You know something I cannot stand? I have a severe dislike of playing with people who min/max a character. I cannot stand it. You know those types of players? The players who spend a lot of time figuring out "If I do this, then I can do this and be more powerful than if I did this-" or those types who are like "If I take this choice, I can do more XYZ than if I take this choice-". The type of people who would be better off playing an Action-RPG with character customization.
I cannot stand playing with players who "build" their characters, and refer to them as such. "Oh yeah, I am running a 'Dex-Based Dual-Wield Fighter' build but I am thinking of crossing into the 'Buff/Debuff Bard' build-"
I have a hard time playing with this people. What happened to having fun and letting the character you play take a life of it's own? What happened to letting the story of the campaign direct how your character grows? Do the people who decide "Oh, I am going to be a Rogue 6, Fighter 5, Ranger 9" ignore that maybe their character discovers a tome of ancient lore or possibly has a religious epiphany some point in the campaign?
I have had to excuse myself from a table before the campaign even begins, because of a player who Min/Max's their character before the story begins. I can understand, having an idea in mind, and I can understand wanting to play something a person is comfortable with, but where is the fun in having everything all thought out? How do you know it will even work out? Why put a ton of time in trying to figure out the "best way to get this, I have to do this first-"?
Do you have troubles with players like this? Are you a player like this? If you are, why? Why not just let loose and let the story direct your character's path?
Personally, I like to let the story shape my character out. I never sit down with a solid and often-times rigid character. I might have some idea like "I want my character to be quick with their hands." or "My character feels comfortable defending rather than attacking."
Another thing I have an issue with- Why give a character an elaborate backstory before beginning? Yes, Fluff can be great if worked into the campaign, but why be so deep? I feel like it leaves no room for any self-discovery. If you have to type several paragraphs about your character's backstory, it makes it harder and harder to believe the character is only a level one.
"Oh, My character fought the person who killed his parents, so my character decided to master martial arts and the art of detecting." So your level One character already is master of martial arts and a maser detective? I don't think so.
Don't get me wrong, a backstory is great, amazing and often times--very creative. Why not just let it come out into the campaign? Maybe your character is a cleric, fighting against slightly over-whelming odds. An epiphany hit your character, he should have studied harder as he grew up in the church or temple. Great! You just let some of your characer's history develop by the campaign! Where is the fun in already knowing that your Cleric didn't study enough growing up? You'll try to avoid the combat and miss out on a chance for something spectacular to happen.
Your character's epiphany causes him to shout to his patron deity, asking for forgiveness, pleading for some form of help, promising to study harder should he survive. The next offensive spell he casts has the power of his deity behind it and it lays waste to the enemy. There you go, your character has grown in the process and something amazing happened because of it.
Why would you take the chance to lost out on that by shot-changing yourself?
I feel that the players who are only in it to min/max their character, takes the fun out of the game for those of us who are content playing the game and letting the world unfold around us. How do you feel about it? What is your opinion? Do you feel like your losing out on some of the fun when a fellow player is trying to figure out the best way to make a godly character instead of letting it grow on it's own? Do you feel these people break the game in some way?
I want to hear your opinion, even if you think I am completely wrong and off my rocker. I am curious who else feels like this out there and who feels like I am just a blathering goblin.
I get where you are coming from. It all comes down to how each individual sees D&D. Is it shared storytelling or a game or both.
I find it more entertaining playing and DMing when players lean more towards storytelling and immersing themselves in the fiction rather than being hyper aware of the game/stats and playing the percentages.
That said, I've played in campaigns where all the players min/max to work as an effective commando unit and I had fun there too.
But, if I had to choose, I'd go more for story, excitement, sub-optimal play that moves fast - a game or campaign that goes beyond just success and failure, and attempting to maximize success at the cost of story.
Rhenny wrote:
I hate games where the characters act like morons. If you're a mercenary who goes into dangerous situations for a living anyone not doing their best to find that extra edge is a liability, being powerful is a survival trait, maybe not the most important one, but still up there. It's also good for business because rich people will shell out more gold for powerful mercs than for scrubs. You don't advertise how you get there of course, but character optomization makes sense to me. Letitng the story unfold is one thing, being too weak and pathetic to shape it towards your character's ends is another.
rampant wrote:
Echamil wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
While various media abound with characters of humble background and ability, the greater proportion of heroes are either overpowered (compared to a peasant) or balanced but 'optimized.' You might as well complain about Legolas having a high dexterity score, or Professor Xavier having a high intelligence. Heroes usually are really good at one thing, and this often defines how the character solves problems. Sometimes the drama is created by the hero's inability to resolve conflict with his strengths. Sometimes it is resolved specifically because he alone possesses the correct strength to handle it. This second one is a common theme in teams of heroes, i.e. the PCs. Everyone is good at something, so that in theory, they can overcome any challenge together.
Having a build in mind is a sign of good planning, and is not exclusive of being a good role player or having an entertaining character. Even if the character seems designed around a very specific mechanic, recall that people in real life dedicate their existence to single objectives as well (e.g. Olympic athletes). It doesn't prevent them from having interesting personalities and backgrounds, or from experiencing intellectual and emotional growth.
Echamil wrote:
I totally agree with you. I hate it when people talk about "buildz" and not persons
It reminds me of the advice in the 2e DMG,
The player's decision isn't based on his imagination, the campaign, role-playing, or character development. It is based on game mechanics--what will give the player the biggest modifier and cause the most damage in any situation. A certain amount of min/maxing is unavoidable, and even good (it shows that the player is interested in the game), but an excessive min/maxer is missing the point. Reducing a character to a list of combat modifiers and dice rolls is not role-playing.
I'm unashamedly a power gamer.
I'm also unashamably a role-player.
These two things are not contradictory.
Some people prefer a lot of RP, writing intense backstories and taking into account every little detail one needs to know about the world to make your character seem three-dimensional. Some people prefer minimal RP, enjoying the game by throwing dice and shooting the breeze with friends, like a board-game with no fixed win condition.
Some people prefer min-maxing, making sure their characters are as badass in the game as they are in their minds, capable of the heroic feats that people will tell stories about for years to come. Some people prefer low mechanics, because they feel that being weak gives them some realistic challenge to overcome and it's more satisfying to succeed despite these limitations.
And you know what? All of that is fine.
There are three problems that can emerge from here.
The first is with the individual player, being immature and disruptive. I use the word "munchkin" to describe these immature players - but the important part to realize is that there are many ways of the munchkin. The most well-known example of this is the min-maxer munchkin, who doesn't care about RP but also doesn't care about realistic limits on power; these guys will exploit tricks and loops in the rules and it creates a disruptive game for everyone. The problem is, they're not the only munchkin. Ever played with a drama queen who refuses to play a character without some physical disability (even though such a disability would have wound up with his death long ago), who steals the spotlight every chance he gets to wax poetic through another soliloquy, and doesn't care that this is preventing the rest of the team from advancing through the story or reaching the next action scene? Yeah, that's still a munchkin. (There's also the low-end munchkins on either of those scales, but these are less illustrative than my examples.)
Most of the time that people complain about "min-maxers", they are actually complaining about munchkins. In part this is because the min-maxer munchkin is perhaps the most common munchkin (it's easy to learn how the rules work alone, without developing the social skills needed to express a good party dynamic), but to really see why it's more common, we have to look at another potential problem.
The second problem is when people don't see these qualities as separate axes. To these people, anyone who makes a min-maxed character cannot also be a roleplayer, and anyone who RPs well must not min-max. This forces people to assume that one type of gameplay is better than the others, and I'm sorry to say, it's almost always people who think RP is the One True Way To Play who commit this fallacious reasoning. (And yes, it's fallacious. Formally, it's called affirming a disjunct, and informally it's called a false dilemma. Years ago, I expressed this idea at length and found that no one ever really got it, so I expressed it in gaming-specific terms and attached my name to it as the "Stormwind Fallacy"; while this term is rather well-known now, I seriously regret naming it after myself, and nowadays call it the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer fallacy). Hypothetically a group could say that min-maxing is the One True Way To Play, but these people are either very rare or deep in the closet. In my experience, they usually understand it's bogus reasoning to assume they're opponent processes - in fact, most of the best RPers I've ever met I first encountered on character optimization forums.
So when people complain about "min-maxers", I will wager a shiny nickel that the person complaining is engaged in this fallacious reasoning. It's on display in all of its fallacious glory in the OP, along with the tacit holier-than-thou that comes from assuming there is a One True Way to Play. (Such a holier-than-thou does appear in more mechanics-driven games too - "lern2play, newb" and all that similar garbage found in MMOs is basically the same sentiment, but inverted. If you can't stand "lern2play", then you shouldn't be complaining about min-maxers, because it's exactly the same reasoning.) However, this doesn't get to be a really massive problem until a third aspect enters play.
The third problem is an extension of this, and it emerges even if your team has no munchkins on it. It's assuming that there is a One True Way To Play, of any sort, and that anyone who doesn't conform to this is having BadWrongFun. The issue with this is that a team composed entirely of low-RP, low-min-max players, for instance, will be having a grand old time, because everyone's getting out of the game what they expect. That style of gameplay isn't for me - I enjoy rich stories and swashbuckling adventure, deep intriguing mysteries and setpiece action ecounters - but this isn't a problem, because I'm not playing a game with those people. And even if I were, that's still assuming that people can't change. (Our long-established group has players who had only done free-form RP before playing D&D, and others that were involved pretty heavily in the optimization circuit, and others who were shy and didn't feel comfortable opening up, and others who were basically professional actors. Over time, we all taught each other our strengths: the free-former continued his style, but now backs it up with enough strength that his legend is justified, the shy fellow learned to open up and express himself in full RP form, the optimizers fleshed out backstories and in-character performances so well that they became the central driving force of the narrative, and so on.)
