Every time I see someone try to equate someone being against or for something refereed to as an optimizer or powergamer, I recognize that they are just trying to belittle someone else's playstyle by trying to infer that they are inferior or illegitimate. This happens all the time in politics. I hate it when I see it here. A lot of people get joy out of synergizing builds. It doesn't mean they throw out all background role-playing for the character. As a matter of fact some of the best backgrounds are forged to encompass synergistic choices. People need to stop trying to demonize others by affixing a stigma that they then try to equate as being something undesirable.
Imagine two players wanting to play fighters in the same game. The DM allows the players to choose how attributes are to be determined. One takes the option most conducive to getting what they want and assigns his fighter an exceptional STR and an exceptional CON because the player is thinking primarily about how often that fighter will hit and how hard and how resilient it will be and yes gives consideration to who the character is and where the character comes from but also practically maps out the character's advancement. The player will take this and that at this and that level. And so on. The other player rolls 3d6 in order and does not particularly care their fighter will have barely above average STR because the player is more than happy to play the role of a fighter who is the physically weaker of two in a party of adventurers. Its uncharacteristically high INT the player figures can be explained because the fighter is someone who might be a bit bookish and perhaps even had contemplated a future in the academy but something happened that forced the character to fight and it proved itself in that regard. A fighter with high INT. It would be great for the city watch! And maybe circumstances will arise and it will make sense for it to multi-class as a wizard. Maybe. Anything could happen. Now imagine the first of these players complaining because the second player hasn't made "the right choices" to also produce a fighter that is going to be as capable as theirs in combat. Complaining because the player has armed their fighter with a weapon that isn't the most optimal choice and was chosen for purposes of character. Or complaining about how the second player should just play a wizard. This is the difference between how someone who is powergaming treats character creation and someone who wants to play more than they want to play what they want. Or what others want. The former cares more about how strong the character and in turn the party is and is the sort of player who can't stand to miss and so assigns their fighter pretty much the exact same numbers their last fighter had. While the other is interpreting what they have rolled to conceive of a character they can make work and clearly cares more about characterization and story and the value of these things than how mechanically effective their character is going to be in combat. Neither approach is necessarily "wrong." But the player who is powergaming typically isn't only thinking of what they can get our of their own character. They will frequently tell other players what choices they too "should" make because they also want to get the most out of theirs. They can be some of the most disruptive players at our tables because they have a tendency even during play to tell others what they "should" do. What would be the "best" thing to do. For mechanical purposes. To them how another player might wish to play their own character matters less than what's "best."
It's not like the dice aren't time to time going to humiliate the "perfect build" or going to grant the weaker of the two some of the campaign's best moments.
Like I said: Infinite stories that might be fun and interesting stories to tell at our tables are thrown away in favor of just being the next [insert class] who has to have the highest this or the highest that and who must never be "outclassed" by another character in the party belonging to a different class because they have what is an uncharacteristically high attribute for their class ...
I played in a campaign in which my character had the highest STR. And he was the party's thief. A gentle giant who didn't particularly care for violence. Except when it was absolutely necessary. I think it's sad that in so many games a character like this could only ever possibly be an NPC. The irony of NPCs being more fun and interesting than many player characters because many player characters are near identical in terms of mental and physical prowess to every other character their players have ever played who have belonged to the same class because these players keep prioritizing choices made for mechanical purposes more so than ones made for purposes of character is hilarious. It's a formula that is going to dry up the moment players have played more than their fair share of any given class and doing so again just begins to feel too same-y.
EDIT: If you like this "build" approach you are welcome to it. It has become increasingly more and more popular since the arrival of 3rd. Edition. And it has only gained traction. You won't have any trouble finding others who find it as enjoyable as you do. But many are the tables who still consider that sort of player a problem player. I think I have explained why.
Here is the thing about "builds" in D&D, they are quite primitive. They don't really exist like people assume they do.
D&D is a game of selection and rails and there is limited space to make optimizations in that framework, the optimizations are actually built into the game as long as you follow general logic (Fighters get more strength, Rogues get more dex).
If you made 6 Fighter-Champions, odds are they are going to be roughly equivalent to each other. There might be some minor differences in Backgrounds, Species and Feats, but these things really have minimal impact.
You can break the optimization up by doing something like 3d6 down the chain, which will definitely impact how good of a Fighter-Champion you make, but the point of doing 3d6 down the chain is specifically not to make the character you want, but to create a character that works with those stats. If you use Array and build 6 Fighter Champions, they are all going to be super equivalent to each other.
The optimization part comes in which class you pick, not all classes are created equal at all times and this is an inherent thing with a class structure. Wizards are more powerful than Rangers at higher levels for example... that just IS... but then again that has ALWAYS been the case, its part of what makes D&D, D&D.
I honestly don't really see a problem with optimization in D&D in 5e anymore than it was in 1e. You pick your species, you pick your class and you are on rails from then on. The few choices you make during level up like which spells you take or what feat you pick up are minor quirks of the game and any optimization are based more on the balance of the options than they are about making "builds".
This is a "theoretical" problem you are describing, it doesn't actually happen in practice. People pick what they think is cool and you end up with characters that have varied power levels. There is no design you can create to avoid that. Even in B/X where all you do is pick a Race and Class and nothing else, you have an inherent power variability simply because of class design. In fact the 3d6 thing is designed very specifically to break balance and create unequal characters and the point of it is to optimize by pick a race class that is best suited for those stats. We don't call those "builds", they are just selections. Its really not any different in 5e, there are just more "things" in the game that distinguish the classes, but the root cause of balance issues between characters is the same, class design, spell design.. etc.. You can't blame a player for taking X spell that does 1d10 damage over a Y option that does 1d6 damage. Its why most people take Long Swords over Short Swords... they do more damage. Is that "optimization"? Or is that just game design?
At least in 5e, there are benefits and drawbacks to selections. There is good reason to take a Short Sword (Finesse) over Long Sword for some character classes and ability score layouts. This means you actually give purpose to different aspects of the game like weapons. In 1e days, their was literally no reason to take a Short Sword other than the restriction of a class that said "you can't take a long sword". Otherwise, you would always take a Long Sword because its simply the better weapon.. period.
Personally I find the flexibility a lot more entertaining and sensical, its design with purpose.
But your right in the sense that this does create some "cookie cutter" characters, it's unlikely you will see a 9 Int Wizard in modern D&D, but then again, you wouldn't see that in old school D&D either because if you rolled a 9 Int, you would not pick magic-user class, you would pick something more suited to the ability scores you rolled.
Here is the thing about "builds" in D&D, they are quite primitive. They don't really exist like people assume they do.
D&D is a game of selection and rails and there is limited space to make optimizations in that framework, the optimizations are actually built into the game as long as you follow general logic (Fighters get more strength, Rogues get more dex).
If you made 6 Fighter-Champions, odds are they are going to be roughly equivalent to each other. There might be some minor differences in Backgrounds, Species and Feats, but these things really have minimal impact.
You can break the optimization up by doing something like 3d6 down the chain, which will definitely impact how good of a Fighter-Champion you make, but the point of doing 3d6 down the chain is specifically not to make the character you want, but to create a character that works with those stats. If you use Array and build 6 Fighter Champions, they are all going to be super equivalent to each other.
