest. There are plenty of other examples, both in 5e and earlier editions.

In most published adventures, and also by a lot of DM's approach with a home campaign, the number of ogres is directly correlated with the (expected) level of the party. This is further encouraged by the removal of the "# appearing" stat in the MM. In the past your suggested approach was better supported, but now the default approach that is laid out in the DMG is all about designing appropriate challenges, and even more so, an appropriate day of challenges, with some easy, some hard, and some just right. It's the Goldilocks school of adventure design.

To go back to your assertion that meta-gaming is objectively bad - the RPG community, heck, let's just narrow it down to the Enworld community, can't even agree on an objective definition of meta-gaming. Character creation itself is meta-gaming. Particularly if you're an optimizer and planning ahead. You're making choices for your future based on rules, and not the fiction. If you choose to multi-class into a monk, how do you propose to do so if you never meet a monk to learn from, and there aren't any books to teach you? I'm not a huge fan of planning out your character in this way, but I can't say it's objectively bad.

In my case I've made it clear that I expect and encourage my players to do exactly what others here feel is "objectively bad meta-gaming." I encourage them to read every Forgotten Realms book there is. Novel, game supplement, etc. Why? Because I want them to know what their world is like. I want a common shared experience that we can reference in the game. I want player knowledge to equal character knowledge. We'll find ways to work it in.

I alter things enough that many of the things they know end up feeling like second-hand knowledge, rumors and myth. The meta-gaming I object to is examples that have been made in various threads where the characters don't act like people, because they are considering the rules. Like when players decide to kill somebody (or let them die) because resurrection magic exists and they can just bring them back. Or one thread where the players decided to let the villain kill the innocent townsperson because they thought they would have at least three rounds of death saves before dying. It doesn't matter that the rule doesn't work that way for NPCs because they thought it did.

In other words, the meta-gaming I find objectionable is when the rules interfere with or change the fiction. One of the kinds I don't care about, is trying to separate player knowledge from character knowledge. That's not to say that there are times where it's inappropriate for some player knowledge to not be transferred to the characters. But that's usually things that a) don't exist - such as complex machines, firearms, and other such things; and b) story knowledge gained from sitting around the table, but the character is not present for. If the party is split up, and one of the chapters in the other group is dropped and dying, it would annoy me if the cleric in the other group suddenly dropped everything to go save the character.

However, I don't have a problem with players that are sitting at the table while a scene unfolds where their character is not present chiming in with ideas and advice. And I usually don't separate players at the table when the characters are split up because we assume that the other characters will relay whatever information they have learned or things they've experienced to the others when they return. It not only speeds up play, but because it's so easy for folks to forget imaginary things, it helps avoid me having to remind them of things.

If there is something that really should be a secret, then I either separate players, or pass notes.

Good role-playing doesn't exclude meta-gaming. You aren't present in the situation with the character. You are making decisions for the character as if you were the character. They don't know everything you know. But you, as a person, don't know everything the character sees, hears, smells, etc. You also don't know all of their experiences and everything they know. Sometimes the DM knows what they know, and not you. All of the activity around deciding what the character knows and doesn't is meta-gaming.

The current combat system, with turn-based initiative and action economy practically screams for people to meta-game. Characters act in 6-second slices, and make decisions based on not losing their Action this round, instead of thinking across rounds. They move into certain positions that give them advantage, all while the rest of the participants stand still patiently waiting for you to move your 30 feet, use your Action, and possibly a Bonus Action before they take their turn. So a rogue can move 30 feet, attack, and move another 30 feet with the other creature not doing a thing at all. That's a direct application of the out-of-game-factors writing the in-game reality. And actually, that's another type of meta-gaming I hate. So I changed it.

There are loads of out-of-game factors that determine the in-game reality. In your case, you seem to be referring to a more narrow definition of meta-gaming, the one where the player chooses to use knowledge that the character does not know and has the character act upon it. While there are certainly blatant examples of this, it often rears its head when the DM or another player decides that the character wouldn't know something.

The classic example is fire and trolls. You decide that your character knows trolls are vulnerable to fire, and the DM objects, saying you're never fought a troll, you don't know that. If it were my character, I'd call BS on that. If I'm anywhere within 1,000 miles (probably more) of where trolls currently live and attack people, in a world where people have been attacked by trolls for tens-of-thousands, if not hundreds-of-thousands of years; I know trolls are vulnerable to fire. Period.