Different parts of the game appeal to different people. All that matters for group cohesion and fun is that everyone is roughly in the same location on those two axes - and that you recognize that people can shift on them over time.
What else needs to be said?
Well, I suppose I should say that often I do start out with a character concept and work the rules around that, exactly as you say. Other times, I find something that reads like a really fun rule or interaction that acts like a spark, igniting my imagination and getting me to write characters around it. Both approaches are constrained by concept and whatever degree of optimization or RP depth is appropriate for my table. Is either approach the One True Way To Play?
I should also say that, yes, power matters. If your concept is someone who is good at thier job, or someone's survival depends on them being good at their job, then being bad at their job is not in your best interests. If my concept is a master warrior, I am not going to play a wizard armed with a crowbar (incidentally, this is exactly what one "drama queen" player I knew once brought to a table. Dead within two rounds after the first combat started.) Indeed, characters who are known for their flamboyant and memorable personality are not remembered as blowhards, entirely because they can back it up.
(My favorite example of this is from The Princess Bride. One of the most famous lines from that is a classic, archetypal, revenge narrative arc - "Hello. My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die." However, right before that, he clearly says he "dedicated his life to the study of fencing" (a trait that shows up quite often in his dialogue), and right after that, he engages in a duel with someone whose dreadful reputation as a killer is known worldwide, and he holds his own using his bad hand. You bet your arse he's min-maxed - didn't stop him from being better known for his dialogue and personality.)
...I'll stop here, because I have no idea if these ideas (which, to me, seem self-evident) are going to start a flamewar, and that's not my intention. Best to gauge the forum, first.
I don' believe it is so much "limited characters" as it is real people. Nevvur makes a good point and I don't mind saying so. See what I feel that people tend to forget is that the characters maybe weren't meant to be hero's. If every person in the Forgotten Realms was meant to be a hero, the excitement would grow boring.
I don't believe a hero is someone that is a step above the average, but more like... a person who acted in an extrodinary way in an extra-ordinary situation, and this is what propelled them into a life of being a Hero.
Let me clarify--Recently, I went back and started to re-read Spellfire by Ed Greenwood. While Shandril was born with an extrordinary gift, her upbringing put her in a position that she wasn't ready to be a hero at first. For most of the beginning of the book, Shandril is unsure of herself, of her abilities and continues to face an internal struggle of wishing that she remained at the Rising Moon Inn and the exciting feeling of having stepped out into the vast world. Prior to her stealing the Bright Spear, among other items from the Company of the Bright Spear, she was nothing more than a scullery-maid, a common NPC in any campaign.
She didn't start out with above average abilities. She was quick with her hands, and had stamina, but that came from years cooking, cleaning and performing other various chores. There are times where it is clear she isn't the greatest Thieft, but she works to improve herself.
It is in my own opinion that a Hero is made through the trials they face, they aren't born to be heros.
Tempest_Stormwind wrote:
Echamil wrote:
Tempest_Stormwind wrote:
Tempest_Stormwind wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
When I DM with min/maxers I often ensure that they are the last to find any great magical items and campaign world advantages. IMO, they've already rewarded themseles with power and it's my job as a DM to make them jealous of the things that happen to those who play for other reasons. In other words, the fighter with a 13 strength is going to find a much more powerful weapon than the min/maxed character. In the end, min/maxing does very little for them as I'm in full control of the power levels of each character.
The character is putting their life on the line in dangerous fights against unimaginale horrors 6-8 times per day, often to ultimately save the entire world, and... you think they shouldn't be doing absolutely everything in their power to make sure they survive the day? In this situation not min/maxing means you're role-playing a suicidal moron.
If you don't like it, don't play a system that rewards it and practically forces it on you by making the character vastly more powerful through leveling by being successful. There are lots of good systems that don't put the characters in that situation like Gumshoe, or where death is trivialized like Paranoia. Systems like those which don't have a power ramp through leveling would seem to fit the type of game you want to play better.
FFSAA wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
rampant wrote:
Echamil wrote:
Tempest_Stormwind wrote:
Perhaps I was wrong in saying Min/Max.
Let me have another attempt at it.
I dislike the people who only think in a way such as... Well.. MinMax from the Goblin's Webcomic is a clear way to describe it I guess.
See, the issue is- the opinion is in my head and it is becoming increasing difficult to state it out clearly, because I am reading each person's response and their own opinion.
Alright, let me use this Board as my example. The unofficial class guides, breaking down a character to show the people the best options to pick versus the worst options to choose. I mean the people who wholly intend to ONLY take the best options of a class based on the general public opinion of said options.
Builds. That is only word I can think of.
The people who treat Dungeons & Dragons as if it is a video game to conquer, by building a character in such a way that they can beat the game. You know how on most modern day RPG's, there is character customization that allows you to build your character towards a play style. Games like Skyrim, Borderlands, Dragon Age, etc. I dislike the players that treat their character like it is nothing more than a build, regardless of the campaign.
It irks me, to play with a player who is rigid in the opinion that this is how they will build this character, even if it isn't beneficial to the campaign, purely so they can become a powerhouse of a character.
Echamil wrote:
I'd like to think that I ascribe more to the notion that some NPC's are special, but that doesn't mean they are automatically meant to become adventurer's. It's the circumstances and the way we react to those circumstances that define us as people, the same can be said for PC and NPC.
An example could be put this way;
Donovarion was for the most part a well-built man of above-average height. He was a fair bit stronger than the other men who served in the Town Guard. What he made up for in Strength, he lacked for in Constitution. Donovarion was adamant about being on the front line in regards to protecting his town from those who broke the law, but he could never stomach the idea of mortally wounding man or creature.
There, an NPC who may be considered ahove average, but that doesn't automatically mean he should become an adventurer and give up his life as a Town Guard.
But, say there is an attack on the Town and Donovarion is tasked with traveling to a near-by City, to request aide for the people who were gravely hurt. The way he reacts to the circumstances of traveling, could propel him from being an NPC who may be considered above average, to a PC.
I have no idea if any of that made sense, it makes more sense in my head than when I typed it out.
dmgorgon wrote:
My problem is with players who believe that maximised stats is *all* the a character is. You know, roll-players, rather than role-players.
You ask something outside the class/race, like "how old is your character?" and you get the answer "I dunno, do I get bonuses for being a certain age?"
You ask "what are your character's goals?" and they say "Get to 20 STR, get the XYZ feat."
Of course, this is a great opportunity for learning. Explaining to those players the difference between the player's goals ("get to 20 STR") and the character's goal ("become a noble, own a piece of land") is worthwhile.
Echamil wrote:
I've evolved over the years. I used to be much more of a min/maxer and the groups I would play in played to "win." We often spent time making plans so that we would always do what is "best." For me, it did eventually become boring.
As player and DM, I like the idea that during the heat of battle, even the most seasoned warrior can make a mistake. I like when the rogue scouts ahead and then gets distracted by something interesting so that he/she explores further without letting the group know. I like when half of the party goes one way and the other half goes another way to try to explore more when there is a time limit and they need to find something. I like when the death cleric (this was in a playtest package) used a blast of necrotic energy (divine chanelling) that hurt the foes, but also hurt his allies (actually..in that game, before the cleric unleased the power, he asked everyone in the party, "Do you have faith?" It was a memorable moment).
Making the "fun" decision is much more important to me than making the "right" decision.
And...people can still min/max their characters and play in a "fun" style.
Also, by "fun" I don't mean random acts of stupidity. I mean decisions that don't necessarily optimize the situation, but still fit within the scope of the character and the understanding that the group has about the way the character acts in the party.
Echamil wrote:
Echamil wrote:
I am happy to see people's various opinions on the matter.
I gave my opinion and that is what it is, an opinion. It's something I dislike, and nothing more than that. I like players who let the collective story and other characters influence the path their own characters take. It's how I play, and it is what I enjoy.
I like coming to the table with a set of simple, vague ideas and letting my character develop based on outside factors. It is what I am comfortable with and it is what I enjoy. I dislike the idea of a player who has no flexibility with their character, to let that character adapt.
One of my most favored characters was Johnny Apple.
A simple peasant farmer's son. He had the simplest training in the way of the blade, wasn't that bad of a marksman, and wasn't all that smart either. He was quick, always had a wisened insight and was quite hearty for being a lad of two decades.
He started out as a Fighter, who fought with a spear that had seen better days, a shortsword that belonged to his father, a shield made from the lid of an Oak Barrel and wore simple leather armor.
Mechanically, his stats were 9/14/16/11/15/13.
After a second level in Fighter, a companion of Johnny's introduced him to the art of evocation magic. Johnny wasn't the most adept at being a Wizard, but that didn't stop him.
Due to the campaign, and the company that Johnny travelled with, He retired his blade after years of adventure had left him old and full of tales. His final level was 10 Fighter, 4 Wizard, 1 Ranger.
When I started the campaign out, I went in with the idea that I wanted to play a character that would be quick on his feet, have a hearty consitution, and be able to say something wise when the time called for it.