The optimization part comes in which class you pick, not all classes are created equal at all times and this is an inherent thing with a class structure. Wizards are more powerful than Rangers at higher levels for example... that just IS... but then again that has ALWAYS been the case, its part of what makes D&D, D&D.
I honestly don't really see a problem with optimization in D&D in 5e anymore than it was in 1e. You pick your species, you pick your class and you are on rails from then on. The few choices you make during level up like which spells you take or what feat you pick up are minor quirks of the game and any optimization are based more on the balance of the options than they are about making "builds".
This is a "theoretical" problem you are describing, it doesn't actually happen in practice. People pick what they think is cool and you end up with characters that have varied power levels. There is no design you can create to avoid that. Even in B/X where all you do is pick a Race and Class and nothing else, you have an inherent power variability simply because of class design. In fact the 3d6 thing is designed very specifically to break balance and create unequal characters and the point of it is to optimize by pick a race class that is best suited for those stats. We don't call those "builds", they are just selections. Its really not any different in 5e, there are just more "things" in the game that distinguish the classes, but the root cause of balance issues between characters is the same, class design, spell design.. etc.. You can't blame a player for taking X spell that does 1d10 damage over a Y option that does 1d6 damage. Its why most people take Long Swords over Short Swords... they do more damage. Is that "optimization"? Or is that just game design?
At least in 5e, there are benefits and drawbacks to selections. There is good reason to take a Short Sword (Finesse) over Long Sword for some character classes and ability score layouts. This means you actually give purpose to different aspects of the game like weapons. In 1e days, their was literally no reason to take a Short Sword other than the restriction of a class that said "you can't take a long sword". Otherwise, you would always take a Long Sword because its simply the better weapon.. period.
Personally I find the flexibility a lot more entertaining and sensical, its design with purpose.
But your right in the sense that this does create some "cookie cutter" characters, it's unlikely you will see a 9 Int Wizard in modern D&D, but then again, you wouldn't see that in old school D&D either because if you rolled a 9 Int, you would not pick magic-user class, you would pick something more suited to the ability scores you rolled.
Are you forgetting multi-classing? It's not impossible for a player to get off those "rails." And how is that not a choice a character might make because it makes sense for the character in the story that unfolds at the table and not just for purposes of "optimization"?
I spent between around '83 to around '96/'97 playing 1st. then 2nd. Edition and we rarely if ever planned to multi-class. Some players might have wanted to play a thief-cleric or something based on a favorite character and so planned ahead but most would multi-class because of things that occurred in-game. The dominant faith in the land assumed control of the thief's guild and its members were all trained and ordained for example. In one heavily modded OSR-inspired 5th. Edition game in which I played we saw the party's paladin multi-class as a wizard. Not because it made sense. Mechanically. The character didn't have a particularly high INT. It was just that it was the only character fool enough to apprentice itself to an ancient wizard none of the rest of us trusted. Story. Not optimization. The DM who is a big fan of OSR games like DCC encourages this sort of play at his tables. With players being more invested in who their characters are and how their stories unfold and not the mere numbers that represent them.
The problem I have described is not "theoretical" because I have given examples from real life. Many of us if not indeed most of us have met these players. Players bent on "building" the strongest party getting stroppy because other players aren't making what are optimal choices in their eyes. There have always been players who have "[prioritized] their character's power and success over collaborative storytelling and character development." But as the game has increasingly become more and more player-oriented in terms of the rules and overwhelmingly about options that has become more and more visible.
Regarding short sword versus long sword selection: I routinely choose weaker weapons if doing so makes sense for thecharacter. I am currently playing a barbarian in a 5th. Edition game and it wields a flail. Inspired as it is by a pen and ink illustration of a barbarian doing so that I really like. This unusual weapon of choice I even wrote into the character's backstory. It had belonged to a chieftain whose marauding horde killed the character's spouse and everyone else in their village. The character used its chain to choke the life out of that chieftain. I couldn't care less that the character is doing less damage than it might. Neither does anyone else in the group because neither our DM nor the players are about what's "best." We are about having fun in one another's company while telling a good story.
What you call "design with purpose" I call their trying to make every class as combat-ready as the fighter and another example of their trying to make the game less and less about collaborative fantasy adventure storytelling in which characters bring different strengths to a party and any fighter most typically its expertise in combat and more and more about just a string of combat sequences in which every character is equally capable. I am not entirely opposed to the idea of Finesse weapons. But one in the hands of a rogue with an exceptionally high DEX is probably going to make that rogue deadlier than most fighters with a lower STR than it has DEX. If the purpose was to show how some fighters wield weapons more with adroitness than with brute force I would have no problem with this. But its obvious purpose is to placate those who want to play rogues but who get stroppy if they are not as effective as the party's fighter in combat. What once made the fighter the fighter is now gone. It used to be that the fighter advanced faster than others as far as attack bonuses went. In some versions of the game it is only the fighter who sees any martial development. Now with characters of different classes of any given one level afforded exactly the same proficiency bonus in combat when using weapons with which they are proficient as if every class is as proficient as those that have spent their formative years training in combat and then being a rogue with an exceptionally high DEX and using a Finesse weapon and adding that DEX bonus to both attack and damage rolls a party's rogue is basically another fighter only one with fewer options as far as raising its AC goes. I half suspect this is why the term "rogue" which first appeared in the game as little more than a broader category for both thieves and bards replaced "thief" in 3rd. Edition. To move the class away from its specialist origins. And give it more the look and feel of what is really a fighter only using agility over brute force. If every class gets to add the proficiency bonus to its attack rolls then I think fighters should be afforded "expertise" with one weapon at 1st level and with others upon reaching certain levels. Doubling their proficiency bonus. Many would likely complain about how this makes them "overpowered" and how "unfair" and "unreasonable" this is. No. It would just reflect how someone with actual proper martial training and whose area of expertise is combat is better at it. If that's "too overpowered" then strip the other classes of being able to add theirs to their attack rolls. The current design team are so obsessed with "balance" and making every class feel equally capable in moments of combat they are drastically limited as far as what they are capable of devising for the game's development. If they poured even a fraction of the time and effort they have poured into coming up with more and more needless subclasses or new feats into tinkering with how something as fundamental as how combat works and making the fighter actually a viable choice beyond just picking a "fighting style" and a "martial archetype" they would have achieved more than they have in over a decade. I am sure they are perfectly capable of coming up with a better solution than I have here. But choose not to.
If I rolled a 9 INT I would probably not choose to play a magic-user. If I rolled a 15 or a 16 INT but also an 18 STR? I might choose to play a wizard who also happens to possess immense strength. I don't think my rolling an 18 STR means I am obligated to choose to play a fighter. And I don't think my rolling a lower INT than I did STR means the choice to play a wizard is a bad one. I would sooner choose to play a "weak" character but one that is fun and interesting to play than one that has the same mental and physical prowess than most others of its class.
A Small Correction:In B/X one does not pick Race and Class. One chooses to play a (human) cleric or a (human) fighter or a (human) thief or a (human) magic-user. Or to play a demihuman character.
I don't think a 10% boost to your initiative order is that powerful compared to savage attacker, and, combat feats (at least the origin ones) are all that powerful overall. Alert is somewhat unique, in that it gets much better as you move up in tiers. So, perhaps it should just be a flat +2? But I agree with you it isn't, and maybe becomes an unfair outlier at later levels
Reducing it to just the Initiative bonus is selling it short by a lot. If your goal is to go first in combat, the fact that it lets you trade places means you have as many chances to upgrade your position as you have allies. It's as if each ally in your party gave you Advantage on the roll and for once it's allowed to stacked. And you still have the option to trade down if you feel someone else can do better in a particular situation.
