The Other Guys, the B-team

[Chalkarts]

Would you play in an sub-optimized game? No stats above 14(to start).

A Wizard that struggles in school. A cleric who’s losing his faith. A clumsy rogue. So on and so forth.

If you put them up against Tiamat at level 1, they will certainly fail.(it's a joke, watch the series)

Think of them as the B-team. They’re the side characters, the other guys. They are the “Mystery Men” of D&D.

Just to be clear,

I'm not talking about making one crap character to play in a normal group, which would be rude. I'm talking about a group of struggling amateurs trying to get by. It would be a game of character development not big numbers.

I've made so many characters over the years I've forgotten most of them. I'm a forerver DM, I have a folder. Making badasses is easy. I can crap out top tier characters all day long. I've been doing it so long that it feels lazy and boring. I think it would be fun to play a game where I(Unless I have to DM again), and the group as a whole, didn't start as demigods in training, but just average joes thrust into adventure. Since 5e doesn't really allow for junk characters through any method other than stat gimping, then gimped stats is the way.

Would you play in such a game?

[False God]

Probably not.

I can role-play struggling with my faith, doing poorly in school, or not being the "main hero" while still having the points necessary to be good at my job.

I don't personally see the normal stat distribution as "demigods in training", but I also don't enjoy low-level gameplay because:
A: Using normal XP it blows by way too fast and there's no time to get invested in the "low level feel".
---If it doesn't, its because the DM hands out squat for XP and everything just turns into a slog. Like, I've killed 500 kobolds, can I level up please?
B: Too many DMs run brutal low-level games. They don't think you'll invest (and don't care if you do), so yeah like this is the 3rd adult green dragon "random" encounter we've run away from? I'd like 1 kobold please. Oh, it's the only kobold with 20 levels, right of course that's who we meet.
C: Characters are extremely limited and it gets repetitive if you stay there too long.

I wouldn't mind playing the side-characters. But I don't need bad rolls in order to role-play not being the A-team.

Roll-play=/=role-play.

[kazaryu]

Would you play in an sub-optimized game? No stats above 14(to start).

A Wizard that struggles in school. A cleric who’s losing his faith. A clumsy rogue. So on and so forth.

If you put them up against Tiamat at level 1, they will certainly fail.(it's a joke, watch the series)

Think of them as the B-team. They’re the side characters, the other guys. They are the “Mystery Men” of D&D.

Just to be clear,

I'm not talking about making one crap character to play in a normal group, which would be rude. I'm talking about a group of struggling amateurs trying to get by. It would be a game of character development not big numbers.

I've made so many characters over the years I've forgotten most of them. I'm a forerver DM, I have a folder. Making badasses is easy. I can crap out top tier characters all day long. I've been doing it so long that it feels lazy and boring. I think it would be fun to play a game where I(Unless I have to DM again), and the group as a whole, didn't start as demigods in training, but just average joes thrust into adventure. Since 5e doesn't really allow for junk characters through any method other than stat gimping, then gimped stats is the way.

Would you play in such a game?

first of all, i wouldn't call that 'suboptimized' although its technically sub-optimal, to me teh term 'sub-optimal' refers to 'a step below optimal' which would (imo) be things like enchanter wizards...trickster clerics. essentailly options that are viable, just not optimal. going TWF on a paldin, **** like that.

that being said, yes, i'd play in such a campaign depending on the group i was playing with, sounds like it could be a lot of fun.

[elyktsorb]

A Wizard that struggles in school. A cleric who’s losing his faith. A clumsy rogue. So on and so forth.

Nah, and for one very good reason.

Playing a game where everyone is slightly bad is just the same as playing a game where everyone is slightly good, just that you spend even more time leveling up your ability scores.

All the above reasons could be rped regardless of what ability score you have. Especially since the first two may have next to nothing to actually do with your ability scores.

Not to mention 'middling' scores aren't nearly as compelling as bad ones.

I would play in a game where my stat allocation doesn't matter but we are still the B-team

[Brookshw]

Yes, unequivocally. Suboptimal tends to be more interesting and fun.