Tempest_Stormwind wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
@Tony Vorgos-
I feel like you took my opinion, and made it out to be a personal attack. It wasn't intended in such a way. I find it creative how you answered my questions, but I still feel like you took offense to my own personal opinion. I am going to tell you that had you read through the entire forum, you would see how I elaborated some places, and only made other places more so confusing, because I am sure you did so before responding. I don't say it in a way to be mean, just in a way that I am sure you didn't respond purely to the first post without taking into account anything else that was said afterwards.
Let me clear up a confusion though. I don't hate the Roleplay of the game, nor do I hate the rules. In fact, I find 5e to be quite flexible in the rules from the DM and the player's stand point. Plus, as a writer, I love the interactive story that develops as the would becomes more and more flushed out. I love that an NPC has a life outside of the few short seconds a PC meets with them.
When I DM, even when I am running my players through an adventure or a dungeon, I am keeping track of my NPC's and their daily lives.
See, for me to go back through, and to couner everything you said, I feel that I would be only making matters worse. I don't want people to take my opinions as a personal attack against them, because that is all they are, my opinions. As I said, the entire reasoning for this post was so I could rant and get my opinion out, while relieve the stress of a bad gameday, and still learn what my fellow board members think, as well as their own personal feelings on the matter.
Echamil wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
pukunui wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
Echamil wrote:
Echamil wrote:
Tony_Vargas wrote:
Power gamers, optimizers, min/maxers, munchkins, etc can all be worked with, so long as they are not of the extreme variety who believe that they "win" D&D by having the most powerful, uber, crazy, better at everything character at the table. Fortunately, that is way less likely to happen in 5th Ed than it was in 3.x/PRPG or 4th. It also feels that a lot of people arguing for the old ways have not yet adjusted to the intentionally looser and vaguer, rely on DM ruling, system that is 5th Ed. But yes, if we are talking about the older systems, I will not participate with these types of players because I have no fun a table with someone who has to be better than everyone else.
And as a side rant, I really hate it when people call their characters toons. Please leave that MMO crap in WoW.
Echamil wrote:
Ok hold up Enevhar, seriously? You're claiming that it's harder to make a god character in 5e than it was in 4e? I mean I know 3e was a mess, but you seriously think making a god character is easier in 4e than in 5e?
Ok how? Because given the tight rule son powers, classes, and the way the game's math was contructed I've never managed to do that with 4e. 4e was brilliant at forcing trade offs and due to the way the classes were built and the action economy controlled it was almost impossible for a single character to beat the others at everything. Could you optomize in 4e? Yes. COuld you pull some seriously rediculous ****? Yes. But doing so cost and meant you missed outon other things. In many ways 4e was the best system to learn in because the overall differences between an optomized character and one who wasn't optomized was generally pretty small outside of the one trick that the optomized character was set up for, and most of those cost power usage anyway so they self limited.
In 5e we see the return of the 'omniscient divine casters', and 'magic is special'. I highly doubt it is or will be difficult to construct super characters with that crap back in the system.
Looking past the meta aspect for now, so the character is a zealot toward a certain combination of skills. How is that any less a character?
The key issues I see is meta gaming in return "You're not playing a character the way I want you to, so I wont have my character actually talk to you as a fellow character"
The other is that the events of play are all generic. Do this investigation, do that investigation. Even if the character cared about something other than its skills, the adventure wouldn't care about it, so why should the player bother making a character that cares about anything other than its build?
From what I've seen and the genericness of the encounters program, there's a lot of generic games out there - but you put it as if it's the players problem?
MechaPilot wrote:
FFSAA wrote:
Here's how I approach characters, as a player and a DM. All of which is just my opinion.
As a player, I come up with the character concept first. I think about the character's life, friends, family and so on. I think about what they would likely be doing and how they got the skills they have. Then I try to find the class and race that fits them best. Moving forward, I plan out my character at least a few levels ahead. Based on how my character concept turns out, I figure out the game mechanics that match that character. I always like to plan ahead for my characters. Main reason, it can save time at the table. If my group is leveling up their characters at the table together (which we've started to do when we noticed some cheating), I can move things along quicker and just do any last minute dice rolling at the table. My character concept always comes first though. I even make a list of personality traits and come up with some little quirk for my character, like biting his nails or absentmindedly whistling.
Now, for me, a characters backstory is different from adventuring life. On the surface it may be easy to say "your character can't be a soldier with combat experience, you're only level one". Though that's not really true. You could be a soldier with a long and active military career and even a high rank, but adventuring is different. Knowing how to lead a charge, issue commands on a field fo battle, or plan a seige is a whole different ballgame from stalking a dragon to its lair or surving in the underdark while hunted by drow. Adventuring should be different. Otherwise you're just playing out a regular person with a day job. Once you start on that adventure, you need to learn different things to survive. That leads to growing beyond being a soldier to being a paragon of your deity or a legendary warrior. Becoming a legend means stepping outside of your everyday life to accomplish something extraordinary. Maybe you're a street urchin, trying to get by. You hear rumors on the street and quickly realize that you're the only one putting the clues together that a necromantic cult is going to kill the king. So do you keep being a street urchin or do you learn new skills to survive? Do you try to step up and stop the cult even though you're a poor orphan forced to live in the gutter? The backstory is just that, backstory. The adventure begins when a conflict is introduced that disrupts the normal lives of the PCs. Even if your group is a professional adventuring company and make their living seeking treasure from danger, they had to come from somewhere. I always tend to write a good amount of backstory. The DMs in my group actually love it as it gives them things to work into the campaing and make it a bit more personal. Everyone in my group does pretty much the same thing. They write out a good backstory as our DMs (myself included when I DM) love adding it to the campaing. At some point, something from a character's past can come out. For that adventure, that player gets their moment to shine. Everyone gets a turn in the spotlight at some point.
Now, as a DM, I actively seek out and encourage my players to give me a lot. I have a questionairre that I give out asking for things like personality traits, quirks, family, friends, long term goals and so on. It's about 5 or 6 questions just to get the creative juices flowing. I always get more than what I ask for, which I love. Then I blend it all into the campaign I have planned. If I need to change something about my campaign to make the players' characters fit better, I make the change. This is a collaborative game after all and I want them to have a hand in the world building. People care about the game more if they have input into helping craft it. I also make sure that my players know what the feel of the world will be, give them world info (either with an existing world like Forgotten Realms or details of my homebrew world), and tell them what the world is like. That way they can make informed decisions about their characters and ask for any clarifications. I usually have a couple of campaign ideas that I pitch to them and see what they want to play.
The area that can cause some problems comes from the D&D rules themselves. What is D&D really about, if you look at the core books? It's about combat. Your goal as an adventurer is to kill stuff for loot and experience. The chapter on how combat works is huge. Each class gives you rules on how they act in combat. Spells give you info on how they function in combat (mostly). The bulk of the PHB is all about getting into a fight. You have some skills, which function outside of combat. You have some equipment and daily life stuff. That's all pretty minimal though. Even the people talking role playing in this thread have cited that small little intro section on role playing. So at most you get about a page of discussion on role playing and then 200 more pages of how to engage in combat. With that combat comes the math necessary to resolve it. So if you want your character to be successful in the game of D&D, they have to know how to fight and have the numbers to do it. Otherwise your great character concept will last about one session before being killed off. So some amout of "optimization" is a bit necessary. You have to have your stats, class and class features so you can fight. Which means that the players at your table will likely engage in some optimization.
As a DM, I don't care what my players stats are or anything like that. I make sure that they have a way to generate their characters fairly and blanaced among the group, so you don't have one player that is Superman and another that's Jimmy Olsen. Aside from that, whatever mechanical choices they make are good with me. The reason being, they have to work within D&D's system, which is based on combat.
Another thing I learned while DMing all these years (since AD&D) is that players respond to the rewards of the game. If you play a combat heavy game with treasure behind every kill, they'll be inclined to min/max so they can get the reward. If you play a more role playing heavy game, where you can convince someone with a good discussion rather than a persuasion roll, they'll come up more role playing to participate and earn the reward. That reward is a bit different from combat and treasure. It's more that they get to be the "star" and the big hero of a scene. However you set up your game and whatever you put in place to "win" is how the players will respond. Are you telling an epic tale that will resolve when the heroes move the story forward or are you setting up combat and treasure? Is it a bit of both? Most D&D tends to be a bit of both, in which case players make decisions on which side seems to be favored a bit more. They tend to be more inclined to take chances though if you're more encouraging of it. If you don't use different languages in your campaign, they won't take the linguist feat. If you do use different languages and taking the linguist feat will allow a player to translate an ancient manuscript that's important to the story, they'll want to take it. You guide them based on what they want and what they think will be rewarding.
I personally read a lot of guides and do a lot of research, something DM's don't always seem to enjoy.
And do you know why I do this?
Because I am involved in my character, I love to be Ithildin the Eldritch Archer.
The last thing I want to do is to pick things I regret later, that could cause me to lose interest in my character. Imagine that I spend a lot of effort to cast spells while attacking, just to find out that it's really bad? You can't just undo that without starting a new character.
I would also find it devestating if my character dies because I made bad choices in my 'numbers'.
For me it is important to know how stuff works and what it actually gives me.
I do not take a feat "because the internet says it is good", I take a feat or path because I know exactly how it works, what it means for me and how it interacts with my character and his story.
And that also means I know exactly how stuff works.
An example would be paladins with their weapons, a greatsword is clearly the best choice for them.
But I would implement this in the game not by saying "the weapon is better because it uses 2D6", but by saying that my character has trained his entire life with a greatsword and is therefor better with those.
