Is the roleplay aspect of D&D gone, replaced by optimization?

[Schwann145]

I'm a big fan of what 5E is capable of offering to D&D, but if we're being totally honest, I've never seen it actualized. Every forum, youtube video, online or otherwise game, seems to be far more concerned about what is "the best" than what makes for an interesting shared narrative. Which spells you can ignore, which feats are mandatory, which class combinations produce the best results, etc... Doesn't it get tiring?

How does one combat this without abandoning the game altogether?

Take a character I played not-too-recently (yay covid, amirite?) that I had a lot of fun building in my head, but was a pretty huge disappointment on paper: The group was playing in Wildemount around Darktow, doing a sea-faring/pirate theme with The Revelry and whatnot. My character was basically if you took Mr. Gibbs from the Pirates of the Caribbean movies and made him a tough-as-nails jobber; uneducated but smart, burly and gruff but loyal and friendly to his own, good head for numbers, etc.
Mechanically, he was a Path of the Storm Herald Barbarian (taking the "Sea" option every time - very thematic I thought). With levels, rolled stats, and some luck, he had very good Str/Dex/Con so I could comfortably forego wearing armor without tanking my Str, which felt like the right thing to do if you spend most of your time on a ship's deck, right? At any time he had on him a cutlass (shortsword), a hatchet, and 3 flintlock pistols, all ready to fire their one shot before being turned into improvised clubs as needed.
If you're used to optimizing, you can probably see the problems already. He was a high Con Barb so he was tough like I wanted him to be, but being able to take a hit doesn't mean anything if you aren't a threat, and a Barb using a 1h weapon and nothing like GWM means a Barb that hits like a feather, comparatively. Since Storm Herald is thematic, but not particularly strong, as a subclass, that held my potential back even further. I ended up with a character I really liked that just couldn't pull their weight in a party of your typical 5e characters.
The worst part is there just isn't anything to be done about it - there are just a handful of options that are so good that not taking them breaks the game.

Who else has run into this problem and how did it go for you?
Is it time I just left D&D behind for other systems that don't cater so much to min/maxing?

[Lord Raziere]

Who else has run into this problem and how did it go for you?
Is it time I just left D&D behind for other systems that don't cater so much to min/maxing?

Yes.

find other games, try new things. you might be surprised what other systems have done, what is possible. don't listen to the people who will just go "oh thats because you haven't optimized well enough, you can just do this optimized build then refluff it" when you can expand your horizons and see what you can achieve with a system that doesn't force you to jump through various hoops like this. like sure the refluffing of optimized build is an option- but why do that, when you can try something new? When you can go to a different restaurant and try new foods? Why eat the same food, when you can try out new ones to see what they're like? You'll never know unless you try after all!

[Gignere]

I'm a big fan of what 5E is capable of offering to D&D, but if we're being totally honest, I've never seen it actualized. Every forum, youtube video, online or otherwise game, seems to be far more concerned about what is "the best" than what makes for an interesting shared narrative. Which spells you can ignore, which feats are mandatory, which class combinations produce the best results, etc... Doesn't it get tiring?

How does one combat this without abandoning the game altogether?

Take a character I played not-too-recently (yay covid, amirite?) that I had a lot of fun building in my head, but was a pretty huge disappointment on paper: The group was playing in Wildemount around Darktow, doing a sea-faring/pirate theme with The Revelry and whatnot. My character was basically if you took Mr. Gibbs from the Pirates of the Caribbean movies and made him a tough-as-nails jobber; uneducated but smart, burly and gruff but loyal and friendly to his own, good head for numbers, etc.
Mechanically, he was a Path of the Storm Herald Barbarian (taking the "Sea" option every time - very thematic I thought). With levels, rolled stats, and some luck, he had very good Str/Dex/Con so I could comfortably forego wearing armor without tanking my Str, which felt like the right thing to do if you spend most of your time on a ship's deck, right? At any time he had on him a cutlass (shortsword), a hatchet, and 3 flintlock pistols, all ready to fire their one shot before being turned into improvised clubs as needed.
If you're used to optimizing, you can probably see the problems already. He was a high Con Barb so he was tough like I wanted him to be, but being able to take a hit doesn't mean anything if you aren't a threat, and a Barb using a 1h weapon and nothing like GWM means a Barb that hits like a feather, comparatively. Since Storm Herald is thematic, but not particularly strong, as a subclass, that held my potential back even further. I ended up with a character I really liked that just couldn't pull their weight in a party of your typical 5e characters.
The worst part is there just isn't anything to be done about it - there are just a handful of options that are so good that not taking them breaks the game.

Who else has run into this problem and how did it go for you?
Is it time I just left D&D behind for other systems that don't cater so much to min/maxing?

It doesn’t take much to beat encounters at least from the published adventures. Had some pretty unoptimized builds in one party and still did fine.

Problem is when one or two players optimize to the nines while the rest doesn’t optimize.

If other players are not optimized you should be doing acceptable damage as a barbarian.

[fbelanger]

Stop follow DnD forums, the last optimizer are entrenched there. Elsewhere role play is trending.

[OvisCaedo]

For a lot of players/characters, the two are likely separate issues. A character can have whatever personality the creator wants regardless of what their class or combat style are. And discussions especially reflect this; roleplaying is an extremely open concept/field that doesn't really need to be directly tied to mechanics. How mechanical options perform in fights are a lot more straightforward and universal.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

In your example, I think you were on point with the build but not the weapons - have him swing around rowboat oar or a boat anchor on a chain, either of which would likely use the stats of a maul. You don't need to go off-theme to make something work mechanically. Or if you wanted to keep those same weapons, use Drunken Master instead of Barbarian. Or mix Barbarian and Swashbuckler for a Dexbarian, especially since damage resistance and uncanny dodge stack.

There are plenty of ways to build a mechanically viable representation of what you want to role-play. I think what you've discovered is called the Stormwind Fallacy.

[D+1]

Not every game is like that, but in reading forums it sure seems like it. And that shift started with 3E. I liked 3E, but they put the chickens in charge of the henhouse, the inmates running the asylum. It's great that players have so much more in the way of options but conversation ABOUT the game has come to be dominated by questions of optimization. But when you talk to people INDIVIDUALLY (IME) they focus a hell of a lot less on optimizing and you can tell that they understand there is more to the game than (ugh...) "character builds".

JMO

[Unoriginal]

Re: the title: Is the roleplay aspect of D&D gone, replaced by optimization?


No, not at all. It's just what is talked about the most on the internet.

Roleplaying happens a ton around the table/in online sessions/etc.



Doesn't it get tiring?

How does one combat this without abandoning the game altogether?

The game isn't the issue. Just the internet forum/video mindset.



If you're used to optimizing, you can probably see the problems already. He was a high Con Barb so he was tough like I wanted him to be, but being able to take a hit doesn't mean anything if you aren't a threat, and a Barb using a 1h weapon and nothing like GWM means a Barb that hits like a feather, comparatively. Since Storm Herald is thematic, but not particularly strong, as a subclass, that held my potential back even further. I ended up with a character I really liked that just couldn't pull their weight in a party of your typical 5e characters.

A Storm Herald 1hand-weapon isn't weak, even if they're not the best they're still a force to be reckoned with, and there is nothing stopping them from pulling their weight.

Unless you look at the weight they're pulling and arbitrarily declare it's not enough, I suppose. Like most min/maxers and munchkins do.



The worst part is there just isn't anything to be done about it - there are just a handful of options that are so good that not taking them breaks the game.

100% untrue.



Is it time I just left D&D behind for other systems that don't cater so much to min/maxing?

D&D 5e does not cater to min/maxing. People do.

There is nothing wrong with not having a stat at 16 at lvl 1, mechanically speaking, no matter what anyone says. An Hill Dwarf Rogue or an High Elf Barbarian are just fine.

Or if you want a concrete example, since you mentioned playing in Wildemount: Yasha from Critical Role season 2 is not an optimized character at all, and it doesn't change the fact she's still contributing her share and is a beloved character. Or take a look at Vex from season 1, who was a Beast Master Ranger for the most part, the subclass that's been consistently voted as the weakest in the game since publication, and she still kicked butts and took names and looked good while doing so like it was nobody's business. Or Grog, who was a *Berserker Barbarian*. On the other end of the "optimization" spectrum, I've seen Hexblade Warlocks roleplayed wonderfully.

5e Roleplay isn't dead, optimization does not mean bad roleplay, and you have to work hard to make an actually bad character in 5e.

That being said, if you don't enjoy 5e you should indeed stop playing it. But the issue you're presenting here isn't a 5e issue. The same happens with any RPG, in any place where the focus is on mechanical discussions.

[Lord Raziere]

In your example, I think you were on point with the build but not the weapons - have him swing around rowboat oar or a boat anchor on a chain, either of which would likely use the stats of a maul. You don't need to go off-theme to make something work mechanically. Or if you wanted to keep those same weapons, use Drunken Master instead of Barbarian. Or mix Barbarian and Swashbuckler for a Dexbarian, especially since damage resistance and uncanny dodge stack.

There are plenty of ways to build a mechanically viable representation of what you want to role-play. I think what you've discovered is called the Stormwind Fallacy.

Behold as predicted, the "optimize and refluff" advice I was talking about. and while its technically valid advice and even correct about Stormwind Fallacy, there is the unspoken wrong assumption that the minimalist least explorative option is the best one: namely that of sticking to the system and trying to use it better is the way to go. when that itself is not inherently correct. people should not have to jump through hoops they don't want to, to have their fun. optimizing while not bad, isn't inherently good either. if someone doesn't want to optimize to enjoy roleplaying or doesn't want to play a system anymore, those are both valid desires to have and it is valid for them to leave if they want to.

sure your advice is valid- but it shouldn't be the only advice in response to this. Schwann has the right to know of other options than just sticking to it and hoping they'll have fun with it someday.

[WaroftheCrans]

There really is no reason that you shouldn't be able to play a thematic build without sacrificing totally on the optimization front. And 5e is really low on the optimization ceiling and floor, the barbarian you described sounds like it should be able to do its job just fine with competent playing and a good group. Sure, you won't be hitting for 25 per attack at 3 attacks per turn at lvl 5, but there's no reason to need to do that, unless your group is playing far above the typical optimization level.

In that case, you can't have your cake and eat it too, you can't build suboptimal thematic characters and expect to beat out optimized (and likely still thematic) characters.

Edit: About Mr. Gibbs. He doesn't really jump out to me as a barbarian. And considering that if the fluff for every character you wanted to make was perfectly in the rules, would the character really be all that original? Refluffing classes to fit concepts seems like a given to me, I think the only character I didn't refluff at least somewhat was a knight who was a cavalier.

[Morty]

D&D has always had a major problem with some options being far more optimal than others and players feeling bad because their preferred aesthetic or roleplay option just doesn't work very well in play. It's not new and 5E isn't even particularly bad about it. 3E was full of trap options and older editions just didn't really concern themselves with anything beyond very narrow character types. 4E was well-balanced but restrictive. The only real way to escape it is to play another system.

[Unoriginal]

Behold as predicted, the "optimize and refluff" advice I was talking about. and while its technically valid advice and even correct about Stormwind Fallacy, there is the unspoken wrong assumption that the minimalist least explorative option is the best one: namely that of sticking to the system and trying to use it better is the way to go. when that itself is not inherently correct. people should not have to jump through hoops they don't want to, to have their fun. optimizing while not bad, isn't inherently good either. if someone doesn't want to optimize to enjoy roleplaying or doesn't want to play a system anymore, those are both valid desires to have and it is valid for them to leave if they want to.

sure your advice is valid- but it shouldn't be the only advice in response to this. Schwann has the right to know of other options than just sticking to it and hoping they'll have fun with it someday.

"Don't want to optimize more" and "don't want to play the system anymore" are two separate issues that OP is conflating.

You don't need to optimize more to play 5e. You don't need to play 5e either, if it doesn't make you happy to do it.

And of course, you don't need to stop playing 5e to check out other systems.

[Lord Raziere]

"Don't want to optimize more" and "don't want to play the system anymore" are two separate issues that OP is conflating.

You don't need to optimize more to play 5e. You don't need to play 5e either, if it doesn't make you happy to do it.

And of course, you don't need to stop playing 5e to check out other systems.

So what?

If I didn't point out these other options, no one else would.

all your doing is focusing on is debunking him instead helping him. Typical.

its not my place to tell him his subjective experience is wrong, if he is feeling bad about it, he has the right to explore other options rather than listen to everyone tell him the same rehashed advice of optimize and refluff over and over again.

[meandean]

Well, look... it's very unlikely that your partymates are spending their spare time sitting around saying to each other "Man, Schwann's character is unoptimized and it makes him no fun to play with." You're, in all probability, the only one at the table who is actually bothered that your character isn't as good in a fight as he could be.

If you didn't care about the other characters being more powerful -- or if you didn't even realize that there were mechanically better strategies that you could have pursued -- then there'd be no problem to speak of. And I've played with many people, as I'm sure we all have, who are like that. They either are primarily in it for the roleplay, or they just enjoy the feeling of "being in combat", without sweating the details.

Now, it's perfectly, 100% fine that part of what you enjoy is having a character who kicks ass. That's how I am, myself. But clearly, it's not the case that other people care about optimization, whereas you don't. You care about it too; that's the entire issue.

[Jon talks a lot]

"Don't want to optimize more" and "don't want to play the system anymore" are two separate issues that OP is conflating.

You don't need to optimize more to play 5e. You don't need to play 5e either, if it doesn't make you happy to do it.

And of course, you don't need to stop playing 5e to check out other systems.

I agree, I don't even know what that guy was thinking. You can stay on theme and choose a better weapon, heck i'd say that an oar is even more on theme than a cutlass.

[Anonymouswizard]

Is it time I just left D&D behind for other systems that don't cater so much to min/maxing?

Eh. Most systems cater to minmaxing to some extent*. IME it generally helps to optimise your system to the campaign concept. I'd never play pirates, or samurai, or modern day investigators with D&D (and will rarely use D&D for heroic fantasy these days if I can, but that's less 'D&D is bad' and more 'Anonymouswizard likes The Fantasy Trip and Burning Wheel, depending on mood').

Your concept is great, but it's one of a great many that D&D isn't built to support, there are other systems out there where a lighter weapon plus a free hand is a very viable combat style but D&D has sadly never gone for it. D&D, especially 5e, is built to a relatively small number of archetypes, and sasdly the same lack of content that limits munchkineery also limits the potential for a truly wide range of options.

D&D is also bad at communicating a lot of it's assumptions, but that's not exactly rare. Burning Wheel and a number of other highly narrative games are good at it, and not very much else is.

My suggestion is that you and your group sit down, talk about what you want for your next campaign, and find a system that satisfies the majority of those requirements. Leaning into what the group wants will do a lot better than looking at merely minmax potential, although every game will have some character build that just doesn't work as well.

* If you think D&D 5e does let me introduce you to GURPS. My group only enjoyed GURPS so much because we'd all work our points as hard as we could.

[LudicSavant]

I'm a big fan of what 5E is capable of offering to D&D, but if we're being totally honest, I've never seen it actualized. Every forum, youtube video, online or otherwise game, seems to be far more concerned about what is "the best" than what makes for an interesting shared narrative.

You're just looking at the wrong videos and forums (or sections of forums). There's tons about roleplaying on both fronts.

As much as I've posted about optimization, I've posted a lot more about narrative stuff.

[LordShade]

I don't think this is an issue at all. I don't think Youtube or forums are representative at all of how the game is being actually played at tables.

Furthermore, people bring oddball concepts to optimization forums all the time. You could have brought your gun-wielding pirate to this forum, and people would have told you to play the same exact character roleplaying-wise, but would have had you multiclass a couple levels of sea herald barb into a primarily rogue build. The character would have been perfectly fine in an optimized party then, and not weak at all.

[Naanomi]

5e caters to min/maxing? *looks back at 3E*...

[J-H]

I agree, I don't even know what that guy was thinking. You can stay on theme and choose a better weapon, heck i'd say that an oar is even more on theme than a cutlass.

For even more pirate theme, get two cutlasses/scimitars/oars/clubs/maces, and take the Dual Wielder feat. +1 AC, and you can use that TWF bonus action attack with non-light weapons, meaning you get the rage bonus to the attacks also. Now, at level 5 with str 16, you're doing 1d8+3str+2 rage damage with 3 attacks per round. If all of them hit, 3d8+15 damage is very respectable, while completely staying on-theme with a pirate.

No comment on the guns because I'm not familiar with those rules.

There are lots of ways to optimize for almost any given character concept, without interfering with RP.

[Unoriginal]

If I didn't point out these other options, no one else would.

Except I did.



all your doing is focusing on is debunking him instead helping him. Typical.

I'm helping at least as much as you are.



its not my place to tell him his subjective experience is wrong,

It's not a question of the subjective experience itself, it's a question of the conclusions resulting from it.



if he is feeling bad about it, he has the right to explore other options rather than listen to everyone tell him the same rehashed advice of optimize and refluff over and over again.

Yes, as I said several time now, if playing 5e doesn't make OP happy they shouldn't play 5e. But identifying the issue is the first step to solve the issue, and nothing in what OP said indicates that the problem they're encountering is specifically due to playing 5e, or that it would be solved by switching system (like Anonymouswizard said, most other systems have the same issue to a level or another).

Switching system can absolutely be a solution, and trying out other systems is rarely a waste of time. But I don't think it's the solution for OP's situation, given how they presented it.


Well, look... it's very unlikely that your partymates are spending their spare time sitting around saying to each other "Man, Schwann's character is unoptimized and it makes him no fun to play with." You're, in all probability, the only one at the table who is actually bothered that your character isn't as good in a fight as he could be.

If you didn't care about the other characters being more powerful -- or if you didn't even realize that there were mechanically better strategies that you could have pursued -- then there'd be no problem to speak of. And I've played with many people, as I'm sure we all have, who are like that. They either are primarily in it for the roleplay, or they just enjoy the feeling of "being in combat", without sweating the details.

Now, it's perfectly, 100% fine that part of what you enjoy is having a character who kicks ass. That's how I am, myself. But clearly, it's not the case that other people care about optimization, whereas you don't. You care about it too; that's the entire issue.

That's also a good point, and part of why I think switching systems wouldn't change the issue.


I agree, I don't even know what that guy was thinking. You can stay on theme and choose a better weapon, heck i'd say that an oar is even more on theme than a cutlass.


For even more pirate theme, get two cutlasses/scimitars/oars/clubs/maces, and take the Dual Wielder feat. +1 AC, and you can use that TWF bonus action attack with non-light weapons, meaning you get the rage bonus to the attacks also. Now, at level 5 with str 16, you're doing 1d8+3str+2 rage damage with 3 attacks per round. If all of them hit, 3d8+15 damage is very respectable, while completely staying on-theme with a pirate.

No comment on the guns because I'm not familiar with those rules.

There are lots of ways to optimize for almost any given character concept, without interfering with RP.

The point is that even without doing any of that, OP's character was likely not mechanically bad, and that OP doesn't have to optimize if they don't want to.

[Sigreid]

All games attract some amount of people who think the real game is seeing how far they can push the rules. And that's fine. If you aren't into that, find another group that wants to play the same style you do.

[MrStabby]

I think you have somewhat of a point... you might need a new group, or a smaller group though.

My perspective is that power does matter for fun, but more important is a niche for your character. This needn't be a mechanical niche; in a game focussed on RP then it could be being the drunkard or the flirt or whatever. However it is a niche that must come up and be meaningful for the type of game you are playing.

I, and I suspect many others, would rather play a weaker character that was nevertheless able to contribute differently to other characters than to play a stronger character that was just slightly worse than another character at that table at everything they tried to do.

Optimisation does tend to mean that more character concepts will be overshadowed.

The problem is that optimisation is a bit of a Prisoner's Dilema. If no one exceeds the "normal" power level for a given table, you dont really lose out by making a character just a little bit more powerful. If anyone else creeps up the power level then you will lose out if you don't. It doesnt even need to be intentional creep - but if you aim for a power level some will undershoot and some will overshoot. Simply put, it's easier to avoid this if there are fewer people to coordinate.

There are other options. DM for a bit. It's fun and unlimited power helps you feel like you can live without it when you go back. You can play more RP focussed games where you only roll for initiative every 5 sessions or so - builds and optimisation tend to matter a bit less there.

If your table has good judgement then I would suggest homebrew. Each person builds their desired class. There is a tendency to push up against constraints, to build something efficient. Without constraints people are forced to use judgement to determine what is reasonable.

But yeah, do what you need to do to have fun.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'm very thankful my parties have not really worried about optimization per se. A couple who have been a bit above the curve and one, in particular, who fell way below the curve[1]. But mostly just

1) What's my class?
2) Oh, that looks like it would work and is cool.
3) Done.

Less even about trying to make unique "concepts" and more just leaning into the fiction. At most I get large racial variance--I encourage people to pick a race first, then look at classes. I think that this is one reason I've not really had the problems with, for instance, resting, etc that many people have--my parties tend to be pretty near the norm.

Heck, I think I've had 2 people take any of the "combat" feats. And multiclassing is pretty rare, especially the "meta" builds.

I get a lot of really good roleplayers who have characters that are deeply embedded into the world and who approach things from that angle dominantly. They don't anti optimize, but mechanics is certainly lower down on their priority list.

[1] A halfling cleric/barbarian without tons of strength, wielding a polearm. Yah. He was more effective with his sling when stuck at range than anything else. And I couldn't talk him into something more sane, despite my policy of free rebuilds until level 5.

[ezekielraiden]

No, it's not gone. It's never been gone. Pearl-clutching fear of optimization has been part of D&D since at least 1st Edition, if not earlier.

If you're having problems with a group or groups that aren't as interested in roleplaying, you should ask around. I guarantee you there are many groups out there that don't care about optimization, just as there are groups that don't care about roleplaying. This has always been the case for D&D and always will be.

Discussion online works pretty much exactly the same way as discussion did when it was confined to bulletin boards (electronic or physical) and letters to the editor. You can't really "discuss" how to roleplay better, how to write better story. By definition, formulaic writing and formulaic acting are bad. Editorial and internet discussion cannot improve them. But such discussion can elucidate how to achieve certain ends within the rules themselves, because character building (which is not identical to optimization!) is not easily solved. Different approaches may reach very similar or even identical ends, but with different costs or implications.

If you want more roleplay, look for more roleplay. Don't hop on forums, where discussing roleplay inevitably boils down to telling your story and passing the baton so someone else can tell theirs. You won't find what you're looking for in this subforum.

Edit:
And, to be clear, I am not saying "never try other things." Absolutely try other things! You may be surprised, heck, you may find that what you thought you wanted wasn't what you actually wanted. (Before anyone challenges that: that's me literally describing my own experience, so no, I'm not casting aspersions or making things up.) But if you really are very sure that you're happy with 5e and don't want to try other things unless you have to...well, the good news is that you don't have to! But you absolutely can if you want to.

Thing is, it won't really matter what system you look to, unless it's one that doesn't have numbers to it (such as Fate). White Wolf games have plenty of talk about optimization. Shadowrun forums also have people bewailing the fall of serious roleplay to all these "optimizers" who just have to be the "best" and choke any of the joy out of the game. No matter where you look, no matter what game it is, as long as there are numbers to compare, there will be people debating the best numbers to achieve a stated goal. Hell, you even find this kind of debate in video game discussion forums. Discussion of Fire Emblem or Dragon Age or Divinity: Original Sin II? Yeah, most of it is optimization, and yet you ALSO see the occasional thread like this one where people lament how soul-crushing the optimization side is and why people can't just enjoy the story or discuss the game without any of this horrible math etc. etc. etc. ad infinitum.

Optimization is part of any game where you have lots of choices that can be evaluated in some way. That you see it a lot simply says that optimization is more fruitful to discuss than other topics. In the case of roleplay, "discussing" it in general is...really really hard, other than to simply propose ideas, and enjoy reading others' ideas. You rarely if ever get much back-and-forth, much real debate, because there's no way to evaluate. Everything is equally valid, every approach is so contextual that you can never really say anything about it. That's the tricky thing with discourse. If there's a clear and straightforward right answer, the discourse ends immediately after that answer is provided. If there's no right answers at all, the discourse never goes anywhere, it's dead on arrival. The only place where discourse is meaningful is when it is possible to get a right answer (or at least "better" answers, in whatever sense), but getting to it is a non-trivial task, requiring refinement, iteration. You need some limits, some ability to disqualify certain answers, but not too much. Like how oxygen is vital for us to live, but poisonous in excessive concentration.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Maybe I'm missing something but why do the two have to be mutually exclusive?

The bar in 5E is exceptionally low for a well functioning character, as we discovered in a recent thread about trying to make a not obviously poorly functioning one... It wasn't easy.

It's entirely possible for the Half Elven Sharpshooter who rolled their stats at 18 in every score can be a well realized and detailed character as well as a clearly optimized combat force and for as much as that character will shine in combat, he's really not stomping all over the Dwarven Champion Fighter who took Dwarven Fortitude and Durable and spends all his time being a drunken nuisance.

The example you gave in the prompt isn't really an issue of optimization or roleplay, it's a fundamental problem that Barbarian (and much of the Melee system) has as far as I understand it.

I'll also second what Meandean said in his post, I don't know your group but I doubt they'd be the type to be going on about how awfully ineffective your character was and how much you carried down the game... if they had, I'm sure this discussion would be framed differently.

EDIT: Just to add a personal anecdote that more or less erased my qualms about "optimization", I had run a level 20 oneshot with 3 players. They included a Rock Gnome Berserker Barbarian who chugged potions of giant size to swing a greataxe without disadvantage, a Necromancer Wizard called the Neckwearmancer clad in no less than 12 scarves and a bag of holding full of chicken bones as well as a Dragonborn Champion Fighter with Savage Attacker and a 4d6 one handed axe that dealt cold damage.

The Fighter, who looked to be the most optimal character on paper, was sidelined for nearly the entire session while the Barbarian singlehandedly defeated an Ancient Red Dragon. The joke character become a legend among the group, immortalized as a slayer of the demigod Havel Stonefist, ironically also a character created by the same player.

His name was Brock. Brock the Rock Gnome.

[Schwann145]

RA Storm Herald 1hand-weapon isn't weak, even if they're not the best they're still a force to be reckoned with, and there is nothing stopping them from pulling their weight.

Unless you look at the weight they're pulling and arbitrarily declare it's not enough, I suppose. Like most min/maxers and munchkins do.


Well, look... it's very unlikely that your partymates are spending their spare time sitting around saying to each other "Man, Schwann's character is unoptimized and it makes him no fun to play with." You're, in all probability, the only one at the table who is actually bothered that your character isn't as good in a fight as he could be.

Oh absolutely, this was a "me in my head" issue, not an "at the table" issue.
But by "pull my weight" I mean, "perform the role that he exists in this party to fill well enough to justify his inclusion." Sure, it sounds a little gamey when put that way, but that's the "game" part of it, eh?
Anyway, my "job" was to primarily take the hits so others don't have to. And since ttrpgs give enemies agency I had to *be* a big enough threat to make things want to attack me and, lacking any Paladin spells or Battle Master maneuvers, that left damage as my only real route to do it.
Here's where the split exists, I think.
I could absolutely "slot-in" the right feat (PWM, GWM, etc) and a 2h weapon and do "the barbarian thing" that is, basically expected. But that felt wrong for the game. I took weapons that made sense for a character that lived on a ship - cheap, functional, easily stowable, easily replaceable, handy as a tool when necessary (need to cut a rope for instance), etc. Pistols set to "fire and forget" as necessary in case I couldn't close to melee easily (which was never going to be a winning strat - firearms in HP systems are always a let down, lol), but you get the idea.
(Using a boat oar or an anchor on a chain just didn't fit the game at all. Those are very "shonen" options and this was a much more "black sails" type of game, for those that were wondering or offered such advice.)

But one character with GWM, or a Fighting Style bonus, or both, (or almost any spellcaster) and suddenly I'm second tier damage - that's just how powerful some of these options are.

And again, this is just how I felt at the table. No one was pointing fingers and telling me I needed to up my game or anything. I just wasn't feeling comfortable in my role, despite feeling very comfortable with everything else about the character.
Maybe I just don't like 5e's take on Barbarian? Too pigeon-holed into "big weapon smash, reckless attack help make big weapon smash?" IDK.

[Sigreid]

Maybe I'm missing something but why do the two have to be mutually exclusive?