Savage Attacker doesn't even let you see the roll before rerolling it anymore, so it doesn't scale at all. You just burn it blindly and come out like 2 damage better on average once per turn.
The new version of Alert is invaluable for certain subclasses and play styles
Want to buff the party/debuff the enemy when combat begins, or have a subclass ability that benefits if you strike first? Move as close to the top of the order as you can. Have too many spell options to consider and want to wait to see what the enemy does before choosing? Move as close to the bottom of the order as you can
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I was about to make a thread on reddit to get a similar discussion about backgrounds. But, not because i hate them, but because i love them.
I have read a word here that i think really describes for me the issue people have with it "perfect character syndrome".
Another great point someone made "if you can pick ASI, feat, skill at will, there is no choice anymore as you don't have to make tradeoffs". This is true. If you can have everything you want, you literally are having the "perfect character syndrome". Background at that point is worthless as a mechanic, as you don't care anymore about the mechanical implications of your background, and use it as simple justification for your opitmizations.
2024 Backgrounds on the other hand, are nailing down the Archetype (backgrounds should be renamed to archetypes, this would make so much more sense), the sneaky backalley thief as a the Criminal, the pig wrestling rough Farmer, the tavern brawling drunken Sailor.
The only critique i would accept: there are to few. I think there could have easily been double. But luckily in the Forgotten Realms Character Guide we will get new ones. And this is actually exiting. Backgrounds with 2014 rules were very boring and most of the time useless. 2024 are usefull and flavourful, and we will get more. As a homebrewer on the side, homebrewing backgrounds seems exciting aswells.
Custom Backgrounds are the non-choice, as you don't have to make a choice.
It’s a short article but if you don’t want to click the link, the TLDR is that roleplaying does not preclude optimization and optimization does not preclude roleplaying despite the contingent of those rude people who feel the need to tell others they are doing it wrong.
Assuming the other players are willing to switch.....I agree with you. But I feel it's far more "opt-in" for the other players, giving the team more options, which might include you going first. As opposed to just automatically being personally more powerful or that out of balance. And you paid for the privilege with your Origin feat, and only works if the rest of your team specifically wants to take the "downgrade" (or upgrade).
In my experience groups tend to be on the same page about who benefits most from going first. When someone offers to use a limited resource like Entangle, Turn Undead or Fog Cloud in a tricky situation, they're only going to get objections if the person they're trading with has an equally good plan (in which case you're already in an optimal situation, who cares.) If the group isn't cooperating, it really won't matter how much they min/max their individual characters.
In tier 1, savage attacker might well be better than alert, but it (along with crafter and healer) has absolutely atrocious level scaling; in tier 2 and above those origin feats just lose relevance.
I don't see what's so bad about Healer and Crafter. Healer basically gives you Potions of Healing (or a 2014 Cure Wounds) for 5 silver each, and rerolling 1s on healing spells scales with your spells. Thieves can even use it to heal as a bonus action. (I know it's limited by HP Dice. That's still a lot of really cheap on demand healing.)
Crafter will still be relevant in tier 2 for purchasing high-price items like full plate, and Fast Crafting is handy on any extended outing where the group can't return to town. If a makeshift grappling hook or ladder saves you a casting of Spider Climb or a block and tackle saves you a use of Levitate, it's already paid for itself.
Everybody has their own reasons, I guess, but making custom backgrounds a part of the basic, core rules (instead of the anticipated optional rule in the upcoming DMG) annoys people who see optimization play out even more negatively in their experiences. I am enjoying the thread, though, despite the barbs and generalizations being thrown around.
I don't think it's gotten too bad to be honest, and I have found the overall conversation to be pretty awesome.
If you don't mind, reiterate why you feel the "Use the expanded material you already own" and 2014 PHB options will not work for you? I believe it was you who said it had something to do with not everyone having more than the new book.......which is sorta fair, but honestly, new players won't know the difference, as that will be the "new rules". What is your personal stake in viva la revolution?
Certainly there have been much worse discussions, but I don't really understand any negativity directed at others regarding their preferred play style. It's gonna happen; totally normal (but not, you know, great). I've enjoyed reading most posts here :) Admittedly, I usually stick to the game mechanics threads because, there, the whole point to just look at the rules and it's explicitly not about opinions.
I didn't bring up the point you referenced about the expanded material, but it certainly works for me. None of this has really been about how much it will actually affect my game. My groups are going to play with whatever rules we want. That's just a given and is the reason I play ttrpg instead of video games. I was just disappointed that the 2024 PHB could have easily accounted for custom backgrounds.
It felt like a step back, design-wise, in other words. Stat bumps were tied to species in 2014. They were disconnected in Tasha's. And then re-tied back down to backgrounds in the 2024 PHB. I felt like they made the right call (for a variety of reasons) in Tasha's. And then they unnecessarily complicated things again by tying them back up with the backgrounds. And every time I have to jerry-rig my character sheet in DnDBeyond to just do what I want, I'll be annoyed about it.
It’s a short article but if you don’t want to click the link, the TLDR is that roleplaying does not preclude optimization and optimization does not preclude roleplaying despite the contingent of those rude people who feel the need to tell others they are doing it wrong.
And yet, my lived experience is that the vast majority of players I've been in campaigns with who have focused on build optimization had no time for the role-playing aspect of the campaign, and were basically only there to see how much damage they could do in a round. Their backstories were just there to provide story hooks to lead to the next combat (in which they would naturally be the main character, although I'm not making that connection)
Can players who optimize devote just as much mental energy to role-playing? Sure
How many actually do?
It's not a "fallacy". It's a signal for the kind of campaign you're likely to find yourself in
Anyway, to get back on topic, I'm close to making my first PHB24 character, and have fun concepts for both a cleric and a warlock. Both would end up having the Charlatan background, although if I cared about "optimizing" for that extra WIS boost as opposed to getting those fancy talkin' proficiencies, I could shift the cleric to Wayfarer and it wouldn't really change anything important about their backstory
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
And yet, my lived experience is that the vast majority of players I've been in campaigns with who have focused on build optimization had no time for the role-playing aspect of the campaign, and were basically only there to see how much damage they could do in a round. Their backstories were just there to provide story hooks to lead to the next combat (in which they would naturally be the main character, although I'm not making that connection)
Your experience is valid. My experience is that every person I've played with could do both, and did either or both as they preferred.
Can players who optimize devote just as much mental energy to role-playing? Sure
That statement, right there, is exactly what the fallacy is stating. It is demonstrably false to say that no-one can do both, or that the two things are fundamentally opposed.
It’s a short article but if you don’t want to click the link, the TLDR is that roleplaying does not preclude optimization and optimization does not preclude roleplaying despite the contingent of those rude people who feel the need to tell others they are doing it wrong.
And yet, my lived experience is that the vast majority of players I've been in campaigns with who have focused on build optimization had no time for the role-playing aspect of the campaign, and were basically only there to see how much damage they could do in a round. Their backstories were just there to provide story hooks to lead to the next combat (in which they would naturally be the main character, although I'm not making that connection)
And yet my lived experience is that the people who don't optimize role play the least, the have no investment in the character or game and are only there to play the goofball disruptive person.