Sometimes that seems to clash a bit with the DM.
Only last weekend our paladin got a new magic weapon, a magic senient Warhammer with some additional damage.
Since I am good with math I quickly realised that it was a 13% nerf in damage compared to the old weapon and the DM seemed to be a little upset when I wanted to talk about that.
Or another time a DM decided to give a character +2 to everything because he had such crappy rolls, which brought him way above the average rolls and really made his character a little bit OP.
But there is one thing I would like to emphasize:
Dungeons and Dragons is a RPG, but it uses dice and stats. That means that number-crunching will always be a part of the game and I think that a DM should accept this and learn about it.
And if you aren't that good in stuff like that, there is always a player that could support you in these matters.
Those are great suggestions manduck
IMO, character concepts should be rule system independent. For my games, characters designed around the mechanics of a particular gaming system are undefined and meaningless.
I wouldn't say I'm bothered or annoyed by min/maxers. I will say I don't understand it however. When I see DPR posts, and things like long multiple paragraphs about percentages and "That's only 48.7% effective against AC17. Use this weapon instead and it increases to 52.3%", I will admit that my eyes roll and tend to gloss over. But you know what? I also don't participate in those threads, or comment on those types replies in a thread typically. Why? Because it doesn't concern me or affect me, and there is zero purpose served in trolling them by throwing in my $0.02 cents in about it. It's just not for me, nor how I play. But for those that do, have at it.
To me, PCs with less-than-stellar stats are ripe for great storyline. Temptations abound. No one wants to be weak, and such things are fertile ground for power-gains as character development, and a PC can either give into easy power, or stay the course. Perfect example is Raistlin Majere. Super weak STR, had his CON shattered by his Test, but great INT and a desire to be better. Obviously we all know how that turned out, but bad stats make for great story in my opinion.
Two bad stats, one of which most mages dumped anyway. Raistlin had weakenesses yes, but he also had strengths which a lot of people seem to forget when they use him as an example for this. From an optomization standpoint dumping con was a risk, but his story was epic enough it may have been worth it. Being weak didn't make Raistlin great, playing to his strengths and working around his weak points did. Which is what any good optomizer will do.
Synjin wrote:
rampant wrote:
rampant wrote:
Well that's not actually a min-max issue so much as not wanting to get hexxed or gimped by the DM. YEah it can cheese a guy off to build an archer and then get his eyes burnt out and regen denied, but it's not just because of his build or whatever, it's because he feels like the DM is just trying to screw him. Loading them down with a negative condition and no way to escape it. Especially in a game where magic healing exists for the specific purpose of fixing that kind of thing. Especially if the rest of the party is not similarly afflicted. Yes some people handle it better than others, however it's still a damned screw job.
Synjin wrote:
HA! No worries Coredump. Just explaining my position. When I said I don't understand it, I didn't mean I don't have a grasp on why the math is necessary. It absolutely is for game design and balance. I just meant I don't understand why people would use the math as the basis for their character build as opposed to story-based. It's a foreign concept to me. But like I also said, more power to the ones that do.
It's obvious that Magic (which I became an addict, from 1994-1998, my Juzam Djinn deck was sweet) had an influence on 3rd Ed, hence the "builds" thing becoming so rampant, never heard that pre-2000 D&D.
I don't really see the problem with optimized characters. Whether the players want to play weak characters or strong ones, the DM prepares adventures accordingly. If a DM doesn't feel comfortable adding a couple of orcs per encounter to give those min-mxed characters a fun challenge, that DM should switch places with a more competent one.
Is there a rational explanation for this whole anti min-maxing thing?
Gnarl wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
And people being defensive because they are unrepentantly mechanically approached types. Nothing wrong with that, but the defensiveness is so transparent and embarrassing.
Synjin wrote:
Echamil wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
Tempest_Stormwind wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
Synjin wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
rampant wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
rampant wrote:
Noon wrote:
Kangodo wrote:
Synjin wrote:
Tempest_Stormwind wrote:
It kinda feels like a little bit of subtle strawmanning going on in here.
I mean, if you are roleplaying your character, and how you are playing that character jives with what's on the character sheet, working to bring to life a cohesive personage (for lack of a better phrase), I don't see anyone trying to read your mind to determine how you got there. You aren't the demographic being discussed.
It's the players who blatantly play with only the min-max/build mentality, bereft of any desire to play a character, that are going to stand out for what they are (i.e., munchkins, etc.). And, if I may speak for the OP, that is what is being picked up on and what some people are saying they have trouble relating to.
All you folks (and I'm one of you, BTW) who roleplay and like to make sound mechanical choices, may be missing that the OP doesn't seem to be targeting you. At least not how I've been reading this thread.
Anyways, that's my take...
Reius wrote:
I agree with that, Chris.
Yes, it is entirely possible to role-play a character just fine that has been built using nothing but math and mechanics. My issue is not with that type of play at all.
ChrisCarlson wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
I think the issue that everyone has is basically the following:
Someone more interested in their PC's status than that everyone is having fun at the table and doing it in a way that's not how the table will typically tolerate it.
A powergaming PC is a problem, because if they're that much better than the rest of the table, the other players might feel they're not participating.
An excessive roleplaying PC is a problem, because they try to grab all the spotlight from the other players, especially if the mechanics don't back it up so it ends up sabotaging encounters.
dmgorgon wrote:
Wow. Gone for 12 hours and I come home to a plethora of wonderful discussions, and people sharing their opinions with no one flaming some one else or taking a personal offense to it.
I took some time today at work and I thought it out a little better, so let me try once more-
I have a difficult time playing the game with a person who only sees the game as something to be conquered, as a game to be beat. I have a hard time playing opposite of players who are always thinking, "How can I do the most DPR?" while ignoring everything else.
I, myself, am a creative player. I come to the table with the vaguest of ideas what I want to play. From there, I let the story dictate how the character grows. If I am playing a Fighter, and I discover a Tome of Ancient Lore inside of a treasure chest, my fighter might take an interest in it, or he might not. It depends on the story. It could be a book that instructs on how to summon a devil to the Material Planes, and force it into a contract, or it could just be a book that was written ages past about the migratory patterns of the Icewind Reindeer.
I like characters that have some limitation, because it adds a touch of believablity to the game. Sure, I may play a Rogue that is sluggish and sucks at picking pockets or unlocking chests, but that doesn't stop him from trying and finding creative ways around it. Perhaps he hires some children, and puts on a street performance as the children pick the pockets of his audience or he uses a crowbar to pry the chest a part inthe corner.
Even people in our society, the ones we revere like actors and sports professionals, have realistic limitations and flaws. I like to add that into game. It is when I play with a person who is spending time figuring out how to loohole a character's limitations to becaome "All-Powerful", that I have a difficult time playing.
An example; When I first started playing Dungeons & Dragons, the first time, I was about 12. I played a Halfling Ranger. My stats were horribly misplaced, my skills were poorly spent and my equipment made no sense for a Halfling Ranger. A guy in our group, played a Fighter. He spent a good portion of his time, figuring out how it was that he could make his Fighter do the absolute most possible DPR, and nothing else mattered. He had written out tables of various "Take this Feat and combine withthis feat with these stats..."
I just have a difficult time playing with people like that. To me, it takes the fun out of the game. That is just my opinion.
Wulfgar fought an Adult White Dragon, with a clear limitation. How did Icingdeath die? Wulfgar threw the Aegis Fang at a Stalactite made of ice, breaking it from the ceiling and sending it crashing into Icingdeath. He was limited, purely outmatched and still found a way to surpass that limitation with a moment of creative thinking.
Echamil wrote:
I am not a fan of people who over-optimize a character, and choose things based solely on the combat numbers. I tried to play with people like this, and it turned out to be the absolute worst experience in my D&D "career". This experience lasted exactly 1 year, but it should have ended after 3 months. After 3 months of playing this game weekly (once a week, 4-5 hours each session), I lost all interest in the campaign and should have dropped it, but I liked the DM and I didn't want to bail on him. It ended up with me dreading game day and hoping the session would be cancelled that week. This group of people focused solely on doing bigger and bigger numbers (there was absolutely ZERO roleplaying in this campaign, despite me trying to insert some in, but the other 3 players would just pressure the DM into going to the next combat) have dropped my interest in playing that system ever again (this was a Pathfinder adventure path, which I have heard people taking years to complete a single AP playing weekly at 4 hours a session). Well, this group tipped it that way, but it had been building up over the 2 years I played the system, as every single group I managed to get into over on roll20 (with the exception of 1, out of 10 groups) has been this way.
As someone mentioned earlier: Yes, I will actually refuse to sit at the same game table as these people. I do not find that type of style fun at all. I do not find dealing 800 damage in a single round and "one-shotting" a creature before anyone else gets to do anything to be fun. Some people do, and great for them; but that is not what I consider fun. If there are to be combats, I prefer them lasting a few rounds, where each person gets to do something. Is this optimal, having combats last long enough for a (perish the thought) PC to get damaged? No, it is not optimal. But it is more fun for me. In the game I mentioned, I felt no sense of danger nor challenge, as I knew the others would have whatever it was we were fighting to be dead before I ever got to do anything.
I refuse to play with people who over-optimize their characters. I will go without playing before I would join a group with people like that. I prefer my characters to grow based on what happens in the campaign, even if it isn't the most powerful option. And I am sure people who do optimize their characters to the nth degree would be more than happy not to have me at their table. And that is just fine. Different strokes and all that jazz.