The bar in 5E is exceptionally low for a well functioning character, as we discovered in a recent thread about trying to make a not obviously poorly functioning one... It wasn't easy.

It's entirely possible for the Half Elven Sharpshooter who rolled their stats at 18 in every score can be a well realized and detailed character as well as a clearly optimized combat force and for as much as that character will shine in combat, he's really not stomping all over the Dwarven Champion Fighter who took Dwarven Fortitude and Durable and spends all his time being a drunken nuisance.

The example you gave in the prompt isn't really an issue of optimization or roleplay, it's a fundamental problem that Barbarian (and much of the Melee system) has as far as I understand it.

I'll also second what Meandean said in his post, I don't know your group but I doubt they'd be the type to be going on about how awfully ineffective your character was and how much you carried down the game... if they had, I'm sure this discussion would be framed differently.

EDIT: Just to add a personal anecdote that more or less erased my qualms about "optimization", I had run a level 20 oneshot with 3 players. They included a Rock Gnome Berserker Barbarian who chugged potions of giant size to swing a greataxe without disadvantage, a Necromancer Wizard called the Neckwearmancer clad in no less than 12 scarves and a bag of holding full of chicken bones as well as a Dragonborn Champion Fighter with Savage Attacker and a 4d6 one handed axe that dealt cold damage.

The Fighter, who looked to be the most optimal character on paper, was sidelined for nearly the entire session while the Barbarian singlehandedly defeated an Ancient Red Dragon. The joke character become a legend among the group, immortalized as a slayer of the demigod Havel Stonefist, ironically also a character created by the same player.

His name was Brock. Brock the Rock Gnome.

There's really only a problem with optimizers and role-players (discounting people who do both just for this point) at the same table if either A) the optimizers try to optimize the whole group, out compete the rest of the members, do whatever they can to eliminate roleplay or B) the RP'ers see the height of roleplay as being completely useless. If they're happy to let each other do their thing, there's no problem.

[Imbalance]

Doesn't it get tiring?

Yep, which is why I ignore most of that junk until I want to find clarity on a specific interaction.


How does one combat this without abandoning the game altogether?

You can't fight it, but you don't have to join it, and you most assuredly needn't abandon the game over it.


Who else has run into this problem and how did it go for you?

I just played my guy, and did what he would do, which is the best that he could. There was no call to rp inferiority or talk of weakness in comparison. I got my hits in, took my lumps, and had a story to tell at the end. I'd say it went well, and besides, dice proved to be the great equalizer. All the min/maxing in the world can't save you from bad rolls. They don't talk about that much on these forums and channels either, but a less-than-optimal character with hot dice will always be the bigger hero at the table than the net-decked analysis project that didn't beat the AC/DC rolls.


Is it time I just left D&D behind for other systems that don't cater so much to min/maxing?

Only you can answer that, but as said, it's not like you're starved for choice or forced into something you don't enjoy. Explore. Or better yet, start collecting minis and all your optimization concerns will melt away.

[Mr. Wonderful]

Optimization is what people can most easily talk about on the internet.

That doesn't mean its required or particularly important to people at the table.

[Unoriginal]

Oh absolutely, this was a "me in my head" issue, not an "at the table" issue.
But by "pull my weight" I mean, "perform the role that he exists in this party to fill well enough to justify his inclusion." Sure, it sounds a little gamey when put that way, but that's the "game" part of it, eh?
Anyway, my "job" was to primarily take the hits so others don't have to. And since ttrpgs give enemies agency I had to *be* a big enough threat to make things want to attack me and, lacking any Paladin spells or Battle Master maneuvers, that left damage as my only real route to do it.
Here's where the split exists, I think.
I could absolutely "slot-in" the right feat (PWM, GWM, etc) and a 2h weapon and do "the barbarian thing" that is, basically expected. But that felt wrong for the game. I took weapons that made sense for a character that lived on a ship - cheap, functional, easily stowable, easily replaceable, handy as a tool when necessary (need to cut a rope for instance), etc. Pistols set to "fire and forget" as necessary in case I couldn't close to melee easily (which was never going to be a winning strat - firearms in HP systems are always a let down, lol), but you get the idea.
(Using a boat oar or an anchor on a chain just didn't fit the game at all. Those are very "shonen" options and this was a much more "black sails" type of game, for those that were wondering or offered such advice.)

But one character with GWM, or a Fighting Style bonus, or both, (or almost any spellcaster) and suddenly I'm second tier damage - that's just how powerful some of these options are.

And again, this is just how I felt at the table. No one was pointing fingers and telling me I needed to up my game or anything. I just wasn't feeling comfortable in my role, despite feeling very comfortable with everything else about the character.
Maybe I just don't like 5e's take on Barbarian? Too pigeon-holed into "big weapon smash, reckless attack help make big weapon smash?" IDK.

If enemies are ignoring a living, attacking enemy who is literally capable of throwing lighting at them nearly every round just because of a small damage difference in their weapon attack which they have little ways to know about, then they don't have agency.

Dealing a lot of damage does not encourage most enemies to fight you in melee. Reckless Attack is here to encourage enemies to fight you in melee because you're making yourself an easier target, even if you're also hitting good. Throwing lightning bolts at enemies' faces like a sea shanty version of Thor is here to encourage enemies to want to deal with you, too.


Honestly your character sounds awesome and I'd have loved seeing him in action.

[Greywander]

Is the roleplay aspect of D&D gone, replaced by optimization?
No, you're just looking in the wrong places. D&D has always had a heavy optimization focus, which lead to some especially egregious atrocities in the likes of 3.x. D&D isn't really built particularly well for roleplay; you'd be better off looking for a narrative-focused system like Fate for that. But that doesn't mean people don't RP in D&D. It's there, it's just that you're hanging around places where people talk more about optimization. If anything, 5e is much, much more RP-friendly than prior editions, due mostly to how streamlined it is. It's very easy to refluff something as something else, giving you a lot of creative freedom while remaining inside the mechanics as given (instead of having to come up with new mechanics to suit your fluff). It's also very hard to build an actually useless character.


I'm a big fan of what 5E is capable of offering to D&D, but if we're being totally honest, I've never seen it actualized. Every forum, youtube video, online or otherwise game, seems to be far more concerned about what is "the best" than what makes for an interesting shared narrative. Which spells you can ignore, which feats are mandatory, which class combinations produce the best results, etc... Doesn't it get tiring?

How does one combat this without abandoning the game altogether?
Again, you're just hanging out in the wrong places. Go check other forums, maybe start a few RP-focused threads here. Honestly, I feel like there's more to talk about optimization-wise on a forum than RP-wise; the RP happens at the table, while the optimization and theorycrafting happens away from the table.


Take a character I played not-too-recently [...]
The trick is to find ways to at least partially optimize while still conforming to your character concept. If you just build a character with no regard for the mechanics, then yes, you're going to end up with something a little subpar. But 5e is surprisingly forgiving here; as long as everyone else has a similar level of optimization, you should be fine. The real problem is when one player min/maxes while another player doesn't optimize at all, but even then the disparity is still much less than in something like 3.x. 5e's ease with which you can refluff things goes a long way toward enabling roleplay concepts without sacrificing optimization.

First of all, I would consider using a longsword instead of a shortsword (I'd think a cutlass would do slashing damage anyway), which not only bumps up your damage die, but you can bump it up further if you use both hands (or, in other words, have your other hand empty). You could also consider grabbing the Dueling fighting style, which can now be obtained via a feat (though this option may not have been available at the time). The DM also has some power to intervene here by granting you magic items that pick up the slack.

Second, you might consider making some changes to your playstyle. Barbarians have excellent strength, and Raging gives them advantage on STR checks. For this reason, barbarians are one of the classes that comes up often when considering grappler builds. Grapplers are also excellent tanks, even with low damage, as they can completely shut an enemy down. Not only that, but a grappler build would synergize well with your use of one-handed weapons, as your other hand is free to grapple with. Grab an enemy, shove them prone, and they're pretty much helpless. You and your allies can whale on them (with advantage) while they are unable to move or stand up, and make their attacks with disadvantage. Or you can hold them away from your friends, so that they have no choice but to try and shake you off.

Lastly, you might consider if a different build would work better for your concept. Something like a Champion fighter is rather bland, mechanically, but surprisingly flexible at filling a concept. Or a Kensei monk, if you want a real swashbuckling pirate type. You have options, and there might be something entirely different that will work better for you. The DM might also be amenable to homebrew or at least making a few tweaks.


Who else has run into this problem and how did it go for you?
Is it time I just left D&D behind for other systems that don't cater so much to min/maxing?
Honestly, I'm not much of a roleplayer, so that aspect of the game isn't something I get into that much. However, I have had similar experiences in the sense that I just don't like D&D; I remember making a list of the things I didn't like about 5e, and pretty much the entire list was things that were specific to D&D and generally not found in other systems. Why am I still here? Maybe it's because I'm familiar with the system. Maybe it's because D&D has something I didn't know I wanted. Honestly, I should probably move on to something else; I think Fudge is more my style, for example.

As for whether you should leave D&D behind, I'm going to say yes, but also no. Do branch out and explore other systems. At the same time, you probably know people who only play D&D, so it's worth keeping one foot in the door so you can jump into a D&D game with your friends. D&D is designed for specific things (and roleplay isn't really one of them, IMO), but any system can be bent to the will of the players at the table if they so wish. I've heard Fate is good, so maybe check that out. Also, any of the World of Darkness games (e.g. Vampire: the Masquerade).

[jaappleton]

Im sorry but I am so sick and tired of the fallacy that optimization equates to a lack of RP.

Google the Stormwind Fallacy, please. It should be mandatory reading. It should come printed in the PHB.

[Rfkannen]

I would say flat out no. I like to post on optimization forums, because optimization is fun, but I don't really think optimization has much impact on 5e. Most 5e players are influenced by either adventure zone or critical role, both of which are very not combat focused. from what I have seen, most players don't really want their games to be mostly combat. I would actually say that the current zeitgeist of dnd is the least optimization focused it has ever been.

You did make a not that great mechanically character, which is possible in 5e. However the difference between the strongest and weakest character in 5e is WAY less than in 4e or 3.5. In those games it was basically impossible to play with different optimization levels in the same party. Vs I played a gloomstalker with sharpshooter (one of the more optimized characters in the game) alongside a strength based whisper bard (one of the least) and we were mostly fine!

Any game with character customization is going to have bad options, not intentionally, but it is always going to happen. I like to play really old school dnd (b/x) and even there it is perfectly possible to make a character who just flat out is worse than other characters.

so yeah, I am really sorry that your character wasn't able to keep up with the rest of the party, i've been there and it sucks, but I think stuff like that is going to happen in any combat focused rpg.


(also side point, I also feel that barbarians lag behind other characters withought gwm and it really annoys me to! I feel like they are the only class pigeon holed into a single weapon style, let alone a single feat! I do think that was just a mistake on the designers part.)

[stoutstien]

I've found 5e to be much more game before crunch than 3.x, pathfinder, or 4e. Optimization in 5e provides less of a leg up and has sharper diminishing returns and the baseline ability for each given player is much higher. In short, 5e has a high floor/low ceiling.

After players realize this they tend to relax on trying to optimize and focus more on the game.

[RifleAvenger]

Going to concur with prior posters that forumite focus on mechanics and optimization is an inherent aspect of crunchy games in the internet age. It does not mean that people are not engaging in roleplay. I like having characters who are competent, ergo I optimize to an extent, but I still write backstories for them, explore their feelings in play, etc.

Dumpshock and the official Shadowrun forums are full of optimization questions/advice. The Lancer discord has pretty active subchannels for mech-builds. World of Darkness and Chronicles of Darkness are pretty crunch heavy for games that try to bill themselves as 'narrative focused' (a product of when they were made). D&D is in the mid to high crunch range, and 3e really seeded the current forum optimization culture, so a focus on crunch is endemic to discussions about it online.

When a system requires players to attain goals and build stories within a complex framework, discussing how best to go about doing that is going to take up a lot of people's attention. For some people the goal is "be as powerful as possible at achieving task X" and for others it's going to be "how do I make idea Y operate with enough success that it meets its conceptual goals?"

General ideas on building non-mechanical character concepts, worldbuilding, scenario design, and narratives are more-often found in general "Roleplaying Games" subforums. That is because those ideas are common to all RPGs. Questions about a specific system, and that aren't about a given setting, are often of the form of "how do I run X in Y?" and therefore veer into the mechanical.
----------------
As for solutions, the two biggies have been given already.

* 1. Try other systems.

--1a. If you don't want to wrangle with mechanics and the optimization that follows, games like Wushu or Fudge/FATE have you covered. Super simple rules, and you can make pretty much any concept work out such that it's balanced against any other. The downside here is that the "user interface" lacks the variety provided by crunchier games. Character X will be as strong mechanically as character Y because they mostly play exactly the same way. There's a lot more responsibility as a player to make up for the "softness" of these systems with strong characterization, narration, and social dynamic between the players.

--1b. There are crunchier systems that attempt to, at least in some areas, encourage and rewards narrative, emotion-oriented, or internal-challenge-based play over external-challenge goal-oriented play. D&D is very much set up as a goal-oriented game where the player faces external threats. You CAN do other things with it, but you're fighting the system or going without it all the way. World of Darkness and Chronicles of Darkness are ur-examples of crunchy games with a bent towards narrativism, while still being much closer to D&D than true storytelling games, but there are many more like them.

* 2. Keep playing D&D and only focus on optimization to the point the game remains fun.

--2a. Get a baseline level of competence in the things you want your character to do, and then expand your abilities vertically or horizontally to taste, best you can. Refluffing can help.

--2b. Play with a group that fits your desired level of optimization. This doesn't have to mean leaving the one you're in, so long as the present group is open to compromising with you. For future games, discuss whether the arrayed party is playing in the same league in session 0.

--2c. If you're really feeling the rules are unkind to a concept you want to play, ask for houserules (so long as it's not organized play). It's worth a try, and I've found most GMs are willing to bend some rules for the sake of player enjoyment.

[Jerrykhor]

I'd say it depends on DM really. Some DMs you have to optimise because their combats are challenging, they throw high CR creatures at you and they run their monsters tactically. Some DMs however, throw 3 orcs at you and call it a day.

But in the end, never forget that its a game and the crunch will always be there, whether you like it or not. Not everything is equal, some will be better than others.

My concern is not typically with numbers, but concept. I had a character that primarily uses TWF but had too many uses for Bonus Action, so much that i hardly get the chance to use the off hand attack. But, having a DM who is willing to listen helps. We houseruled the damn thing and move on.

Like I said, as with most things in 5e, depends on your DM.

[Sol0botmate]

No. Not at all. But people you play with ARE THE BIGGEST FACTOR of how much fun you have in RPG.

So maybe your players are more of min-maxers and their DM know it and like to test them in combat and they all have fun? Then it's just not group for you. It's not the system. It's just people.

For example most of our "group" (we are like 20 casual people including 3 DMs who play various systems with me occasionally also DMing from time to time) are roleplayers and few of us (like 3?) are power-builders.

And we play together without problem becasue we all roleplay. I just finished long campaign where I was the only optimizer with min-maxed character and other 4 players had very interesting characters like Lizardfolk Ranger using Javelins and great club, Oath of Crown Paladin Half-Orc, Shep Druid Water Genasi who did nothing in combat but summon Giant Octopuses :D and Cleric/Wizard guy who was was afraid of fire and didn't take any fire spell because he was "Ent" (a custom race DM made with him because he wanted to be tree-like race, using stats of Wood Elf I think) and he didn't like fire.

We had a blast. And yes I was outshining them in combat by a mile but they didn't mind because their main fun was roleplaying, not optimizing for maximum damage. So they weren't salty or jealous because for them combat was like secondary thing in 5e.

Ask yourself this question - was it you who was dissapointed in mechanical aspect of your character or you felt like rest of the party was dissapointed in your character? Because if it's first - then it's you that felt insecure and thought that you need to have "damage" in 5e: maybe pure roleplay wasn't enough for you then? If it's the second - find group that suits you better because obviously this one likes to min-max :)

[Rusvul]

Oh absolutely, this was a "me in my head" issue, not an "at the table" issue.
But by "pull my weight" I mean, "perform the role that he exists in this party to fill well enough to justify his inclusion." Sure, it sounds a little gamey when put that way, but that's the "game" part of it, eh?

...

And again, this is just how I felt at the table. No one was pointing fingers and telling me I needed to up my game or anything. I just wasn't feeling comfortable in my role, despite feeling very comfortable with everything else about the character.
Maybe I just don't like 5e's take on Barbarian? Too pigeon-holed into "big weapon smash, reckless attack help make big weapon smash?" IDK.

As far as I can tell, what's going here is
1) Not all character options are equally powerful or well-supported, and
2) when playing a character that is less powerful than they could be, you (and I, and probably many others) feel like the character is sub-par compared to a hypothetical, higher-op version of themselves.

I don't think this is a flaw inherent in the system; in fact, I think this will happen any time a player with system mastery (and probably a certain kind of wiring) deliberately builds a lower-op character in a sufficiently complex game system. As far as I can tell, the only ways to stop this from happening (aside from just not developing system mastery) are to write a system where all character options are equally powerful, or where all character concepts are equally well-supported. I don't think either of these is a realistic or desirable goal, so I think the "choose a weaker option -> feel underpowered for having done so" chain of events is unavoidable, regardless of system--at least, for those of us who are bothered by that kind of thing.

Personally, my solution is to try to finagle the rules to let me play my intended character concept as faithfully and powerfully as possible--like the aforementioned monk/barbarian multiclass. I know people who've just let go of the idea that character power is important, though, and that seems to work just as well.

The exceptions, of course, are systems in which the concepts of optimization and system mastery don't really apply, like rules-light PbtA games, or where a "powerful" character is difficult to define, like the Burning Wheel.

I think disliking how the game handles specific character options and archetypes is a separate issue? I'm with you on wishing classes like Barbarian and Paladin got more options as to what weapons and playstyles they choose--but "I wish barbarians with one-handed weapons weren't sub-par" or "I wish the system didn't incentivize hyperspecialization in one specific weapon type as much as it does" are very different gripes from "I wish the system didn't prioritize optimization over roleplay."

[Alcore]

... Doesn't it get tiring?

How does one combat this without abandoning the game altogether?

Who else has run into this problem and how did it go for you?
Is it time I just left D&D behind for other systems that don't cater so much to min/maxing?yep, you bet.

Does it have to be fought like a monster? It kinda sucks if you are the only non op person in a group but what about the reverse? Why are the two mutually exclusive?

Seen it in 3.5 and i say; i don't care.

Yeah... leaving system helped some. Some will min max no matter what though.

[Meichrob7]

Literally look at Xanathars and the Heroic chronicle articles, there’s tons of push for more involvement in backstory, character arcs, and interesting personality.

Optimization is only an issue if the other players heavily optimize AND your group mostly focused on combat. 5e is designed to have three pillars of play and failing to engage in 2/3 of them means you’re kinda playing the unintended way so of course issues would come up.

[kingcheesepants]

Oh absolutely, this was a "me in my head" issue, not an "at the table" issue.
But by "pull my weight" I mean, "perform the role that he exists in this party to fill well enough to justify his inclusion." Sure, it sounds a little gamey when put that way, but that's the "game" part of it, eh?
Anyway, my "job" was to primarily take the hits so others don't have to. And since ttrpgs give enemies agency I had to *be* a big enough threat to make things want to attack me and, lacking any Paladin spells or Battle Master maneuvers, that left damage as my only real route to do it.
Here's where the split exists, I think.
I could absolutely "slot-in" the right feat (PWM, GWM, etc) and a 2h weapon and do "the barbarian thing" that is, basically expected. But that felt wrong for the game. I took weapons that made sense for a character that lived on a ship - cheap, functional, easily stowable, easily replaceable, handy as a tool when necessary (need to cut a rope for instance), etc. Pistols set to "fire and forget" as necessary in case I couldn't close to melee easily (which was never going to be a winning strat - firearms in HP systems are always a let down, lol), but you get the idea.
(Using a boat oar or an anchor on a chain just didn't fit the game at all. Those are very "shonen" options and this was a much more "black sails" type of game, for those that were wondering or offered such advice.)

But one character with GWM, or a Fighting Style bonus, or both, (or almost any spellcaster) and suddenly I'm second tier damage - that's just how powerful some of these options are.

And again, this is just how I felt at the table. No one was pointing fingers and telling me I needed to up my game or anything. I just wasn't feeling comfortable in my role, despite feeling very comfortable with everything else about the character.
Maybe I just don't like 5e's take on Barbarian? Too pigeon-holed into "big weapon smash, reckless attack help make big weapon smash?" IDK.

It sounds like your problem is that you want your character to be a good tank but that the character you built (taking what you thought were the most thematic but not really optimized options) isn't that good of a tank. If the main problem is that you think you should be able to be a good tank no matter what options you pick then yeah maybe D&D isn't for you. The game does have different options that do different things and not every option is going to fit every playstyle. If you don't want to think about what would make your idea come to life in an effective way and you just want to take the coolest option and have it work, well there are more narrative focused games where you don't have to worry so much about how to build a character and what options to take.

But if you actually want to build your character on theme and effectively, I think there are almost certainly ways to do that. It would probably start with rethinking what makes an effective tank, because tanks don't have to do lots of damage to attract enemy attention and in fact I'd say that if your tank is a primary damage dealer than maybe he isn't even a tank at all but a DPS character who happens to have good defense. There are different ways to make enemies want to hit you and not the other characters and they include things like abilities that literally force them to target you, abilities that give them disadvantage when they attack someone else, abilities that make it so they can't leave your area of control, making fun of their mother so they want to kill you especially, dousing yourself in a nice smelling sauce so they'll try to eat you. Basically there are lots of things you can do both in terms of feats and abilities and in terms of RP in order to make yourself a preferred target and lots of them would absolutely fit your theme (or can be made to fit your theme with some light refluffing). So in reply to the question of is D&D too focused on optimization I'd say no not really. It's actually gotten a lot less so in recent years but it still exists and if you really hate crunchy systems and having to work to build an on theme character concept that isn't covered in the class list then yeah maybe try something else.

[Lunali]

D&D is designed for tactical combat. The tactical combat is the only thing with full rules support. This is not a new thing.

The roleplay aspect of D&D is as supported as it ever was and hasn't really diminished in normal play. However, there are forums now where we can actually discuss optimization but find it much more difficult to discuss roleplay as that's far more unique to a specific person and character. There's also AL, where characters pop into and out of the story at the drop of a hat, making any significant roleplay less valuable.

If you aren't satisfied with the level of roleplay in your games, you should probably either get a new group or look into games that actually support roleplay with rules.

[Rynjin]

5e is a game that begins to break down further and further when you try to make a mechanical build out of the "normal" that the developers envisioned when they made the game. There's a lot you can do with RP and refluffing, but at the end of the day, RPGs are a game, first and foremost.

Trying to make esoteric, interesting concepts in 5e has never worked out IME and ironically it's because of the simplicity of the game that was supposed to encourage more freeform roleplaying to a historically crunchy game.

Definitely try new games. 5e is not a terrible game, exactly, and does standard D&D fantasy quite well...but it falls on its face outside of that. It is an extremely limited system by design. Try Savage Worlds, or Pathfinder 1e, or Godbound, or Final Fantasy d6, or something along those lines. You'll probably have a lot more fun just because the number of powerful, different feeling character archetype sis wider in all of them.

[Pex]

I optimize and don't apologize for it. I roleplay and don't apologize for it. The two go together. The game does not discourage roleplaying. Game mechanics can even inspire roleplaying if a player is inclined. Let the player play a paladin/hexblade, but he calls himself neither Paladin nor Warlock. He's a Holy Lancer or Crusader or Holy Terror or Bob. If the players you're with aren't into the roleplaying aspects as you'd like, encourage them to try it, accept it and enjoy the game anyway, or bow out and find a group that is more to your preferred style. You don't need to optimize, but you can't blame the game if you don't make any effort at all to be game mechanically competent to do what your character is supposed to do. You're not playing the game wrong nor committing any sin to roleplaying if, for example, you have an 18 in your prime score by level 8. It's not the game's fault if, hypothetically, as a 12th level barbarian your strength is 14 and intelligence is 20 and you wonder why you aren't pulling your weight in combat despite the great joy you have roleplaying a scholar.

[Kane0]

I just had this conversation with my father the other day actually.

No. From what I see it’s a function of the forums (at least here). If you want to talk about worldbuilding, there is the worldbuilding section. If you want to talk about roleplay, there is the generic RP section. If you want to post a campaign log, there is a tag for just that. If you want to talk about a particular edition each one has its own section.

And when you do talk about an edition, you generally want to talk with a common ground, which happens to be the rules which are the same everywhere (except for homebrew, which indeed also has its own section). There is a limit on what productive discourse can be gained from table-specific style and rulings, so it falls into the minority of discussion compared to rules and more general topics which are shared across more tables.

So over time these rules discussions evolve. As a function of time and number of voices rules discussions are... shall we say refined. Numbers are crunched, options examined. The most effective solutions are determined and reinforced.

But as soon as you leave the online boards this changes. No longer is common ground needed with thousands of other groups, only the current players at the table you share. Experiences may be drawn from these discussions but individual personalities and preferences also become factors. Some people just dont like doing math, others very much enjoy every opportunity to employ funny voices. This colors your individual table beyond what the forums’ consensus of ‘best practice’ when it comes to mechanic X or option Y

Edit: what i would suggest is perhaps some actual game podcasts? No meta commentary like so many youtube channels, just a raw recording of a group playing the game.

[Morty]

Im sorry but I am so sick and tired of the fallacy that optimization equates to a lack of RP.

Google the Stormwind Fallacy, please. It should be mandatory reading. It should come printed in the PHB.

The thrust of this thread isn't that optimization leads to a lack of RP, but that 5E makes it difficult to RP many concepts, because they're just mechanically very lacking. Frequently (usually, really) without a good reason.

[Greywander]

IMO, this is both a strength and a weakness of the class system. If there's a class for it, you can support a concept really well, but if there isn't, then you're basically out of luck. Systems like GURPS are better at the whole "create literally any character you can think of" type thing.

[Morty]

IMO, this is both a strength and a weakness of the class system. If there's a class for it, you can support a concept really well, but if there isn't, then you're basically out of luck. Systems like GURPS are better at the whole "create literally any character you can think of" type thing.

There's a considerable middle ground between D&D and GURPS. There's also many different ways to do classes and considerable leeway within even D&D's fossilized list. The concept OP mentions fits decently well as a barbarian or fighter, but is unoptimal due to the system's other shortcomings. It's likewise not due to classes that running a spear/shield warrior - AKA one of the most popular ways to fight in human history - is pointless unless you ignore the actual statblock for a spear and just pretend a longsword or rapier is one.

[Thunderous Mojo]

Claiming that universally using a D6 weapon versus a D8 weapon renders a character concept "pointless" is a bit too broad of a statement, for my taste.

I completely understand if for your own personal sensibilities, this might invalidate a concept. Many players with a penchant for role playing don't mind taking actions that are thematically appropriate, even if those actions might be slightly 'sub-optimal'.

It has been decades since I last played GURPs, but the system often appealed to Power gamers precisely because you could easily port over the most powerful classes from one game to another.

For D&D:
Roll low Stats= time to role play!
Roll high Stats= time to roll play, baby!
🃏 (facetious response, the joke may appear more humorous in my head)

[Witty Username]

How does one combat this without abandoning the game altogether?