[yellowrocket]

Sadly considering the stats I roll, I'm b team every game.🙈

[Pex]

Probably not. Not that you implied it, but there's nothing wrong with higher ability scores. There's no wrongness in a 16 in your prime nor an 18 when dice rolling. The ability to roleplay has no relation to what your ability scores are. I also have a knee jerk reaction, often justified, to any DM who advocates for low scores, no min-maxers, no optimization, etc. as a matter of pride for his campaign. That tells me he's a DM who wants all the power and control. He can't accept that player characters being powerful doing cool things is the point. A character doing more than 'I attack for 1d8 + 3 damage' is anathema to the DM. I don't apologize for liking the game mechanics part of the game.

[Zuras]

Definitely a “nope, never” for me. Why play a game with a 5e rule set where you have even less control over the story? If you want to play that sort of game, other rule sets do a much better job, especially ones with metagame currency and clear guidance for failing forward during play.

[Chalkarts]

I also have a knee jerk reaction, often justified, to any DM who advocates for low scores, no min-maxers, no optimization, etc. as a matter of pride for his campaign.

For me it's not about pride or control, it's about making a change.
I've seen every top tier build possible over the years. I've played a lot of them in tournaments.
Top tier characters just bore the hell out of me any more, lol.

I want to play in, or run a group of wannabes that uses their brains and either avoids combat or makes inventive decision to defeat a beast as opposed to the oh so exciting, Grog Smash...every damn time.

[False God]

For me it's not about pride or control, it's about making a change.
I've seen every top tier build possible over the years. I've played a lot of them in tournaments.
Top tier characters just bore the hell out of me any more, lol.

I want to play in, or run a group of wannabes that uses their brains and either avoids combat or makes inventive decision to defeat a beast as opposed to the oh so exciting, Grog Smash...every damn time.

But, if you have low scores, your brains don't matter, because you fail.

D&D is a very cut and dry game of "high numbers win, low numbers fail". If you want to play a game where creative gameplay and interesting application of weaker abilities still results in successful gameplay, D&D is not the game for that.

You're not going to get what you what doing what you suggest in D&D. You're going to either fiat away the rolls with player-skill and knowledge, which makes the low scores you wanted meaningless, or you're going to fail a lot and get frustrated that you, as a player, saw that coming but your character just can't pass the checks.

I'd suggest looking to a supers or a detective-styled system, and I'd stay away from the d20.

[MeimuHakurei]

Reminder that the premade characters from the basic set each have a stat at 16.

[1Pirate]

I would try making it a one-shot first. You'll be able to get a feel for how it plays without a full campaign commitment.

Actually, I think that's a really neat idea. I'm stealing it for the next one-shot I run.

[Lord Vukodlak]

For me it's not about pride or control, it's about making a change.
I've seen every top tier build possible over the years. I've played a lot of them in tournaments.
Top tier characters just bore the hell out of me any more, lol.

I want to play in, or run a group of wannabes that uses their brains and either avoids combat or makes inventive decision to defeat a beast as opposed to the oh so exciting, Grog Smash...every damn time.

None of which has little to do with characters being suboptimal vs optimized. It has to do with the party balance vs one another vs the challenges they face.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Chalkarts
Would you play in an sub-optimized game? No stats above 14(to start).

…I’m talking about a group of struggling amateurs trying to get by. It would be a game of character development not big numbers.

Absolutely. I’d have a lot of fun with that.

[Bjarkmundur]

Although I am quite married to a lot of my houserules, I am just as in love with any game where the party has been together her for a while before the game begins. I don't see why changing character creation is a part of it, since all you need to make this work is a good story. Powerlevel is relative. You just put the same characters in a location they'd be after two levels and you get the same "in over your heads" kind of feel.

I'd expect this to be a "combat as a last resort" type of game.
I'd expect this not to be a political game.
I'd expect the theme to be more "OMG they found a way" more than it is "you're unlikely to survive".

I don't enjoy games where I have to be worried about my character failing. I don't get that feeling when reading fantasy, why should I get it when playing it. The magic of DnD for me is "how the hell are we going to make this work" and not "if we go with plan _____ we're all going to die". Thats why the story is going to be the big thing. We're doing minor quests, but the fantasy can be just as strong. Finding out the boy who was crying in the street has just been abandoned by his dad, and then finding out his dad is a wererat, and then going through the drama of having them be joined again through lycanthropy is a great story, even tho it doesn't involve slaying dragons.