Shasarak wrote:
Tempest_Stormwind wrote:
Arnwolf : I honestly don't know what to say to that, If I have a high stat I wanna use it, I wanna make it work for me, and while sage does put thos ehigh mental stats to work you end up wanting to push a lot of stats and even with fighter class feat/ability boosts that's a lot to cover, especially since you'll also want to boost wis or pick of a save proficiency in it, one hard fast rule I always stick to is to have a decent will save, Nothing worse than getitng dominated in the middle of a fight.
Chriscarlson: I have been accused of being that way myself alot. I like creating builds, it's fun and gives my twisted brain a work out. But my charcaters have concerns beyond that, My chain slinger had a strong desire to protect thus his specialization in a wepaon that allowed him to control so much space so efficiently, his quest for longer chains and the ability to do more with them was set out according to a mechanical build but rooted in the character's desire to defend efficiently after witnessign how inadequate traditional weapons were for that purpose. Was I excited about the build? Yeah. I thought it was clever and cool, the ability to really control the battlefield with a weapon user was thrilling for me. I couldn't wait to take Ajax of the Bloody Lines into battle and put the fear of chain linked death into my enemies. Nothing like putting a few links through a caster's brain after he dared cast within my radius, or tripping up an entire ogre raid group, the look on that elf pricks face when I ripped his bow from his hands at 60 ft was priceless. BUt the rest of the group... didn't share my enthusiasm. The other fighter wasn't anywhere near as effective, and the mage was even less so. I'd built a dramatic character with a clear purpose and was very good at it. Because the other players either didn't, or were struggling with the 3e magic system, the DM targeted my character with misfortune, including an extra 15% chance of critical fail on my attack rolls because I was 'too accurate'. Admittedly there was probably a bit of personality clash going on as well, but I'd been recieving similar criticisms from my other DM. I like bulds, I liek to think I'm even somewhat good at it. Although to be honest I'm not sure tricking out a 3e character really proves that seeing how easy it was back in those days. That doens't mean I'm not engaged with the story, or that my character doens't have any aspirations beyond be the best at X, X is just their primary tool for achieving those aspirations.
rampant wrote:
Arnwolf: I can do it, I just can't promise to reign in my build's power, the less potent another chracter is in the group the more I feel like I gotta take up the slack. FOr example I never actually got to play this one mind you, but I was getting ready to join a pretty mage heavy group and Figured that I'd need apretty versatile warrior-skill type to round them out a bit, by the time I was done I'd managed to take those multiclassing feats from the last days of 3.5, the ones that let you progress as liek a monk and a paladin at the same time for certain features, And build up a character that could smite, rage, unarmed attack, skirmish, sneak attack and/or sudden strike, favored enemy and possibly one or two other thingswith each ability being within spititng distance of where it would be if I'd hadn't multi-classed almost as much as Senor Vorpal Kickasso. The projected charge attacks around level 9 involved more class features than the average 9th level character usually had, If I'd stumbled upon any of the pounce items, or gotten an enemy to stand still for a full attack I may have been able to unload my personal best damage ever, even including skarrn monk cheese.The group fell thorugh before I got to give the Thousand Year Sage a try. The thing is a lot of these kinds of deals rely on setting the ground work early and one it's in place it's a waste not to use it.
@Tempest_Stormwind
It seems like you are under the impression that I think those points are something you see with every min/maxer.
That is not what I am trying to say, I'm one of those "min/maxers" myself.
My point was more that sometimes/often min-maxing would lead to that behaviour and that is why other people and DM's dislike it.
It's a game. Play what you find enjoyable. There are anecdotes beyond counting that would label any particular brand as being jerks. I think the far simpler truth is jerks are jerks. It doesn't matter if they are gamists, narritivists, or simulationists; a jerk is going to ruin your experience. Show them how to enjoy the game without being a jerk. If it doesn't stick, stop playing with them.
On the other side of the coin, if you ever find yourself wondering why everyone around you at the table is so ignorant/stupid/incompetent, take a look in the mirror.
Parting words of wisdom: don't be an obstacle between interested newbies and the game. D&D and RPGs in general have never been easy to just pick up and learn. Show them, teach them, and encourage them. And maybe buy them pizza.
tldr
I find most players are a mix of roleplaying and minmaxing. I prefer more roleplaying, less minmaxing. More roleplaying cant break the game.
All I want the players and the DM to do at the table is roleplay, how they get there is less important, via specific characters builds or concepts. But if you look for discent you will find it. I would easily pick up on someone that was irritated by players optimizing characters, just for the sake of not liking that approach to the game. And intolerance is my pet peeve. If each player is participating for the majority of the game, then we each have our moments with out of character talk. I don't see the way you rolled up your character as a direct fault. People talking shop about the game, or about any other subject, that is not about the story, is always going to happen.
Exactly Uchawi.
Greenstone.Walker wrote:
Farmer42 wrote:
The conversation had moved on and I was defining the source of my arguement, since you decided you onlu wanted to address the OP. I'm not being contrary for the sake of contraryness. You're strawmanning by pretending that I'm not arguing part of the ongoing discussion.
Out of curiosity, the people who dislike powergamers and optimizers and such; do you also hate people in the really real world who go to college to get a better job? In my eyes, its the exact same thing. I'd say most people in the real world do / try their best at everything they do; so why wouldn't the same thing carry over to characters that are supposed to be those who save the world and are larger than life?
I honestly don't understand why people have such animosity towards power gamers / optimizers. Do you feel... inadequate or something, like they're outshining your characters? If so, have you spoken with the DM and asked for more things where your character shines?
It's been said why. Many times. Just because you might not agree, doesn't mean reasons have not been given.
It all boils down to spotlight in my view. If you build a mathematical monster that makes the rest of the team unnecessary or you're hamming it up so much that nobody else can get a word in edgewise, then you're stealing the spotlight and that's jerk behavior. So build your effective character - just make sure you're leaving room for others to contribute to overcoming a challenge. Have an interesting personality and engage in dramatic acting - just make sure you engage the other players and help them shine as well.
This reminds me of the various times a friend of mine has posted on FB that he never like Firefly. Wow, did people take that personally. You wouldn't believe the torrential $#!&storms that followed. It's funny, but in a tragic way.
ChrisCarlson wrote:
iserith wrote:
Synjin wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
awogaman wrote:
Greenstone.Walker wrote:
It's all about what the table wants. roll-playing vs role-playing, min/maxing, optamizing, etc. vs making interesting, fun PC's that aren't all planned out with spread sheets...Whatever.
It's only a problem if you have the two extremes of play-style at the same table. Then, you have a group that's not working together.
There's no wrong way or right way to play D&D, despite what we often hear in these forums.
I've enjoyed both styles of games, and I don't have a preference.
Neither of these play styles bother me as much as rules lawyering, however. That slows down games, undermines confidence, leads to constant questioning of the DM, and ruins any semblance of immersion at the table.
seti wrote:
In regards to power gamers, if people want to min/max and just create a number-based shredder, they should play Diablo III or something. Tabletop RPG's aren't video games. This is sitting at the table playing glorified make believe with dice.
Osunder wrote:
I notice there's a lot of people making excuses for optimizers and saying that they're just jerks when things go bad. And I notice, on the other side, no one has bothered to excuse any ill intents on the roleplay heavy side.
And I still think that people use the Stormwind Fallacy as a catch all answer to anything dealing with something like this, even when it doesn't touch at the core of the issue at all. "Excessive RP can lead to spotlight hogging."
My personal dislike of min-maxing comes from several situations. More than once, I saw them telling others how to play their character, and then refuse to play if they don't also min-max. I've seen power gamers, more than once, work their way by manipulating the GM and game to suit their needs. My favorite games involved times when we went entire sessions, just doing things like using our abilities to fix a town, and no combat. The power gamer of the group was bored, frustrated, and not fun to be with during those sessions, while everyone else had a balst. Oh, they were a good sport about it, but it was clear that wasn't the type of gaming they enjoyed, while the rest of us did.
So, in the end, that's my impression of power gamers. While they can role play, combat is a necessary aspect of their playstyle. And I enjoy a different kind.
Mephi1234 wrote:
Being that roleplaying is making decisions your character might also make, scenes that involve conflict come with the most opportunities for decision-making and thus roleplaying.
Roleplaying isn't just "talking" or "not fighting." Talking or acting are just ways to communicate roleplaying. Roleplaying is playing a role, reasonably making decisions as a character in a given situation might do. Nothing more, nothing less. So just because someone likes to engage in combat to resolve conflict doesn't make them any less of a roleplayer than anyone else.
Yep. People forget that PunPun wasn't a combat character. He broke the game in half strictly throght noncombat skill optomization.
I have seen the Stormwind Fallacy thrown around here a bit, and while true in a sense I found it to be just as fallable as any other generality. Yes, just because you optimize it doesn't mean you can't roleplay, but just because you can roleplay it doesn't insure that you are making the game more enjoyable for the table as whole. Usually, I have seen it brought up as a shield or a club to justify creating characters that have a power level greater than the table average. If SF must be brought up, then there is already a problem at the table. The character in question is either such that the other players are feeling inconsequential or the DM is frustrated in creating content that can challenge the players. My own experiences with a disciple of the SF is that he was a brilliant optimizer, great role-player, but the game is much more fun now that he has moved on (won't play 5th due to not enough options).