Well, I have my answer as a player and my answer as a dm. As a player I focus on making my character closest to the concept I envision. With pulling my weight taking a back set to having something to do. I don't really worry about not contributing much or being overshadowed. I will optimize to a particular thing if I want that thing to be a bit defining for the character. My last character was mostly an optimized build (hexblade/swords bard) but the build was to bring to life a somewhat famous charismatic, actor, stage fighter member of a demon cult. My character before that was a wizard with no damage spells because they were an apprentice in charge of a bargain bin at an item shop and spent 3 ish sessions researching new spells so that they could participate in combat but disliked violence so he would use illusions and such to diffuse combat, or confuse opponents long enough for the rest of the party to deal with it.
As a DM, I have done some homebrew stuff, and implemented an XP for gold system to encourage non-combat solutions to problems. Usually the problem with concept being swallowed by the need to optimize is a matter of encounter balance or the existing options for the concept being weaker than player expectation.
Lets take up your case:


Take a character I played not-too-recently (yay covid, amirite?) that I had a lot of fun building in my head, but was a pretty huge disappointment on paper: The group was playing in Wildemount around Darktow, doing a sea-faring/pirate theme with The Revelry and whatnot. My character was basically if you took Mr. Gibbs from the Pirates of the Caribbean movies and made him a tough-as-nails jobber; uneducated but smart, burly and gruff but loyal and friendly to his own, good head for numbers, etc.
Mechanically, he was a Path of the Storm Herald Barbarian (taking the "Sea" option every time - very thematic I thought). With levels, rolled stats, and some luck, he had very good Str/Dex/Con so I could comfortably forego wearing armor without tanking my Str, which felt like the right thing to do if you spend most of your time on a ship's deck, right? At any time he had on him a cutlass (shortsword), a hatchet, and 3 flintlock pistols, all ready to fire their one shot before being turned into improvised clubs as needed.
If you're used to optimizing, you can probably see the problems already. He was a high Con Barb so he was tough like I wanted him to be, but being able to take a hit doesn't mean anything if you aren't a threat, and a Barb using a 1h weapon and nothing like GWM means a Barb that hits like a feather, comparatively. Since Storm Herald is thematic, but not particularly strong, as a subclass, that held my potential back even further. I ended up with a character I really liked that just couldn't pull their weight in a party of your typical 5e characters.
The worst part is there just isn't anything to be done about it - there are just a handful of options that are so good that not taking them breaks the game.

Looking at this, I looks like you were going for a bit of a brawler pirate type, unarmored and strong, with pirate theme weapons. Along with some brain to feed into the brawn. First, I would probably recommend multiclassing early into battle master fighter, since that may fit your theme better than barbarian, that way you get the bit of barbarian that you want unarmored defense but can still focus on your weapon preferences(two-weapon fighting/dueling). Lets assume that you disagree and are set on barbarian, and you are coming to me later worried that you aren't pulling your weight. Depending on table mood I may try to use an in-game solution with magic items, ability increases, boons, or tweaking encounters to be slightly more in your favor or a more abstract solution, buffing your class, subclass, or writing you a new subclass tailored to you concept. For this I may allow you to benefit from rage and reckless attack while benefiting from dex for weapon attacks, that way you can have your concept of being tough as nails without having to sack your damage as bad.

I do struggle a bit with the premise of the question though. In that it sounds like you are making decisions to improve your roleplaying at the cost of being less optimized, and then being frustrated that your concept doesn't play as well as an optimized build. I think that is more that the options that best fit your concept don't work as intended or marketed than optimization being bad for the game.

[Tawmis]

I'm a big fan of what 5E is capable of offering to D&D, but if we're being totally honest, I've never seen it actualized. Every forum, youtube video, online or otherwise game, seems to be far more concerned about what is "the best" than what makes for an interesting shared narrative. Which spells you can ignore, which feats are mandatory, which class combinations produce the best results, etc... Doesn't it get tiring?
Is it time I just left D&D behind for other systems that don't cater so much to min/maxing?

Play however you want.

For example, in one game of out of the Abyss - I am playing a Dwarf Fighter. He recently got one Perm. Madness where he hears a voice in his head. Further complicated by a specific weapon that also talks to him (won't spoil it for anyone who has not done the module). I am the only melee in the group (with me is a Druid, Sorcerer and a Cleric) - and there's something about where we are that ... weird things happen potentially if you cast spells. (Won't spoil it beyond that). So, I constantly have my guy shouting to stop casting spells (the players know this is the character not me as a player - I think it's been pretty amusing). So I started thinking (because I have been RPing this other voice) - what if this other voice was a presence released when "something" came to the fish city (won't spoil it, lol) - and sort of has a hold on my guy. So I brought up my idea to the DM - at 6th level - I am going to dip 1 level Warlock - just to have Eldritch Blast. Now, the fun part will be - when my character casts that - he blacks out - he won't remember doing it because it's the "presence" taking over. When I speak as my Dwarf, I give him that weird Irish accent that Dwarves seem to have for whatever reason. :D

Taking that dip into Warlock is just for sheer RP. It's going to weaken me as a fighter (due to the 1 dip into the Warlock), but it's going to increase my fun with RP.

In another OotA campaign - I am playing a Kobold, who found has been surviving in the Underdark (my other character was recaptured, while the others had escaped) - and along the way found a gems in the stone - and he tried to break it off (to use to trade for food, weapons, etc) - but there was a white burst of light. When he came to - the gem had been successfully broken off - and he was still alive - so he believes the gem is all powerful and protects him. Further evidenced by when he tried to use it to trade with some deep gnomes, they ran from him when he pulled out the gem. The red gem became more significant when he met someone in the Duergar city (won't spoil it). And for my Kobold, when I speak as him, I change my voice and give myself a higher pitch voice and after talk in the third person.

[Waazraath]

I think most things has been mentioned already, but my 2 cents:

1) to the question in the title: "nope".
2) optimization is discussed a lot on fora, that doesn't mean it is an important part of games, let alone that it replaces other parts of the game.
3) 5e is pretty balanced, and even an unoptimized character can do go 'good enough'.
4) I can imagine though that issues can emerge in a party where there is a lot of disparity between how optimized characters are. A PAM/GWM battlemaster who invests his maneuvers into precision attack will do a LOT more damage than a barbarian using a single handed weapon and shield, for example, while more or less having the same role (frontline melee).
5) in some part this is a DM thing. Even disregarding that a DM can drop items to compensate any disparities, it is weird if enemies ignore a raging barbarian who is in their face, just eat an attack of opportunity and move on to a squishy. To be honest, that's very gamist and in my opinion just bad DM'ing.
6) even when you don't feel like optimizing, it is nice to have a 'niche' in a party, be it social skills, trap disarment, healing, whatever - it doesn't have to be in combat. That requirers making a party together in a session 0 or something, and some understanding of the game mechanics - though I know some people dislike the term 'game mastery', it does help if you can assess if your character can really be good in something or not, also compared to other classes.
7) all in all, imo the best way to go about it is to have a session 0 and discuss together beforehand if you want to optimize, and if so, how far. If everybody is on the same level, there is no problem at all. And 5e is so flexible and has so many options that most concepts can be build in several ways, using different classes, subclasses, feats and backgrounds.

[diplomancer]

I agree with the posters who referenced Stormwind Fallacy, but I'd like to add one thing that can be done NOW, to help OP tank better.

Reckless attack is THE tanking ability, unless the DM metagames. You have that mad (raging) guy with no armor, going all in on offense, with his defense wide open, and opponents are NOT swarming to attack him and bring him down is the sort of thing that might make sense in the metagame, but makes NO sense in the narrative, unless you are talking an OotS self-aware type game where everyone knows "well, that's a recklessly attacking raging Barbarian, of course I'll ignore him, specially since the noob is not wielding a Heavy weapon with GWM, hardy har har". Enemies are not supposed to know "mad people who attack wildly are raging barbarians with tons of HPs with damage resistance on top".¹

I'd suggest talking with the DM about it.

¹ of course, that depends on the monster, but I say it does apply to most monsters. Hobgoblins would see the apparent tactical advantage and swarm. Goblins might think "I don't care about tactical advantage, I'm not getting anywhere near the big crazy guy". They might be ordered to do it by the bigger hobgoblins, though. Furthermore, goblins WOULD be more than willing to make safe, ranged attacks against you even without orders.

[stoutstien]

I agree with the posters who referenced Stormwind Fallacy, but I'd like to add one thing that can be done NOW, to help OP tank better.

Reckless attack is THE tanking ability, unless the DM metagames. You have that mad (raging) guy with no armor, going all in on offense, with his defense wide open, and opponents are NOT swarming to attack him and bring him down is the sort of thing that might make sense in the metagame, but makes NO sense in the narrative, unless you are talking an OotS self-aware type game where everyone knows "well, that's a recklessly attacking raging Barbarian, of course I'll ignore him, specially since the noob is not wielding a Heavy weapon with GWM, hardy har har". Enemies are not supposed to know "mad people who attack wildly are raging barbarians with tons of HPs with damage resistance on top".¹

I'd suggest talking with the DM about it.

¹ of course, that depends on the monster, but I say it does apply to most monsters. Hobgoblins would see the apparent tactical advantage and swarm. Goblins might think "I don't care about tactical advantage, I'm not getting anywhere near the big crazy guy". They might be ordered to do it by the bigger hobgoblins, though. Furthermore, goblins WOULD be more than willing to make safe, ranged attacks against you even without orders.

This logic tends to backfire once non-direct effect become regular. Reckless barbarians might be a beacon for attacks but they are also going to draw CC and other nasty effects. Then it becomes a game of does the DM break form to not shutdown the barbarian with crappy mental saves for the sake of the game.

[Unoriginal]

This logic tends to backfire once non-direct effect become regular. Reckless barbarians might be a beacon for attacks but they are also going to draw CC and other nasty effects. Then it becomes a game of does the DM break form to not shutdown the barbarian with crappy mental saves for the sake of the game.

What do you mean by "break form"?

[stoutstien]

What do you mean by "break form"?

If the player/character is trying to be the center of focus for the opposition but the standard MO of those NPCs involve strategies that can completely shut down the barbarian and cost them a long rest resource with rage, does the DM let it proceed as normal or hold their punches?

[Unoriginal]

If the player/character is trying to be the center of focus for the opposition but the standard MO of those NPCs involve strategies that can completely shut down the barbarian and cost them a long rest resource with rage, does the DM let it proceed as normal or hold their punches?

The DM let it proceed as normal. If the Barbarian is trying to be the focus of the opposition, then getting hit by crowd control rather than their teammates being hit is still a win.

[stoutstien]

The DM let it proceed as normal. If the Barbarian is trying to be the focus of the opposition, then getting hit by crowd control rather than their teammates being hit is still a win.
Could be or if could be a fast track to lots of death saving throws. Depends on the party/situation.

In regards to the OPs issue, it's about that breaking points where concept and mechanics are meeting and how much deviation is tolerable. His character is perfectly valid but he struggled with the idea of leaving damage on the table by not taking GWM and selecting the storm herald. Any damage he chooses not gain at any opportunity is internalized as a bad choice when in all reality those choices could have result in zero actual benefits.

He wants to feel like a threat and a noticable presence in combat and he is under the impression that damage is the primary factor. Which to be fair, for some tables it is, but for most games is a single contributing factor. This isn't an in game issue as much as something that is addressed with the table about player expectations.

[Cheesegear]

Happens all the time.

Everyone Should Optimise, Or No-One Should
This is the major one. If one or two players have a different idea on how they want to play the game than the rest of the group, the encounters are already busted. The DM can either not react to the power-gamers, which means that encounters are basically a walk, if the power-gamers win the initiative - and they will, they're power-gamers. Or, the DM has to boost all their encounters to be more difficult because the Bard has stupidly high DC on their Tasha's Hideous Laughter, and the Paladin doing auto-crits with Smites because everyone has to hold back, because every time someone deals damage, the creature gets a new saving throw, so everyone is forced to wait for the Paladin to deal their damage...But, if the DM boosts the encounters, the other players, are still ****. So if the hostiles win initiative, or if the DC to bluff the hostile is stupidly high, it just ends in a TPK anyway, because the party is only as strong as its weakest link. So the weak links will die first, and then the power-gamers will die anyway, because they have no support.

Published Adventures Say The DM Has Freedom...
In my experience - including my own - a lot of DMs run published adventures because they don't have the time and/or imagination and/or mental flexibility to come up with something on their own. That means if your 'thing' isn't taken into account by the adventure module, it's pretty rare that a DM will alter anything to insert your 'thing' into the published module. After all, why come up with new encounters and situations that cater to you - and only you - when stuff has already been written that the rest of the party is fine with?

D&D Isn't That Hard, And Even Then You Can Still Get It Wrong
"I have a concept. Part of the concept is that my character has an '8' in CON." Uhhh... Please don't.
Sometimes, there are just bad ideas. The concept in your head just doesn't work with the rules. And that's okay. But what's not okay, is ignoring that your concept is bad, doing it anyway, and then being surprised when it doesn't work out.

You know what's great about optimisation threads?
IMO, it's not that someone can tell you what the best race, class and feat combinations are. It's that someone can also tell you "This option sucks. Don't do it. You will regret it." and that's actually really helpful.

I remember someone on this forum once asking to make an INT-based Battle Master.
Why? There are literally no benefits to that because the Save DC on your maneuvers is still based off of STR anyway. Even the Know Your Enemy ability doesn't even require a Knowledge roll, it just happens. At best, 'Rally' is based off of your CHA. But that's all you're getting.
Where's the incentive to play an INT-based Fighter? There isn't one. Don't do it. I get the concept. But it's bad.

Your Character Doesn't Work in the Party
I played a Gloom Stalker Ranger. He was so cool.
My party included Variant Humans (of course it did), which means that they couldn't see in the dark, which means that our party near-always had the Light spell up, which means that creatures weren't using Darkvision to see me, which means I'm not Invisible. I ditch the Ranger/Rogue idea, and pivot to Ranger/Fighter, because what choice do I have?
My character no longer works because I'm being cucked by the rest of the party.

Is it my fault for playing a Gloom Stalker? Or is the party's fault for having two Humans in it? There's no right answer.
But the problem persists, my character doesn't work with the party. Someone's gonna have to re-roll, or I just have to change my concept - which I did. Gloom Stalker is still good, even if you're not invisible. It's just not as good as it should be. Like I said, Ranger/Fighter.

It's not that your concept doesn't work with the rules.
It's that your concept doesn't work with the group. Except there's no-one really to blame, because everyone is having fun in their own way. They're just not having fun your way, and that sucks.

A Lot of the Game's Rules are Focused Around Combat
There's very few - if any - options related to 'role-playing'. There's no 'rule' on what you should or shouldn't say to a local Lord (I mean, technically there are rules, but none that you'll find in a D&D Book). No-one can tell you how to roleplay. You just...Do it. Or you don't. Even the rules in Xanathar's and Tasha's are 'optional' and also still flimsy anyway. There are no 'victories' to roleplaying. That is, there is no in-game incentive to roleplay, if the player doesn't want to - "Put an '8' in CHA and let someone else do the talking."

The incentive to roleplay, purely comes from the IRL group. The DM can't make people roleplay. They have to want to, and if they don't...What? The game is over?

[Morty]

Claiming that universally using a D6 weapon versus a D8 weapon renders a character concept "pointless" is a bit too broad of a statement, for my taste.

I completely understand if for your own personal sensibilities, this might invalidate a concept. Many players with a penchant for role playing don't mind taking actions that are thematically appropriate, even if those actions might be slightly 'sub-optimal'.

I happen to have a penchant for role playing myself, as evidenced by playing role playing games. It doesn't contradict my statement. Besides, whether or not someone is fine with accepting being suboptimal for their concept doesn't change the fact that it's necessary to begin with. And it doesn't need to be.

[ZRN]

I'm a big fan of what 5E is capable of offering to D&D, but if we're being totally honest, I've never seen it actualized. Every forum, youtube video, online or otherwise game, seems to be far more concerned about what is "the best" than what makes for an interesting shared narrative. Which spells you can ignore, which feats are mandatory, which class combinations produce the best results, etc... Doesn't it get tiring?

How does one combat this without abandoning the game altogether?

Take a character I played not-too-recently (yay covid, amirite?) that I had a lot of fun building in my head, but was a pretty huge disappointment on paper: The group was playing in Wildemount around Darktow, doing a sea-faring/pirate theme with The Revelry and whatnot. My character was basically if you took Mr. Gibbs from the Pirates of the Caribbean movies and made him a tough-as-nails jobber; uneducated but smart, burly and gruff but loyal and friendly to his own, good head for numbers, etc.
Mechanically, he was a Path of the Storm Herald Barbarian (taking the "Sea" option every time - very thematic I thought). With levels, rolled stats, and some luck, he had very good Str/Dex/Con so I could comfortably forego wearing armor without tanking my Str, which felt like the right thing to do if you spend most of your time on a ship's deck, right? At any time he had on him a cutlass (shortsword), a hatchet, and 3 flintlock pistols, all ready to fire their one shot before being turned into improvised clubs as needed.
If you're used to optimizing, you can probably see the problems already. He was a high Con Barb so he was tough like I wanted him to be, but being able to take a hit doesn't mean anything if you aren't a threat, and a Barb using a 1h weapon and nothing like GWM means a Barb that hits like a feather, comparatively. Since Storm Herald is thematic, but not particularly strong, as a subclass, that held my potential back even further. I ended up with a character I really liked that just couldn't pull their weight in a party of your typical 5e characters.
The worst part is there just isn't anything to be done about it - there are just a handful of options that are so good that not taking them breaks the game.


I think you have some tough expectations here.

Let's take your character concept: as I understand it, they key things about him from a roleplaying perspective are that he's a tough sailor who's good at fighting. In particular, he uses pistols and shortswords and doesn't wear a lot of armor.

If your actual goal is to take this character concept and RP it, while building the most effective character possible, this is just a rogue and/or dex fighter with a good Constitution, right? If you had a friend new to D&D who said, "I want to play Mr. Gibbs," that's what you'd build for them, and that character could easily be pretty effective!

But because you actually DO care about min-maxing and fiddling with complex mechanics, you tried to make a more unique build (storm barbarian) and were disappointed when it didn't match the effectiveness of some other min-maxed builds.

So you're left with a few options:
1. Compromise on the detail/uniqueness of your character concept and RP the hell out of a more standardized build (in this example, play your character as maybe a swashbuckler).
2. Compromise on combat effectiveness by playing the exact unique build that seems most interesting to you (in this example, this is what you chose to do).
3. Try to build a character that's unique but still effective. This is, I think, the challenge that makes optimizing a fun exercise for a lot of people, but it can take a lot of work and you still probably won't end up with something BETTER than just a standard optimized build, much less a cheesy power build (sorclock or whatever). But in your example, maybe a barbarian/rogue multiclass would've worked?

[patchyman]

Maybe I just don't like 5e's take on Barbarian? Too pigeon-holed into "big weapon smash, reckless attack help make big weapon smash?" IDK.
Honestly, I think this may be the issue. I looked at your description of the character and all I could think is : why is this character a barbarian? I think a Swashbuckler Rogue (with Toughness feat) or simply a Fighter with Sentinel would realize the concept better (in both cases, without GWF of similar feats).

Swashbuckler Rogue: Rogues really only need dexterity, so you can have as high a Con as you wish. How sticky are you? Except for situations where it’s two (or more) enemies against you alone, an enemy leaving your space is eating Sneak Attack damage.

Sentinels have their own way to ensure enemies stay put.

[Unoriginal]

Honestly, I think this may be the issue. I looked at your description of the character and all I could think is : why is this character a barbarian? I think a Swashbuckler Rogue (with Toughness feat) or simply a Fighter with Sentinel would realize the concept better (in both cases, without GWF of similar feats).

Swashbuckler Rogue: Rogues really only need dexterity, so you can have as high a Con as you wish. How sticky are you? Except for situations where it’s two (or more) enemies against you alone, an enemy leaving your space is eating Sneak Attack damage.

Sentinels have their own way to ensure enemies stay put.

I mean if you want to tank as a Barbarian, Ancestral is the way.

[KorvinStarmast]

I'm a big fan of what 5E is capable of offering to D&D, but if we're being totally honest, I've never seen it actualized. I have.
Is the roleplay aspect of D&D gone, replaced by optimization? Only among a small set of the D&D community who remain fascinated with optimization - which includes some of us posting here - even though 3.x is not the version we are playing, nor 4e.

Every forum, youtube video, online or otherwise game, seems to be far more concerned about what is "the best" than what makes for an interesting shared narrative.
You can thank video games and CRPGs for that. There is a lot of cross talk in terms of community overlap. (For example, optimization in Diablo II is something I was interested in for a while, but I then fell in with a variant community that was interested in 'how gimped of a character can I make and still finish the game in Hell Dificulty - which was way more fun, and it allowed us to inject role play into our Diablo II - and we also used the Roger Wilco voice app ... )

Which spells you can ignore, which feats are mandatory, which class combinations produce the best results, etc... Doesn't it get tiring? Do you need a stat of 20 by level 8? No. My warlock has a Charisma of 18 at level 8 and she does just fine.
Not sure why it would - you don't need to listen to any of that. The group I currently DM for doesn't do that. They just pick stuff and we play.


How does one combat this without abandoning the game altogether?
Easy: play what interests you.


The group was playing in Wildemount I can't help you there. :smallyuk:

My only caution to any player, who is playing a full spell caster, is to make sure their spell casting trait starts out as their highest stat. Saving throws play such a big part in the interaction in and out of combat.

[diplomancer]

This logic tends to backfire once non-direct effect become regular. Reckless barbarians might be a beacon for attacks but they are also going to draw CC and other nasty effects. Then it becomes a game of does the DM break form to not shutdown the barbarian with crappy mental saves for the sake of the game.
Solution is as simple as: get Res (Wis), and as this character does NOT have GWM, not only he can easily afford it, it also fits the character of a crusty pirate; he's not wise per se, but you are not controlling him that easily either. Once you get to really high levels, Heroes' Feast is also a great help, but even the humble Heroism already helps some. If you are the tank, it's part of your teammates responsibility to make sure you CAN tank, and are not being taken out of the fight that easily.

True, doesn't solve the Int and Cha saves, but those should be pretty rare (and if the DM starts regularly targeting THOSE saves once you get Res:Wis, again, metagaming)

[Xervous]

From what I’ve seen forums tend to filter topics based on how much they can be delved into and discussed.

Basic lookup queries “how long do elves live?”, “what level should I hand out full plate at?” sink quickly as a final answer is swiftly dispatched.

RP questions often flounder due to a frequent lack of persistent focus and the relative difficulty of teaching a skill compared to teaching a nugget of knowledge. Feedback and results tend to be delayed as the OP may take a week or more to report back. RP preferences within the realm of civility are wholly opinion, so there’s only so far you can go in discussion before name calling or hijacking the thread for genre warring to uphold one position or another.

Mechanical optimization questions invite comparisons. Where the given details end, assumptions are needed to pave the way and boy do posters like tearing down assumptions they perceive as faulty.

Questions on established worlds, or world building, or even hypotheticals of technology and magic pull in a lot of voices. Quite often there are more sources worth citing than an individual can supply, questions beget more questions, assumptions are refuted or upheld, and solving one detail may just lead the thread into some tangentially related facet.

In short? True RP threads generally do not have good life expectancies as they do not lend themselves easily to an additive discussion, nor provide conflict that draws in more dissenting voices, nor have the consistency that would keep interaction flowing or the post on the top of the front page.

[Tanarii]

My experience is very few players in any version of D&D pay attention to online optimization. And those that do tend to play in official play, where anything goes for builds. If you get them before that, or after they've played in official play and rejected it for that, even if you run a fairly combat heavy game, they'll still focus more on playing the game than becoming a build master.

I never even encountered the idea of online levels of extreme optimization as a good thing until 3e Wizards forums, and didn't see it at an actual table until 4e official play, when I finally started meeting a people that self-labeled as optimizers. Before that so-called "min-maxers" were an urban myth to me.

Eventually I realized there was enough revulsion to the official play optimization experience that it'd be possible to leverage it to run a no-feat no-Multiclassing open table campaign spanning multiple FLGS.

[KorvinStarmast]

Before that so-called "min-maxers" were an urban myth to me. I first ran into them in CRPGs; before 3.x D&D, optimizing in my experience was spell choice, weapon choice (darts in 2e, anyone?) and class choice based on your rolled stats.

[Kurt Kurageous]

Optimization is what people can most easily talk about on the internet.

That doesn't mean its required or particularly important to people at the table.

This.

And I blame the DM if every one is not having their kind of fun.

And it's really hard to talk about your table, your players, and what they like and what is their preferred fun. Because who wants to read that?

[Tanarii]

I first ran into them in CRPGs; before 3.x D&D, optimizing in my experience was spell choice, weapon choice (darts in 2e, anyone?) and class choice based on your rolled stats.
I played Palladium Robotech. Everyone was a Boxer, Wrestler and Gymnast. So I guess I encountered it, just more outside D&D. :smallamused:

[Naanomi]

I never even encountered the idea of online levels of extreme optimization as a good thing until 3e Wizards forums, and didn't see it at an actual table until 4e official play, when I finally started meeting a people that self-labeled as optimizers. Before that so-called "min-maxers" were an urban myth to me..
Until skills and powers era ‘2.5e’; DnD didn’t really have enough options to warrant meaningful optimization... some kits were stronger than others, but it was pretty apparent without much need to discuss it... and outside of a few niche things (cestus punchers; very strong dart fighters, beast riders on specific mounts, ‘custom classes’ to power quick exp tables to high level spells) there just wasn’t much to explore that wasn’t obvious or trivial

[tchntm43]

This topic kind of mirrors a frequent similar topic in the other big Wizards of the Coast game, Magic. People try to create fun and interesting decks that they haven't seen before, and then one day they decide to go play at the local store or perhaps a large tournament instead of their limited group of friends who play, and they find out that that deck they put so much into gets absolutely crushed by the well-tested top decks of the format. I've been at both ends of that game (casual at-home play friends, and also a few attempts at serious competitive play).

So my answer to this topic is kind of the same as my answer to the similar Magic problem. There are really two different games being played. Some players are absolutely narrowed in on creating the most perfect character builds possible and when they play D&D they thrive on the intricacies of combat more than anything else. Other players are more focused on the story, development of character, etc. I think it's just a matter of finding the game group that plays the game you want to play. My current game I DM for is very story-based. It's partly by necessity, as the players in the group are all newbies to the game and don't even have their own Player's Handbooks. In our game, the characters are intricately woven into the plot. The entire crux of an adventure might revolve around a specific character's family (or in the case of one adventure, an unexpected conflict between two characters' families).

[diplomancer]

This topic kind of mirrors a frequent similar topic in the other big Wizards of the Coast game, Magic. People try to create fun and interesting decks that they haven't seen before, and then one day they decide to go play at the local store or perhaps a large tournament instead of their limited group of friends who play, and they find out that that deck they put so much into gets absolutely crushed by the well-tested top decks of the format. I've been at both ends of that game (casual at-home play friends, and also a few attempts at serious competitive play).

So my answer to this topic is kind of the same as my answer to the similar Magic problem. There are really two different games being played. Some players are absolutely narrowed in on creating the most perfect character builds possible and when they play D&D they thrive on the intricacies of combat more than anything else. Other players are more focused on the story, development of character, etc. I think it's just a matter of finding the game group that plays the game you want to play. My current game I DM for is very story-based. It's partly by necessity, as the players in the group are all newbies to the game and don't even have their own Player's Handbooks. In our game, the characters are intricately woven into the plot. The entire crux of an adventure might revolve around a specific character's family (or in the case of one adventure, an unexpected conflict between two characters' families).

Ultimately, isn't this in a way true of every single game, being the difference between the "casual" and the "serious" player?

Of course, Role Playing adds an extra layer, but even in that pillar there are different skill levels (though the fact that not only the roleplaying rules in the DMG are very simple, but also that so few DMs actually use them makes it harder for the player to "optimize roleplaying", and it becomes a lot more free form, and knowing your DM well becomes paramount).

[Morty]

Honestly, I think this may be the issue. I looked at your description of the character and all I could think is : why is this character a barbarian? I think a Swashbuckler Rogue (with Toughness feat) or simply a Fighter with Sentinel would realize the concept better (in both cases, without GWF of similar feats).

Swashbuckler Rogue: Rogues really only need dexterity, so you can have as high a Con as you wish. How sticky are you? Except for situations where it’s two (or more) enemies against you alone, an enemy leaving your space is eating Sneak Attack damage.

Sentinels have their own way to ensure enemies stay put.

It's certainly true that barbarians are a very one-trick pony class that doesn't suit many concepts people feel it should. But it's also very symptomatic that concept after concept has to be relegated to a fighter or rogue because those classes cover 3/4 of all concepts that don't rely heavily on magic. And are among the least interesting classes in the game, to boot.

[KorvinStarmast]

It's certainly true that barbarians are a very one-trick pony class that doesn't suit many concepts people feel it should. But it's also very symptomatic that concept after concept has to be relegated to a fighter or rogue because those classes cover 3/4 of all concepts that don't rely heavily on magic. And are among the least interesting classes in the game, to boot. Which takes us back to 'why isn't Barbarian a sub class of Fighter" as it was in UA (1985) to AD&D 1e and IIRC AD&D 2e.

That might be the better idea, but WoTC would need to start from scratch.