Every time I see someone try to equate someone being against or for something refereed to as an optimizer or powergamer, I recognize that they are just trying to belittle someone else's playstyle by trying to infer that they are inferior or illegitimate. This happens all the time in politics. I hate it when I see it here. A lot of people get joy out of synergizing builds. It doesn't mean they throw out all background role-playing for the character. As a matter of fact some of the best backgrounds are forged to encompass synergistic choices. People need to stop trying to demonize others by affixing a stigma that they then try to equate as being something undesirable.
Imagine two players wanting to play fighters in the same game. The DM allows the players to choose how attributes are to be determined. One takes the option most conducive to getting what they want and assigns his fighter an exceptional STR and an exceptional CON because the player is thinking primarily about how often that fighter will hit and how hard and how resilient it will be and yes gives consideration to who the character is and where the character comes from but also practically maps out the character's advancement. The player will take this and that at this and that level. And so on. The other player rolls 3d6 in order and does not particularly care their fighter will have barely above average STR because the player is more than happy to play the role of a fighter who is the physically weaker of two in a party of adventurers. Its uncharacteristically high INT the player figures can be explained because the fighter is someone who might be a bit bookish and perhaps even had contemplated a future in the academy but something happened that forced the character to fight and it proved itself in that regard. A fighter with high INT. It would be great for the city watch! And maybe circumstances will arise and it will make sense for it to multi-class as a wizard. Maybe. Anything could happen. Now imagine the first of these players complaining because the second player hasn't made "the right choices" to also produce a fighter that is going to be as capable as theirs in combat. Complaining because the player has armed their fighter with a weapon that isn't the most optimal choice and was chosen for purposes of character. Or complaining about how the second player should just play a wizard. This is the difference between how someone who is powergaming treats character creation and someone who wants to play more than they want to play what they want. Or what others want. The former cares more about how strong the character and in turn the party is and is the sort of player who can't stand to miss and so assigns their fighter pretty much the exact same numbers their last fighter had. While the other is interpreting what they have rolled to conceive of a character they can make work and clearly cares more about characterization and story and the value of these things than how mechanically effective their character is going to be in combat. Neither approach is necessarily "wrong." But the player who is powergaming typically isn't only thinking of what they can get our of their own character. They will frequently tell other players what choices they too "should" make because they also want to get the most out of theirs. They can be some of the most disruptive players at our tables because they have a tendency even during play to tell others what they "should" do. What would be the "best" thing to do. For mechanical purposes. To them how another player might wish to play their own character matters less than what's "best."
It's not like the dice aren't time to time going to humiliate the "perfect build" or going to grant the weaker of the two some of the campaign's best moments.
Like I said: Infinite stories that might be fun and interesting stories to tell at our tables are thrown away in favor of just being the next [insert class] who has to have the highest this or the highest that and who must never be "outclassed" by another character in the party belonging to a different class because they have what is an uncharacteristically high attribute for their class ...
I played in a campaign in which my character had the highest STR. And he was the party's thief. A gentle giant who didn't particularly care for violence. Except when it was absolutely necessary. I think it's sad that in so many games a character like this could only ever possibly be an NPC. The irony of NPCs being more fun and interesting than many player characters because many player characters are near identical in terms of mental and physical prowess to every other character their players have ever played who have belonged to the same class because these players keep prioritizing choices made for mechanical purposes more so than ones made for purposes of character is hilarious. It's a formula that is going to dry up the moment players have played more than their fair share of any given class and doing so again just begins to feel too same-y.
EDIT: If you like this "build" approach you are welcome to it. It has become increasingly more and more popular since the arrival of 3rd. Edition. And it has only gained traction. You won't have any trouble finding others who find it as enjoyable as you do. But many are the tables who still consider that sort of player a problem player. I think I have explained why.
Huh? Why is player 1 complaining about player 2 in this scenario? I don't get it, it's not his character. What does it matter to player 1 what player 2 does? You're assuming because player 1 wants to be the ultimate tank, he can't handle another player not doing the same? That's absurd. If anything player 1 should be happy about player 2 because it makes them different in their personality, play style, customization, and probably background. I think you have it wrong about what it means to be an optimizer or synergist. You are doing exactly what I mentioned in my original post by demonizing them and painting false narratives to stigmatize an identity of playstyle. Why didn't you talk about player 2 and paint a narrative where he puts player 1 down for being basic?
That statement, right there, is exactly what the fallacy is stating.
Calling it a fallacy is as much a fallacy as anything else. I've never seen anyone say it's impossible to optimize and RP at the same time
EDIT: on the other hand, I've seen plenty of people accused of saying it when they didn't, on these very forums, with the accuser hiding behind Stormwind with a "well, it's what you meant!"
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Huh? Why is player 1 complaining about player 2 in this scenario? I don't get it, it's not his character. What does it matter to player 1 what player 2 does? You're assuming because player 1 wants to be the ultimate tank, he can't handle another player not doing the same? That's absurd. If anything player 1 should be happy about player 2 because it makes them different in their personality, play style, customization, and probably background. I think you have it wrong about what it means to be an optimizer or synergist. You are doing exactly what I mentioned in my original post by demonizing them and painting false narratives to stigmatize an identity of playstyle. Why didn't you talk about player 2 and paint a narrative where he puts player 1 down for being basic?
Yeah I have to admit, I don't get it either. This example describes a situation in which people are being A-holes, I don't see what that has to do with the game in any way.
There are different kinds of players, that is for sure, but they can coexist in the same campaign as long as everyone is polite and respectful of others which is not a system thing, its a player thing. If people are jerks, they aren't jerks because its 5e and there are optimization options, they are jerks because they are jerks.
Its popularity is frequently overstated, with great vigor.
Nothing you have written goes anywhere towards adequately addressing my main criticisms and my main points made about characterization and all those missed opportunities to tell great stories. You have nothing to say about these things because you don't particularly care about how good a story is told in a campaign and care more about how powerful your character is?
You know nothing about my playstyle, because I'm not arguing for it.
What I'm arguing, in its broadest strokes:
There's nothing wrong with making choices in character generation based on how they affect your effectiveness.
Indeed, the structure and writing of the game encourages it.
Therefore, the background rules shouldn't be forcing players to choose between effectiveness and roleplaying decisions.
And also, 3d6 in order is an extremely bad method of character generation, and prevents people from making the characters they want to play.
I've mostly been arguing that last one with you, because you seem to be extremely devoted to defending its honor.
(I am willing to concede that, in a system with no other provided methods of character differentiation like old D&D, hanging your roleplaying choices on your stat rolls makes some degree of sense, but I file that under "making the best of a bad lot", rather than "a good idea".)
14? 8? 11? 11? 6? 11? That's not particularly good. But it's not "unplayable." It would be a perfectly playable Level 0 or Level 1 character in an OSR game in which Level 0 and Level 1 characters don't start the game looking like they have already reached Level 10. You would find it unplayable.
In AD&D, it's a fighter-by-default with no actual stat bonuses, and a minus to its hit points that puts it closer to being one-shot in combat than the average fighter, and it has no real option to avoid that risk. If it could've chosen stat order, it could be a non-front-line class. (Or even not have a 6 Con.)
