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

[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 (I'd read this one for how it handles equipment, honestly) and The 52 Pages, 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 rule.

If you want something similar to D&D but with a more narrative focus, may I suggest Dungeon World? 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.