[stoutstien]

This topic kind of mirrors a frequent similar topic in the other big Wizards of the Coast game, Magic. People try to create fun and interesting decks that they haven't seen before, and then one day they decide to go play at the local store or perhaps a large tournament instead of their limited group of friends who play, and they find out that that deck they put so much into gets absolutely crushed by the well-tested top decks of the format. I've been at both ends of that game (casual at-home play friends, and also a few attempts at serious competitive play).

So my answer to this topic is kind of the same as my answer to the similar Magic problem. There are really two different games being played. Some players are absolutely narrowed in on creating the most perfect character builds possible and when they play D&D they thrive on the intricacies of combat more than anything else. Other players are more focused on the story, development of character, etc. I think it's just a matter of finding the game group that plays the game you want to play. My current game I DM for is very story-based. It's partly by necessity, as the players in the group are all newbies to the game and don't even have their own Player's Handbooks. In our game, the characters are intricately woven into the plot. The entire crux of an adventure might revolve around a specific character's family (or in the case of one adventure, an unexpected conflict between two characters' families).
The difference is MtG is purely a mechanical driven game. One could play with zero knowledge of the overall theme and be okay where TTRPGS souls are based on the non mechanical portions. One could memorize every rule of 5e but they wouldn't have a clue how to play without understanding the open ended style of action resolution platforms.

MtG is a glorified boardgame you have to buy in pieces. Not hating on it just what it is.

[patchyman]

It's certainly true that barbarians are a very one-trick pony class that doesn't suit many concepts people feel it should. But it's also very symptomatic that concept after concept has to be relegated to a fighter or rogue because those classes cover 3/4 of all concepts that don't rely heavily on magic. And are among the least interesting classes in the game, to boot.

In general, I wouldn’t disagree with you, but in this case, I do. Go back and look at the OP’s description of the character. Until he writes the words “Storm Herald Barbarian”, there is nothing in the description that made me think Barbarian.

On the other hand, the description: tough, crusty old pirate fits a fighter or rogue a lot more than a barbarian.

[Sception]

the rules are the main thing shared between different D&D tables, and the rules of D&D, regardless of edition, are mostly about combat. So online content about D&D - whether forum discussion threads or videos - are mostly going to be about that shared mechanical aspect. The rules. The crunch. Combat. What options are more or less effective. Optimization.

If you look, you can still find other content - lore from this or that setting, how to best run this or that adventure, the occasional anecdote interesting or amusing enough to stick in the mind longer than it takes to read them like the dread gazebo or head of vecna, general advice on stuff like session zero or table etiquette. That stuff is all out there, but it doesn't get engaged with as much because it's more subjective and less widely applicable. There are fandoms for publically played games like critical role, but those communities engage on a media fandom level, not a discussion of the underlying game or how it might apply to your home game level.

Like, what do you imagine this non-optimization D&D forum's big threads to be about? A bunch of "here's my character's background, what do you think?" I honestly don't have a lot of interest in the character background of D&D characters in campaigns I'm not playing in. Such threads already exist, and sometimes I read through them, but even then my interest doesn't generally go much further than reading through a post and maybe clicking a thumbs up or replying 'neat'. I have a hard time imagining a world were there are dozens of hot threads debating whether it's cooler for this or that poster's next drizzt or conan or aragorn expy's childhood village to have been destroyed by orcs or whether it would be cooler to have been destroyed by a dragon or whether it would be a more usefully open-ended narrative hook to say Sir Hotbottom's village mysteriously disappeared and he doesn't know what happened to them or whether that's just making more work for the DM or whether Sir Hotbottom's too on the nose and you should disguise it with some fhant'astiic spelling creativity - and then, what, four pages of posts work shopping the best spelling of Sir Ought B'Autumn?


Anyway, yeah, it's partially a game thing because the bulk of the game rules revolve around combat and partially a function of the discussion forums and formats in question since those combat rules are the things shared between games and thus most interesting for people playing different games in different places to discuss.

[Hecuba]

I'm a big fan of what 5E is capable of offering to D&D, but if we're being totally honest, I've never seen it actualized. Every forum, youtube video, online or otherwise game, seems to be far more concerned about what is "the best" than what makes for an interesting shared narrative. Which spells you can ignore, which feats are mandatory, which class combinations produce the best results, etc... Doesn't it get tiring?

How does one combat this without abandoning the game altogether?

What your describing is the overlap of 2 elements:
Outside of real-play streams, online content tends to focus on the mechanics of tabletop RPGs instead of the experience of role-playing because they are easier to write about. Translating an improv session into something that is interesting to talk for someone who didn't see it or participate is fairly difficult. You can translate it into a story, but that requires that you're at least passable at creative writing. You can discuss the particulars of role playing methodology, but that's not something a lot of people are equipped to examine unless they are familiar with the techniques of improv beyond "yes and" or something similar.
Emergent play happens, for both role play and mechanics. But the fact that role play is hard to discuss in the unlimited forum of the internet means that emergent role play gets distributed less widely, and builds on itself less predictably, than does emergent play of mechanics. Emergent aspects of role play that you come up with impact your table, and the tables you and your fellow players play with. Unless you are publishing a story, either by a real-play podcast or by pushing out a book, it likely will not impact a table more than a couple degrees removed from you.

Taken together, this makes mechanical emergent play more noticeable than emergent role play and more distinct from the state of the game at initial publication.

But emergent role-play does exist. And it is starting to see greater crossover between distant tables than it used to, largely thanks to real-play content.
So, if you want to see emergent role-play: watch a real-play webcast.



Edit: There is also another, distinct aspect.
D&D has, for a very long time, been a gateway to Tabletop in general. It introduces people to the genera, but some portion then try out other things.
5E is a fairly good fantasy generalist system, but if a group is looking specifically for rules-lite and heavy-role playing there are solid competitors that are popular enough right now that there is a chance they will leave 5E as their primary system.
The Powered by the Apocalypse systems come to mind in particular.
This means that the player base who are attached to D&D in particular tends to show some drain over time to those other systems.

This can also happen on the other end, but the obvious competitors (ex: war-gaming) simply aren't as popular of late.

[Thunderous Mojo]

I happen to have a penchant for role playing myself, as evidenced by playing role playing games.
Morty, if I wanted to single you out in my post, I would have. 😃
I was using your post as a springboard, not as a means to insult you...
....which is how it appears you interpreted my words.
No insult was intended.

I stated "Many players with a penchant for Roleplaying don't mind thematic but slightly suboptimal actions" precisely because the sentence does not state, nor should it imply anything other than what is stated by the words themselves.

The word "Many" is not synonymous with the word "All".


Besides, whether or not someone is fine with accepting being suboptimal for their concept doesn't change the fact that it's necessary to begin with. And it doesn't need to be.

I disagree that it is necessary. Indeed, a salient fact of many persons that would be referred to as "characters"..as in they are interesting people is that they are flawed or eccentric.

Han Solo is a fairly optimized character in Star Wars terms. Han Solo is a good fighter, a great pilot, resourceful, and a natural leader.

Han Solo is also an inveterate liar, a gambler, and general all around flake.
Despite his "optimized" stats...Han Solo is not "played" in an optimized manner. Han Solo is reckless...he doesn't care about the odds..In fact one of his famous catch phrases is "never tell me the odds".

This, (often), self sabotaging, reckless panache, (despite Han's prodigious natural gifts), is why audiences love the character.

People would not love Han Solo if in addition to his optimized stats, he was depicted as being meticulous, and prudent.

Sorry, I'm afraid, I just don't agree with your statement.
(This is not meant as an insult...just a discussion)

[Morty]

In general, I wouldn’t disagree with you, but in this case, I do. Go back and look at the OP’s description of the character. Until he writes the words “Storm Herald Barbarian”, there is nothing in the description that made me think Barbarian.

On the other hand, the description: tough, crusty old pirate fits a fighter or rogue a lot more than a barbarian.

True, but I don't think it really affects my point much. Barbarians don't fit characters that aren't explicitly designed as barbarians. Meanwhile, rogues and fighters just sort of hoover up all concepts that don't suit the very specific parameters of barbarians, paladins, monks or rangers. I really can't blame someone wanting to make a sea-themed character for seeing the storm herald barbarian and thinking "it's cool, I should use it". And being disappointed when it turns out it doesn't work and they just need to settle for a rogue or a fighter - the "sorry, there's nothing special about you" classes.



I disagree that it is necessary. Indeed, a salient fact of many persons that would be referred to as "characters"..as in they are interesting people is that they are flawed or eccentric.

Han Solo is a fairly optimized character in Star Wars terms. Han Solo is a good fighter, a great pilot, resourceful, and a natural leader.

Han Solo is also an inveterate liar, a gambler, and general all around flake.
Despite his "optimized" stats...Han Solo is not "played" in an optimized manner. Han Solo is reckless...he doesn't care about the odds..In fact one of his famous catch phrases is "never tell me the odds".

This, (often), self sabotaging, reckless panache, (despite Han's prodigious natural gifts), is why audiences love the character.

People would not love Han Solo if in addition to his optimized stats, he was depicted as being meticulous, and prudent.

Sorry, I'm afraid, I just don't agree with your statement.
(This is not meant as an insult...just a discussion)

This doesn't really support your argument. Picking a spear instead of a sword isn't being "flawed" or "eccentric". Neither is wanting to use a fighting style that isn't a two-handed or archery, or any other choice the game makes weaker. And it has nothing to do with Han Solo, a movie character as opposed to an RPG character.

[diplomancer]

True, but I don't think it really affects my point much. Barbarians don't fit characters that aren't explicitly designed as barbarians. Meanwhile, rogues and fighters just sort of hoover up all concepts that don't suit the very specific parameters of barbarians, paladins, monks or rangers. I really can't blame someone wanting to make a sea-themed character for seeing the storm herald barbarian and thinking "it's cool, I should use it". And being disappointed when it turns out it doesn't work and they just need to settle for a rogue or a fighter - the "sorry, there's nothing special about you" classes.



This doesn't really support your argument. Picking a spear instead of a sword isn't being "flawed" or "eccentric". Neither is wanting to use a fighting style that isn't a two-handed or archery, or any other choice the game makes weaker. And it has nothing to do with Han Solo, a movie character as opposed to an RPG character.

I'd say swords are worse than spears, even without factoring in PAM, except for high level fighters. Being a thrown weapon is useful in many circumstances, so that, in my opinion, it more than makes up for the lower damage die. At the very least, while exploring, you should have a spear in hand and, if possible, switch to swords once you're in melee range. Even then, you may regret the switch if the enemy tries to escape.

What's really weird is that, without PAM, javelins are better than spears, unless you're a monk.

[qube]

I'm a big fan of what 5E is capable of offering to D&D, but if we're being totally honest, I've never seen it actualized. Every forum, youtube video, online or otherwise game, seems to be far more concerned about what is "the best" than what makes for an interesting shared narrative. Which spells you can ignore, which feats are mandatory, which class combinations produce the best results, etc... Doesn't it get tiring?The thing is ... DnD is a game, DnD 5E is a ruleset. If you're looking at movies that analyse the rules, yes ... that's comparing mechanisms, which eventually lead to optimizing in some form or another;

But if you look at roleplay/flavor channels, you encounter clips like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIp_p0z4J14
"... play a halfling barbarian try to prove to the world that size doesn't make the warrior ..."


I ended up with a character I really liked that just couldn't pull their weight in a party of your typical 5e characters.Except, there are no "typical 5e characters".
A table wilt cofeelocks & sorcadins, one where DM always have very difficult encounters, etc ... on those tables sub-par character won't pull their weight.

... but "on average", because of bounded accuracy, you'll have to go out of your way to make a bad character before it's not able to pull it's weight.

People stare themselves blind on a +1 difference on damage ... but, for example, when we look at the battlemaster vs champion, many people think on low level, that a champion needs to be a critbuild for it to pull it's weight. However, if we run the actual numbers ; if you start to compare the amount of rounds combat lasts for a battlemast vs a champ or even a featureless fighter ... a couple of d8's extra in damage or a higher crit range simply don't have a significant effect.

Consider that at lvl 5, a monster will face 8 attacks per turn , the statisitcal chance that difference between 8d8+32 , and 9d8+32 isn't that much ; you're much more influenced by the luck of the rolls (if those 8 or 9 dice roll well) then the amount of dice.

Yes, obviously, more dice/damage/... is better ; but if the lack of said bonus is so small it's nearly indistinguisable from luck of the draw it's hard to argue said character "can't pull it's weight".

[Yora]

I ran a six month campaign of D&D 5th edition last year, which I can absolutely say was the best campaign I ever ran in my 20 years as GM by a wide margin.

It also made me realize that D&D is really not what I want out of RPGs. All the best parts of the campaign where when no dice rolls were done for hours, other than the occasional simple skill check. All the parts that I felt were the weakest and I had no fun running where the times were I tried to run dungeons with interesting encounters.

I don't like setting up and running fights.
I don't like dungeons.
I still have no idea how to make exploring dungeons feel like a story.

I still see how it could be a fun game to play a rules-light dungeon crawler where the players do nothing but try to get treasure out of ruined castles, tombs, or caves. But for something where the PCs have goals and motivations, make allies, and create proactive plans to make a change to their world? I just don't see how to do that in large complexes of rooms full of hostile monsters.

Is the roleplaying aspect of D&D gone? I think there actually never was that much to begin with. D&D was always at its best when it knew it was a treasure hunting dungeon crawler. For everything else, it's not the right tool for the job.

[Zombimode]

Is the roleplaying aspect of D&D gone? I think there actually never was that much to begin with. D&D was always at its best when it knew it was a treasure hunting dungeon crawler. For everything else, it's not the right tool for the job.

For you. That is very important to realize.

For other people it is very much the right tool for the job.

I run games with strong focus on setting exploration, character-setting involvement, character exploration, carefully conducted situations and encounters. Treasure hunting dungeon crawling isn't really much of thing. And for me, D&D (3.5 to be precise) is very much the correct tool. My DMing style is flat-out incompatible with an approach like the Powered By the Apocalypse games. Or Fate.

[Segev]

I feel like it's worth noting that even FATE has optimization. The notion that you aren't optimizing when you pick Aspects is self-deception. You are always going to want to pick a breadth of Aspects that enable you to apply as many as you can to as many rolls or situations as possible. The more you can always have at least one applicable and the more you can apply as often?as possible, the better your in-game results will be.

Optimization is part of any game. It may be that one game's optimization is more fun for you than another's, though.

[Lord Raziere]

I feel like it's worth noting that even FATE has optimization. The notion that you aren't optimizing when you pick Aspects is self-deception. You are always going to want to pick a breadth of Aspects that enable you to apply as many as you can to as many rolls or situations as possible. The more you can always have at least one applicable and the more you can apply as often?as possible, the better your in-game results will be.

Optimization is part of any game. It may be that one game's optimization is more fun for you than another's, though.

Yes but its incredibly minimal optimization in comparison to many others.

[Segev]

Yes but its incredibly minimal optimization in comparison to many others.

Perhaps. I am unsure I agree, especially since the optimization floor can be very low. Choose too narrow or too overlapping a set of aspects....

And the during-play optimization of your tactics to your mechanics is even more important. Including meta-game considerations about what stakes to set.

But this is a D&D forum, so I won't belabor this further other than to say that the point is that any system gets bogged down in the optimization if you let it, and any system lets you build subpar characters if you believe devotion to theme over adapting system to theme is paramount.

[Pelle]

All the parts that I felt were the weakest and I had no fun running where the times were I tried to run dungeons with interesting encounters.


If you don't find balanced tactical combats fun, there's no point in playing 5e over a more simple OSR game.

[Segev]

If you don't find balanced tactical combats fun, there's no point in playing 5e over a more simple OSR game.

Serious question: ARE there simpler OSR games? 5e is the simplest edition of D&D I've ever seen. Even the old, old-school editions were, despite having fewer knobs, far more complicated due to klunkier gameplay rules technology, to my recollection. 3e and 5e are refinements and streamlines on their basic engines to the point that they are simpler.

Are there OSR games that are genuinely simpler, still?

[PhoenixPhyre]

Serious question: ARE there simpler OSR games? 5e is the simplest edition of D&D I've ever seen. Even the old, old-school editions were, despite having fewer knobs, far more complicated due to klunkier gameplay rules technology, to my recollection. 3e and 5e are refinements and streamlines on their basic engines to the point that they are simpler.

Are there OSR games that are genuinely simpler, still?

That's my impression as well. 2e, for instance, has way more rules complexity despite having fewer knobs and dials for characters. Everything has different, incompatible systems, assumptions, and procedures, plus tables tables everywhere. To me, personally, this feels like pointless complexity. But YMMV.

5e has (relatively) more content, but that content is simpler to apply and more modular (you can cut out or add selective races, classes, feats, and spells without breaking anything in particular).

[Thunderous Mojo]

This doesn't really support your argument. Picking a spear instead of a sword isn't being "flawed" or "eccentric". Neither is wanting to use a fighting style that isn't a two-handed or archery, or any other choice the game makes weaker. And it has nothing to do with Han Solo, a movie character as opposed to an RPG character.
To phrase it bluntly, (though with no ill will or intent to anger or offend), if your view is that only Two Handed or Archery based warriors can meaningfully contribute to a D&D game, out of all the martial possibilities, then respectfully our viewpoints of the game are so wildly divergent that neither party is going to feel the other has the "right view".

So for purposes of this discussion, I disagree with your premises.
This might be a misperception on my part, (and you have my apologies if it is), but the tone of your posts, conveys a lack of receptivity to other viewpoints.

Further attempts at explication, might lead to antagonism, which is the last thing I want. So please, Be Well...unfortunately...we disagree...and will have to leave the matter there.

I appreciate the conversation, and your representation of your viewpoint. Cheers!

[Nagog]

I'm not sure I fully understand the nature of your dilemma. While I can tell that you'd much rather favor roleplay over optimization, what about D&D is forcing you to prioritize optimization over roleplay? If you feel that you're cornered into doing that, that's the first thing I'd look for. Is it the players you play with, who optimize and make your character feel obsolete if you aren't similarly built? Is it the DM, who leans too heavily into the numbers gaming for your tastes and not into the roleplay?

5e, at it's core, is an extremely versatile system. You can play it any way you'd like, favoring Roleplay, or Optimization, or Interaction, or Storytelling, or whatever you'd like. The system does not pressure one way or another, the pressure you're feeling likely comes from an adjacent source.

[mistajames]

It's because talking about roleplaying often kind of sucks, but actually roleplaying is really fun.

Conversely, talking about optimization is fun, but (for players) it only relates to a tiny portion of the game (character creation and levelling).

[micahaphone]

Am I understanding correctly that your evidence is online discussion and videos? Because I see plenty of roleplay "at the table", far more than optimization.

Mostly, what would roleplay discussion look like online? There's little universal or mechanical stuff to discuss to it. We all can agree "getting 22 attacks in 1 round is crazy, here's how I got the rules to do this" but "is my dwarf dwarfy enough" entirely depends on the DM/world/personal beliefs of the people at the table. Some suggestions can be spitballed but it's much less contentious than optimizing a system.

[Xervous]

I'm not sure I fully understand the nature of your dilemma. While I can tell that you'd much rather favor roleplay over optimization, what about D&D is forcing you to prioritize optimization over roleplay? If you feel that you're cornered into doing that, that's the first thing I'd look for. Is it the players you play with, who optimize and make your character feel obsolete if you aren't similarly built? Is it the DM, who leans too heavily into the numbers gaming for your tastes and not into the roleplay?

5e, at it's core, is an extremely versatile system. You can play it any way you'd like, favoring Roleplay, or Optimization, or Interaction, or Storytelling, or whatever you'd like. The system does not pressure one way or another, the pressure you're feeling likely comes from an adjacent source.

Except the main prompts the game does a good job of pushing are killing things to take their stuff, and finding your way to places where you can do the former. RP and storytelling can be done; the rules don’t prohibit them, but neither do the rules provide a lot in the way of structure or suggestions.

[kazaryu]

I'm a big fan of what 5E is capable of offering to D&D, but if we're being totally honest, I've never seen it actualized. Every forum, youtube video, online or otherwise game, seems to be far more concerned about what is "the best" than what makes for an interesting shared narrative. Which spells you can ignore, which feats are mandatory, which class combinations produce the best results, etc... Doesn't it get tiring?

so, firstly, i'd recommend looking at Matt Colvilles youtube channel. he's got quite a backlog but by no means is his focus on mechanics. overall his attitude is that a mechanically powerful character isn't necessary to have fun. Nor is does it harm fun to have a mechanically powerful character. He gives a lot of advice about how to run games, but very little of it is about the mechanics of the game. primarily he focuses on table dynamics and when he does touch on mechanics, its never from a school of thought that centers on optimization. in fact, at his tables he doesn't give the players feats as straight up character options. instead opting to award those abilities, the same way you might award treasure. Seth Skorkowsky is another good channel if you don't want to focus on optimization. i can't speak too much for the communities surrounding these people due to not really being plugged in with the community in a while. but i know when i first discovered them the community was pretty good about distinguishing between optimization and other character things (for matt colville).



How does one combat this without abandoning the game altogether?
There are 2 ways a person/character ends up feeling inadequate. internal and external.

internal is...a bit too nuanced for me to go into..sorry, if i knew a bit more about your situation, your group...basically if we were able to have a conversation then i might be able to discuss internal problems but there's just way too much for me to list all the variables here

. but external causes typically focus on part dynamic. what your particular group values. im currently in a roleplay heavy game using 5e and its working just fine. because the entire group is committed to it. we all know what we expect. so, typically if the group has a different set of expectations/playstyle you have 2 options. either adapt to match the group (if thats something you can have fun with) or find a group that matches you better. which isn't all that easy, necessarily. But its really the only way to find what you're looking for.


is it time I just left D&D behind for other systems that don't cater so much to min/maxing?

here's the thing. 5e doens't cater to min/maxing. or more specifically, officail 5e content doesn't tend to cater to min/maxing. obviously a min/maxed character is always going to be more effective, but you have to actively be trying in order to build a character that isn't viable. even the champion fighter, as small as the sublclass bonuses are, is viable. its just not optimal.

that being said, no. no it isn't time to jsut leave 5e behind if you don't enjoy it. there are plenty of groups out there where min/maxing isn't neccesary. and others that are more leniant in how characters are built, allowing for a grater freedom of strong builds. for example: i played with a group that gave several different arrays to choose from. one of them being 17,16,15,14,12,10. or very similar to that. Which obviously allows for concepts that would normally struggle due to being too MAD. for example a rogue/barb multiclass. My current group not only did we start with something like a 32 point buy, we're also getting +1/+1 asi's every 3 *character* levels (with the caveat that they can't be used on the same ability score) in addition to a feat ever 4 class levels (with a portion of the feat being awarded every 2 character levels). This, means that character concepts (like a 5 full caster multiclass) are actually doable (and can actually afford to multiclass early in order to bring the concept 'online' before level 12) without making some major sacrifices in terms of ability scores. Gives more creative freedom to allow the players to build the character *they* want without having to worry about feeling overshadowed in combat. The groups are out there, it may just take time to find them.

Now: thats not to say you *shouldn't* check out other systems. by all means, please do. there are a lot of great systems out there. My point is that you shouldn't look at the system IMO. look at the group, its possible to have a good RP experience in a system like 5e (or even 3.5 which *did* cater to min/maxing) and a bad rp experience in a Powered by the Apocalypse game, simply due to the group.

[Pex]

I ran a six month campaign of D&D 5th edition last year, which I can absolutely say was the best campaign I ever ran in my 20 years as GM by a wide margin.

It also made me realize that D&D is really not what I want out of RPGs. All the best parts of the campaign where when no dice rolls were done for hours, other than the occasional simple skill check. All the parts that I felt were the weakest and I had no fun running where the times were I tried to run dungeons with interesting encounters.

I don't like setting up and running fights.
I don't like dungeons.
I still have no idea how to make exploring dungeons feel like a story.

I still see how it could be a fun game to play a rules-light dungeon crawler where the players do nothing but try to get treasure out of ruined castles, tombs, or caves. But for something where the PCs have goals and motivations, make allies, and create proactive plans to make a change to their world? I just don't see how to do that in large complexes of rooms full of hostile monsters.

Is the roleplaying aspect of D&D gone? I think there actually never was that much to begin with. D&D was always at its best when it knew it was a treasure hunting dungeon crawler. For everything else, it's not the right tool for the job.


For you. That is very important to realize.

For other people it is very much the right tool for the job.

I run games with strong focus on setting exploration, character-setting involvement, character exploration, carefully conducted situations and encounters. Treasure hunting dungeon crawling isn't really much of thing. And for me, D&D (3.5 to be precise) is very much the correct tool. My DMing style is flat-out incompatible with an approach like the Powered By the Apocalypse games. Or Fate.

It's also possible to enjoy both. I'm playing a barbarian in a game, and there have been plenty of sessions where it's all roleplay, hardly a die is rolled, and I'm having a blast. My character went through a lot of growth. It was an accomplisment he likes wearing clothes now and cares about fashion. He's engaged to be married and is also a celebrity champion athlete of the nation. Then there are the sessions where it's all combat. Spells are blasting, swords are clashing, and I'm in the thick of it all and laugh in the DM's face when it's all over I'm still in triple digits of hit points. Even if I'm down to almost single digits it was an awesome fight because I know the punishment my character took yet he still did not drop. When combat is glorified Chess it's all a thrill.


Except the main prompts the game does a good job of pushing are killing things to take their stuff, and finding your way to places where you can do the former. RP and storytelling can be done; the rules don’t prohibit them, but neither do the rules provide a lot in the way of structure or suggestions.

Not a lot but not nothing. Backrounds help out. There's a little game mechanics involved, but it's more about defining your character giving you ideas to work with of who your character is, Even if you don't use the game's suggestions of beliefs, bonds, and flaws it at least gets you to think about it to come up with your own. Even the trinkets table might give inspiration. Why do you have whatever it is? What does the trinket mean? It's your character. The game can give mechanics to how things works, but it is up to the player to provide personality and desires.

[KorvinStarmast]

It's because talking about roleplaying often kind of sucks, but actually roleplaying is really fun.

Conversely, talking about optimization is fun, but (for players) it only relates to a tiny portion of the game (character creation and levelling). That's a nice way to answer the OP. I'll be keeping that in my back pocket.

Except the main prompts the game does a good job of pushing are killing things to take their stuff Hmm, the bulk of published material in the PHB is "look at all of these magical spells, here is what they do" when you get to a page count. Combat is given a detailed treatment, mechanically, in order that play follows an orderly and (reasonably rational) flow, and to allow for a certain amount of structure around which to create choices. The rest of the game follows the three steps in How To Play" in the PHB.

If you look at the published adventures, with few exceptions there are a variety of negotiating and bargaining scenarios provided for the NPCs, and some monsters, if one reads all of the material provided.

But one thing is for sure: treasure hunting is still a core feature. (Why take all of that risk exploring if there is not a great reward? Stick to fishing). The story telling is by its nature emergent: how we went about recovering that treasured scroll, or priceless vase, and all of the errors and successes we had along the way is the story. It's the journey that makes a difference.

Great example last night when the party (me DM) encountered evidence of a bear in a cave. Totem barbarian asked the party to stay back; the 10 min ritual was done, and barbarian moved foward and began to have a conversation with the bear. As it worked out, they fed the bear some iron rations (we treated it like 'here, have some doggy snacks' ) and the information the bear provided ended up being crucial: the evil duergar cleric they'd been looking for had recently been eaten ... by this bear. But it had lost its mate during that confrontation. When they were done, the barbarian and the bear shared a bear hug. And, the search for the duergar cleric was now completed.

Nobody knew anything like that was going to happen when we sat down to play last night.

[Pelle]

Serious question: ARE there simpler OSR games? 5e is the simplest edition of D&D I've ever seen. Even the old, old-school editions were, despite having fewer knobs, far more complicated due to klunkier gameplay rules technology, to my recollection. 3e and 5e are refinements and streamlines on their basic engines to the point that they are simpler.

Are there OSR games that are genuinely simpler, still?

Yes of course! There are tons of rules light osr games, where the actual rules fit more or less a page. 5e is really crunchy in comparison.