Was it meta-gaming? Well that depends on who you ask. If the DM decides he doesn't agree with that reasoning, then it is. But I, as the player, say no. Part of the question is, "where is the line between what the player gets to decide what the character knows, and what the DM gets to decide?"

With no set line, then there is no set line as to what is meta-gaming (in this narrow definition) and what isn't.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

See that is the problem - the out of game "rules" say that a family unit of Ogres is between 1 to 4 which ignores the actual in game fiction of the family being more then usual.

If the DM already knows that there are two ogres living in that particular hut, because they've actually thought about who lives in this area and what makes sense, then you don't need to roll the dice to figure that out. Likewise, you don't roll randomly to determine the loot of an evil knight who the DM already knew was wearing Plate +2 and swinging a Nine-Lives Stealer.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

That's not entirely the case in 5e, and hasn't been for a while. Mechanics like bardic inspiration, luck, and inspiration, which allow you to alter the facts after the initial roll are not reflected by an in-game reality. Even worse (RAW) is the fact that not only is the fighter the only class that can theoretically attempt to trip an opponent, they can also only do it a limited amount of times before they forget how to do it, at least until they have an hour to rest. There are plenty of other examples, both in 5e and earlier editions.

My rogue can attempt to trip opponents all day long. So can anyone. You don't need a special power for that. (Although special powers certainly help; my rogue is at +10 to trip people, and cannot possibly score a result lower than 20 when attempting to do so.)

Bardic inspiration, luck, and the inspiration mechanic are not explicitly meta-game mechanics. You can play them as representative of internal forces within the game world. People really do get inspired, and try harder than usual. It's a real thing. And in a world with magic, who is to say that luck isn't real? Although, that one is double-locked behind the feat system, so it's not going to randomly show up in some game unless the DM decides that the world really does work that way.

In most published adventures, and also by a lot of DM's approach with a home campaign, the number of ogres is directly correlated with the (expected) level of the party. This is further encouraged by the removal of the "# appearing" stat in the MM. In the past your suggested approach was better supported, but now the default approach that is laid out in the DMG is all about designing appropriate challenges, and even more so, an appropriate day of challenges, with some easy, some hard, and some just right. It's the Goldilocks school of adventure design.

D&D has been on a downward slope away from role-playing ever since the golden age of role-playing in 2E, although 5E is at least nominally meant as a return to those days. It's just kind of half-baked in its attempt, so it doesn't do a very good job of presenting the game world as either a real place or as the back-drop in which to set tactical miniatures combat.

To go back to your assertion that meta-gaming is objectively bad - the RPG community, heck, let's just narrow it down to the Enworld community, can't even agree on an objective definition of meta-gaming. Character creation itself is meta-gaming. Particularly if you're an optimizer and planning ahead. You're making choices for your future based on rules, and not the fiction. If you choose to multi-class into a monk, how do you propose to do so if you never meet a monk to learn from, and there aren't any books to teach you? I'm not a huge fan of planning out your character in this way, but I can't say it's objectively bad.

Role-playing is making decisions as your character would make them. Nobody has yet to propose any different definition. And I'm not saying that it's objectively bad to plan that your paladin will eventually fall and become a blackguard, when you have no way of knowing what future events would inspire them to do so; I'm just saying that it's objectively not role-playing.

In my case I've made it clear that I expect and encourage my players to do exactly what others here feel is "objectively bad meta-gaming." I encourage them to read every Forgotten Realms book there is. Novel, game supplement, etc. Why? Because I want them to know what their world is like. I want a common shared experience that we can reference in the game. I want player knowledge to equal character knowledge. We'll find ways to work it in.

I'm not sure why anyone would think that's meta-gaming, unless you're explicitly making a character who shouldn't know that stuff (some planar visitor from Greyhawk), and then using that information to drive their decision-making process anyway. Playing a character who happens to know the same level of detail as the player would certainly make things easier in some ways, although it kind of feels like it's giving short-shrift to the the character, who should probably know even more about the world that they actually live in than someone who has only read stories about that world.