If that 6 con had been a 5, it'd be forced by the rules to play an illusionist, for some reason. (For which it needs a 15 Int, so literally unplayable.)
In Basic D&D, it at least gets a combat bonus from that strength, but it's also rolling a d8 for HP, and is even less likely to survive its first fight.
It's the combination of bad Con with fighter being the only viable choice that makes it unplayable. (I was incorrect about fighter being forced in AD&D; you're allowed to play a cleric or thief with those stats, but they're low enough that you're penalized at your basic class functions for doing so.)
And stat distributions like this are normal for the rolling method. Three average stats, two one standard deviation off, and one two off. They aren't always going to be this unsuitable for actual play, but they tend toward the singularly uninteresting and ineffective, especially with AD&D's weirdly broad ranges of no bonus on stats.
Maybe it's more playable in OSR games. Though given the prevalence of Basic D&D rewrites I noticed the time I poked around, I have my doubts about it in a lot of them.
EDIT: I suppose you believe DCC's popularity is "overstated" as well?
Since nobody's going on about it in my awareness, I don't see why I'd have an opinion one way or another.
Goodman Games will never be Hasbro. Neither would they wish to be. But their presence in the hobby ain't nothing. You have to be living in a bubble not to see how popular some of these games are and particularly have become more recently.
Popularity in specific circles does not necessarily translate to popularity outside those circles. In other circles, Apocalypse World and its derivatives have been the hotness for quite some time. FATE seems to have a sustained base. When I go to my local con, I see way more of those than I do OSR (which might be as low as none). But that doesn't mean anything in the larger scheme of things. They're all niche, and the nature of RPGs makes them prone to hotspots of popularity. Of all the little games I'm aware of, only Blades in the Dark seems like it might be reaching significant numbers, and I'm basing this entirely on the fact that it got enough attention to get optioned for a TV series or something like that.
You say you will "never touch" OSR games. You needn't. But having not tried them your opinions on them are about as useful as someone posting a review on Amazon for a book he or she has never read.
I'm just commenting on mechanics that come to my attention, and I really only comment much when it's something like somebody arguing that some of the worst design elements of old D&D, the ones that D&D itself has long been moving away from, are good actually. ((Like 3d6 in order, which 1e AD&D ditched.) I half-expect to see an impassioned defense of upside-down AC at some point.
And also, 3d6 in order is an extremely bad method of character generation, and prevents people from making the characters they want to play.
The point of 3d6 in order (and, more generally, rolling stats at all) is that you don't come in with preconceived notions of the character you want to play; instead, you roll attributes and make a character that fits those rolls.
And also, 3d6 in order is an extremely bad method of character generation, and prevents people from making the characters they want to play.
The point of 3d6 in order (and, more generally, rolling stats at all) is that you don't come in with preconceived notions of the character you want to play; instead, you roll attributes and make a character that fits those rolls.
And that tends to encourage a character-as-gamepiece stance, which reduces investment in the character, and works against the roleplaying aspect of the game.
(Doesn't prevent it, of course, but it definitely makes it harder, especially for people who are new to the genre.)
Edit: also, randomly choosing your stats can be done in ways that don't also have the variance issues of 3d6.
And also, 3d6 in order is an extremely bad method of character generation, and prevents people from making the characters they want to play.
The point of 3d6 in order (and, more generally, rolling stats at all) is that you don't come in with preconceived notions of the character you want to play; instead, you roll attributes and make a character that fits those rolls.
And that tends to encourage a character-as-gamepiece stance, which reduces investment in the character, and works against the roleplaying aspect of the game.
(Doesn't prevent it, of course, but it definitely makes it harder, especially for people who are new to the genre.)
Edit: also, randomly choosing your stats can be done in ways that don't also have the variance issues of 3d6.
One thing i did in a recent Call of Cthulu game, was a modified roll system. The DM said use any of the systems, so roll, point buy or standard array effectively were options. I decided to go with roll but scale down if I went over point buy, or scale up if I went under. I rolled over and scaled down. The point for me was to keep the outlier rolls as thematic elements for the character so my Dex is 30 which means I always go last. But my size/strength rolled were 90/85, i trimmed size down to 80 but it still kept him as a big strong guy. I knocked a few 60s down to 50 as mid is mid and then I hit the point buy limits but I had a weird extremes as if I rolled.
And that tends to encourage a character-as-gamepiece stance, which reduces investment in the character, and works against the roleplaying aspect of the game.
My experience is that new characters, regardless of generation method, don't feel particularly invested, that comes from playing the character for a while. I don't like the sheer power variance you see from rolling dice for ability scores so I prefer not to use it, but a more fair random character creation system can be fun (it's hard to do with D&D because some stats wind up way more valuable than others).
It’s a short article but if you don’t want to click the link, the TLDR is that roleplaying does not preclude optimization and optimization does not preclude roleplaying despite the contingent of those rude people who feel the need to tell others they are doing it wrong.
Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa.
Everyone knows this.
No one is claiming that those who enjoy "building" their characters "do not" or "can not" role-play.
They can and do.
It's ironic that there is a fallacy deeply buried in what is supposed to have pointed out another. Because the entire premise is based on a straw man.
Any point of contention here is more about what gets priority and what the optimization mindset often brings to many a table: "Other players may consider this disruptive when done to the exclusion of all other considerations, such as storytelling, atmosphere, and camaraderie. When focusing on the letter of the rules over the spirit of the rules, it is often seen as unsporting, un-fun, or unsociable." This is why at many a table players who do it are considered to be problem players.
These players do and can still role-play.
But if every choice a player makes during character creation and at level-ups is made for mechanical purposes than means opportunities for purposes of characterization and story must take a back seat. It means an infinite number of possible characters are not being made and not being played. Because every one of any given class must be made or played with practically the same distribution of attributes and only ever choices that "make sense" mechanically.
This doesn't mean the optimizer does not or can not role-play.
But it does mean the optimizer has prioritized their character's being "strong" over making a character that breaks free of those mechanical constraints they have placed on their characters.
And as I earlier pointed out: Many are those of this mindset who then expect other players to make "optimal" decisions for their characters. They can't fathom why a player with a character with immense strength wants to play a wizard and not a fighter. They can't fathom why a player has conceived of their character as wielding a certain weapon and so arms that character with that weapon even though it isn't going to deliver the most damage possible.
This is an optimizer who is now a player not only making the choices they want. It is one who expects others to comply. One who has become a problem player ruining the fun of someone else who doesn't care for making the "best" character and who just wants to have fun and tell a good story.