Edit, this section was added because i thought this was another thread:
Relevant to this discussion, check out Knave which has a really simple and usable encumbrance system. Basically a number of slots based on stats (I think str or con), and it uses item based abilities. So if you want to be a spell caster, you need a magical tome for each spell, which each takes a slot. If you want to be a mighty warrior who wields heavy weapons and deal lots of damage, they require more slots. Armour takes a slot. If you want to be a skill monkey, you carry equipment to help you with climbing, picking locks etc.

[KorvinStarmast]

Are there OSR games that are genuinely simpler, still? Yes.
The hack Delta did, and that I linked to in my reply to Morty, is one example. The semi spoofy Mazes and Minautors is a lot less complicated than 5e.

B/X are(is) a lot simpler than 5e.

BECMI ratchets up complexity gradually.

[micahaphone]

"Quest" is one of the simplest fantasy RPGs I've ever seen

[KorvinStarmast]

"Quest" is one of the simplest fantasy RPGs I've ever seen Heh, good call.

People seem to forget: when D&D first arose, the people who created it were indies. The 'institutions' at the time were companies like Avalon Hill, Milton Bradley, Parker Brothers, and so on. Board game companies. Card game companies.

As far as revenue streams go TSR grew out of a (games rules) publishing company. There's an old article or letter by EGG that I think I have in electronic form somewhere, where he observes quite correctly that at some point simply publishing books full of game rules for a game hits diminishing returns, and the game is more or less completed. (The TV series was envisioned as a cash generator, among other things). Things like settings and published modules and novels were a way to leverage a revenue stream out of the original intellectual property. Heard on the radio yesterday that D&D is going to have a TV show soon

Role Playing, itself, relies on the players bringing their imaginations to the table. (There was a time when TSR had a tag line "products of your imagination" or something like that).

Which brings me to nurturing the role playing element in this edition. Pex captured that nicely in his post: the background aspect of chargen is (for my money) a nice addition to the game. It seems to me specifically aimed at new RPG players; old hands like me don't need it as a trigger, but, I still find it to be useful in building a three to five sentence, or two paragraph, "who this character is and why they are an adventurer" that gets the RP element off and running.

[Naanomi]

Some of the best RP I've ever done was in some very mechanically complex systems... a lot just depends on the group and GM. I had a GM who favored HERO System, and I had a great time despite the almost inane detail that system is capable of

[Tanarii]

Serious question: ARE there simpler OSR games? 5e is the simplest edition of D&D I've ever seen. Even the old, old-school editions were, despite having fewer knobs, far more complicated due to klunkier gameplay rules technology, to my recollection. 3e and 5e are refinements and streamlines on their basic engines to the point that they are simpler.

Are there OSR games that are genuinely simpler, still?
O5R: Into the Unknown
It's an OSR hack of 5e. A very good one.

I have to say though, most of the OSR rules I've read are far more complicated that 5e, except for the spells part. Often in good ways though, since they frequently have decent rules for exploring, survival, time, hirelings ... all the actual things involved in wilderness and dungeon adventuring that 5e has bare bones rules for. 5e's "heavy rules" sections are mostly class features and spells, and resting / resource recovery.

[Unoriginal]

It's also possible to enjoy both. I'm playing a barbarian in a game, and there have been plenty of sessions where it's all roleplay, hardly a die is rolled, and I'm having a blast. My character went through a lot of growth. It was an accomplisment he likes wearing clothes now and cares about fashion. He's engaged to be married and is also a celebrity champion athlete of the nation. Then there are the sessions where it's all combat. Spells are blasting, swords are clashing, and I'm in the thick of it all and laugh in the DM's face when it's all over I'm still in triple digits of hit points. Even if I'm down to almost single digits it was an awesome fight because I know the punishment my character took yet he still did not drop. When combat is glorified Chess it's all a thrill.

IIRC your Barbarian slaughtered Yeenoguh while in the Abyss, right?

[MoiMagnus]

I'm a big fan of what 5E is capable of offering to D&D, but if we're being totally honest, I've never seen it actualized. Every forum, youtube video, online or otherwise game, seems to be far more concerned about what is "the best" than what makes for an interesting shared narrative. Which spells you can ignore, which feats are mandatory, which class combinations produce the best results, etc... Doesn't it get tiring?

If what you're interested in not "the best", you don't have a lot to learn from youtube video and online forums. Narrative advices are both way harder to build (very group dependent), often counterproductive (you might try to copy others instead of creating) and in the end not very fruitful in term of discussions, when it doesn't degenerate in toxic argumentations about what is a good or a bad DM.

That's like half of the video games, if you go through the forums you will see everyone talk about how to be competitive or optimised, and almost no one talk about how to casually enjoy the game. And it's also linked to the fact that peoples that casually enjoy the game rarely need to look at forums to know how to do it.

And as for gameplay, having technical battle is the "simple part". Building relationship between the character to have interesting interaction require much more work and will of the players (and DM), and some campaign take easily one year of real-time game before the character start to have enough "common experiences" for the players to naturally start RPing.

As for 5e, RP is not gone, but it might be for your table
(I'm currently in a campaign where we usually have one reasonably short combat every session, the remaining is roleplay)

So try other systems, and if you search for RP try in priority systems that don't require the players to even start reading a rulebook before the first session because the character sheet is half a page and the rules (character creation excluded) is 10min of explanation.

[KorvinStarmast]

{snip most of this excellent post} So try other systems, and if you search for RP try in priority systems that don't require the players to even start reading a rulebook before the first session because the character sheet is half a page and the rules (character creation excluded) is 10min of explanation. That's some fine advice. And as to forums, I really agree with you on the CRPG/video game thing. If you never visit a forum, you can enjoy the game a lot.

I played Diablo (the original) for many months with friends via battlenet and never visited a forum. We had loads of fun. How I viewed the game changed when I began to interact with people on a bnet forum. But it also allowed me to explore some ideas that I'd never before considered.

[jjordan]

How does one combat this without abandoning the game altogether?

Be an adult, talk to the other participants (DM and players) and tell them what you want. Listen to what they want and see if y'all can find a path forward. The rules are guidelines and tools to help you make the kind of game you want to play. But in order to find it you have to put yourself out there and not be afraid of the criticism you'll take. Go for it.

[Evaar]

MonarchsFactory
Matt Colville
WebDM
Jorphdan

Just some youtube channels that focus on story, lore, running games, and roleplaying far more than optimization.

[Pex]

IIRC your Barbarian slaughtered Yeenoguh while in the Abyss, right?

Yep. I think he was down to 26 hit points out of 168 by the end. My character only dropped twice, playing from level 3 to currently 17. The first was failing the save against a banshee early in the campaign. Second was having to walk through a Gigantic Gelatinous Cube, and I actually wouldn't have dropped if the cleric player hadn't made a dumb move to stop concentrating on a Wall of Fire that was carving a safe space through it to cast another concentration spell. Still, had amazing battles. There's a reason I took the name Banadragos, which means Slayer of Dragons. I wear them as my armor. Ok, I'm bragging. :smallbiggrin:

[Witty Username]

Serious question: ARE there simpler OSR games? 5e is the simplest edition of D&D I've ever seen. Even the old, old-school editions were, despite having fewer knobs, far more complicated due to klunkier gameplay rules technology, to my recollection. 3e and 5e are refinements and streamlines on their basic engines to the point that they are simpler.

Are there OSR games that are genuinely simpler, still?

Short answer yes, there is an OSR game called Five Torches Deep that is a cut down version of 5e.
Long answer, Their are a lot of OSR games. Most of them trend toward pretty simple, most of them have roots in d&d basic, which declared a lot of things too complex for the puny human mind like having a race and a class. I think I saw one that did away with attack rolls and AC believing they wasted time and brain space, if you made an attack you would just roll damage (combat being a bit more deadly).

[Tanarii]

Short answer yes, there is an OSR game called Five Torches Deep that is a cut down version of 5e.
It's not very good thou.

[Pelle]

I think I saw one that did away with attack rolls and AC believing they wasted time and brain space, if you made an attack you would just roll damage (combat being a bit more deadly).

That would be Into the Odd (or its descendant Electric Bastionland), which is my personal favourite. The rules fit one page, and the few rules there are are the essential stuff you need making for an engaging experience. There are also lots of hacks for it, Mausritter is a good template adding a simple encumbrance system inspired by Knave and exploration procedures from OSE (B/X).


I must say, I have no interest in the retro-clones and the traditional D&D-ism. Sure, I think there are some crunchy 2E retrolclones out there, but so what? There are tons of light OSR games, so if you have no interest in the tactical combat aspect of 5E there are much better options if you want to get rid of the rules overhead.

[Sam K]

I'm a big fan of what 5E is capable of offering to D&D, but if we're being totally honest, I've never seen it actualized. Every forum, youtube video, online or otherwise game, seems to be far more concerned about what is "the best" than what makes for an interesting shared narrative. Which spells you can ignore, which feats are mandatory, which class combinations produce the best results, etc... Doesn't it get tiring?

How does one combat this without abandoning the game altogether?

Take a character I played not-too-recently (yay covid, amirite?) that I had a lot of fun building in my head, but was a pretty huge disappointment on paper: The group was playing in Wildemount around Darktow, doing a sea-faring/pirate theme with The Revelry and whatnot. My character was basically if you took Mr. Gibbs from the Pirates of the Caribbean movies and made him a tough-as-nails jobber; uneducated but smart, burly and gruff but loyal and friendly to his own, good head for numbers, etc.
Mechanically, he was a Path of the Storm Herald Barbarian (taking the "Sea" option every time - very thematic I thought). With levels, rolled stats, and some luck, he had very good Str/Dex/Con so I could comfortably forego wearing armor without tanking my Str, which felt like the right thing to do if you spend most of your time on a ship's deck, right? At any time he had on him a cutlass (shortsword), a hatchet, and 3 flintlock pistols, all ready to fire their one shot before being turned into improvised clubs as needed.
If you're used to optimizing, you can probably see the problems already. He was a high Con Barb so he was tough like I wanted him to be, but being able to take a hit doesn't mean anything if you aren't a threat, and a Barb using a 1h weapon and nothing like GWM means a Barb that hits like a feather, comparatively. Since Storm Herald is thematic, but not particularly strong, as a subclass, that held my potential back even further. I ended up with a character I really liked that just couldn't pull their weight in a party of your typical 5e characters.
The worst part is there just isn't anything to be done about it - there are just a handful of options that are so good that not taking them breaks the game.

Who else has run into this problem and how did it go for you?
Is it time I just left D&D behind for other systems that don't cater so much to min/maxing?

In my humble opinion, the reason why builds are so much more commonly discussed than thematic characters and how they should be RPed is simple: builds are objective, thematics are subjective.

Doing more damage is better than doing less damage as far as doing damage is concerned. Having more HP is better than having less HP as far as taking damage is concerned. How MUCH better can be discussed, and you can be in situations where you may not WANT optimal damage or HP (if you're playing in a lower powered game, for example). But then you're choosing to be objectively worse in a role.

What is a good character, thematic build or appropriate for a game can vary, to the point where something that's great for one game can be horribly inappropriate for another. I like playing characters that are essentially high functioning sociopats with some redeeming traits. Those characters worked great with my regular DM (a very mature, experienced guy who runs gritty, high risk games) when we ran solo games, but would have been horrible if his idealistic teenage cousin would have joined a game expecting some heroic dungeon crawling.

On the other hand, I once created a more light-hearted character for a play by post game - he was a inquisitor (role, not class) that was talkative, a slight bit hyper, very chipper and willing to take charge if noone else would. His main point of interest was the conflict between his role (he had been born into the church and was too scrawny to be much good in combat, so he was essentially drafted into "special operations"), and was just trying to make the most of a responsibility that had been thrust upon him. He had an extended family tree and complex relationships with his immediate family.The DM loved the character idea, and praised my RPing of him, but the rest of the party essentially seemed to want nothing to do with him. They were all quiet, brooding characters and most of them were heavy on the traditional duty and heroism - eventually I ended up not enjoying the character very much outside of combat, as I felt my RPing was just annoying people. They weren't bad RPers or bad people, they just wanted a different atmosphere in the game than I was contributing to. The internet could tell me in which order to take my class levels for best effect, but I doubt anyone could have told me that making an original character that filled a social role that was vacant in the party would end up making the game less fun for everyone.

And this, to me, is why it's futile to discuss what's a good character/concept/RPing is. It's too context dependent. Strangers on the internet can give useful input on which class is best used to represent a dashing pirate. But they won't know me, my group or the campaign we're playing well enough to be able to tell if it would be better to use his addiction to rum for comic relief or as a darker aspect of the toll of his lifestyle slowly leading towards his degeneration and early death. I would rather have those conversations with the actual group who will play with the character, because their input is actually relevant on the subject.

That said, I think any system with "classes" and "levels" encourages min-maxing, there are simply so many "hard" choices (choices where by definition of you pick A you can't ever get B) to not have a "build" component. If I wanted a high RP, low mechanics low power game, I'd probably use the storyteller system or something (not the supernatural parts, just the basic system with stats, skills and backgrounds).

[Sigreid]

Serious question: ARE there simpler OSR games? 5e is the simplest edition of D&D I've ever seen. Even the old, old-school editions were, despite having fewer knobs, far more complicated due to klunkier gameplay rules technology, to my recollection. 3e and 5e are refinements and streamlines on their basic engines to the point that they are simpler.

Are there OSR games that are genuinely simpler, still?

I don't know if it's even still in print, but Star Frontiers was by far the simplest RPG I've ever seen. The combined rules, GM book and Players book were about 150 pages total and the rules were very simple and loose.

[Ettina]

On the other hand, I once created a more light-hearted character for a play by post game - he was a inquisitor (role, not class) that was talkative, a slight bit hyper, very chipper and willing to take charge if noone else would. His main point of interest was the conflict between his role (he had been born into the church and was too scrawny to be much good in combat, so he was essentially drafted into "special operations"), and was just trying to make the most of a responsibility that had been thrust upon him. He had an extended family tree and complex relationships with his immediate family.The DM loved the character idea, and praised my RPing of him, but the rest of the party essentially seemed to want nothing to do with him. They were all quiet, brooding characters and most of them were heavy on the traditional duty and heroism - eventually I ended up not enjoying the character very much outside of combat, as I felt my RPing was just annoying people. They weren't bad RPers or bad people, they just wanted a different atmosphere in the game than I was contributing to. The internet could tell me in which order to take my class levels for best effect, but I doubt anyone could have told me that making an original character that filled a social role that was vacant in the party would end up making the game less fun for everyone.

Reminds me of our first attempt at running Curse of Strahd. I had a cool concept for a vistani vampire spawn on a quest for revenge against Strahd for ruining his life, and the other two PCs were a tortle and dragonborn who were random murderhobos with very silly RP. I felt like my character was heavily clashing with the tone of the party, and it frustrated me.

I later ran the exact same character in a solo run of Curse of Strahd, and it's one of the best campaigns I've ever had.

[Amnestic]

Reminds me of our first attempt at running Curse of Strahd. I had a cool concept for a vistani vampire spawn on a quest for revenge against Strahd for ruining his life, and the other two PCs were a tortle and dragonborn who were random murderhobos with very silly RP. I felt like my character was heavily clashing with the tone of the party, and it frustrated me.

I later ran the exact same character in a solo run of Curse of Strahd, and it's one of the best campaigns I've ever had.

Ideally that sort of thing should be sorted out in a session 0 with the DM where you discuss character ideas, what sort of tone/genre the game will have and the like. DMs and players should be upfront with each other so that they're all singing from the same hymn sheet when it gets to session 1 time.

[Sam K]

Ideally that sort of thing should be sorted out in a session 0 with the DM where you discuss character ideas, what sort of tone/genre the game will have and the like. DMs and players should be upfront with each other so that they're all singing from the same hymn sheet when it gets to session 1 time.

I've found the concept of session 0 is not that well known and rarely used. The most common problems I hear about on these forums could all be resolved by having a good session 0.

[IsaacsAlterEgo]

I tend to optimize my character build from the start (based on whatever roleplaying concept I'm shooting for) specifically so that I don't have to worry that much about combat scenarios and can instead spend all my time and energy worrying about roleplaying and fleshing out the character. This way I'm also less likely to have the character die to a random group of goblins and have all that roleplaying effort go down the drain.

I also just tend to believe that anyone risking their lives on a daily basis would "optimize" their combat strategy and training if they had any brains at all, so I think optimization and RP go fairly hand in hand.

[Xervous]

I tend to optimize my character build from the start (based on whatever roleplaying concept I'm shooting for) specifically so that I don't have to worry that much about combat scenarios and can instead spend all my time and energy worrying about roleplaying and fleshing out the character. This way I'm also less likely to have the character die to a random group of goblins and have all that roleplaying effort go down the drain.

I also just tend to believe that anyone risking their lives on a daily basis would "optimize" their combat strategy and training if they had any brains at all, so I think optimization and RP go fairly hand in hand.

So in short you like having a competent character that can support the RP concepts you want?

[IsaacsAlterEgo]

So in short you like having a competent character that can support the RP concepts you want?

Yep!

The fluff provides the bedrock, then I support that fluff the best way I mechanically can. Class, subclass, sometimes even races given Custom Lineages I consider just mechanical benefit packages that I grab the pieces from that I want in order to make the concept work and make it so that combat will not be an issue for me.

I prefer roleplay heavily over combat and often play in campaigns where 2-4 sessions of pure roleplaying will go by before a single fight. But so much of DnD is designed around combat that I want to be sure that when the time comes my character will not be a burden to the group, and that the combat can be dealt with efficiently and effectively while still playing up the character's flavor and combat style and providing some cool moments/tension. This is partially why I really enjoy the Tasha's changes, previously if I had an off-beat concept (Kobold Strength Paladin for example) I'd be pretty far behind the curve and not that secure about combat performance at all when it came up. Now I feel much more comfortable playing any race/class combo since I know I won't be penalized in combat for it, and it's helped me roleplay some more out-there characters that I would have held back on in fear of holding the group back or dying before the character got to live out much of their story.

[JoeJ]

Take a character I played not-too-recently (yay covid, amirite?) that I had a lot of fun building in my head, but was a pretty huge disappointment on paper: The group was playing in Wildemount around Darktow, doing a sea-faring/pirate theme with The Revelry and whatnot. My character was basically if you took Mr. Gibbs from the Pirates of the Caribbean movies and made him a tough-as-nails jobber; uneducated but smart, burly and gruff but loyal and friendly to his own, good head for numbers, etc.
Mechanically, he was a Path of the Storm Herald Barbarian (taking the "Sea" option every time - very thematic I thought). With levels, rolled stats, and some luck, he had very good Str/Dex/Con so I could comfortably forego wearing armor without tanking my Str, which felt like the right thing to do if you spend most of your time on a ship's deck, right? At any time he had on him a cutlass (shortsword), a hatchet, and 3 flintlock pistols, all ready to fire their one shot before being turned into improvised clubs as needed.
If you're used to optimizing, you can probably see the problems already. He was a high Con Barb so he was tough like I wanted him to be, but being able to take a hit doesn't mean anything if you aren't a threat, and a Barb using a 1h weapon and nothing like GWM means a Barb that hits like a feather, comparatively. Since Storm Herald is thematic, but not particularly strong, as a subclass, that held my potential back even further. I ended up with a character I really liked that just couldn't pull their weight in a party of your typical 5e characters.

What is the roleplay aspect of this? You've got a character using less effective weapons than he could use because you, the player, think it makes for a cool image. What is the character's reason for doing it? I mean, he must know that he's strong enough to wield a bigger weapon, right? Is it some sort of superstition? Is he honoring his dear departed grandmother by using a family heirloom cutlass? Is he trying to prove something, either to himself or to someone else? Figure that out and you may find that playing the character that way is more fun than doing a little more damage would be.

[Segev]

What is the roleplay aspect of this? You've got a character using less effective weapons than he could use because you, the player, think it makes for a cool image. What is the character's reason for doing it? I mean, he must know that he's strong enough to wield a bigger weapon, right? Is it some sort of superstition? Is he honoring his dear departed grandmother by using a family heirloom cutlass? Is he trying to prove something, either to himself or to someone else? Figure that out and you may find that playing the character that way is more fun than doing a little more damage would be.

Why did anybody of sufficient strength ever wield a cutlass, rather than a greatsword?

[Battlebooze]

On a personal level, I like optimizing my characters so they are effective enough to also have interesting un-optimized traits without making them a drag on the party.

In the group I play in, there is one person whom enjoys power-gaming and optimization over roleplaying. It is nice though, that they also enjoy doing experimental weird builds so it's always fun to see what madness they try and come up with. The rest of the players lean towards my style of play, building their characters to be effective while trying to make them interesting characters as well.

[Dark.Revenant]

Why did anybody of sufficient strength ever wield a cutlass, rather than a greatsword?

Because a cutlass is a more broadly useful weapon, and because few people of the time would have ever trained with greatswords. Historical nuance is lost on D&D, I'm afraid.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Why did anybody of sufficient strength ever wield a cutlass, rather than a greatsword?

Well, in real life there would be things like ease of access, whether or not the weapon is efficient for the purpose its going for or the environment you plan to use it.

DND features almost none of those restrictions, an Adventurer almost always starts wealthy enough to take their pick of the two and no matter how long their day is they won't show any signs of losing steam from swinging a greatsword as often as they would swing a cutlass. Whether a weapon is unwieldy in a certain place isn't taken into account outside of Lances either so the fact that a Greatsword could be as long as 5ft isn't accounted for when you're fighting on a ship or narrow corridor.

I understand the point you're trying to make though, but it's not exactly wrong to point out that 5E doesn't do much to incentivize those kinds of choices. The character could easily be wielding some sort of "grand cutlass" in the style of the Black Blade that Mihawk uses from One Piece.

[Sol0botmate]

I tend to optimize my character build from the start (based on whatever roleplaying concept I'm shooting for) specifically so that I don't have to worry that much about combat scenarios and can instead spend all my time and energy worrying about roleplaying and fleshing out the character. This way I'm also less likely to have the character die to a random group of goblins and have all that roleplaying effort go down the drain.

I also just tend to believe that anyone risking their lives on a daily basis would "optimize" their combat strategy and training if they had any brains at all, so I think optimization and RP go fairly hand in hand.

Same for me. I like to have my character optimized because then I know that combat will be swift and light. Now matter what role I pick - healer, support, tank, grappler, blaster, face etc. - I optimize to the maximum just so when it comes to "mechanical" side of the game - I can make it fast for me and party. Reason for this is because I don't really enjoy combat that much (I know, it's sounds strange from powerbuilder) in paper pen RPGs. It tends to drag too long, be too random in outcome and many times rely in the end on chance even when best logical tactic is implemented. So I min-max to make sure I can overcome RNG of dice as much as possible.

So I tend to make combat trivial for my party (who are casuals, not min-maxers like me) with my character because we want to roleplay more and not worry too much about us dying in random combat. I can't get into my character deep enough when in every combat she almost dies. And I try to keep other PCs from dying too. Nobody likes when their PC die to random crit.

Also I agree with your statement about optimizing combat strategy if what you do in live is being adventurer.

If I were an adventurer, meaning that I know it's not a game but a life and death matter- I would do absolutely everything to maximize my chance of success. Learning little bit of magic, making sure I know some magic healing, wearing best armor and wielding best weapon possible while having some answers to both magic and combat. I would also get some knowledge about survival and stealth and modify my equipment to work with it. That how real adventurer would think as you want to be ready for any situation.

And last but not least - I always believed that PCs are the Chosen Ones. They are The Heroes, the best of the best, people who are being born once per 1000 years to change lives of many on the world. So they should be powerful, they should be better than most by far. Because they are the heroes of the tale.

Hence why it makes much sense to me to be optimized character who really feels like a hero of epic tales and can really do things like an epic hero he is.

[JoeJ]

Why did anybody of sufficient strength ever wield a cutlass, rather than a greatsword?

Usually because they they weren't proficient in greatsword, and/or they didn't expect to ever fight anything with more than a few hit points. But whatever the reason it was their reason, not their player's.

[ezekielraiden]

I've found the concept of session 0 is not that well known and rarely used. The most common problems I hear about on these forums could all be resolved by having a good session 0.
I find it is pretty common, personally, but I completely believe that there are parts of the fandom that have either never heard of it, or don't bother, or try but don't quite pull it off.


I tend to optimize my character build from the start (based on whatever roleplaying concept I'm shooting for) specifically so that I don't have to worry that much about combat scenarios and can instead spend all my time and energy worrying about roleplaying and fleshing out the character. This way I'm also less likely to have the character die to a random group of goblins and have all that roleplaying effort go down the drain.

I also just tend to believe that anyone risking their lives on a daily basis would "optimize" their combat strategy and training if they had any brains at all, so I think optimization and RP go fairly hand in hand.
I literally cannot improve on this post. This is exactly what I do. I try to prepare in advance so I can focus on roleplay, while leaving as much room as possible for character drift in response to the narrative.


So in short you like having a competent character that can support the RP concepts you want?
That's a reasonable short summary. It leaves out the "not having to worry" part though--there's a certain anxiety that is soothed by having a reasonably well-implemented plan.


Because a cutlass is a more broadly useful weapon, and because few people of the time would have ever trained with greatswords. Historical nuance is lost on D&D, I'm afraid.
Yeah, D&D weapons (even with the profusion of polearms early on) have never really been particularly conformal to history or the actual use-cases of weapons. We generally must accept that things are intended to feel grounded, not to capture the historical trends that actually happened IRL.

[Eldariel]

I'm a big fan of what 5E is capable of offering to D&D, but if we're being totally honest, I've never seen it actualized. Every forum, youtube video, online or otherwise game, seems to be far more concerned about what is "the best" than what makes for an interesting shared narrative. Which spells you can ignore, which feats are mandatory, which class combinations produce the best results, etc... Doesn't it get tiring?

How does one combat this without abandoning the game altogether?

It sounds to me like you're talking about one (perceived) issue and presenting another. You say what bothers you is:
- Whether roleplay aspect of D&D is replaced by optimization?

Then you go on to present an issue where:
- You perceived a character with a certain concept as not contributing sufficiently due to not optimizing it.


I think this is rather a mix-up. The reason your Storm Herald wasn't mechanically that strong was not because optimization encroaches upon roleplay but rather because you didn't optimise. You picked abilities you thought cool, but not ones that actually fit your concept.

In short, your concept did not match your mechanics. The fundamental issue does not seem to lie with optimization per ce, but specifically that you built towards not your concept (a tough-as-nails sailor with martial ability and smarts to match): you didn't consider what the mechanics did but picked the ones that had the right code words so to speak, even though the name of the ability doesn't matter far as its realisation in game goes.

However, the abilities of the class you picked made you resistant to lightning, able to swim, able to shock enemies around you, and ultimately to throw waves at people. You sound like you wanted a bulwark of a warrior able to dish and take damage, you built a lightning/waterbender. So why is it surprising that it doesn't do a lot of damage in melee and doesn't have ways to force enemies to hit them? You didn't pick abilities to that end.

The whole point of optimisation is to realise character concepts. It's not about picking the best possible thing out of the game (that's pretty much always a full caster abusing minions). It's about making a certain concept work within the rules. Your character? If you optimised a bit, you could enhance the martial combat abilities of the character. Say, you could pick 3 levels in Battlemaster, get Dueling style and maneuvers + Action Surge. Suddenly you're a significant damage dealer. Then just take Barbarian the rest of the way. This detour wouldn't really hurt your concept: on the contrary, it would make your sailor very competent at swordsmanship and gunnery alike (hell, take Sharpshooter while at it to blow some heads off with Precision Attack). And you'd be free to spend the rest of the build taking whatever abilities you feel like your character should have. Of course you should probably start with Barb to get the Rage and such and then foray into Fighter and go from there.

And I realise, this is precisely what you are complaining about. But that's the game. The game is built so that certain classes and combinations do something better than others. Optimisation is the process of making a character concept work within that framework. This post is a model example of "why do optimisation": so that your character concept is realised in mechanical abilities as accurately as possible. Without optimisation, you end up with exactly this: a character designed to do one thing but unable to do that due to the fluff-wise fitting-sounding options actually not supporting that. Optimisation allows you to build the character you want and make it do what you want.


TL;DR: Optimisation enhances roleplay, not vice versa. It doesn't have to mean power above anything. Optimising a concept is about making your character able to fulfill your character concept as faithfully as possible.

I'll go further and state that optimisation is an essential part of roleplaying, unless you want to roleplay one of the prepackaged kits in the game.