It is interesting with a limitetd amount of content. I am DM HofDQ as both a home game and AL. One game consists of more experienced players who generally create much more optimized characters and the other consists more of new-to-game youngsters (my son and friends) and less optimized oriented players. The second group, I would say, are also weaker in the role-play department as well. In the end, though, they both get through the same content, but the second group seems to have much more fun and at times are more enjoyable to DM. They like to look back at near failures and successes with equal joy, while the other group at time finds a problem with the game if even just one comes close to going unconsous. Earlier, it was mentioned about about optimization being having 100 every time you needed a 100. Well, give me a group of 75's that put together a solution anyway and have much more fun doing it anyday.
Part of why I love D&D is that it presents me with a chance to tell my own story while - as either a player or a DM - engaging in mathematical and tactical problem-solving. Without doing both of those... well, if I'm just going to tell a story or develop a character, I'm better off writing. If I'm just going to solve math and strategic puzzles, a game of Pirates of the Spanish Main or Fury of Dracula or getting out an old calculus book and brushing up on lost skills will be more fulfilling.
It's making the two things work together that makes D&D - and particularly D&D, among RPGs - compelling. I don't get opposition to optimization any more than I get people who ignore the story in a campaign.
As it (regretful) namesake, I have to say that yes, people do often misuse the Stormwind Fallacy. It does not say that highly optimized characters are sufficiently roleplayed. It does not say that there is a particular appropriate level of optimization or roleplay for every table. And it does not give you permission to be a dick about it.
What it does say is that people who say you cannot be both a roleplayer and a minmaxer are wrong. That's all, really.
Pointing out that someone's committing the fallacy is not a club that you can use to beat people with until they agree to let your combat monstrosity into their low-power intrigue game (because that's a question of appropriateness - even if you're a perfect match on the RP front, you're not a match on table's min/max front.) All it does is point out that the person's alleged justification for barring you is wrong. They may still have a very good reason for barring you, but it's not because optimization doesn't mean you can't RP.
There are some interesting consequences of this position, mostly discussed and codified here.
TiaNadiezja wrote:
randl wrote:
Mephi1234 wrote:
Gunthar wrote:
Then he wasn't a great role player, optimizer and compatriot.
Gunthar wrote:
Power gaming isn’t my style, but as long as the person’s a good, considerate player, I’m cool with it. Bending and breaking rules, and fudging dice rolls, on the other hand, that’s a problem. And unfortunately in my experience, that often goes hand in hand with power gaming.
But as a DM, I’m stuck juggling two different types of play – hitting the sweet challenge level between the regular PCs and the power gamers can be tricky. And to some extent, that’s exactly what power-gamers rely on – if everyone in a party is a power gamer, then no one is.
In truth, I never cared much for the "optimizer" vs. "roleplayer" dynamic. As pointed out, it doesn't really exist. In my mind I tend to break it down slightly differently based on how a player approachs creating a character
Mechanics based design: Player starts with how he mechanically wants his character to be and then determines what decisions are necessary to get there. This does not exclude the character from having a cohesive Persona.
Persona based design: Player starts with a vision on what he wants his character to be without mechanics and then makes decsion in keeping with that. This does not exclude the character from being Mechanically effective.
Both design methods can create the same character.
It is a spectrum, and not an absolute. An individual can use different methods for different games.
Players tend to have a better experience playing with those that use the same design method. Still, if there is a problem with a character, it is not the design method but the player himself that is at fault. The more a DM can fall in the middle, the better he wil be at providing a worthwhile experience either method.
It is the responsibility of all players [including DM] to make the game enjoyable for all players [including DM].
Gnarl wrote:
We’ve removed content from this thread because of a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
Remember, a community is a joint effort of all those involved, and while we want intelligent meaningful and productive banter to ensue we also need it to be polite and considerate of others.
Thank you for your time and support as we continue to try and make a great community for everyone.
Just for posterity, the removed post appeared to be completely unrelated to this discussion - a direct copy of it appeared in multiple unrelated threads at the same time. This thread's discussion has been uncommonly civil for this sort of topic, which is a very pleasant surprise.
randl wrote:
Perhaps it is merely our table, where we have found that using save or die, save or suck, critical hits and critical fumbles with instant death results has caused our players not to min max and instead try to develope all three adventure pillars to some degree. Has anyone else had a similar experience?
Gunthar wrote:
Tempest_Stormwind wrote:
Greenstone.Walker wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Tempest_Stormwind wrote:
Brimleydower wrote:
I think comparing a blind friend to a non-min-maxed D&D character is a bit disingenuous and vulgar.
draegn wrote:
Tempest_Stormwind wrote:
Sadly, no. I ran a 1e campaign recently, and the min-maxer pretty much picked up his toys and left when his character got killed. In the current 5e campaign, the PCs were defeated by a monster (and by poor strategy on their part). The two power-gamers ditched those characters and made new, even more min-maxed ones. The one is already talking about “taking a level of rogue” just for the one damage-dealing ability.
Orethalion wrote:
I feel you!
This is what drove me out of D&D in the first place few years ago.
What I've noticed is that the rules have a big influence on this.
For sure, in the end it's the player's style that drives this demeanor but in my old group, which were really into role playing and acting their characters and stuff, starting from 2nd edition I saw a "downgrade" in role playing in each new edition. With 3e they started to think of their characters as "optimal builds", starting to multiclass to reap the best combos and stuff. With 4e out the window went most of the roleplaying. Then I quitted.
Thinking back about it I realized that the game system is a great push toward how you perceive and play the game. 4e obviously emphasized a lot of combat and it made the only small roleplaying scene just a mean to actually enter into another combat without totally having random fights with no meanings or goals. It's not that the game was bad at all, it's a great game but its strength lies in combat scenes. All mechanics points toward combat or the preparation for one. The combat mechanics are so fun compared to the rest that it makes the in-between dull in comparison.
Take a game like Fate Core, Cortex System, or Apocalypse World . All the mechanics lean toward helping the narration, even at times driving it. The system is made in a way that it empowers and motivates players into role playing their character without thinking of them as "builds" and stat blocks. In fact, those systems have very few character stats. They are also using words to describe your character instead of numbers.
I just bough the 5e book last week. I honestly think it's a good step forward for roleplaying because it takes away the focus on combat and spreads its mechanics across the three concepts : social, adventuring and combat.
The background mechanic, for example, is a very good example of mechanics that drives narration and roleplay. There's still leftover from the power creep thinking by having "stats" linked to the backgrounds but it's a step forward.
Now, that said, it will not turn power creepers into good role players. Ultimately, to each its own and I have no difficulty understanding why some people find a lot of fun in trying to get the "best build": video games teaches you that. It's only a matter a finding like-minded players (as it's been mentioned already). But you'll notice that some games attract more of one type of gamers over the other. You could try to find a group for another game that suits more your style, since you'll get better chances at finding the best fit for some game, and then you switch to D&D after few games and then you make sure you'll enjoy yourself!
Good luck out there!
Gunthar wrote:
Gunthar wrote:
Gunthar wrote:
Tempest_Stormwind wrote:
Synjin wrote:
Vahnyu wrote:
Difficulty and challenge doesn't much matter.
The DM can easily add extra numbers (HP, monsters, terrain, spells, legendary saves, ect...) for "min/max" groups or reduce them for "sub-optmial" groups.
"Oh, your a super team, well then i guess the terrasque has a dragon on his side."
"Oh, your the underdog, well then i guess the terrasque made an enemy of a dragon."
ect...
Synjin wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
mellored wrote:
mellored wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
Vahnyu wrote:
My experaince in dealing with players who take exta measures to max out there PCs is simple following the rules as a guide is a good start the problem seems to be there are alot of rules & options for Players & DM's to consider ..I Once had a player who was playing a 12 lv, Halfling, Rouge who's Align was Chaotic Neutral he had a build for a two weapon style combat using two daggers and Hiding then making sneak attacks when the target had a disadvantage.
This tatic worked so well for him he desided to use it within a town setting and eventuly led to his downfall and Alignment change, after killing several rich noble type NPCs & stealing there gold athoritys managed to track him down had him arested & placed in prison after striping him of all his magical items and floged publicly.
Needless to say the player was upset, I pointed out to him his ovious Shift to a evil Alingnment & justifcation of how the towns folk , famlies he had destroyed and consistent law breaking that it was warented and that threw magic he was found, captured, intaragated & found guilty the punishment fit the crime and thus he needed to re-roll a new PC
The Game is keeping gameplay in balnce in every situation you find within the game, PC's gaining to much of a bouns in one area can always be given some disavantage that last a few turns or threw the end of the encounter of even effect the PC forever, it is your job as the DM to keep it fair.
Orethalion wrote:
mellored wrote:
Synjin wrote:
Ralif_Redhammer wrote:
Gunthar wrote:
Synjin wrote:
Vahnyu wrote:
Vahnyu wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
Gunthar wrote:
I’ve removed content from this thread because trolling/baiting are violations of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code of Conduct here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the “Report Post” button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
Just FYI, the whole reason frodo was brought along was because he was weak.
The more power you had, the faster the ring would currupt you.
Gunthar wrote:
Vahnyu wrote:
Vahnyu wrote:
randl wrote:
mellored wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
mellored wrote:
randl wrote:
Gunthar wrote:
Maybe, but I disagree because the actual RP space in the game is the most broad/wide open. You can combat tweak a character six-ways-to-Sunday and still have a good RP hook and, in most cases, have useful contributions to exploration, if simply by default. In fact, if all we had were combat rules I think a good group (especially old schoolers) wouldn't blink very much because the RP portion is the easiest to free form.
Truth! Though I still want top-billing on the book's cover...