So yeah, I'd play the game, but for completely different reasons that you advertised. I'd play because the drama of low fantasy quests is usually more intense, since it doesn't rely on big magic. I'd join because the characters are already bonded before the game begins.

Besides, having low attack rolls against high AC is unfun.
And I'd put a hard boundary on level 1 HP. If we're starting at level 1 with official HP mechanics, I'm out. If we start at a higher level, or start at level 1 with a higher starting HP rule, then I'm in.

[Chalkarts]

And I'd put a hard boundary on level 1 HP. If we're starting at level 1 with official HP mechanics, I'm out. If we start at a higher level, or start at level 1 with a higher starting HP rule, then I'm in.

I always start my groups with Max HP. It's no fun to start with 1hp and run into a rat.

[Waterdeep Merch]

14's? Pah, I'd play with much lower. I can get behind a game where the challenge is the thing. It's not for everyone, though. Ask your players if they're down, and don't shame them if they aren't up for it. Not everyone is up for masochistic difficulty levels.

If it's meant to be hard, a recommendation- let your party keep multiple characters each, so that they can swap out on the fly if someone dies. Get the players to agree to try and save a slain character's loot for the player in question. Unless the game's sprawling with lots to do at any level, keep them all at the same experience points regardless of which characters were actually used.

If the idea, however, is to have lower power levels in general and scale the difficulty accordingly? Eh. Still could be fun, depends on the story. Doesn't always have to be a hero game.

[Bjarkmundur]

I always start my groups with Max HP. It's no fun to start with 1hp and run into a rat.

I start with [max hit die result + con mod] x2
I think Kane0 starts with [max hit die result + con score]

Either way, we both end up in the 20s, which I think is an absolute necessity do counteract the swingyness of early levels.

[loki_ragnarock]

Would you play in an sub-optimized game? No stats above 14(to start).

Would I play in a game with a slightly lower standard array?

Sure.

Would I play a game where the expectation is "clumsy rogue, dyslexic wizard?"

Less interesting. Playing against type is so over done that you might as well play to type.

EDIT:
Would I play in a game where we were the B team?

Yes. One of my favorite games of all time was run by a DM who brought us to the Emperor of an Eastern Horror-Fantasy setting as prisoners to be given a dangerous quest. One of the players was a belligerent ronin with zero respect for authority who presumed that we were important and skilled beyond measure if the Emperor had in his service no one else up to the task.
The Emperor responded cooly, "You believe this is the only threat to the world ongoing? My best men are working on (major, world shattering problem). My second best men are working on (major, country destabilizing problem). My third best men are working on (major problem). You are the dregs, sentenced to death, to be sent on a dangerous mission that - should you survive - will grant you freedom. Because where I send you, you will either succeed or succumb to that death sentence. I would not waste good men upon such a task, let alone my best."

I felt pretty put in my place, and I'm not even the one that provoked the response.

[Pex]

For me it's not about pride or control, it's about making a change.
I've seen every top tier build possible over the years. I've played a lot of them in tournaments.
Top tier characters just bore the hell out of me any more, lol.

I want to play in, or run a group of wannabes that uses their brains and either avoids combat or makes inventive decision to defeat a beast as opposed to the oh so exciting, Grog Smash...every damn time.

Proving my point. So you do think having high scores means players only want to play Grog Smash and are incapable of using their brains, avoid combat, or make inventive decisions. As for combat, yes, players want that. Paladins want to smite. Barbarians want to rage. Wizards want to cast Fireball. All the roleplaying can happen as well. They are not mutually exclusive.

[Gtdead]

I wouldn't play a deliberately suboptimal character but I would play a randomized one. I don't mind having to make the best of a bad situation, but creating something bad, even for a concept, doesn't interest me in the least.

[elyktsorb]

I want to play in, or run a group of wannabes that uses their brains and either avoids combat or makes inventive decision to defeat a beast as opposed to the oh so exciting, Grog Smash...every damn time.

Having middling stats isn't going to make people change the way they want to play, I've known plenty of people with bad stats doing things regardless of the odds. If you want people who don't brute force their way through stuff, you're going to have to find those people, there's also a level of 'dominant strategy' to think about. I myself have gone about encounters with the 'smart' approach in mind, but a lot of times the easiest solution is to just brute force stuff, so the easier that option becomes, the more prevalent it will be in your life.