Your Drizzt that can barely hold two swords let alone swing them isn't much of a Drizzt. That's why you pick abilities that make your Drizzt good at being Drizzt. Optimising concepts is about aligning mechanics with concept. And that's never anything but a good thing - as long as the party is also about equally optimised across the board (which, surprise surprise, takes system mastery and directly is linked to optimising).

Optimisation prowess lets your group have about equivalent power levels and play pretty much whatever they want (okay, the expressive power of 5e is far inferior to that of any 3e derivative, but it's still considerable - you can't play literally everything but you can make a lot of concepts work).

In other words, optimised groups can pick the power level they want to play and the concepts they want to play. Groups that don't optimise will have to give up on one or the other pretty much inevitably unless they happen to get lucky.

[Segev]

Because a cutlass is a more broadly useful weapon, and because few people of the time would have ever trained with greatswords. Historical nuance is lost on D&D, I'm afraid.


Well, in real life there would be things like ease of access, whether or not the weapon is efficient for the purpose its going for or the environment you plan to use it.

DND features almost none of those restrictions, an Adventurer almost always starts wealthy enough to take their pick of the two and no matter how long their day is they won't show any signs of losing steam from swinging a greatsword as often as they would swing a cutlass. Whether a weapon is unwieldy in a certain place isn't taken into account outside of Lances either so the fact that a Greatsword could be as long as 5ft isn't accounted for when you're fighting on a ship or narrow corridor.

I understand the point you're trying to make though, but it's not exactly wrong to point out that 5E doesn't do much to incentivize those kinds of choices. The character could easily be wielding some sort of "grand cutlass" in the style of the Black Blade that Mihawk uses from One Piece.

Exactly. And while D&D fails to model this well, it is not unreasonable to play a character who is influenced by these considerations that you assert are present in-game even if the system rules would make it trivial to ignore that. I think it a failure of design if these things are meant to be important but aren't, personally, but I will not say a character is "wrong" for having a sub-optimal weapon when he could have an optimal one just because the rules don't properly model the reasons why he has the sub-optimal one. (I will strongly encourage refluffing a more optimal weapon to look like the weapon you want it to be, if possible without changing around rules, though.)

[KorvinStarmast]

TL;DR: Optimisation enhances roleplay, not vice versa. It doesn't have to mean power above anything. Optimising a concept is about making your character able to fulfill your character concept as faithfully as possible.

I'll go further and state that optimisation is an essential part of roleplaying, unless you want to roleplay one of the prepackaged kits in the game. I like your whole post, but this really sums it up nicely. Thanks for making that post.

[Angelalex242]

The main trick to playing other systems is finding other human beings that want to play those systems. Some of my favorite systems go unused cause I don't know a single soul into such things. So I go back to doing what can actually be done.

[KorvinStarmast]

The main trick to playing other systems is finding other human beings that want to play those systems. Some of my favorite systems go unused cause I don't know a single soul into such things. So I go back to doing what can actually be done.
This is so true. Our Star Trek RPG still awaits enough people to get a game started ...

[Lord Raziere]

This is so true. Our Star Trek RPG still awaits enough people to get a game started ...

other rpgs have the opposite problem in that while there are many people willing to make and play a character, they always seem to lack a GM willing to run the game.

[da newt]

As to your subject question: It's all about who you play with (DM and other Players). Every table is different. Some RP, some Optimize and practice best tactics at all times, some coke and joke, and some do a bit of all 3. Some use the Rule of Cool, others are strictly RAW, etc.

Finding the right group of folks makes all the difference. Like a favorite pair of shoes, once you find the right fit it all works.

As for advice, when you build a PC I'd recommend you ensure they are capable of contributing effectively in combat (but there is no need to Optimize to the Nth degree), and then go nuts with RP flavor. The only reason to be disappointed with your PC is if it doesn't meet your expectations - and only you can control your expectations.

Which game you play (D&D or some other) doesn't force your game experience to be one way or the other, it's just a framework to use to make the game experience your table wants.

[Witty Username]

Why did anybody of sufficient strength ever wield a cutlass, rather than a greatsword?

When they only had one hand?

[anthon]

while i want to heavily agree and pontificate on why the OP is correct,

i can also see where even strict Tables following adventure league might have heavy roleplay in some of them.

i think it depends on the bendy ness and handwavium of the DM,

and how into their characters the players are, vs. how well they fit the setting, even if the setting is drafted for them like pregen adventures.


it's true when you have more fiat control over character, personal art, custom gear or spells, etc., you feel more at home, but its also true that some DMs are natural leaders, and some groups are like the left overs from drama club and the chemistry is there.


Now, what about the mechanics themselves?

No, the OP is totally right. because we live in a RAW world, the RAI of 5e is crushed under the weight of very rude dudes. Like srsly, total party kill + chuckles types. I've seen them. "it's not in the books so you can't do it." is another popular theme, and that's murder for a game with such a slow release rate as 5e. You can count the essential character books on 1 hand and have fingers left over.

unfortunately, the talented people who are forcing the ship aright are also blinding the authors to the mistakes native to the core. You all have your own versions of what those things are. Maybe a rule from 3.5, maybe a class from 3.0. Maybe some combat modifier you grew to love or some metamagic or epic druid set of options that really made the game for you.

For me, Writing my own Spells should have been Core,

and something's funny about the obsession online with optimization. People are optimizing because there's too much dice in pass/fail, and not enough character.

A 20th level fighter from old edition could hit Tiamat all day long and twice on sundays. They could score crits on a tarrasque and be home in time to lay down the law with a 90+% chance to hit a Great Wyrm.

Today, bonuses to hit, save DCs etc., are kinda hilarious. A 19th level fighter might have -1 to their will save. Who cares if you can roll 3 times? What if the DC is 19? High level remember?

I think in the old days we had power gaming to describe people who had characters better than ours. Then we nerfed them. Then we nerfed our characters. Then we nerfed everyone again. Now we are all playing nerf, and the vibe of "power gaming" is really just someone who is tired of playing to lose. Back in the day, people played to win and we complained. They got the message, but when we started playing to lose, they had enough. They changed their flag to "optimization".

sure, it's the same thing we called munchkins and power gaming or whatever 20-30 years ago, it's building a character that can actually win in a fight against the bad guys, but i can't blame them when my high level fighter repeatedly fails every saving throw and there's absolutely not a damned thing i can do about it because "that's how 5e works".

i can't say i love the departure from stacked buffs either. Concentration gives me a headache.

But incase you think im misdirecting this,

remember - there are functional good groups who still roleplay. I've been in them. But I think that's an attribute of the people, not the system.

[Sol0botmate]

while i want to heavily agree and pontificate on why the OP is correct,

i can also see where even strict Tables following adventure league might have heavy roleplay in some of them.

i think it depends on the bendy ness and handwavium of the DM,

and how into their characters the players are, vs. how well they fit the setting, even if the setting is drafted for them like pregen adventures.


it's true when you have more fiat control over character, personal art, custom gear or spells, etc., you feel more at home, but its also true that some DMs are natural leaders, and some groups are like the left overs from drama club and the chemistry is there.


Now, what about the mechanics themselves?

No, the OP is totally right. because we live in a RAW world, the RAI of 5e is crushed under the weight of very rude dudes. Like srsly, total party kill + chuckles types. I've seen them. "it's not in the books so you can't do it." is another popular theme, and that's murder for a game with such a slow release rate as 5e. You can count the essential character books on 1 hand and have fingers left over.

unfortunately, the talented people who are forcing the ship aright are also blinding the authors to the mistakes native to the core. You all have your own versions of what those things are. Maybe a rule from 3.5, maybe a class from 3.0. Maybe some combat modifier you grew to love or some metamagic or epic druid set of options that really made the game for you.

For me, Writing my own Spells should have been Core,

and something's funny about the obsession online with optimization. People are optimizing because there's too much dice in pass/fail, and not enough character.

A 20th level fighter from old edition could hit Tiamat all day long and twice on sundays. They could score crits on a tarrasque and be home in time to lay down the law with a 90+% chance to hit a Great Wyrm.

Today, bonuses to hit, save DCs etc., are kinda hilarious. A 19th level fighter might have -1 to their will save. Who cares if you can roll 3 times? What if the DC is 19? High level remember?

I think in the old days we had power gaming to describe people who had characters better than ours. Then we nerfed them. Then we nerfed our characters. Then we nerfed everyone again. Now we are all playing nerf, and the vibe of "power gaming" is really just someone who is tired of playing to lose. Back in the day, people played to win and we complained. They got the message, but when we started playing to lose, they had enough. They changed their flag to "optimization".

sure, it's the same thing we called munchkins and power gaming or whatever 20-30 years ago, it's building a character that can actually win in a fight against the bad guys, but i can't blame them when my high level fighter repeatedly fails every saving throw and there's absolutely not a damned thing i can do about it because "that's how 5e works".

i can't say i love the departure from stacked buffs either. Concentration gives me a headache.

But incase you think im misdirecting this,

remember - there are functional good groups who still roleplay. I've been in them. But I think that's an attribute of the people, not the system.

A lot of very good points here I have to say. Especially that Fighter example. Now when I think about it it's really riddiculous how saves work on higher monster levels. Like for example you see saves of 26 DC, 22 DC, 23DC etc.

But on the other hand - without those saves high levels would mean nothing for party. Nothing.

20 level Party already has 8-9 attacks per round Fighter Rune Knight who can wrestle and perma-prone Tarrasque. They already have Heroes' Feast for long time to ignore and becomes immune to poison and being frightened, and makes all Wisdom saving throws with advantage for 24h. They can swing DM dices more than DM can swing their dices (Portence, Storm Rune, Lucky etc.). They can deny DMs critical hits. They can deny DMs spells (Counterspell, Dispel Magic). They can revive fallen friend without problem, they can Wish for gold, power. They have magic items. They can banish, they can can deny teleports, insta kill, remove summoned allies of enemy in one turn. They have passive +17/20+ to some skill checks, making skill checks obsolete. Natural barriers are not issue for them with Teleportation, fly, summoning, polymorph etc. Hell, level 20 Fighter with just a mere Flame Tongue can deal 132 dmg to single target in turn. And that's not Hasted + Holy Weapon bufffed Fighter. That is 1/3 of Ancient Black Dragon health pool. Fear doesn't concern Fighter who has Heroe's Feast every day and 67 dmg from Acid Breath is so pathethic for party Cleric with Heal spell that he will wonder if he should even cast anything at this point.

Couple of Liches is gangsta until they are grappled inside Silence spell or Counterspelled by party Abjurer while he is having a tea.

5e scales things differently. It's true that PCs became weaker compare to previous editions but so did monsters. Some saves DC at higher levels seems over the bar, but high level party has so many tools to deal with everything that there is a reason why you almost never see DMs playing with party on 15+ level. It's becasue you have less control over what is going on than players. Level 17 Wizard is basically a second DM at table who can say "ok, sounds cool, but I cast X and this matter is over". Death has no issue for party who have high level cleric or Wizard who can True Polymorph 5 HP Fighter into Ancient Brass Dragon suddenly.

All above are like 5-8 examples of tens of tens of example what high level party can do.

[clearstream]

I'm a big fan of what 5E is capable of offering to D&D, but if we're being totally honest, I've never seen it actualized. Every forum, youtube video, online or otherwise game, seems to be far more concerned about what is "the best" than what makes for an interesting shared narrative. Which spells you can ignore, which feats are mandatory, which class combinations produce the best results, etc... Doesn't it get tiring?

How does one combat this without abandoning the game altogether?

Take a character I played not-too-recently (yay covid, amirite?) that I had a lot of fun building in my head, but was a pretty huge disappointment on paper: The group was playing in Wildemount around Darktow, doing a sea-faring/pirate theme with The Revelry and whatnot. My character was basically if you took Mr. Gibbs from the Pirates of the Caribbean movies and made him a tough-as-nails jobber; uneducated but smart, burly and gruff but loyal and friendly to his own, good head for numbers, etc.
Mechanically, he was a Path of the Storm Herald Barbarian (taking the "Sea" option every time - very thematic I thought). With levels, rolled stats, and some luck, he had very good Str/Dex/Con so I could comfortably forego wearing armor without tanking my Str, which felt like the right thing to do if you spend most of your time on a ship's deck, right? At any time he had on him a cutlass (shortsword), a hatchet, and 3 flintlock pistols, all ready to fire their one shot before being turned into improvised clubs as needed.
If you're used to optimizing, you can probably see the problems already. He was a high Con Barb so he was tough like I wanted him to be, but being able to take a hit doesn't mean anything if you aren't a threat, and a Barb using a 1h weapon and nothing like GWM means a Barb that hits like a feather, comparatively. Since Storm Herald is thematic, but not particularly strong, as a subclass, that held my potential back even further. I ended up with a character I really liked that just couldn't pull their weight in a party of your typical 5e characters.
The worst part is there just isn't anything to be done about it - there are just a handful of options that are so good that not taking them breaks the game.

Who else has run into this problem and how did it go for you?
Is it time I just left D&D behind for other systems that don't cater so much to min/maxing?
Players who enjoy theorycrafting share optimisation ideas because that is fun for them. You might join in and your group could play that way - or you might decide not to. Either way is fine, because when it comes to how a specific group approaches 5e PVE (or PVDM if you like) it does not matter. Difficulty or power in a game is a relative concept and the default for 5e is "easy" - which I believe is correct, because it makes the game accessible. Your - hits like a feather - barbarian will be perfectly fine in a campaign shaped for unoptimised characters. Another way to think about this is that you might just be opting-in to a harder difficulty setting. The less optimised character needs to be played more creatively than the optimised one, and power can be diluted by less creative or less savvy play.

The real issues come when unoptimised characters are being overshadowed by optimised characters, and encounters are being warped around the latter. And that is a choice made at the table: your group does not have to play that way. Mine doesn't. We choose an approach that effectively de-optimises all characters. For example, we use the DMG suggestions for rest durations. At generation, scores are assigned in order rolled. As a result we have an asymmetrical party that fails to cover all the basis and is wonkily optimised. That makes the MM creatures much tougher to deal for their CR.

Your hits-like-a-feather barbarian is opting-in to playing D&D on a harder difficulty setting. There is nothing wrong with that. And the only reason that difficulty setting would even need to feel harder would be if a DM had to also accommodate other players who are enjoying optimising. Even then, unless you absolutely must to be the central figure who handles everything, you can RP just as well as otherwise.

To summarise. Difficulty is relative. A weaker character just means playing on a harder difficulty, baseline. If all characters are weaker, then harder or easier difficulty is a choice made by the group. If some are weak and some are strong, you might have a problem... with that group. Or you might RP around not being the central figure.

[clearstream]

The whole point of optimisation is to realise character concepts. It's not about picking the best possible thing out of the game (that's pretty much always a full caster abusing minions). It's about making a certain concept work within the rules. Your character? If you optimised a bit, you could enhance the martial combat abilities of the character. Say, you could pick 3 levels in Battlemaster, get Dueling style and maneuvers + Action Surge. Suddenly you're a significant damage dealer. Then just take Barbarian the rest of the way. This detour wouldn't really hurt your concept: on the contrary, it would make your sailor very competent at swordsmanship and gunnery alike (hell, take Sharpshooter while at it to blow some heads off with Precision Attack). And you'd be free to spend the rest of the build taking whatever abilities you feel like your character should have. Of course you should probably start with Barb to get the Rage and such and then foray into Fighter and go from there.

And I realise, this is precisely what you are complaining about. But that's the game. The game is built so that certain classes and combinations do something better than others. Optimisation is the process of making a character concept work within that framework. This post is a model example of "why do optimisation": so that your character concept is realised in mechanical abilities as accurately as possible. Without optimisation, you end up with exactly this: a character designed to do one thing but unable to do that due to the fluff-wise fitting-sounding options actually not supporting that. Optimisation allows you to build the character you want and make it do what you want.
I have sympathies with what you say here, but I equally believe that as most commonly used, optimising means making a character mechanically powerful. Maximising its mechanical leverage in encounters.

There are groups who use the term in a specialised sense - for instance, being best at being clumsy - but that is not how the term is most widely used in my experience. "Optimisation" is often the name given to sub-forums where players chiefly discuss how to make a character build powerful. And their choices visibly often set aside any concern for RP.

That doesn't make it wrong to argue against a dichotomy as you do, but I do feel it is sophistry to suggest that in game forums to-optimise normally means other than to make mechanically powerful.

[Eldariel]

I have sympathies with what you say here, but I equally believe that as most commonly used, optimising means making a character mechanically powerful. Maximising its mechanical leverage in encounters.

There are groups who use the term in a specialised sense - for instance, being best at being clumsy - but that is not how the term is most widely used in my experience. "Optimisation" is often the name given to sub-forums where players chiefly discuss how to make a character build powerful. And their choices visibly often set aside any concern for RP.

That doesn't make it wrong to argue against a dichotomy as you do, but I do feel it is sophistry to suggest that in game forums to-optimise normally means other than to make mechanically powerful.

I don't argue that optimisation doesn't mean making something powerful. I argue that optimisation doesn't need to mean that you make character powerful to the exclusion of all else. Having a character concept and optimising aren't mutually exclusive. If you wanna play Conan, or jobber Gibbs as the OP, it is prudent to optimise to the point that your character can do what you want. Ergo that they have the abilities from their literary forebear as functional tools within the framework of the game. There are certain levels of contribution characters of certain level tend towards. If you build a character that falls short of that, you might not have fun, as the OP shows us. Plus, you there's huge dissonance in roleplaying a badass warrior if, the character is actually comparatively bad at fighting.

When you create a character, you first have a character concept. And on the other side, you have the rules of the game. Optimising a concept is the process of using the rules of the game to create mechanics that match your character concept on a level appropriate manner. If you're playing a non-caster, you don't really need to worry about having too much power; there's a rather low natural ceiling that you can't really meaningfully surpass unless you're a spellcaster. The various options land reasonably close to one another if you make the good choices with regards to your build goal. If every player goes through this process, they'll have a set of characters of approximately equal power, each embodying the player's character concept to the extent the system is able to.


The only thing you really need to watch out for is straight-classed spellcasters: with those there's the risk of breaking the game if your concept is a horde master of some kind (Necromancer, Pack Master Druid, etc.), because the core balance is quite broken there.

[Sol0botmate]

I have sympathies with what you say here, but I equally believe that as most commonly used, optimising means making a character mechanically powerful. Maximising its mechanical leverage in encounters.

There are groups who use the term in a specialised sense - for instance, being best at being clumsy - but that is not how the term is most widely used in my experience. "Optimisation" is often the name given to sub-forums where players chiefly discuss how to make a character build powerful. And their choices visibly often set aside any concern for RP.

That doesn't make it wrong to argue against a dichotomy as you do, but I do feel it is sophistry to suggest that in game forums to-optimise normally means other than to make mechanically powerful.

I think you mistake powerbuilding with optimization.

Optimizing is just making your character best at what he is supposed to be best. For example if you you want to make a grappler, becasue your concept is "super strong fighter who can wrestle dragons" then you look at races, you look at classes you see that X race + X class + X subclass makes best grappler. Then you look at ASI and you see that you need X,Y and Z feat to do it and RES (WIS) to not drop grapple when you are target of some save or suck spell.

This is just optimization, which follows a concept of character. Making him best at what he was supposed to be best. "I want to be best at X thing with my character". He is still not good at other stuff that other party members covers, like spells, face, skill monkey, healing etc.

Now if someone makes character that wants to have everything, great melee, great spells, super defense, super offense and is making 1 Hexblade/6 Vengeance Paladin/13 Divine Soul Sorcerer, taking Yuan-Ti Pureblood, Blind Fighting Style and making SAD CHA, +5 all saves, advantage vs all spells, Lucky, Heroe's Feast, Quicken Heal etc. Then this is pure power-building that has little to do with any concept. This is pure "I want to win the game, I don't want to meet any challange".

Optimization is just continuation of a concept.

[clearstream]

I think you mistake powerbuilding with optimization.
What I normally see discussed under the label optimisation is what I described - "optimising means making a character mechanically powerful." That doesn't necessarily exclude RP - or vice versa - and it is not all-or-nothing.

The OP raises a concern with 5e player culture. Are 5e players - for whatever reason - oppressively concerned with optimising? That can't be answered by quibbling definitions of optimisation, suggesting ways to balance optimisation with RP, or urging narrative-led choices be changed for mechanically stronger choices. (The latter is especially problematic, as it implies that some RP choices really do exclude optimisation, which can be true even while those choices are not necessarily dichotomous.)

This has come up many times before. An element of the complaint is that players making RP-driven choices without concern for optimisation sometimes find themselves overshadowed or out of their depth in encounters warped around far more mechanically powerful characters. Of course, one might point out that if you claim not to care about the competitive aspects of play, why on Earth would you care about being overshadowed!? Simply let those monsters destroy the encounter while you hum a lively shanty. But I don't think it is that easy to set aside a desire to be doing something mechanically relevant in the party's encounters. One could equally suggest that my raining on the philatelist's parade might be a sign that I should stop reading stamp-lover's forums. Not that they should give up loving stamps. Again, it's a matter of culture: are stamps all they are ever going to talk about!?

So we can explain optimisation, and explain why it is okay and non-exclusive, and you might say "Oh, that's just powerbuilding. No true optimiser does that." The question is how any of that addresses the OP's concern - which is foremost about 5e player culture.

[KorvinStarmast]

The question is how any of that addresses the OP's concern - which is foremost about 5e player culture. Which (1) is not monoculture and (2) isn't an actual thing. It is an abstraction. The culture of each table is what matters.

As to optimization: my goal is to make sure that my character does his or her best to contribute to the party and make my party allies better. I am about party success. That's what I have found to be the most satisfying way to play D&D since the 1970's. I have found "my player is more powerful than yours" attitudes to detract from the experience. If that is what the OP keeps running into, this is another case of "it's the archer, not the arrow."

The play's the thing.

[Sol0botmate]

What I normally see discussed under the label optimisation is what I described - "optimising means making a character mechanically powerful." That doesn't necessarily exclude RP - or vice versa - and it is not all-or-nothing.

The OP raises a concern with 5e player culture. Are 5e players - for whatever reason - oppressively concerned with optimising? That can't be answered by quibbling definitions of optimisation, suggesting ways to balance optimisation with RP, or urging narrative-led choices be changed for mechanically stronger choices. (The latter is especially problematic, as it implies that some RP choices really do exclude optimisation, which can be true even while those choices are not necessarily dichotomous.)

This has come up many times before. An element of the complaint is that players making RP-driven choices without concern for optimisation sometimes find themselves overshadowed or out of their depth in encounters warped around far more mechanically powerful characters. Of course, one might point out that if you claim not to care about the competitive aspects of play, why on Earth would you care about being overshadowed!? Simply let those monsters destroy the encounter while you hum a lively shanty. But I don't think it is that easy to set aside a desire to be doing something mechanically relevant in the party's encounters. One could equally suggest that my raining on the philatelist's parade might be a sign that I should stop reading stamp-lover's forums. Not that they should give up loving stamps. Again, it's a matter of culture: are stamps all they are ever going to talk about!?

So we can explain optimisation, and explain why it is okay and non-exclusive, and you might say "Oh, that's just powerbuilding. No true optimiser does that." The question is how any of that addresses the OP's concern - which is foremost about 5e player culture.

I think many people forget that RPG consist of two things:

1. "Role Playing"
2. "Game"

Now I want to focus on second part. Game. What "game" is anyone can check on Wikipedia. However, that aspect of RPG is where people have rules, and within that rules they try to get the best result. Ultimately "games" are about getting best result. This doesn't have to be "win", however any game with rules is a dychotomic system in which "X makes you lose" (rolling d20 too low, having to little AC/damage/attack, having little Charisma when you want to lead dialogues etc.) and "Y makes you win" (rolling high, having enough high modifiers stacked up, having spells to deal with certain situations, surviving encounter, saving team-mates, outsmarting DM in combat). That's the game. It can be treated as "lower" form thatn Role Playing aspect - but it can't be ignored. It's still a game.

So with that in mind lets take a look at 3 players who play in same party. Player A took Barbarian, player B took Fighter, player C took Hexblade. All had simple role play concent for their character: I want my character to be a great warrior, famous of his combat skills, very effective when it comes to striking down enemies. He is master of combat and weapon master. You may say it's a boring concept but majority of casual players at tables follow simple but epic concents of their fantasy characters. There is nothing wrong with that. Now, here is what happened:

1. Player A read all the rules once. Just so he knows how game works. He chose Half-Orc Zealot Barbarian as his character, wielding greataxe because it fits his simple concept. Half-Orc is very natural, basic optimization choice for Barbarians. For his firt feat he took "Orcish Fury" because it shows raging aspect of his character + giving him 18 STR and he understand system enough to know that it's important to get that STR high as soon as possible. That character could be more optimized but he did a good job making his barbarian hit hard and if he scores a crit - he will deal insanse damage. At the same time he is satisifed how this character concept matches his character "game'y" aspect.
2. Player B didn't read rules at all. He did fast DnD beyond chracter creation. He is all about roleplaying "old drunken mercenary with past and debt" and he just did classic shield + Sword Fighter because he likes it and thinks "Fighter is Fighter, he is good at combat". On ASI he just took Slasher because he thought it sounds cool. His race is Minotaur. He took champion as he saw there 18-20 criticals but he doesn't understand how to calculate better chances of getting those crits.
3. Player C didn't just read rules. He studied them and thought hard of how to make his Hexblade best possible. He seeked advice on internet, he checked YT, he visited forums. After week of careful planning he decides to go with Half-Elf GWM + Elven Accuracy combo with Devil's Sight Darkness synergy and 18 CHA on level 9. He started as Fighter for CON proficiency and on level 13 he will go with PAM.

Now obviously all 3 wanted to be "master of combat and great warriors". Soon it will be clear that Hexblade player overshadows all 3 of them with his synergy, superior accuracy, damage and clever combo of invocation + spells, having magic weapon +1 much faster than them. Player A did good job at least checking rules seriously and made respectable damage dealer. Player B didn't commit any time at all and in the end his character is worst "warrior" and he feels like his not doing any damage, despite being "Champion Fighter". He will try to maybe take GWM but he doesn't understand that without advantage it won't hit anything.

Now someone may say that player C "min-maxed" and "optimized" and "it replaced roleplay aspect". But what I see is player who put way more work, time and resources into the game aspect of RPG and reward for it was character way better at what he was supposed to be than other 2 players. How is that bad? Effort and extra work should have extra reward and that's how it is here.

That's how I see it. It won't matter for "Role Playing" part as this is a matter of player. However if you did 16 CHA Fighter and expected to be great party "face" and you are dissapointed that 20 CHA Presuasion Expertise Galmour Bard is doing better job than you - then maybe you should have read a little more about how game works.

[Waazraath]

I think many people forget that RPG consist of two things:

1. "Role Playing"
2. "Game"

Now I want to focus on second part. Game. What "game" is anyone can check on Wikipedia. However, that aspect of RPG is where people have rules, and within that rules they try to get the best result. Ultimately "games" are about getting best result. This doesn't have to be "win", however any game with rules is a dychotomic system in which "X makes you lose" (rolling d20 too low, having to little AC/damage/attack, having little Charisma when you want to lead dialogues etc.) and "Y makes you win" (rolling high, having enough high modifiers stacked up, having spells to deal with certain situations, surviving encounter, saving team-mates, outsmarting DM in combat). That's the game. It can be treated as "lower" form thatn Role Playing aspect - but it can't be ignored. It's still a game.

So with that in mind lets take a look at 3 players who play in same party. Player A took Barbarian, player B took Fighter, player C took Hexblade. All had simple role play concent for their character: I want my character to be a great warrior, famous of his combat skills, very effective when it comes to striking down enemies. He is master of combat and weapon master. You may say it's a boring concept but majority of casual players at tables follow simple but epic concents of their fantasy characters. There is nothing wrong with that. Now, here is what happened:

1. Player A read all the rules once. Just so he knows how game works. He chose Half-Orc Zealot Barbarian as his character, wielding greataxe because it fits his simple concept. Half-Orc is very natural, basic optimization choice for Barbarians. For his firt feat he took "Orcish Fury" because it shows raging aspect of his character. That character could be more optimized but he did a good job making his barbarian hit hard and if he scores a crit - he will deal insanse damage.
2. Player B didn't read rules at all. He is all about roleplaying "old drunken mercenary with past and debt" and he just did classic shield + Sword Fighter because he likes it. On ASI he just took +2 STR because he thought it sounds cool. He took champion as he saw there 18-20 criticals but he doesn't understand how to calculate better chances of getting those crits.
3. Player C didn't just read rules. He studied them and thought hard of how to make his Hexblade best possible. He seeked advice on internet, he checked YT, he visited forums. After week of careful planning he decides to go with Half-Elf GWM + Elven Accuracy combo with Devil's Sight Darkness synergy and 18 CHA on level 9. He started as Fighter for CON proficiency and on level 12 he will go with PAM.