Imagine two players wanting to play fighters in the same game. The DM allows the players to choose how attributes are to be determined. One takes the option most conducive to getting what they want and assigns his fighter an exceptional STR and an exceptional CON because the player is thinking primarily about how often that fighter will hit and how hard and how resilient it will be and yes gives consideration to who the character is and where the character comes from but also practically maps out the character's advancement. The player will take this and that at this and that level. And so on. The other player rolls 3d6 in order and does not particularly care their fighter will have barely above average STR because the player is more than happy to play the role of a fighter who is the physically weaker of two in a party of adventurers. Its uncharacteristically high INT the player figures can be explained because the fighter is someone who might be a bit bookish and perhaps even had contemplated a future in the academy but something happened that forced the character to fight and it proved itself in that regard. A fighter with high INT. It would be great for the city watch! And maybe circumstances will arise and it will make sense for it to multi-class as a wizard. Maybe. Anything could happen. Now imagine the first of these players complaining because the second player hasn't made "the right choices" to also produce a fighter that is going to be as capable as theirs in combat. Complaining because the player has armed their fighter with a weapon that isn't the most optimal choice and was chosen for purposes of character. Or complaining about how the second player should just play a wizard. This is the difference between how someone who is powergaming treats character creation and someone who wants to play more than they want to play what they want. Or what others want. The former cares more about how strong the character and in turn the party is and is the sort of player who can't stand to miss and so assigns their fighter pretty much the exact same numbers their last fighter had. While the other is interpreting what they have rolled to conceive of a character they can make work and clearly cares more about characterization and story and the value of these things than how mechanically effective their character is going to be in combat. Neither approach is necessarily "wrong." But the player who is powergaming typically isn't only thinking of what they can get our of their own character. They will frequently tell other players what choices they too "should" make because they also want to get the most out of theirs. They can be some of the most disruptive players at our tables because they have a tendency even during play to tell others what they "should" do. What would be the "best" thing to do. For mechanical purposes. To them how another player might wish to play their own character matters less than what's "best."
It's not like the dice aren't time to time going to humiliate the "perfect build" or going to grant the weaker of the two some of the campaign's best moments.
Like I said: Infinite stories that might be fun and interesting stories to tell at our tables are thrown away in favor of just being the next [insert class] who has to have the highest this or the highest that and who must never be "outclassed" by another character in the party belonging to a different class because they have what is an uncharacteristically high attribute for their class ...
I played in a campaign in which my character had the highest STR. And he was the party's thief. A gentle giant who didn't particularly care for violence. Except when it was absolutely necessary. I think it's sad that in so many games a character like this could only ever possibly be an NPC. The irony of NPCs being more fun and interesting than many player characters because many player characters are near identical in terms of mental and physical prowess to every other character their players have ever played who have belonged to the same class because these players keep prioritizing choices made for mechanical purposes more so than ones made for purposes of character is hilarious. It's a formula that is going to dry up the moment players have played more than their fair share of any given class and doing so again just begins to feel too same-y.
EDIT: If you like this "build" approach you are welcome to it. It has become increasingly more and more popular since the arrival of 3rd. Edition. And it has only gained traction. You won't have any trouble finding others who find it as enjoyable as you do. But many are the tables who still consider that sort of player a problem player. I think I have explained why.
Here is the thing about "builds" in D&D, they are quite primitive. They don't really exist like people assume they do.
D&D is a game of selection and rails and there is limited space to make optimizations in that framework, the optimizations are actually built into the game as long as you follow general logic (Fighters get more strength, Rogues get more dex).
If you made 6 Fighter-Champions, odds are they are going to be roughly equivalent to each other. There might be some minor differences in Backgrounds, Species and Feats, but these things really have minimal impact.
You can break the optimization up by doing something like 3d6 down the chain, which will definitely impact how good of a Fighter-Champion you make, but the point of doing 3d6 down the chain is specifically not to make the character you want, but to create a character that works with those stats. If you use Array and build 6 Fighter Champions, they are all going to be super equivalent to each other.
The optimization part comes in which class you pick, not all classes are created equal at all times and this is an inherent thing with a class structure. Wizards are more powerful than Rangers at higher levels for example... that just IS... but then again that has ALWAYS been the case, its part of what makes D&D, D&D.
I honestly don't really see a problem with optimization in D&D in 5e anymore than it was in 1e. You pick your species, you pick your class and you are on rails from then on. The few choices you make during level up like which spells you take or what feat you pick up are minor quirks of the game and any optimization are based more on the balance of the options than they are about making "builds".
This is a "theoretical" problem you are describing, it doesn't actually happen in practice. People pick what they think is cool and you end up with characters that have varied power levels. There is no design you can create to avoid that. Even in B/X where all you do is pick a Race and Class and nothing else, you have an inherent power variability simply because of class design. In fact the 3d6 thing is designed very specifically to break balance and create unequal characters and the point of it is to optimize by pick a race class that is best suited for those stats. We don't call those "builds", they are just selections. Its really not any different in 5e, there are just more "things" in the game that distinguish the classes, but the root cause of balance issues between characters is the same, class design, spell design.. etc.. You can't blame a player for taking X spell that does 1d10 damage over a Y option that does 1d6 damage. Its why most people take Long Swords over Short Swords... they do more damage. Is that "optimization"? Or is that just game design?
At least in 5e, there are benefits and drawbacks to selections. There is good reason to take a Short Sword (Finesse) over Long Sword for some character classes and ability score layouts. This means you actually give purpose to different aspects of the game like weapons. In 1e days, their was literally no reason to take a Short Sword other than the restriction of a class that said "you can't take a long sword". Otherwise, you would always take a Long Sword because its simply the better weapon.. period.
Personally I find the flexibility a lot more entertaining and sensical, its design with purpose.
But your right in the sense that this does create some "cookie cutter" characters, it's unlikely you will see a 9 Int Wizard in modern D&D, but then again, you wouldn't see that in old school D&D either because if you rolled a 9 Int, you would not pick magic-user class, you would pick something more suited to the ability scores you rolled.
Are you forgetting multi-classing? It's not impossible for a player to get off those "rails." And how is that not a choice a character might make because it makes sense for the character in the story that unfolds at the table and not just for purposes of "optimization"?
I spent between around '83 to around '96/'97 playing 1st. then 2nd. Edition and we rarely if ever planned to multi-class. Some players might have wanted to play a thief-cleric or something based on a favorite character and so planned ahead but most would multi-class because of things that occurred in-game. The dominant faith in the land assumed control of the thief's guild and its members were all trained and ordained for example. In one heavily modded OSR-inspired 5th. Edition game in which I played we saw the party's paladin multi-class as a wizard. Not because it made sense. Mechanically. The character didn't have a particularly high INT. It was just that it was the only character fool enough to apprentice itself to an ancient wizard none of the rest of us trusted. Story. Not optimization. The DM who is a big fan of OSR games like DCC encourages this sort of play at his tables. With players being more invested in who their characters are and how their stories unfold and not the mere numbers that represent them.
The problem I have described is not "theoretical" because I have given examples from real life. Many of us if not indeed most of us have met these players. Players bent on "building" the strongest party getting stroppy because other players aren't making what are optimal choices in their eyes. There have always been players who have "[prioritized] their character's power and success over collaborative storytelling and character development." But as the game has increasingly become more and more player-oriented in terms of the rules and overwhelmingly about options that has become more and more visible.
Regarding short sword versus long sword selection: I routinely choose weaker weapons if doing so makes sense for the character. I am currently playing a barbarian in a 5th. Edition game and it wields a flail. Inspired as it is by a pen and ink illustration of a barbarian doing so that I really like. This unusual weapon of choice I even wrote into the character's backstory. It had belonged to a chieftain whose marauding horde killed the character's spouse and everyone else in their village. The character used its chain to choke the life out of that chieftain. I couldn't care less that the character is doing less damage than it might. Neither does anyone else in the group because neither our DM nor the players are about what's "best." We are about having fun in one another's company while telling a good story.