Good role-playing doesn't exclude meta-gaming. You aren't present in the situation with the character. You are making decisions for the character as if you were the character. They don't know everything you know. But you, as a person, don't know everything the character sees, hears, smells, etc. You also don't know all of their experiences and everything they know. Sometimes the DM knows what they know, and not you. All of the activity around deciding what the character knows and doesn't is meta-gaming.

Good role-playing excludes meta-gaming, by definition. Role-playing is doing what the character would do, based on what they know and who they are; meta-gaming is (among other things) doing what the character wouldn't do, based on factors aside from what they know and who they are. The definitions are on entirely different ends of the decision tree.

Determining what the character knows and does-not know is not meta-gaming, at least not in that sense of the term. It is possibly meta-meta-gaming, but it is an activity which is entirely removed from the decision-making process of the character itself. Determining what information the character has to work with in the first place does not affect how they act upon that information, or whether they're acting upon information that they don't have. Regardless of the process by which you determine that your character does or does-not know that trolls are weak to fire - whether you're specifically making a judgment call based on their place in the world, or you roll randomly based on a relevant skill, or the DM just tells you what the character knows - it doesn't affect your choice of how you make a decision based on that information. As long as you're doing what the character would do, based on what they know and who they are, then that's role-playing rather than meta-gaming.

Even if you honestly determine that the character doesn't know that trolls are weak to fire, if fire is your go-to solution to most problems, and you intentionally avoid it because you don't want to be accused of meta-gaming by people who don't know what they're talking about, then that is meta-gaming.

 

[Gradine]

One thing I'll add to my previous discussion; I see my role as the DM in creating the most enjoyable play experience for everyone at the table. That doesn't mean "everyone always wins" so much as it means "I provide challenges appropriate to the party." It means I don't provide challenges for the party that they don't have the ability to overcome. This is not to say they always overcome said challenges; just that they have a chance at doing it. It means if, say, my players (and their characters) struggle with social challenges, I use them sparingly (I don't avoid them entirely), and I consciously hide alternative solutions to the problem when I do. Of course, my players might just surprise me by rising to the challenge as presented; or maybe they'll discover that alternative I've hidden (a piece of blackmail here, a mutual contact there); or maybe they'll find some other way to overcome the challenge I hadn't even considered. Like I said, players are by nature full of surprises.

But challenge is only one aesthetic out of eight; and so I also have a responsibility to "read the room" so to speak, and design my adventures and campaigns around the aesthetics of my players. I have several players who emphasize the Fellowship aesthetic; they show up every game because they enjoy the social aspect and teamwork involved. So I purposefully design my adventures to avoid intraparty friction and I explicitly disallow "PvP" actions at my table. My players are also generally more into Expression than Fantasy, so I allow them some creative control over the content of the setting from time to time (like when they head-canon-changed House Orien to be gnomes in my Eberron game for reasons I still don't fully comprehend). Or look at genre; I love writing horror scenarios, to the extent that my players began to notice signs that they were in the obligatory "horror adventure" of the campaign. I eventually discovered that my players cared little for these scenarios, so I chucked them.

I also wonder how the "never consider the characters" style works PC backstory into their campaigns. Do they at all? I have to think there at least has to be a middle ground there... the characters themselves are just as much elements of the game world as anything else, so their backstory elements should be incorporated into the campaign at some point, don't they? They're not just birthed into the world fully formed from Talos's forehead.

 

[Hussar]

why not just use a magic weapon with that 12 Str?

That would certainly work as well.

 

[Hussar]

snippage of excellent content for brevity

I also wonder how the "never consider the characters" style works PC backstory into their campaigns. Do they at all? I have to think there at least has to be a middle ground there... the characters themselves are just as much elements of the game world as anything else, so their backstory elements should be incorporated into the campaign at some point, don't they? They're not just birthed into the world fully formed from Talos's forehead.

I tend to leave that in the hands of the players at first. The PC's all have their backstories, fair enough. If a player starts referencing background and utilizing it at the table, then I'll start incorporating it into the game more and more. OTOH, I've had numerous players who simply don't want to bother, so, their backstory remains in the background and doesn't come up.

IOW, I place the onus on the players to make their backstories part of the campaign. You have a long lost relative you want to rescue? Fine, no problem, but, until you the player start making the effort in game to resolve that - asking for rumors, talking about it with the other players and getting them on board, etc - I'm not really going to make much effort to bring that into the game. Now, once you have brought it up in game, then, well, game on!