Now obviously all 3 wanted to be "master of combat and great warriors". Soon it will be clear that Hexblade player overshadows all 3 of them with his synergy, superior accuracy, damage and clever combo of invocation + spells, having magic weapon +1 much faster than them. Player A did good job at least checking rules seriously and made respectable damage dealer. Player B didn't commit any time at all and in the end his character is worst "warrior" and he feels like his not doing any damage, despite being "Champion Fighter". He will try to maybe take GWM but he doesn't understand that without advantage it won't hit anything.

Now someone may say that player C "min-maxed" and "optimized" and "it replaced roleplay aspect". But what I see is player who put way more work, time and resources into the game aspect of RPG and reward for it was character way better at what he was supposed to be than other 2 players. How is that bad? Effort and extra work should have extra reward and that's how it is here.

That's how I see it. It won't matter for "Role Playing" part as this is a matter of player. However if you did 16 CHA Fighter and expected to be great party "face" and you are dissapointed that 20 CHA Presuasion Expertise Galmour Bard is doing better job then you - then maybe you should have read a little more about how game works.

Thanks for explaining, but I really can't agree.

In the first place, it is a game, but is also a coöperatieve game. I'm not sure how explicitely it is framed in this edition, but in earlier editions explicit part of the core rules (PHB/DMB) was the characters should be balanced, against each other. Yes, I'm aware that some of same editions made an utter mess and failed abyssmaly. Nevertheless, for me it is obvious that a certain amount of balance between characters is needed for the game to function, and since it is a cooperative game, not having this inner-party balance detracts from the fun for everybody and having this balance adds to the fun for everybody. The goal of the game is to have fun as a group, not to determine which of the players gets the highest numbers. It aint a contest, explicitly not!

In the second place, but this is a more ethical / moral point of view (on which we of course can differ), I do not think it is desirable per se that a player that puts in more time in reading the rules is better should be 'rewarded' by 'having a better character', and the player that puts in less effort should be 'punished' by not being able to contribute. That would also mean 'punishment' for people who are bad a maths, or who have a below average intelligence, or who just have less time available to spend on 'getting good in D&D' because life. Yes, a lot of games do work this way (rewarding time investment), as do sport competions, and (other) real life stuff that I won't go into cause forum rules; but especially for a cooperative fantasy game, this is bad idea imo, 'having to invest to become good in it' detracts from the escapism from the real world the game offers (at least that's why some of us play), or from the 'relaxing with a game' idea, and competition detracts from the cooperative.

[Sol0botmate]

In the second place, but this is a more ethical / moral point of view (on which we of course can differ), I do not think it is desirable per se that a player that puts in more time in reading the rules is better should be 'rewarded' by 'having a better character', and the player that puts in less effort should be 'punished' by not being able to contribute.

I respect your opinion but that's how everything in life works. More effort - more results. Less effort- less results. I think it's less ethical to bring people who put more effort into something down to level of people who don't put same effort. It's as unfair as it can get. People who work harder should feel they work pay off. Even if it's a game. This is not PvP, but at the same time player who picked Hexblade did everything legal, in line with rules with more time and effort behind it. Bringing him down to level of lazy player who didn't even bother to read PHB is just unfair. Game have rules and it's player responsibility to know them. And if he knows how to use them - good for him, he knows how to play game.

Also, being cooperative doesn't mean "having same power level". Players can still work with each other to achieve goal. Doesn't mean they have to be equal. When I was doing renovation at my house my wife did help me with smaller stuff becasue she is not as strong and as good at doing renovation stuff as me. I took extra classes with friend to learn how to do some renovation stuff. We were not equal when it comes to how effective we were but it didn't stop us from cooperation to achieve common goal.

Individual power has nothing to do with cooperation. People at not equal in any team ever when it comes to project/common goal etc. Cooperation is to work together, not to measure each other. There is a lead actor in movie and secondary actors. Movie making was still fun for everyone. Project at work has leader, lead designer etc. Some are better, more experienced. But they all can have good time working together.

[Waazraath]

I respect your opinion but that's how everything in life works. More effort - more results. Less effort- less results. I think it's less ethical to bring people who put more effort into something down to level of people who don't put same effort. It's as unfair as it can get. People who work harder should feel they work pay off. Even if it's a game. This is not PvP, but at the same time player who picked Hexblade did everything legal, in line with rules with more time and effort behind it. Bringing him down to level of lazy player who didn't even bother to read PHB is just unfair. Game have rules and it's player responsibility to know them.

Yeah, I expected we wouldn't find each other on this side of the argument. But no worries, agree to disagree. On the other hand: how do you view this in the light of my first argument: that it's a cooperative game, and too big differences within a party detrect from the fun for all involved?

[Sol0botmate]

Yeah, I expected we wouldn't find each other on this side of the argument. But no worries, agree to disagree. On the other hand: how do you view this in the light of my first argument: that it's a cooperative game, and too big differences within a party detrect from the fun for all involved?

Being cooperative doesn't mean "having same power level". Players can still work with each other to achieve goal. Doesn't mean they have to be equal. When I was doing renovation at my house my wife did help me with smaller stuff becasue she is not as strong and as good at doing renovation stuff as me. I took extra classes with friend to learn how to do some renovation stuff. We were not equal when it comes to how effective we were but it didn't stop us from cooperation to achieve common goal.

Individual power has nothing to do with cooperation. It's a matter of group effort, not indivudual power. People are not equal in any team ever when it comes to project/common goal etc. Cooperation is to work together, not to measure each other. There is a lead actor in movie and secondary actors. Movie making was still fun for everyone. Project at work has leader, lead designer etc. Some are better, more experienced. But they all can have good time working together. At the same time it's always good to have more experienced people in project paired with less experienced one. They can lead, correct mistakes and new ones learn from them. They still work together to achieve a goal.

[Xervous]

If I wanted a fully cooperative RP structure that didn’t demand nor allow for rules knowledge to set one player ahead of the other I don’t see much beyond free form RP that offers such assurances.

Well maybe high school lunch table coin flip “D&D”...

If choices aren’t supposed to matter, I don’t see a point in a having a system nor structure. There will be a minimum level of input below which players fall off the curve, it’s a question of what tradeoffs you’re willing to accept in the system in order to accommodate your target population.

[StoneSeraph]

In the second place, but this is a more ethical / moral point of view (on which we of course can differ), I do not think it is desirable per se that a player that puts in more time in reading the rules is better should be 'rewarded' by 'having a better character', and the player that puts in less effort should be 'punished' by not being able to contribute. That would also mean 'punishment' for people who are bad a maths, or who have a below average intelligence, or who just have less time available to spend on 'getting good in D&D' because life. Yes, a lot of games do work this way (rewarding time investment), as do sport competions, and (other) real life stuff that I won't go into cause forum rules; but especially for a cooperative fantasy game, this is bad idea imo, 'having to invest to become good in it' detracts from the escapism from the real world the game offers (at least that's why some of us play), or from the 'relaxing with a game' idea, and competition detracts from the cooperative.

On the other side of the coin, it's easier to relax with the game when everyone is on the same page, which, to an extent, involves skill and investment. I understand that anyone can play this game however they like, but a table where half of the players are "in it to win it" and the other half are "here for the beer" will not cooperate well and will rapidly fall apart. From my perspective and experience, this is more strongly exacerbated if the disparity arises from a singular player, either because the player is a diehard in a group of goofballs or a goofball in a group of diehards. At its most empathetic, the singular player will feel awkward and out-of-place while the group will feel like they're not helping the other player have fun; at its most cutthroat, the singular player will feel like their playstyle is paramount and start ball-hogging while the group will play keep-away against the odd man out. No cooperation, no fun.

That's not to say that experienced people don't/won't help new players learn the game - genuine cooperation happens more frequently than the above scenarios, and many once-new players develop into kickass long-standing members of the table. From the DM side, I encourage that first and foremost, and I love it when a new player gets excited about the game, particularly when the rest of the party brings that person to that point. That said, if a new player demonstrates that they're not willing to put in a similar amount of investment as the rest of the table, or if an experienced player isn't willing to match the vibe and expectations of the table, and if that player doesn't do so after polite encouragement in a personal aside, it's then easier for me to have the "Please don't show up next week" conversation than it is for me to have that player keep coming back to the detriment of the group and the game as a whole. Enjoyment of the game is not contingent on one person's presence; if a player will have more fun elsewhere, and the group will have more fun without that player, then that player and the group should part ways, no hard feelings.

[MoiMagnus]

In short, your concept did not match your mechanics. The fundamental issue does not seem to lie with optimization per ce, but specifically that you built towards not your concept (a tough-as-nails sailor with martial ability and smarts to match): you didn't consider what the mechanics did but picked the ones that had the right code words so to speak, even though the name of the ability doesn't matter far as its realisation in game goes.

[...]

TL;DR: Optimisation enhances roleplay, not vice versa. It doesn't have to mean power above anything. Optimising a concept is about making your character able to fulfill your character concept as faithfully as possible.

I'll go further and state that optimisation is an essential part of roleplaying, unless you want to roleplay one of the prepackaged kits in the game.

Alternatively, instead of optimising the character, you could tweak the game so that the mechanics you chose because of their "code words" align with the concept you want. That's what happen in houserule-heavy tables, or in RPGs where the GM has a lot of power to interpret abilities and powers to match more precisely the intend of the player rather than the exact wording of the rules.

"Anti-optimisation" players tend to be more adept of soft rules (and on-the-fly rulings over rules), instead of the hard rules the "pro-optimisation" players need to make well-informed choices.

[Sol0botmate]

Alternatively, instead of optimising the character, you could tweak the game so that the mechanics you chose because of their "code words" align with the concept you want. That's what happen in houserule-heavy tables, or in RPGs where the GM has a lot of power to interpret abilities and powers to match more precisely the intend of the player rather than the exact wording of the rules.

"Anti-optimisation" players tend to be more adept of soft rules (and on-the-fly rulings over rules), instead of the hard rules the "pro-optimisation" players need to make well-informed choices.

I don't want to sound rude but there are many systems that do that, the choice is quite vast in RPG world really. Tweaking character is one of the best aspects of RPGs for me. Roleplaying is one and customizing my character is second. I like to be in charge of it, not DM. After all- it's my character.

[KorvinStarmast]

Being cooperative doesn't mean "having same power level". Players can still work with each other to achieve goal. Then why does power level even matter? Ego stroking? (On the practical side, 'power level' will inform me as a DM on how I tune encounters).

If choices aren’t supposed to matter, I don’t see a point in a having a system nor structure. There will be a minimum level of input below which players fall off the curve, it’s a question of what tradeoffs you’re willing to accept in the system in order to accommodate your target population. Who is the target population? That's an interesting question when producing a game when you are trying to make money out of it.

Soon it will be clear that Hexblade player overshadows all 3 of them with his synergy Level 13 isn't "soon" by any stretch of the imagination. You also failed to explain how the ASI on the barbarian were alloted. Nor, for that matter, did you take the Fighter build to 13.
That critique aside, I like your illustration for a few different reasons.
One reason is that there are multiple approaches to the game.
Another is that the AL Respec tool (up to level 5) is a good way to offer players a way to become more familiar with a game and retune their characters.
And any DM can allow a rebuild.
Lastly, Tasha's offers (structurally) some cantrip swaps, fighting style swaps, and even sub class swaps, as options to allow players To Learn On The Job rather than being forced to have system mastery (like your example 3 player) to get the most out of a given character concept. Players get to Learn By Doing. In the narrow minded optimizer's world of your third case, there seems to be a belief that all decisions are final and you must avoid trap options. (Good game design will remove or minimize trap options, but that's a different topic - I am looking at you, Witch bolt!)

It won't matter for "Role Playing" part as this is a matter of player. However if you did 16 CHA Fighter and expected to be great party "face" and you are dissapointed that 20 CHA Presuasion Expertise Galmour Bard is doing better job than you - then maybe you should have read a little more about how game works. If you roll play social encounters, that my happen. On the other hand, if you role play them, it may come out otherwise.

[Sol0botmate]

1.Then why does power level even matter? Ego stroking? (On the practical side, 'power level' will inform me as a DM on how I tune encounters).

2. Level 13 isn't "soon" by any stretch of the imagination. You also failed to explain how the ASI on the barbarian were alloted. Nor, for that matter, did you take the Fighter build to 13.

3. Lastly, Tasha's offers (structurally) some cantrip swaps, fighting style swaps, and even sub class swaps, as options to allow players To Learn On The Job rather than being forced to have system mastery (like your example 3 player) to get the most out of a given character concept. Players get to Learn By Doing. In the narrow minded optimizer's world of your third case, there seems to be a belief that all decisions are final and you must avoid trap options. (Good game design will remove or minimize trap options, but that's a different topic - I am looking at you, Witch bolt!)


1. It's ego stroking in same essance as looking at your new car you bought with hard earned money, looking at your finished painted Warhammer minature you spent 3 days painting or tasting your dinner you made yourself and being satisfied how good it is after spending 5 hours in kitchen. You are pround of your final reward after all the time you put into it. It's same with having optimized character. You look at it and it just feels good to have something so well executed and working effectively. You can call it ego stroking. For me it's just a feeling of reward after hard work.

Sure, you can just eat sausage with bun instead and "eat" but end result will definitely taste and feel better if you put more effort into it, making it better and better. In the end - it's satisfaction from your work.

2. That was just example of far planning. He will outshine them anyway because of triple advantage on GWM attacks, not being targetable by tons of spells and monster skills + not provoking OAs + giving enemies disadvantage on hits. The point is: he well planned character and his reward is being better at same stuff. More effort = more reward.

3. I agree that Tasha's allow for some swaps, but ASI for example or feats are still set in stone (by default, DM can allow swap) and there are many trap options when it comes to feats. Same with prioritizing correctly ASI vs Feats depending on build. But in the end the question also is - will less experienced player be willing to learn from more experienced player how to better build characters? Or will he stop there and push the fault on other player "becasue he is min-maxing he is doing better than me. I focused on RoLe PlAyInG (not like other player totally can't roleplay while having better character build at the same time) and now it's his fault, buuuuu!". When I was younger I learnt from others how to better plan my characters so I can take more joy from playing them and in the end it makes me better player overall. I can roleplay what I want but I can also make it work mechanically to be effective, in the end trying to equally "master" both "Role Playing" and "Game" aspects of my hobby. No matter how we try to make RPG the holy grail of everything - it's is still, in it's fundamentals - a game.

[KorvinStarmast]

- will less experienced player be willing to learn from more experienced player how to better build characters or will go stop there and push the fault on other player "becasue he is min-maxing he is doing better than me. If one is playing with friends, my experience is that friends help each other out. If one is playing with more selfish persons who are in a (censored) measuring contest regarding who has the most powerful character, that's a different social situation.

At our tables, in this edition, since 2014, all of the players discuss with each other their ideas for character choices with a single notable exception (one player) in one game. And that game's been dormant for over two years.

I suspect that the problem you are illustrating, and which I think you illustrated effectively, may be far more prevalent in Adventurer's Leage scenarios where you show up on a given weekend and have no idea who you are playing with.

[Xervous]

Who is the target population? That's an interesting question when producing a game when you are trying to make money out of it.

Going off what I’ve seen? 5e markets itself heavily on being THE TTRPG, leveraging D&D’s name brand recognition through a framework that keeps enough sacred cows around to meet its sales pitch at a glance. The target audience is supremely broad, WotC having taken aim at grognards and “what’s an RPG?” crowds alike. The goal was to maintain the expectations of their loyal fans and pull in new blood, the recent buzzword marketing comes as no surprise in light of this. Fireball, bags of holding, fighters that can only swing swords from 1-20, that covers the tradition. Bounded accuracy, class structure and other grand normalizations round off the pointy edges that newcomers might blindly cut themselves on.

The one key difference between old and new is that the veterans of TTRPG know how to structure their play, they know how to make featureless classes like the fighter relevant in noncombat situations without needing rules for it. Lacking experience and exposure to patterns of play that have evolved over decades, new players have the rules and not much else to leverage. The GM knows this fight they built should be Deadly and that it fits within the party’s encounter budget for the day but they lack the understanding of plot arcs and pacing to know with certainty when it would be narratively appropriate.

If storytelling and RP could be covered by rules it wouldn’t be an art, as art is something that aspires to capture a semblance of concepts too vast for exhaustive descriptions. Give them 500 pages, 1000, you’re not going to teach players how to roleplay with a manual or in a forum discussion. But you can tell them what class to pick, where their ASIs go, and the statistical outcomes of such investments.

[KorvinStarmast]

The GM knows this fight they built should be Deadly and that it fits within the party’s encounter budget for the day but they lack the understanding of plot arcs and pacing to know with certainty when it would be narratively appropriate. I play with a few DMs who, albeit experienced, still have trouble with that. I've been around a while and I can run into trouble with it if I don't focus on it; and I will say that on line play makes it harder in some cases. (But in one campaign, all five players participate in 'between times' discussion in discord and it really helps the story and the RP, a lot. Not all groups want to do that).

[Sol0botmate]

Going off what I’ve seen? 5e markets itself heavily on being THE TTRPG, leveraging D&D’s name brand recognition through a framework that keeps enough sacred cows around to meet its sales pitch at a glance. The target audience is supremely broad, WotC having taken aim at grognards and “what’s an RPG?” crowds alike. The goal was to maintain the expectations of their loyal fans and pull in new blood, the recent buzzword marketing comes as no surprise in light of this. Fireball, bags of holding, fighters that can only swing swords from 1-20, that covers the tradition. Bounded accuracy, class structure and other grand normalizations round off the pointy edges that newcomers might blindly cut themselves on.

The one key difference between old and new is that the veterans of TTRPG know how to structure their play, they know how to make featureless classes like the fighter relevant in noncombat situations without needing rules for it. Lacking experience and exposure to patterns of play that have evolved over decades, new players have the rules and not much else to leverage. The GM knows this fight they built should be Deadly and that it fits within the party’s encounter budget for the day but they lack the understanding of plot arcs and pacing to know with certainty when it would be narratively appropriate.

If storytelling and RP could be covered by rules it wouldn’t be an art, as art is something that aspires to capture a semblance of concepts too vast for exhaustive descriptions. Give them 500 pages, 1000, you’re not going to teach players how to roleplay with a manual or in a forum discussion. But you can tell them what class to pick, where their ASIs go, and the statistical outcomes of such investments.

I agree with that. 5e aims to mainstream RPG toward casual players with it's simple mechanics (at least compare to previous editions) while still leaving enough customization and mechanic aspects so people from older editions who like to tweak, pimp and customize characters can still have fun. Considering Tasha's changes and WOTC saying that future books will use rules from it - I think they do great job making everything easier (race choice doesn't matter that much any more) for casuals and for more experienced players (race now matters even more for pure optimization). This is a perfect example where one change fits both spectrum of playerbase.

[Xervous]

I agree with that. 5e aims to mainstream RPG toward casual players with it's simple mechanics (at least compare to previous editions) while still leaving enough customization and mechanic aspects so people from older editions who like to tweak, pimp and customize characters can still have fun. Considering Tasha's changes and WOTC saying that future books will use rules from it - I think they do great job making everything easier (race choice doesn't matter that much any more) for casuals and for more experienced players (race now matters even more for pure optimization). This is a perfect example where one change fits both spectrum of playerbase.

And leaves GMs like me drifting off to other systems for something that’s not so kitsch. I’ll freely admit to being the outlier, that WotC has a solid grasp on marketing and their business model, but I won’t forgive avoidable incompetence in design.

Now how much of 5e is being carried by the age old trope, “the real magic was inside us the whole time”? Speaking on tradition and experienced players.

[clearstream]

Now I want to focus on second part. Game. What "game" is anyone can check on Wikipedia. However, that aspect of RPG is where people have rules, and within that rules they try to get the best result. Ultimately "games" are about getting best result. This doesn't have to be "win", however any game with rules is a dychotomic system in which "X makes you lose" (rolling d20 too low, having to little AC/damage/attack, having little Charisma when you want to lead dialogues etc.) and "Y makes you win" (rolling high, having enough high modifiers stacked up, having spells to deal with certain situations, surviving encounter, saving team-mates, outsmarting DM in combat). That's the game. It can be treated as "lower" form thatn Role Playing aspect - but it can't be ignored. It's still a game.
First let me say that it is good to read some analysis of RPG games. I have a quibble that might or might not turn out to matter. That is, I am not yet convinced RPG games are dychotomic. Often X makes you end the encounter in a different condition than Y. Was ending with thee characters alive and one dead the same "win" as with one alive and three dead? The reason it might be worth quibbling this point is that one risks defining an RPG as zero-sum, which goes against previous analysis where RPGs are typically picked out as examples of non-zero sum games.


Now obviously all 3 wanted to be "master of combat and great warriors". Soon it will be clear that Hexblade player overshadows all 3 of them with his synergy, superior accuracy, damage and clever combo of invocation + spells, having magic weapon +1 much faster than them. Player A did good job at least checking rules seriously and made respectable damage dealer. Player B didn't commit any time at all and in the end his character is worst "warrior" and he feels like his not doing any damage, despite being "Champion Fighter". He will try to maybe take GWM but he doesn't understand that without advantage it won't hit anything.
In this example, the players are using one another's characters as their measure for "master of combat and great warriors", and the question is - why? I think players should (or could) be using as their measure the larger world around them, i.e. NPCs. Compared with NPCs seen in published material, and given what DMs say about their demographics in forum threads around prevalence of classed characters versus unclassed, it is very likely that all three PCs are masters of combat and great warriors compared with the world they live in.

[Amechra]

I never even encountered the idea of online levels of extreme optimization as a good thing until 3e Wizards forums, and didn't see it at an actual table until 4e official play, when I finally started meeting a people that self-labeled as optimizers. Before that so-called "min-maxers" were an urban myth to me.

As someone who was pretty into the 3.5 optimization scene from 2009 to 2014-ish (before I moved on to mostly playing indies), it definitely didn't start as an "extreme optimization" thing. Originally, it was more focused around laughing at broken rules and making sure that you had a character who was appropriate for your party. This was important since it was very easy to sit down and make characters with wildly divergent power levels without anyone meaning to. Because, again, 3.5 was broken. Talking about broken rules, though? That was basically just a second game parallel to actually playing D&D.

The thing is, a lot of general discussion of broken rules was carried out under the assumption of a maximally permissive DM, because otherwise those rules would get patched up by common sense. Over time, however, a bunch of people seem to have missed the fact that we were all joking around about the broken rules, and started assuming that broken optimization tricks were the norm, rather than something that might be table specific. And then the more casual players drifted away to other games, so you're left with mostly just a bunch of optimizers talking to each-other.


Serious question: ARE there simpler OSR games? 5e is the simplest edition of D&D I've ever seen. Even the old, old-school editions were, despite having fewer knobs, far more complicated due to klunkier gameplay rules technology, to my recollection. 3e and 5e are refinements and streamlines on their basic engines to the point that they are simpler.

Are there OSR games that are genuinely simpler, still?

I'm fond of the Black Hack (https://the-black-hack.jehaisleprintemps.net/english/) (I'd read this one for how it handles equipment, honestly) and The 52 Pages (https://rolesrules.blogspot.com/2016/03/new-edition-of-52-pages.html), personally. If you're just thinking about simplicity, I'm pretty sure I've seen a few that boil down to "you roll a d20, and your DM interprets the results" with no other rules. Sure, you have some very Baroque games (the OSR community really loves weird fiction), but a lot of them are really simple.

The thing about the OSR is that it's pretty much a reaction to the popularity of narrative-focused games, built around a common ethos. Part of the problem with getting into OSR is that the published games are a poor substitute to doing your homework and reading some OSR blogs. That's where they discuss stuff like world-building or cool new rules. Which reminds me - if I ever run 5e again, I might take a crack at including some variant on the Shields Shall Be Shattered (https://trollsmyth.blogspot.com/2008/05/shields-shall-be-splintered.html) rule.

If you want something similar to D&D but with a more narrative focus, may I suggest Dungeon World (https://www.dungeonworldsrd.com)? You can put everything your players need to know onto a few sheets of paper.

---

While 5e might be the simplest edition of D&D, you need to remember that D&D itself is in the medium-to-high complexity part of the hobby. It's nowhere near as complicated as something like Burning Wheel or Riddle of Steel, but you're still talking about a game that's several hundred pages long. This is part of the reason why I'm not particularly happy that D&D is the gateway into the hobby — it's kinda like if people consistently tried to get people into reading fantasy by giving them The Worm Ouroboros, or if everyone expected people to play Crusader Kings II before they told them that other videogames exist.


The main trick to playing other systems is finding other human beings that want to play those systems. Some of my favorite systems go unused cause I don't know a single soul into such things. So I go back to doing what can actually be done.

And then when you find people, you have to run the game. I don't want to run Mouseguard or Unknown Armies — I want to play them!

[clearstream]

On the other side of the coin, it's easier to relax with the game when everyone is on the same page, which, to an extent, involves skill and investment. I understand that anyone can play this game however they like, but a table where half of the players are "in it to win it" and the other half are "here for the beer" will not cooperate well and will rapidly fall apart. From my perspective and experience, this is more strongly exacerbated if the disparity arises from a singular player, either because the player is a diehard in a group of goofballs or a goofball in a group of diehards. At its most empathetic, the singular player will feel awkward and out-of-place while the group will feel like they're not helping the other player have fun; at its most cutthroat, the singular player will feel like their playstyle is paramount and start ball-hogging while the group will play keep-away against the odd man out. No cooperation, no fun.
I don't find this at my table. Most of the players pay close attention to the game mechanics and have fairly optimised characters. Two players are far more relaxed and one in particular isn't too clear on the rules. They work together perfectly well. I think because they don't try and force each other to engage with the game the same way that they do.

[Tanarii]

As someone who was pretty into the 3.5 optimization scene from 2009 to 2014-ish (before I moved on to mostly playing indies), it definitely didn't start as an "extreme optimization" thing. Originally, it was more focused around laughing at broken rules and making sure that you had a character who was appropriate for your party. This was important since it was very easy to sit down and make characters with wildly divergent power levels without anyone meaning to. Because, again, 3.5 was broken. Talking about broken rules, though? That was basically just a second game parallel to actually playing D&D.
2009 to 2014 was 4e era. By then, the optimizer scene was established enough and serious enough I'd meet people in official play self-labeling as optimizers.

[Amechra]

2009 to 2014 was 4e era. By then, the optimizer scene was established enough and serious enough I'd meet people in official play self-labeling as optimizers.

Oh, I know. I was mostly referring to the difference between older guides from 2004-2006 and the direction things started moving in in... 2011-ish?

I was jumping off of your point, not arguing with it. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

[Segev]

I think it's actually inevitable that somebody who devotes more effort to a game will be better at it, at least compared to somebody who puts in next to no effort. There are some outliers who are just that antitalented that no effort will help, or just so talented that they'll pick up the game and immediately be better than a guy who worked for weeks at it, but those are rare and rarer still in more cerebral pursuits where knowing options and rules and procedures - all of which are things one needs to research to know of - are more important than things that come up daily (like general physical activity).

Trying to make a guy who just throws together a character with barely any understanding of what he is doing have as good a character, let alone as competently-played one, as the guy who studied options, probabilities, and tactics is only going to make for an extremely shallow game where player choices cannot be allowed to make much difference.

[Tanarii]

Oh, I know. I was mostly referring to the difference between older guides from 2004-2006 and the direction things started moving in in... 2011-ish?

I was jumping off of your point, not arguing with it. Sorry if that wasn't clear.
Fair enough. It was 2000 through 2006-ish that I experienced the growth of online optimization as a concept on the WotC boards.

[Sol0botmate]

1. First let me say that it is good to read some analysis of RPG games. I have a quibble that might or might not turn out to matter. That is, I am not yet convinced RPG games are dychotomic. Often X makes you end the encounter in a different condition than Y. Was ending with thee characters alive and one dead the same "win" as with one alive and three dead? The reason it might be worth quibbling this point is that one risks defining an RPG as zero-sum, which goes against previous analysis where RPGs are typically picked out as examples of non-zero sum games.