What you call "design with purpose" I call their trying to make every class as combat-ready as the fighter and another example of their trying to make the game less and less about collaborative fantasy adventure storytelling in which characters bring different strengths to a party and any fighter most typically its expertise in combat and more and more about just a string of combat sequences in which every character is equally capable. I am not entirely opposed to the idea of Finesse weapons. But one in the hands of a rogue with an exceptionally high DEX is probably going to make that rogue deadlier than most fighters with a lower STR than it has DEX. If the purpose was to show how some fighters wield weapons more with adroitness than with brute force I would have no problem with this. But its obvious purpose is to placate those who want to play rogues but who get stroppy if they are not as effective as the party's fighter in combat. What once made the fighter the fighter is now gone. It used to be that the fighter advanced faster than others as far as attack bonuses went. In some versions of the game it is only the fighter who sees any martial development. Now with characters of different classes of any given one level afforded exactly the same proficiency bonus in combat when using weapons with which they are proficient as if every class is as proficient as those that have spent their formative years training in combat and then being a rogue with an exceptionally high DEX and using a Finesse weapon and adding that DEX bonus to both attack and damage rolls a party's rogue is basically another fighter only one with fewer options as far as raising its AC goes. I half suspect this is why the term "rogue" which first appeared in the game as little more than a broader category for both thieves and bards replaced "thief" in 3rd. Edition. To move the class away from its specialist origins. And give it more the look and feel of what is really a fighter only using agility over brute force. If every class gets to add the proficiency bonus to its attack rolls then I think fighters should be afforded "expertise" with one weapon at 1st level and with others upon reaching certain levels. Doubling their proficiency bonus. Many would likely complain about how this makes them "overpowered" and how "unfair" and "unreasonable" this is. No. It would just reflect how someone with actual proper martial training and whose area of expertise is combat is better at it. If that's "too overpowered" then strip the other classes of being able to add theirs to their attack rolls. The current design team are so obsessed with "balance" and making every class feel equally capable in moments of combat they are drastically limited as far as what they are capable of devising for the game's development. If they poured even a fraction of the time and effort they have poured into coming up with more and more needless subclasses or new feats into tinkering with how something as fundamental as how combat works and making the fighter actually a viable choice beyond just picking a "fighting style" and a "martial archetype" they would have achieved more than they have in over a decade. I am sure they are perfectly capable of coming up with a better solution than I have here. But choose not to.
If I rolled a 9 INT I would probably not choose to play a magic-user. If I rolled a 15 or a 16 INT but also an 18 STR? I might choose to play a wizard who also happens to possess immense strength. I don't think my rolling an 18 STR means I am obligated to choose to play a fighter. And I don't think my rolling a lower INT than I did STR means the choice to play a wizard is a bad one. I would sooner choose to play a "weak" character but one that is fun and interesting to play than one that has the same mental and physical prowess than most others of its class.
A Small Correction: In B/X one does not pick Race and Class. One chooses to play a (human) cleric or a (human) fighter or a (human) thief or a (human) magic-user. Or to play a demihuman character.
The new version of Alert is invaluable for certain subclasses and play styles
Want to buff the party/debuff the enemy when combat begins, or have a subclass ability that benefits if you strike first? Move as close to the top of the order as you can. Have too many spell options to consider and want to wait to see what the enemy does before choosing? Move as close to the bottom of the order as you can
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I was about to make a thread on reddit to get a similar discussion about backgrounds. But, not because i hate them, but because i love them.
I have read a word here that i think really describes for me the issue people have with it "perfect character syndrome".
Another great point someone made "if you can pick ASI, feat, skill at will, there is no choice anymore as you don't have to make tradeoffs". This is true. If you can have everything you want, you literally are having the "perfect character syndrome". Background at that point is worthless as a mechanic, as you don't care anymore about the mechanical implications of your background, and use it as simple justification for your opitmizations.
2024 Backgrounds on the other hand, are nailing down the Archetype (backgrounds should be renamed to archetypes, this would make so much more sense), the sneaky backalley thief as a the Criminal, the pig wrestling rough Farmer, the tavern brawling drunken Sailor.
The only critique i would accept: there are to few. I think there could have easily been double. But luckily in the Forgotten Realms Character Guide we will get new ones. And this is actually exiting. Backgrounds with 2014 rules were very boring and most of the time useless. 2024 are usefull and flavourful, and we will get more. As a homebrewer on the side, homebrewing backgrounds seems exciting aswells.
Custom Backgrounds are the non-choice, as you don't have to make a choice.
Yawn. Not sure why anyone feels it’s necessary to dust off this old bit of tired rubbish. Decent folk stopped trotting it out like a decade ago.
The Stormwind Fallacy
It’s a short article but if you don’t want to click the link, the TLDR is that roleplaying does not preclude optimization and optimization does not preclude roleplaying despite the contingent of those rude people who feel the need to tell others they are doing it wrong.
In my experience groups tend to be on the same page about who benefits most from going first. When someone offers to use a limited resource like Entangle, Turn Undead or Fog Cloud in a tricky situation, they're only going to get objections if the person they're trading with has an equally good plan (in which case you're already in an optimal situation, who cares.) If the group isn't cooperating, it really won't matter how much they min/max their individual characters.
I don't see what's so bad about Healer and Crafter. Healer basically gives you Potions of Healing (or a 2014 Cure Wounds) for 5 silver each, and rerolling 1s on healing spells scales with your spells. Thieves can even use it to heal as a bonus action. (I know it's limited by HP Dice. That's still a lot of really cheap on demand healing.)
Crafter will still be relevant in tier 2 for purchasing high-price items like full plate, and Fast Crafting is handy on any extended outing where the group can't return to town. If a makeshift grappling hook or ladder saves you a casting of Spider Climb or a block and tackle saves you a use of Levitate, it's already paid for itself.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
Certainly there have been much worse discussions, but I don't really understand any negativity directed at others regarding their preferred play style. It's gonna happen; totally normal (but not, you know, great). I've enjoyed reading most posts here :) Admittedly, I usually stick to the game mechanics threads because, there, the whole point to just look at the rules and it's explicitly not about opinions.
I didn't bring up the point you referenced about the expanded material, but it certainly works for me. None of this has really been about how much it will actually affect my game. My groups are going to play with whatever rules we want. That's just a given and is the reason I play ttrpg instead of video games. I was just disappointed that the 2024 PHB could have easily accounted for custom backgrounds.
It felt like a step back, design-wise, in other words. Stat bumps were tied to species in 2014. They were disconnected in Tasha's. And then re-tied back down to backgrounds in the 2024 PHB. I felt like they made the right call (for a variety of reasons) in Tasha's. And then they unnecessarily complicated things again by tying them back up with the backgrounds. And every time I have to jerry-rig my character sheet in DnDBeyond to just do what I want, I'll be annoyed about it.
And yet, my lived experience is that the vast majority of players I've been in campaigns with who have focused on build optimization had no time for the role-playing aspect of the campaign, and were basically only there to see how much damage they could do in a round. Their backstories were just there to provide story hooks to lead to the next combat (in which they would naturally be the main character, although I'm not making that connection)
Can players who optimize devote just as much mental energy to role-playing? Sure
How many actually do?