Vahnyu wrote:
"The DM is not THE author. He is ONE of the authors."
Very true.
However the DM is also the - only - editor.
mellored wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
Tempest_Stormwind wrote:
randl wrote:
Tempest_Stormwind wrote:
randl wrote:
By BA, I believe the poster was referring to Bounded Accuracy.
dmgorgon wrote:
Tempest_Stormwind wrote:
Reius wrote:
We’ve removed content from this thread because of a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
Remember, a community is a joint effort of all those involved, and while we want intelligent meaningful and productive banter to ensue we also need it to be polite and considerate of others.
Thank you for your time and support as we continue to try and make a great community for everyone.
dmgorgon wrote:
Tempest_Stormwind wrote:
Reius wrote:
Reius wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
Gunthar wrote:
Gunthar wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Gunthar wrote:
Vahnyu wrote:
Tempest, my understanding of the term anchor as it is being used in this thread is that it indicates someone who is mechanically weaker than min-maxed PCs. If my understanding is in error, and it's really being used here to indicate someone who is actively working against the party, that's not an anchor. That's a jerk player that needs to be be talked to about changing the way he behaves or leaving the game.
Orethalion wrote:
Gunthar wrote:
Tempest_Stormwind wrote:
Gunthar wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
Echamil wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Gunthar wrote:
Gunthar wrote:
In
CCS wrote:
Gunthar wrote:
But one guy hitting 35% of the time and the other hitting 75% of the time is extremely noticeable.
Even in your example, in order to kill an enemy that needs three hits, one guy will need six rounds, the other, nine. That's three more attacks he's also taking in return. That makes a big difference over the long haul.
Gunthar wrote:
Gunthar wrote:
There's a lot of passionate feelings being tossed around here. I want to start by saying that there is nothing inherently wrong with min-maxing/optimizing/whatever-you-wanna-call-it. It's perfectly legitimate to want to be the best you can be. It's even totally possible for people to stumble across optimized arrangements by accident. And having a strong character does not preclude interesting RP. The biggest problem is more the people who do that and are also jerks. They are guaranteed to ruin experiences and tables. Of course, anyone who is a jerk, regardless of play style, can ruin table experiences. So really this should be a general rant about jerks who can't take players not being the same as them.
The next problem was well highlighted by Rastapopoulos:
Rastapopoulos wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
I consider myself an Rper, In that I'm not always looking to min/max. I like pcs with some shortcomings, that is fun for me.
But the majority of the guys I play with are power gamers. Some enjoy finding broken combos and exploit the hell out of them.
Here it is, we play on the same table and have fun gaming together. We get along because we are friends and that overcomes any difference in play style.
dmgorgon wrote:
Vahnyu wrote:
People will powergame and min/max until the rules are written in a way to prevent it. Good Luck. I think 5E has diminished power gaming a little.
arnwolf666 wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
Vahnyu wrote:
Vahnyu wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
Tomb of Horrors is, arguably, the most famous D&D adventure of all time. Maybe Temple of Elemental Evil. But still. ToH more or less requires that you metagame it. It's a challenge put there for you to go through, beginning to end. WHen you get to the end and have killed every monster, looted every room, and disabled every trap you've won. But it is virtually impossible to go though if you don't view it as a meta challenge. Some of the traps you have to know are there, and they'll destroy your corpse if you don't, so no rez. You can mitigate this some if you don't have a TPK. But if you do? God help you.
So it is very possible, as written and designed, for D&D to have win conditions. Just because your playstyle isn't like that doesn't mean that the game doesn't allow for it. I should also note, I LOVE the occasional meatgrinder dungeon game. They're fun, and dumb, and cathartic. I also love long, slow RP based games. But one is not better than the other. They're different, and that can be cool.
dmgorgon wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Vahnyu wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
Vahnyu wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Farmer42 wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
Farmer42 wrote:
Farmer42 wrote:
Dude. I was specifically addressing the claim that D&D doesn't have a win condition. I play adventure oriented games most of the time. In fact, rarely do I play grinds, arenas, or the like. And I only ever run them as a DM when I'm breaking new players in. You gotta look at the context around a post. I try to avoid quote pyramids, because they're about as easy to pick out conversation threads as just keeping up with the discussion. Bringing up ToH wasn't a shot at ANYONE'S chosen style of play. It was a point in disagreement with a claim that there is no win condition.
MechaPilot wrote:
Kangodo wrote:
Kangodo wrote:
Tempest_Stormwind wrote:
Vahnyu wrote:
Kangodo wrote:
Kangodo wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
Kangodo wrote:
Kangodo wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
Reius wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
Farmer42 wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
I have yet to see an edition of D&D promote the "you can win" condition in the manner that some are suggesting here. On the other hand, those who suggest otherwise have their point of view enshrined in several editions of the game.
2e PHB.
The Goal
Another major difference between role-playing games and other games is the ultimate goal. Everyone assumes that a game must have a beginning and an end and that the end comes when someone wins. That doesn't apply to role-playing because no one “wins” in a role-playing game. The point of playing is not to win but to have fun and to socialize.
An adventure usually has a goal of some sort: protect the villagers from the monsters; rescue the lost princess; explore the ancient ruins. Typically, this goal can be attained in a reasonable playing time: four to eight hours is standard. This might require the players to get together for one, two, or even three playing sessions to reach their goal and complete the adventure.
But the game doesn't end when an adventure is finished. The same characters can go on to new adventures. Such a series of adventures is called a campaign.
Remember, the point of an adventure is not to win but to have fun while working toward a common goal. But the length of any particular adventure need not impose an artificial limit on the length of the game. The AD&D game embraces more than enough adventure to keep a group of characters occupied for years.
dmgorgon wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Orethalion, I don't have the energy to go the rounds in a semantic argument with you again.
DMgorgon said he hasn't seen the game of D&D say "you can win", and I showed him where 5e says exactly that.
That "win" in D&D terminology doesn't mean the exact thing that "win" does in chess or MtG terminology is irrelevant.
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
To me 'winning' is about achieving the goal the game sets for you.
For a single adventure it might be to kill the last boss.
For an entire campaign it might also include to have fun.
If the goal is to have fun, and I had fun, then I'd say I won.
Kangodo wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
Sorry, I'm the one who brought up winning by mentioning a module that was designed to be won. There are a few like it. So while the overal point of the game may be fun, there are modules and adventures that are, explicitely, about winning. In those cases, you're only playing them because you want to play those modules, with the explicit understanding that they're a grind-fest. But The game does not, by design, have a defined win condition. Some modules and tournament style play do. So while your game may not ahve a true win condition, it is very possible for D&D, in other people's games, to have a defined win condition. Because the rules, by them selves, are not an end. D&D ends at a point agreed upon collectively by the players.
dmgorgon wrote:
I wonder how people concerned with the win at combat means I am a good player would handle old school Call of Cthulhu gaming.
arnwolf666 wrote:
Mephi1234 wrote:
Vahnyu wrote:
This entire thread reeks of inflexibility and one-true-wayism.
To the RPers: Number crunching is fun. Effectiveness is fun. As an engineer, system mastery is something I enjoy. Utilizing resources sensibly comes natural. System mastery can often be used to play weird, but interesting characters that would otherwise fail at their attempt to be what you wanted it to be.
To the optimizers: Not all PCs (that I've seen, thus I am logically right) are heroes. Some are just the few random survivors of an orc raid or whatever. D&D allows this. D&D can be played that way. D&D can even do it well.
Power is relative. Fun is subjective. I can win D&D is I feel an outcome was a victory. Rule 0 overrides "duh.. you cannot win D&D... duhh". **** what the book says in the completely irrelevant intro chapters/phrases. Of course I can win at D&D. And "anchors" can win too. Builds are not evul or badwrongfun. They're merely the mechanics of a character. RP-vanguards: You, too, have builds.
Synjin wrote:
Lokiron wrote:
Oh, and the "min-max is more realistic because people are ambitious"-argument is BS. Are you a god of your own creation now?
Is it realistic to allocate ability scores at birth, in order to excel in a certain class? My own "class", engineer, relies on intelligence, but the most succesful engineers are not necessarily the most intelligent nor vice versa.
Realism my donkey...
Synjin wrote:
Lokiron wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Lokiron wrote:
Gunthar wrote:
Yep, just using the standard array a character will have a couple well-above-average attributes. Building a competent character isn't that hard, yet for some reason people actively don't do it, which makes no logical sense.
Gunthar wrote:
Gunthar wrote:
If your priority is to make an anchor at the expense of others' fun and in a way that doesn't make sense, then your priorities aren't alligned with a cooperative game.
Orethalion wrote:
I always try to include these two types of encounters almost every session.
1.) The PC's have zero chance of winning in combat if they choose to engage in combat. They can either walk away or interact with the encounter in a noncombat manner. Sometimes sneak away.
2.) The encounter is undefeatable unless they picked up on things in the adventure that allow the PC's to win.
I think those two types of encounter are neccessary close to every session.
Gunthar wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Vahnyu wrote:
Gunthar wrote:
Vahnyu wrote:
CCS wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Gunthar wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Kangodo wrote:
Ther only thing I'm intolerant of at the table is intolerance.
I'm perfectly happy to play with those whose characters are mechanically optimized for combat effectiveness.
I'm perfectly happy to play with those whose characters are optimized for other things that player prioritizes more than combat effectiveness.*
I'm perfectly happy to play at a table with a mix of both. I admit it's a little more challenging when DM'ing, but no worse than adjusting for a bad string of luck.