2.In this example, the players are using one another's characters as their measure for "master of combat and great warriors", and the question is - why? I think players should (or could) be using as their measure the larger world around them, i.e. NPCs. Compared with NPCs seen in published material, and given what DMs say about their demographics in forum threads around prevalence of classed characters versus unclassed, it is very likely that all three PCs are masters of combat and great warriors compared with the world they live in.

1. Failure may lead to interesting outcome but ask simple question any player about any situation in game "would you prefer to succeed here or fail?". Most will tell you they prefer to succeed. That's the purpouse of playing any game ever - to succeed more than fail. Hence why games have rules and mechanics to show players what are win/success conditions and give them tools to maximize their chance. Same as pro poker players count in head, pro chess players plan moves even up to 10 moves ahead etc. Every game has success/failure conditions. And yes- failure may lead to development, player growth, learning experience or just fun moments. But in the end- people prefer to succeed, not to fail when given option.

2. Player may not use it, but objectively you can't "not see" that one player just does better than others. I am not saying people will be salty about it or anything. But people are not blind. It's clear when you have 3 melee players and one does more damage than 2 of them combined - it's visible. You don't have to meassure anything but the outcome is visible. That's it.

When Usian Bolt was leaving everyone behind on every single 100m run - outcome was visible. Nobody was mad/salty or angry or started to rage around. But you can clearly see when one performs better than others. It should not be important, but it's a game and someone will be better than others. That's how games work.

[sockmonkey]

For even more pirate theme, get two cutlasses/scimitars/oars/clubs/maces, and take the Dual Wielder feat. +1 AC, and you can use that TWF bonus action attack with non-light weapons, meaning you get the rage bonus to the attacks also. Now, at level 5 with str 16, you're doing 1d8+3str+2 rage damage with 3 attacks per round. If all of them hit, 3d8+15 damage is very respectable, while completely staying on-theme with a pirate.

No comment on the guns because I'm not familiar with those rules.

There are lots of ways to optimize for almost any given character concept, without interfering with RP.



I agree, I don't even know what that guy was thinking. You can stay on theme and choose a better weapon, heck I'd say that an oar is even more on theme than a cutlass.Don't underestimate how good an oar can be. Some Polynesian groups had oars specifically designed to function as war clubs. Made from tropical hardwoods, the edge of a paddle will split skin and break bones even when it doesn't have shark teeth embedded in it. Depending on the length, treat it as a quarterstaff or a club, crunch-wise.
Pirates tended to be really into guns, as most didn't have access to sword training.
A flintlock pistol can use the crunch of a pistol crossbow with the added effects of totally negating your stealth and making your foe have to do a save against being startled for a round by the bang.

Anyhow, getting back to the OT, optimization is for making a neat character functional, not for making a combat drone and tacking on whatever backstory justifies their power.

[J.C.]

Pirates tended to be really into guns, as most didn't have access to sword training.

Do you have a reference for this? Seems counter-intuitive as pirates would have boatloads of time to practice fencing, grappling, dirty tactics, and come up with tactics like wearing eye patches so they can blind their enemy.

[clearstream]

When Usian Bolt was leaving everyone behind on every single 100m run - outcome was visible. Nobody was mad/salty or angry or started to rage around. But you can clearly see when one performs better than others. It should not be important, but it's a game and someone will be better than others. That's how games work.
This continues to feel locked into a PVP or zero-sum, competitive mindset, and a statement like "That's how games work" needs reflecting upon.

It would be normal to say that RPG and Chess are both "games".
If I play Chess against the Magnus Carlsen and he checkmates me, he wins and I lose.
If I play D&D with my friends Amy and Bolt, then a) the game may be open-ended (there is no win/lose end state) and b) we are all on the same side (if Bolt crosses that line first, we all win, so we judge our collective strength against the world).
So at the very least, we need to subdivide "games" into PVP and PVE, and further into what I might call closed and open.

Chess is PVP and closed - it has a clear end state that is intended to be reached in a moderately short session - if I win, you lose. RPG is normally PVE and open - it continues so long as we're all enjoying it - no matter how much you feel your character "wins", my character does not suffer a loss on that account. The most recognisable loss-state would be a TPK, and those are rare and not the intent of play (and if one did occur, all players have equally lost). Short of a TPK, the party is a rolling collective that can experience degrees of win, without every winning over all, and degrees of loss, without ever losing all. For me, your analysis is off track. It conflates game subdivisions and then chooses examples that are only apposite to some of those subdivisions.

[J.C.]

This continues to feel locked into a PVP or zero-sum, competitive mindset, and a statement like "That's how games work" needs reflecting upon.

It would be normal to say that RPG and Chess are both "games".
If I play Chess against the Magnus Carlsen and he checkmates me, he wins and I lose.
If I play D&D with my friends Amy and Bolt, then a) the game may be open-ended (there is no win/lose end state) and b) we are all on the same side (if Bolt crosses that line first, we all win, so we judge our collective strength against the world).
So at the very least, we need to subdivide "games" into PVP and PVE, and further into what I might call closed and open.

Chess is PVP and closed - it has a clear end state that is intended to be reached in a moderately short session - if I win, you lose. RPG is normally PVE and open - it continues so long as we're all enjoying it - no matter how much you feel your character "wins", my character does not suffer a loss on that account. The most recognisable loss-state would be a TPK, and those are rare and not the intent of play (and if one did occur, all players have equally lost). Short of a TPK, the party is a rolling collective that can experience degrees of win, without every winning over all, and degrees of loss, without ever losing all. For me, your analysis is off track. It conflates game subdivisions and then chooses examples that are only apposite to some of those subdivisions.

Interesting application of game theory. Some good insights.

[DevilMcam]

The Problem is not DnD.

The problem is session 0.
what you are describing is typical of a group of player that didn't discuss their expectations for the game beforehand, and maybe a tad of DM not splitting the spotlight evenly.

I Play several different campaigns in wich the players have very different views on "optiisation".
- one of them is the Decent to avernus published module with tuned encounters in wich my single classed kensei monk is considered optimised (and afaik single classed kensei is considered one of the weakest things in here, if you are not doing tasha sharpshooter shenaningans)
- one of them is a completely custom one where all our characters are currently single classed with only 2 character having a feat (our lycan bloodhunter has mobile, and our 14 wisdom cleric has heavy armor master). In that game we destroy hard enounters due to excellent teamplay while not having any crazy strong characters.
- Third game is a custom game heavy on RP and personal stories where characters are all about equaly powerfull (except for our OP barbarian) but players are not all equaly tacticaly savvy. the DMs just hands out items and boons and roleplay elements to players in order to equaly distribute the in and out of combat spotlight.

In all those 3 game there is no problem of one player beeing left out because we knewbeforehand what we were getting into

[Sol0botmate]

The Problem is not DnD.

The problem is session 0.
what you are describing is typical of a group of player that didn't discuss their expectations for the game beforehand, and maybe a tad of DM not splitting the spotlight evenly.

I Play several different campaigns in wich the players have very different views on "optiisation".
- one of them is the Decent to avernus published module with tuned encounters in wich my single classed kensei monk is considered optimised (and afaik single classed kensei is considered one of the weakest things in here, if you are not doing tasha sharpshooter shenaningans)
- one of them is a completely custom one where all our characters are currently single classed with only 2 character having a feat (our lycan bloodhunter has mobile, and our 14 wisdom cleric has heavy armor master). In that game we destroy hard enounters due to excellent teamplay while not having any crazy strong characters.
- Third game is a custom game heavy on RP and personal stories where characters are all about equaly powerfull (except for our OP barbarian) but players are not all equaly tacticaly savvy. the DMs just hands out items and boons and roleplay elements to players in order to equaly distribute the in and out of combat spotlight.

In all those 3 game there is no problem of one player beeing left out because we knewbeforehand what we were getting into

I don't understand what session 0 has to do with anything. If I show up on session 0 with min-maxed optimized character who is 100% legit build within all rules how I can build him, DM will say "your character is too well build, too well thought, make him worse please"?

So like I have well build character but I should not have it becasue other players couldn't/didn't want do it and DM don't even understand you can build something like that becasue his RAW knowledge ends up at "roll d20, I think of DC"? So is it my character or a common good under harsh judgment of collective mind that will critically deny it once they see it's better and realize they don't know rules at all?

[Unoriginal]

I don't understand what session 0 has to do with anything. If I show up on session 0 with min-maxed optimized character who is 100% legit build within all rules how I can build him, DM will say "your character is too well build, too well thought, make him worse please"?

No build is legit until the DM says it's legit.



So like I have well build character but I should not have it becasue other players couldn't/didn't want do it and DM don't even understand you can build something like that becasue his RAW knowledge ends up at "roll d20, I think of DC"

Condescending much?

RAW doesn't matter, the DM's rulings do. If you don't like the DM's rulings just leave the table.

[MoiMagnus]

I don't understand what session 0 has to do with anything. If I show up on session 0 with min-maxed optimized character who is 100% legit build within all rules how I can build him, DM will say "your character is too well build, too well thought, make him worse please"?

So like I have well build character but I should not have it becasue other players couldn't/didn't want do it and DM don't even understand you can build something like that becasue his RAW knowledge ends up at "roll d20, I think of DC"? So is it my character or a common good under harsh judgment of collective mind that will critically deny it once they see it's better and realize they don't know rules at all?

Session 0 is the moment where (hopefully) a table of incompatible players understand that they are incompatible, and cancel the campaign / change the group. In the best case scenario, they manage to find compromises for everybody to be able to have fun. Those compromises might even be quite easy to find, as it's possible to have minmaxed character that do not take the spotlight from the others. After all, D&D is a cooperative game, not a competitive one [e.g in 3.5 you could create OP characters that doesn't do anything by themself, just give ungodly buffs to the other players].

But if those compromises are not found, just because you're in the "right" doesn't mean you are entitled to a place at a table if your presence make the game less enjoyable for the others.

[I'm assuming here that you are playing D&D as a regular hobby with peoples that have no moral obligation to adapt to you and accept you at their table. If at the contrary you paid to be part of a campaign from a professional DM, or are playing as part of an official event of some sort, you are indeed entitled to be part of the game as long as you didn't do anything "wrong".]

[Sol0botmate]

No build is legit until the DM says it's legit.



Condescending much?

RAW doesn't matter, the DM's rulings do. If you don't like the DM's rulings just leave the table.

If DM says "build characters on session 0" and doesn't say anything about any restrictions or homerules etc. then build within rules is legit.

If DM starts to find problems after characters are build then yes, I would leave because if one optimized character is enough to intimidiate DM "omg, what I will do with my sessios with that ONE character" - then leaving is indeed best option.

[Tanarii]

Unless your table is in the habit of discussing 1-20 builds at session 0, the level of optimization that any given PC is likely to end up with may be unlikely to come up.

OTOH if someone asks how many levels the campaign is likely to go for, that's a pretty good sign they're already optimizing in their head ...

[Sol0botmate]

Session 0 is the moment where (hopefully) a table of incompatible players understand that they are incompatible, and cancel the campaign / change the group. In the best case scenario, they manage to find compromises for everybody to be able to have fun. Those compromises might even be quite easy to find, as it's possible to have minmaxed character that do not take the spotlight from the others. After all, D&D is a cooperative game, not a competitive one [e.g in 3.5 you could create OP characters that doesn't do anything by themself, just give ungodly buffs to the other players].

But if those compromises are not found, just because you're in the "right" doesn't mean you are entitled to a place at a table if your presence make the game less enjoyable for the others.

[I'm assuming here that you are playing D&D as a regular hobby with peoples that have no moral obligation to adapt to you and accept you at their table. If at the contrary you paid to be part of a campaign from a professional DM, or are playing as part of an official event of some sort, you are indeed entitled to be part of the game as long as you didn't do anything "wrong".]

I play RPGs for 16 years and never had a situation where DM was asking someone to nerf their character concept (on mechanical level, not fluff level) just because other players can't build their characters well. Yes, you can be asked "Please no Paladins this campaign as it doesn't fit my setting" or "please no half-elfs as my setting does not have half-races". But unless you break some rules of character creation - I can't imagine that I tell one of my players "hey, rest of the table characters are bottom floor useless becasue they didn't bother to read PHB and you have super strong character. Can you lower yourself to their level"? Instead I would ask that player to help others to build better characters if they want assistance. That always lead to better outcome for everyone at table.

Player should be judged by his roleplaying, his teamwork and his behaviour at table (That's what makes good player. Not his sheet). Not at his mechanical knowledge about game, which is - at it's base level - something everyone should have if you play any game after some time because games consist of rules players should know.

[OldTrees1]

I don't understand what session 0 has to do with anything. If I show up on session 0 with min-maxed optimized character who is 100% legit build within all rules how I can build him, DM will say "your character is too well build, too well thought, make him worse please"?

If the character is too strong, the DM might very well say "Make them better by powering them down."


So like I have well build character but I should not have it becasue other players couldn't/didn't want do it and DM don't even understand you can build something like that becasue his RAW knowledge ends up at "roll d20, I think of DC"? So is it my character or a common good under harsh judgment of collective mind that will critically deny it once they see it's better and realize they don't know rules at all?

Power for power's sake is not a beneficial goal to optimize towards. If you are optimizing a character and they get too strong, then you can make an even better character that is closer to the power level of the group.

Let me give an example:
In 3E I wanted to instantiate a certain character concept. Beyond their personality the character concept was a large draconic warrior that could do large sweeping attacks, send enemies flying, and have the impact hurt in more ways than mere damage. As a consequence of finding pieces to better (more accurately) mechanically instantiate this character concept, the character ended up being more powerful than I was aiming for. Specifically its saves, attack bonus, and damage output were inflated as a byproduct of adding those qualitative features I was looking for. So the next step in the optimization was to nerf those aspects to bring it back in line with the desired power level.

In the end I could have had a fighter that was balanced and failed to represent the character concept or I could have this draconic warrior that was nerfed to be balanced yet succeeded at representing the character concept.

Strong =/= well built, but the same skills that let you make overpowered character also lend themselves to making balanced but better built characters.



Why was there this shift in thought about the goal of optimization? Because D&D is a Roleplaying game and instantiating a character concept is one area optimization can harmoniously serve roleplaying rather than be an antagonist. Although as a forum it would be wise if we remember to focus on the character concept rather than strength.

[Sol0botmate]

If the character is too strong, the DM might very well say "Make them better by powering them down."



Power for power's sake is not a beneficial goal to optimize towards. If you are optimizing a character and they get too strong, then you can make an even better character that is closer to the power level of the group.

Let me give an example:
In 3E I wanted to instantiate a certain character concept. Beyond their personality the character concept was a large draconic warrior that could do large sweeping attacks, send enemies flying, and have the impact hurt in more ways than mere damage. As a consequence of finding pieces to better (more accurately) mechanically instantiate this character concept, the character ended up being more powerful than I was aiming for. Specifically its saves, attack bonus, and damage output were inflated as a byproduct of adding those qualitative features I was looking for. So the next step in the optimization was to nerf those aspects to bring it back in line with the desired power level.

In the end I could have had a fighter that was balanced and failed to represent the character concept or I could have this draconic warrior that was nerfed to be balanced yet succeeded at representing the character concept.

Strong =/= well built, but the same skills that let you make overpowered character also lend themselves to making balanced but better built characters.

As I said above, players should be judged by their roleplaying and behaviour at table. Not by their character sheets, which is only a statistics that ensure higher chance of better outcome within rules of the game. This doesn't by any means represent how well player will roleplay his character concept. Many of best roleplayers I have and play with are powergamers, because their characters always match their concepts 100% in game on both roleplay and mechanical level.

Sheet =/=bad/good player

[OldTrees1]

As I said above, players should be judged by their roleplaying and behaviour at table. Not by their character sheets, which is only a statistics that ensure higher chance of better outcome within rules of the game. Sheet =/=bad/good player

You might want to review my post because I did not contradict that. I said that the DM might ask a player to improve their overpowered character by powering down the overpowered character. You can even review my 3E Draconic warrior example.

The balanced draconic warrior was a better instantiation of my character concept than either the vanilla fighter or the overpowered draconic warrior.

[Unoriginal]

I play RPGs for 16 years and never had a situation where DM was asking someone to nerf their character concept (on mechanical level, not fluff level) just because other players can't build their characters well. Yes, you can be asked "Please no Paladins this campaign as it doesn't fit my setting" or "please no half-elfs as my setting does not have half-races". But unless you break some rules of character creation - I can't imagine that I tell one of my players "hey, rest of the table characters are bottom floor useless becasue they didn't bother to read PHB and you have super strong character. Can you lower yourself to their level"? Instead I would ask that player to help others to build better characters if they want assistance. That always lead to better outcome for everyone at table.

Player should be judged by his roleplaying, his teamwork and his behaviour at table (That's what makes good player. Not his sheet). Not at his mechanical knowledge about game, which is - at it's base level - something everyone should have if you play any game after some time because games consist of rules players should know.

Even the best optimized character is unlikely to be that great compared to an unoptimized one, in 5e. Unless someone isn't actually optimizing and is instead trying to exact-word their way into power.

[Sol0botmate]

You might want to review my post because I did not contradict that. I said that the DM might ask a player to improve their overpowered character by powering down the overpowered character. You can even review my 3E Draconic warrior example.

Why not just powering up the rest? Or why not work harder on encounters. I DMed groups of powergamers and never had issue with encounters becasue it's tactics, not statistics that makes encounters hard. Sadly most DMs have no tactical sense at all and they blame "OP" characters instead of trying harder to use mechanics in system to challange those who understand those mechanics better. One of the good things about optimized characters is that you can totally ignore CR levels and just use your own judgement to plan encounter. CR only works on casual characters with basic knowledge about game mechanics.

Powering down character in my opinion should be last resort. It is an option, yes. But not first one.

[Naanomi]

In 3.X there were classes and options that were so much worse than others that I’ve seen tables deciding collectively to all choose ‘lower tier’ options to keep things roughy even. I don’t think 5e has that problem; the level of disparity just isn’t that threatening

[DevilMcam]

I don't understand what session 0 has to do with anything. If I show up on session 0 with min-maxed optimized character who is 100% legit build within all rules how I can build him, DM will say "your character is too well build, too well thought, make him worse please"?

So like I have well build character but I should not have it becasue other players couldn't/didn't want do it and DM don't even understand you can build something like that becasue his RAW knowledge ends up at "roll d20, I think of DC"? So is it my character or a common good under harsh judgment of collective mind that will critically deny it once they see it's better and realize they don't know rules at all?

Thats the wholepoint of session 0.

you don't show up at session 0 with a character build.
you show up with your friends and set expectations for the games. then based on that you makes your characters.
if everyone wants to play a serious dark and hardocre game, you don't show up with a beastmaster ranger with the pirate background whos pet is a silly parot. That's a great character, just not for this game (i kinda want to play that now, but none of my sane friend would let me do it,... they know)

You wouldn't show up to a DnD game with a Shadowrun character because you talked about that before hand. well same goes for the theme, atmosphere and optimisation level of the game

[OldTrees1]

Why not just powering up the rest? Or why not work harder on encounters. I DMed groups of powergamers and never had issue with encounters becasue it's tactics, not statistics that makes encounters hard. Sadly most DMs have no tactical sense at all and they blame "OP" characters instead of trying harder to use mechanics in system to challange those who understand those mechanics better. One of the good things about optimized characters is that you can totally ignore CR levels and just use your own judgement to plan encounter. CR only works on casual characters with basic knowledge about game mechanics.

Powering down character in my opinion should be last resort. It is an option, yes. But not first one.

3 Reasons:
1) It is easier to adjust outliers towards the average than to move the majority towards the outliers. If the outlier was an underpowered character, then powering them up is easier than powering everyone else down. Vice versa is also true. Notice you said you DMed groups of powergamers, what if one player brought Pun Pun to the table? Would it make sense to have them scale down or for everyone to scale up? What if one player brought Nup Nup to the table? Would it make sense to have them scale up or for everyone to scale down? In general it makes more sense for the outliers to scale. Especially since the more skilled the optimizer, the easier it is for them to scale power level in a way that does not hurt mechanical implementation of their character concept.
2) From my experience, it is common for an overpowered character to be stronger than conceptualized in some area. Nerfing that area actually improves the characterization. For example: If I wanted to send enemies flying, I don't want my damage output to render them into a corpse before they are knocked back. The quantitative aspects, especially damage, are usually the ones unfortunately over inflated when trying to instantiate a character concept. However this is context based.
3) Powering up encounters to match a single outlier tends to be trickery than it first sounds. Consider if the outlier was overpowered due to an excessive resilience, to challenge them in that area would be to overpower the resilience of the rest of the party. So you would need to assign targets to avoid that. Soon enough you are running 2 encounters at the same time. It is easier if the outlier was adjusted to be comparable to the party.
4) Optimizers are better skilled at adjusting power level with minimal loss, or even gain in the fidelity of the mechanical instantiation of the character concept.

Basically, why should the outlier dictate everyone else has to change? No, when I optimize, I am skilled enough to be able have a character with a power level comparable to the party.

[Sol0botmate]

Thats the wholepoint of session 0.

you don't show up at session 0 with a character build.
you show up with your friends and set expectations for the games. then based on that you makes your characters.
if everyone wants to play a serious dark and hardocre game, you don't show up with a beastmaster ranger with the pirate background whos pet is a silly parot. That's a great character, just not for this game (i kinda want to play that now, but none of my sane friend would let me do it,... they know)

You wouldn't show up to a DnD game with a Shadowrun character because you talked about that before hand. well same goes for the theme, atmosphere and optimisation level of the game

I see. For me session 0 was always a meeting when we talk about our character (which are already built or in progress) and just talk backstory and how characters met and what are their "allignments" etc.

But I never check if their character concepts are "too strong" as long as they make sense from roleplay level.

[Sol0botmate]

3 Reasons:
Notice you said you DMed groups of powergamers, what if one player brought Pun Pun to the table? Would it make sense to have them scale down or for everyone to scale up? What if one player brought Nup Nup to the table? Would it make sense to have them scale up or for everyone to scale down?

I would scale him up but not because it's 1v4 but becasue getting better at game and better at character building is imo the better end of the stick. If I have 4 players that can't build character well and 1 that can build them very well, then I will ask the 1 to teach others how to do it better, while still following their RP concept of character.

The goal should be to become better at game, not worse. Building character is part of the game. If in the end more people will do it more effectively and utilize more things game have to offer - it's better scenario for me.

[OldTrees1]

I see. For me session 0 was always a meeting when we talk about our character (which are already built or in progress) and just talk backstory and how characters met and what are their "allignments" etc.

But I never check if their character concepts are "too strong" as long as they make sense from roleplay level.

There is a very long list of topics that could be covered during session 0. That list takes 24h+ to go through. However groups don't have to go over most of those topics because groups have (unspoken) common understandings that cover most of them. For example none of your players brought Pun Pun or Nup Nup, and your powergamer group was probably of comparable power level.

[Sol0botmate]

There is a very long list of topics that could be covered during session 0. That list takes 24h+ to go through. However groups don't have to go over most of those topics because groups have (unspoken) common understandings that cover most of them. For example none of your players brought Pun Pun or Nup Nup, and your powergamer group was probably of comparable power level.

Actually there were Pun Puns many times, but I just asked better players to help him fix his Pun Pun.

[Naanomi]

Actually there were Pun Puns many times, but I just asked better players to help him fix his Pun Pun.
Pun Pun takes over the multiverse about 6 rounds after character creation; so I doubt this is literal

[OldTrees1]

The goal should be to become better at game, not worse. Building character is part of the game. If in the end more people will do it more effectively and utilize more things game have to offer - it's better scenario for me.

Building characters is part of the game. Notice that the goal of that subgame is instantiating the character concept, not mere power.

Yes, helping others instantiate their character concepts with higher fidelity is a good idea for the long term. It does not contradict a DM asking the better skilled player to use their skill to rebalance their character in the short term. After all a balanced high fidelity instantiated character is harder to build than an overpowered high fidelity instantiated character. Everyone can get better at the character building subgame.


Actually there were Pun Puns many times, but I just asked better players to help him fix his Pun Pun.

Clarification, you know Pun Pun is shorthand for the literally omnipotent character? I was literally using the D&D terms for the extremes. I did that, not for the hyperbole, but because I was too lazy to ask you what power level your group plays at.

[Sol0botmate]

Building characters is part of the game. Notice that the goal of that subgame is instantiating the character concept, not mere power.

Yes, helping others instantiate their character concepts with higher fidelity is a good idea for the long term. It does not contradict a DM asking the better skilled player to use their skill to rebalance their character in the short term. After all a balanced high fidelity instantiated character is harder to build than an overpowered high fidelity instantiated character. Everyone can get better at the character building subgame.



Clarification, you know Pun Pun is shorthand for the literally omnipotent character? I was literally using the D&D terms for the extremes. I did that, not for the hyperbole, but because I was too lazy to ask you what power level your group plays at.

My apologizes. In my country there is not such thing as Pun Pun so I thought Pun Pun means poorly built character that is so bad it's sad to watch. Considering rather "comedic" sound of it- that's how I thought it was :)

[OldTrees1]

My apologizes. In my country there is not such thing as Pun Pun so I thought Pun Pun means poorly built character that is so bad it's sad to watch. Considering rather "comedic" sound of it- that's how I thought it was :)

No apologies needed. It is a funny name and not universally known. Basically 3E had enough content that eventually a character could hack the edition to give themselves whatever they wanted or write new content. So Pun Pun was a character that was literally omniponent. The 3E forums discussed it as a joke because we all knew it was too powerful for even Emperor Tippy's group (which was one of groups that was known to play at an extremely high power level). There was even a thought exercise race to see how to reduce what level it came online. However it was just that, a joke about the rules rather than an attempt to create a character to actually play. So if a player came with Pun Pun, even high power optimizer groups would ask them to power it down.


Part of what I learned from that story was that I cared more about my character being able to do what I conceptualized them as being able to do rather than merely be powerful. For many of my character concepts, it was a bit tricky to do that in 3E. So I studied the rules well enough that I could create difficult to create characters while also rebalancing them to match the power level of the party.

[da newt]

It seems most of the "issues" being discussed in this thread are not game issues - they are people issues.

When one player takes issue with another player 'doing it wrong' or 'doing it too well' or 'not taking it seriously enough' - it's NOT the GAME, it's the PEOPLE.

[Amechra]

Unless your table is in the habit of discussing 1-20 builds at session 0, the level of optimization that any given PC is likely to end up with may be unlikely to come up.

OTOH if someone asks how many levels the campaign is likely to go for, that's a pretty good sign they're already optimizing in their head ...

1-20 builds at actual tables always confuse me, because that assumes that you will have regular games for months, if not years. I think one of the things that should be covered in a session 0 is the intended level range for the campaign, so that you can know that (for example) a build that fully comes online at 13th level isn't going to work out well, because the DM thinks that the game is going to go from 3rd to 11th.

[Tanarii]

1-20 builds at actual tables always confuse me, because that assumes that you will have regular games for months, if not years. I think one of the things that should be covered in a session 0 is the intended level range for the campaign, so that you can know that (for example) a build that fully comes online at 13th level isn't going to work out well, because the DM thinks that the game is going to go from 3rd to 11th.
It's not even necessary to know that if you just make a 1st level character without planning a "build".

[Amechra]

It's not even necessary to know that if you just make a 1st level character without planning a "build".

I'd say that "builds" really only show up if you're starting in Tier 2. Otherwise... come on. Just make the guy.

[Pex]

Unless your table is in the habit of discussing 1-20 builds at session 0, the level of optimization that any given PC is likely to end up with may be unlikely to come up.

OTOH if someone asks how many levels the campaign is likely to go for, that's a pretty good sign they're already optimizing in their head ...

Possibly. It could also mean they're deciding if they want to play or not. They may be looking for a level a 1 to 20 (or close enough) campaign that lasts for at least a real world year or two because they want an epic story including non-Campaign Plot downtime experiences. A campaign that will only last 5 months that only goes to 5th level is a glorified boardgame to them. Nothing wrong with boardgames, but that's not what they want to play joining this game.

[sockmonkey]

Do you have a reference for this? Seems counter-intuitive as pirates would have boatloads of time to practice fencing, grappling, dirty tactics, and come up with tactics like wearing eye patches so they can blind their enemy.Oh, they loved their knives, cutlasses and boarding axes too. I should have clarified that they were more into guns than they're often portrayed. They were into anything that worked well.