It's not a "fallacy". It's a signal for the kind of campaign you're likely to find yourself in
Anyway, to get back on topic, I'm close to making my first PHB24 character, and have fun concepts for both a cleric and a warlock. Both would end up having the Charlatan background, although if I cared about "optimizing" for that extra WIS boost as opposed to getting those fancy talkin' proficiencies, I could shift the cleric to Wayfarer and it wouldn't really change anything important about their backstory
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Your experience is valid. My experience is that every person I've played with could do both, and did either or both as they preferred.
That statement, right there, is exactly what the fallacy is stating. It is demonstrably false to say that no-one can do both, or that the two things are fundamentally opposed.
And yet my lived experience is that the people who don't optimize role play the least, the have no investment in the character or game and are only there to play the goofball disruptive person.
Huh? Why is player 1 complaining about player 2 in this scenario? I don't get it, it's not his character. What does it matter to player 1 what player 2 does? You're assuming because player 1 wants to be the ultimate tank, he can't handle another player not doing the same? That's absurd. If anything player 1 should be happy about player 2 because it makes them different in their personality, play style, customization, and probably background. I think you have it wrong about what it means to be an optimizer or synergist. You are doing exactly what I mentioned in my original post by demonizing them and painting false narratives to stigmatize an identity of playstyle. Why didn't you talk about player 2 and paint a narrative where he puts player 1 down for being basic?
Calling it a fallacy is as much a fallacy as anything else. I've never seen anyone say it's impossible to optimize and RP at the same time
EDIT: on the other hand, I've seen plenty of people accused of saying it when they didn't, on these very forums, with the accuser hiding behind Stormwind with a "well, it's what you meant!"
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Yeah I have to admit, I don't get it either. This example describes a situation in which people are being A-holes, I don't see what that has to do with the game in any way.
There are different kinds of players, that is for sure, but they can coexist in the same campaign as long as everyone is polite and respectful of others which is not a system thing, its a player thing. If people are jerks, they aren't jerks because its 5e and there are optimization options, they are jerks because they are jerks.
You know nothing about my playstyle, because I'm not arguing for it.
What I'm arguing, in its broadest strokes:
I've mostly been arguing that last one with you, because you seem to be extremely devoted to defending its honor.
(I am willing to concede that, in a system with no other provided methods of character differentiation like old D&D, hanging your roleplaying choices on your stat rolls makes some degree of sense, but I file that under "making the best of a bad lot", rather than "a good idea".)
In AD&D, it's a fighter-by-default with no actual stat bonuses, and a minus to its hit points that puts it closer to being one-shot in combat than the average fighter, and it has no real option to avoid that risk. If it could've chosen stat order, it could be a non-front-line class. (Or even not have a 6 Con.)
If that 6 con had been a 5, it'd be forced by the rules to play an illusionist, for some reason. (For which it needs a 15 Int, so literally unplayable.)
In Basic D&D, it at least gets a combat bonus from that strength, but it's also rolling a d8 for HP, and is even less likely to survive its first fight.
It's the combination of bad Con with fighter being the only viable choice that makes it unplayable. (I was incorrect about fighter being forced in AD&D; you're allowed to play a cleric or thief with those stats, but they're low enough that you're penalized at your basic class functions for doing so.)
And stat distributions like this are normal for the rolling method. Three average stats, two one standard deviation off, and one two off. They aren't always going to be this unsuitable for actual play, but they tend toward the singularly uninteresting and ineffective, especially with AD&D's weirdly broad ranges of no bonus on stats.
Maybe it's more playable in OSR games. Though given the prevalence of Basic D&D rewrites I noticed the time I poked around, I have my doubts about it in a lot of them.
Since nobody's going on about it in my awareness, I don't see why I'd have an opinion one way or another.
Popularity in specific circles does not necessarily translate to popularity outside those circles. In other circles, Apocalypse World and its derivatives have been the hotness for quite some time. FATE seems to have a sustained base. When I go to my local con, I see way more of those than I do OSR (which might be as low as none). But that doesn't mean anything in the larger scheme of things. They're all niche, and the nature of RPGs makes them prone to hotspots of popularity. Of all the little games I'm aware of, only Blades in the Dark seems like it might be reaching significant numbers, and I'm basing this entirely on the fact that it got enough attention to get optioned for a TV series or something like that.
I'm just commenting on mechanics that come to my attention, and I really only comment much when it's something like somebody arguing that some of the worst design elements of old D&D, the ones that D&D itself has long been moving away from, are good actually. ((Like 3d6 in order, which 1e AD&D ditched.) I half-expect to see an impassioned defense of upside-down AC at some point.
The point of 3d6 in order (and, more generally, rolling stats at all) is that you don't come in with preconceived notions of the character you want to play; instead, you roll attributes and make a character that fits those rolls.
And that tends to encourage a character-as-gamepiece stance, which reduces investment in the character, and works against the roleplaying aspect of the game.
(Doesn't prevent it, of course, but it definitely makes it harder, especially for people who are new to the genre.)
Edit: also, randomly choosing your stats can be done in ways that don't also have the variance issues of 3d6.
One thing i did in a recent Call of Cthulu game, was a modified roll system. The DM said use any of the systems, so roll, point buy or standard array effectively were options. I decided to go with roll but scale down if I went over point buy, or scale up if I went under. I rolled over and scaled down. The point for me was to keep the outlier rolls as thematic elements for the character so my Dex is 30 which means I always go last. But my size/strength rolled were 90/85, i trimmed size down to 80 but it still kept him as a big strong guy. I knocked a few 60s down to 50 as mid is mid and then I hit the point buy limits but I had a weird extremes as if I rolled.
My experience is that new characters, regardless of generation method, don't feel particularly invested, that comes from playing the character for a while. I don't like the sheer power variance you see from rolling dice for ability scores so I prefer not to use it, but a more fair random character creation system can be fun (it's hard to do with D&D because some stats wind up way more valuable than others).
Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa.
Everyone knows this.
No one is claiming that those who enjoy "building" their characters "do not" or "can not" role-play.
They can and do.
It's ironic that there is a fallacy deeply buried in what is supposed to have pointed out another. Because the entire premise is based on a straw man.
Any point of contention here is more about what gets priority and what the optimization mindset often brings to many a table: "Other players may consider this disruptive when done to the exclusion of all other considerations, such as storytelling, atmosphere, and camaraderie. When focusing on the letter of the rules over the spirit of the rules, it is often seen as unsporting, un-fun, or unsociable." This is why at many a table players who do it are considered to be problem players.
These players do and can still role-play.
But if every choice a player makes during character creation and at level-ups is made for mechanical purposes than means opportunities for purposes of characterization and story must take a back seat. It means an infinite number of possible characters are not being made and not being played. Because every one of any given class must be made or played with practically the same distribution of attributes and only ever choices that "make sense" mechanically.
This doesn't mean the optimizer does not or can not role-play.
But it does mean the optimizer has prioritized their character's being "strong" over making a character that breaks free of those mechanical constraints they have placed on their characters.
And as I earlier pointed out: Many are those of this mindset who then expect other players to make "optimal" decisions for their characters. They can't fathom why a player with a character with immense strength wants to play a wizard and not a fighter. They can't fathom why a player has conceived of their character as wielding a certain weapon and so arms that character with that weapon even though it isn't going to deliver the most damage possible.
This is an optimizer who is now a player not only making the choices they want. It is one who expects others to comply. One who has become a problem player ruining the fun of someone else who doesn't care for making the "best" character and who just wants to have fun and tell a good story.