And even if you make it the hard option, there's no guarantee the players won't take it.

[Angelalex242]

Decisive no thanks from me.

I love optimization, really.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

I'd make a couple of arguments regarding the criteria that nothing be above a 14.

First, until recently with either point buy or standard array the best you could start with was a 16/17 so it's only one category lower. With an experienced group it's commonly accepted that 5e is set on easy, so this might bring players more in line with published content, particularly with some of the newer (even more) OP subclasses.

Second, assuming point buy, max 14s would provide a very well rounded character who would be decent at a lot of things, though not quite as good at their main one. It might even get away from the one genius (wizard) hanging with a bunch of dullards (int 8s).

I do think you'd end up with even more Vhumans though, as the trade off to get feats down the road would be steep and there's not really a benefit to picking a race with a +2 adjustment.

[Lavaeolus]

With just a 14 cap but no other limitations, you do get a cast of people who are all just largely well-rounded. The average race stat boost is one +2 and one +1, so for example you might end up with this array: 14, 14, 14, 14, 12, 8.

(Without as much specialisation, non-variant humans end up with the somewhat impressive-looking: 14, 14, 14, 14, 14, 11. In general, +2s are more valuable when the cap is 16 since Point Buy costs escalate.)

I'd be willing to give it a go, but my initial concern is whether there might not be as much character-differentiation between PCs. When everyone's moderately dextrous, no one is, or something. But maybe I'm not properly taking skill and save proficiencies into account, along with the usual different race and class features whathaveyou.

[TyGuy]

While I like the idea of a "failing upwards" campaign, I think there's better systems for that than D&D 5e

[dafrca]

I would have to go with no in a 5e game. But if you wanted to try out a few other systems like others have said that are designed better for such an idea I would join you on the journey.

[OvisCaedo]

I think lower ability scores are the least interesting way of trying to have less optimized characters using more interesting options. Because they don't really get more interesting options, lower scores means you'd just be... generally worse at succeeding at everything. Just about anything you can tactically do to try to mitigate having a bit worse scores is probably just what would still be smart/proper tactics with higher scores too. That said, it's not like a 14 is unplayably crippling, I just don't think it represents anything interesting.

There's a lot of games where the sub-optimal options represent meaningfully different gameplay abilities or approaches which sadly don't match the top-tier things in sheer performance, but there's fun to be had from that uniqueness. You could maybe get some of that from encouraging people to pick less popular subclasses, but I'm not sure how much mileage you'd really get from that in 5e in terms of "this feels like you're playing something a bit weaker but different" instead of just "this feels like you're playing something a bit weaker"

[AdAstra]

Don't particularly care about just having lower than normal scores. It's essentially just low-power play in general. Can be very fun, but not inherently all that special. You're still largely optimizing around the same metrics and using the same abilities.

That said

I've had a lot of fun with taking a blatantly suboptimal concept, and then optimizing it within that constraint. For example, I played a Sorcerer with 8 Charisma, and still managed to be an extremely effective member of the party, arguably one of the most effective (being able to use Stone Sorcery helped with that, but the concept was still totally workable with other subclasses). You can definitely have a ton of fun with a character with a seemingly crippling constraint.

[Bobthewizard]

I've played lots of characters that start with a 14 in their main stat. Pre-Tasha's, if I had an interesting concept but the racial stat spread didn't match I wouldn't worry about it. It was fine.

However, feats are fun. And starting with a lower primary stat limits your ability to take feats as you level up. So if I played in this game, I'd prefer if you either got both a feat and an ASI at level up, or the limit was permanently reduced to compensate, so no one could ever get above a 14 in any stat. That way you wouldn't feel obligated to increase your primary stat and could focus on feats.

Limiting to 14 probably hurts DEX based characters the most, since for them, it is both their attack stat and determines their AC. STR based characters could still have normal starting AC, while DEX based ones would be behind.

I will say, you don't need to do this. You can simulate the same feel just with level and CR. If the A-team would have been level 3, then the B-team is level 1. Throw 4 ogres at them and it doesn't matter if they have 20's in their stats to start.