But I refuse to play at a table with players who tell other players "The way you build your character is wrong.". Regardless of the criteria they use for judging "wrong".
...
*We had a player in 2E who built a Kensai and chose Chopsticks as his weapon rather than a sword, entirely because he thought it would be fun.We still talk about that game, and that character, fondly.
So, if a Fighter with the Standard Array does not put the 15 into Str or Dex, he/she is an a-hole anchor?
Gunthar wrote:
CCS wrote:
Gunthar wrote:
CCS wrote:
Vahnyu wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Gunthar wrote:
I wonder if people are assuming they are playing the game with friends or a PUG?
It doesn't actually change my opinion on the matter - "intolerance is bad, m'kay/?" - but I'm curious if that's part of the reason for the disagreement.
Orethalion wrote:
Captain_Kobold wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Vahnyu wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Vahnyu wrote:
Vahnyu wrote:
Synjin wrote:
Synjin wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Vahnyu wrote:
Vahnyu wrote:
Synjin wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Vahnyu wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
There are player-win conditions and there are PC-win conditions.
Usually, the players' goal is to have fun together as a group.
Usually, the PCs' goal is to succeed at their mission or quest.
If the PCs fail but the players had fun, that's a win for the players but a loss for the PCs. If the PCs succeed but the players didn't have fun, that's a win for the PCs but a loss for the players.
In certain cases, the players may have other goals but having fun as a group is still one of the main reasons. Tournament games, Lair Assault, experiments, et al can have additional win-conditions besides having fun. But these are edge-cases and not the usual game-mode described in the rulebooks.
Some people don't seem to be able to differentiate between the different types of "wins" that are possible.
Gunthar wrote:
It has come to my attention that this Thread has sparked some heated arguments, both in and out of this discussion thread.
It was and has not been my intention to create any animosity in any way, shape, and/ or form. The entire point of this thread was so that I might blow off some steam from a disaterous game, at the same time as listen to other people's opinions on the subject.
It seems that my opinion has been taken as a direct personal attack at several people, and I want to apologize. I never meant to make anyone feel that I was attacking them by posting my own opinion.
I would hope that the people on this forum could be more mature in how they handle other peoples' opinions. Please, for the sake of being allowed to continue to share your thoughts, ideas, and/ or opinions, stop creating new threads, bashing what I and/ or others have posted.
I would suggest that if you read something that you find personally offensive to your ideals and/ or beliefs, then stop following the discussions. It is only detrimental to the limited harmony this forum offers for use Players and Dungeon Master.
Echamil wrote:
Gunthar wrote:
Gunthar wrote:
rpascuttini wrote:
Echamil wrote:
Gunthar wrote:
Echamil wrote:
Echamil wrote:
Gunthar wrote:
I see where you guys are trying to come from, but you're probably going to be better served not drawing comparisons between racism and overzealous playstyle preference. It grossly overstates the perceived offense and horribly understates actual atrocities of history.
Brimleydower wrote:
"The comparison leads to a very clear understanding of the reaction that was caused, despite the scale difference. If my point comes across, the comparison served my purpose."
The comparison is specious. How you game is a choice, and like any choice is open to criticism and comment.
The comparison qualities, which I won't even name in the small hope my post will be allowed to remain existent, are not matters of choice and thus are not open to criticism.
The OP is wrong (in my opinion), but they are not wrong for expressing their thoughts or feelings, even knowing a portion of the audience would be offended.
Echamil wrote:
Lokiron wrote:
Lokiron wrote:
Gunthar wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
Reius wrote:
I've decided to introduce a new perspective to this ongoing argument:
I don't think calling a party member an anchor is something that makes sense as a derogatory - no captain in their right mind would embark on a ship without an anchor.
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Tempest_Stormwind wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
SirAntoine wrote:
SirAntoine wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
SirAntoine wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
I do agree on the "build" taking precedence over the "concept", started happening in 3rd Ed.
If I had to put my finger on what defines a role-player, as a full or true one as others will say, it's letting everything unfold in its natural order rather than trying to spend more time on any one particular area of the game, where mechanical advantages can be exploited. Combat isn't always the best course for D&D. Mike Mearls said what captures D&D best is the excitement rolling a natural 20. Not even close! The game is "a doorway to another world". It's about exploration, and freedom.
Brock_Landers wrote:
I agree, Brock.
I can remember when you needed a 17 STR to be +1 to hit and there were no feats that seemed to be the cornerstone of character creation.
Brock_Landers wrote:
SirAntoine wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Temptest_Stormwind: Very well thought out and written article on the subject of roleplay as it relates to game play. I enjoyed it and thought it was well intended and pretty insightful. Some generalizations and hyperbole aside.
I'd like to suggest, though, that there's a third aspect to the equation: the RPG itself. The rules themselves often lend a hand to the perception and prevalence of roleplaying and powergaming. The truth of the matter is that the RPGs themselves often play a significant role in how the games themselves are approached.
I read the article, and all the Stormwind Fallacy does is say it's not true that min/maxers are never good role-players. I can see how they can appear like that. It's what they are willing to sacrifice in the game. The role player doesn't want to sacrifice freedom to explore their character to min/max, and the min/maxer doesn't want to lose any advantage or protection mechanically speaking with respect to their characters' abilities. It's a question of time. If the min/maxer finishes min/maxing quickly enough, they will have all the time they need to explore their character. But for the role player, there has never been much importance assigned to the min/maxing, so it has been easy (and too tempting) for people to say min/maxing "is not role playing really". Not many role players who don't care to min/max are likely to spend much time on it, so there is no incentive for them to finish exploring their character quickly enough to leave time for min/maxing later. But one could say they are also happy to engage in a little bit of it as they advance in level, pick new spells, shop for equipment, and have more responsibilities in the game world where ability becomes more important to the character (not the player).
So it's true that min/maxers should be able to role play well, too, but the role players won't often relate to their decisions or see many they would choose themselves from them unless they finish with the min/maxing quickly enough and then start making sacrifices for the sake of character exploration "in personality".
There's also a significant difference between min/maxing and going out of your way to "break" the game, such as creating a character / situation like Pun-Pun. For example, if I wanted to create a character who, when engaged in combat, likes to charge in and bash stuff then I'm probably going to grab feats, skills, and a race + class combination that will suit that concept. So on that front I probably wouldn't play a race with a penalty to Strength or Constitution and potentially pick a race that does have those attributes as bonuses. Likewise I wouldn't pick a class that isn't good in melee combat if that was the route I'm going for. It gets more indepth than that, surely, but that's the basic principle. Now over doing it to the point of excess is figuring out a way in which case you can stop the game, "win" the encounter, etc. single-handedly on your turn. There is really no reason for that, IMO.
As for the game itself, I do believe it's basics lend towards one way or another. I've always felt compelled, to a certain extent, to min/max in v3.5 becuase the VAST myrid of options the game has compounded with the large disparity in character power often means that I might have to be good enough for two people if one of the guys doesn't have any system mastery. On the other hand the disparity in character-power of 4e, generally speaking, aren't large enough to warrent a large amount of emphasis on min/max, thus giving me more freedom to develope and explore more flavorful and in-character options that would normally be reserved for "powering up". The same goes with 5E as I don't think the gap in character comparison is all that large, leaving lots of room to take options for more fun things.
Diffan wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
One solution might be to encourage DM's far and wide to give players more time in town and out of combat. I am trying to think of what incentives can convince people who min/max to explore their characters more, and I think many would reply, "But we want to be ready for the combats to come, for which we need every advantage and protection we can get." There is a very real fear factor in many campaigns, perhaps most even, dating back to the first days of D&D, too, which focuses everyone's attention on survival and combat. Maybe if more DM's pulled back combat it would help the community in the long term, but word would have to spread far and wide.
SirAntoine wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
There was an Unearthed Arcana article in Dragon 423 called 'Game Changers'. In it, there was a sidebar on high-octane characters.
Some of the options were: Milestone Daily Powers (reach a milestone and regain a daily power of your choice); Critical Recharge (score a crit and regain an encounter power); Greater Mobility (spend an action point and gain an extra move action as well); Critical Success (roll a nat 20 and regain an encounter power or take an extra action); Massive Damage (if an attack reduces a creature to quarter hp or lower, make a save or die); High Damage (changes damage to powers a bit). Finally, Racial Powers could be used twice per encounter (but only once per round).
Anyway, we realized these were gonna be some of our last 4e games before we jumped into 5e, so we decided to go all out. I had this idea that Milestone Daily Powers and Racial Powers would be 'universal'; every PC benefited from 'em. Then, depending on which 'zone' the PCs were in, a third, set benefit was gained (be it Critical Recharge, Critical Success, Greater Mobility, High Damage, or Massive Damage).
= = =
No, the game didn't fall apart 
, it was just fun. The hardest part was actually remembering what benefits were in play. So, we added a seperate line on our character sheets as a reminder:
High-octane benefits: Milestone Daily Powers, Racial Powers, and Zone Benefit.
Just wanted to share .
I have seen a lot of min/maxing discussions and yes many of them cropped up in 3rd Edition mainly due to the prestige class and feat glut that edition introduced. That said I also saw plenty of instances of people asking about how to build toward a certain concept and both types of discussions are still present today with 5th Edition. At the end of the day it's something that goes beyond rules systems, beyond campaigns, and beyond settings. What matters most is that the DM and players work together so everyone can have fun. When that breaks down, then you have a problem.