I used to be much more of a min-maxer before I played a couple characters in Dungeon World a few years ago. These days I find failure and vulnerability create far more interesting characters than those who are great at one thing and avoid trying anything else, which in turn creates much more interesting stories all around. But then, I play with a lot of DMs who ask themselves "What would make the most interesting story," before they outright punish a PC for not succeeding at something. Collaborative storytelling thrives on problems.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"In retrospect, I probably shouldnta given him the machete."
So I think, obviously, a character should be built mechanically soundly so they can be useful, but I do think that just trying to milk the most out of it, dipping into various classes for more abilities so you can do the "most" damage and such is silly. You don't win prizes and such, its just a friendly game between peers. But everyone has their fun in different ways I suppose, so as long as they are not obnoxious with it, I don't care.
I think one of the problems with min-maxers, which causes the poor reputation of this type of player, is that often their entire character can hinge on some overpowered combo, which may well be due to misinterpreting the rules - when the rules are clarified for them and it turns out their character cannot do what they thought it would, they'll declare that the entire character is ruined and they should be allowed to use the (incorrect) combo, or that they need to re-roll a new character instead. I've seen this happen.
I agree completely. In my opinion the whole point of role playing it to tell a fun story. If someone just wants to be a killing machine and collect loot then something like Diablo is a better fit. I remind my players that you can not beat D&D and this is not a tactical miniatures game. It is OK if your character doesn't always make the perfect decision as long as we are all having fun. The other problem with "Min-maxing" is the internet. I find that most min-maxers are just looking up how to build the best Rogue (or what ever) and what spells/abilities are thought to be most over powered. They are not even figuring it out themselves. I have more respect for someone who figured out a cool combo themselves. The other problem is that this type person tends to approach every fight the same way and that gets boring and repetitive. I like more creative play and not being afraid to make mistakes. The other problem is that some min-maxers giver other players a bad time for making suboptimal choices. This is not a numbers game or a math puzzle. There are people that are just naturally good a building characters and that is fine as long as they role play as well.
"This other thing is a better fit for you" arguments always make do that thing where you chuckle while rolling your eyes. Is there a word for that?
Anyway, DnD isn't any less for the players that play differently from you, than it is for you.
I don't care how anyone plays outside of a group I am a part of, but I have played with people who want to treat D&D as if it were WOW or Diablo. They treat NPCs as quest givers and just want to know what they need to go kill or fetch. That is no fun for me. It may be a ton of fun for them but I find it boring. Some games are better designed for that type play. For example I played the board game Imperial Assault with someone who stated "This is like D&D without all the boring stuff." By "boring stuff" he meant story and roll playing. He just wants a little background text and to know his objective. For him that is a better fit. He just wants a little flavor and tactical combat. He is not right or wrong we just prefer different styles of games. I don't feel 5th Ed. is best designed for a kill and loot style game. I am sure it can be run that way and that can be fun for some people. My opinion are only ever my options based on my likes and dislikes. I never intended to tell anyone else what to like or how to play. I just know what I like and don't like. I even like kill and loot games. That is just not what I want from D&D. My focus for D&D is definitely role play heavy. I do not enjoy playing with hardcore min-maxers (a little min-maxing is fine).
... That is just not what I want from D&D. My focus for D&D is definitely role play heavy. I do not enjoy playing with hardcore min-maxers (a little min-maxing is fine).
MMOs sure brings in a few pet peeves for me. I hate when people gather to start a new game and say.. "I'll tank" "I'll be healer" cuz I know they'll be disappointed that the numbers in a table top setting don't really favor that sort of play. I don't mind when people specialize with their character builds. Making a great monk focused on mobility and damage or a barbarian who wants to smash is what they're geared towards. Some people broaded min maxing all the way out to that sort of play. I think finding a role and planning to do well at is makes for a fun D&D game.
"This other thing is a better fit for you" arguments always make do that thing where you chuckle while rolling your eyes. Is there a word for that?
Anyway, DnD isn't any less for the players that play differently from you, than it is for you.
I enjoy your inclusiveness.
We all have imagination bias. The fun part is finding a table that accepts it.
THanks. And agreed!
anyway, 5e is a game for all DnD players. It's perfectly well suited for hack n slash, and telling people that the game they want to play isn't for them because they want to play differently from you is always gonna come across badly.
Definitely lean towards character development and roleplaying, but I still want decent skills. Although I favor utility skills over combat skills, since utility skills lend themselves better to roleplaying!
However, it all depends on the DM I'm playing with. Luckily my usual DM creates wonderful homebrew campaigns and worlds, that are rich with lore and story hooks. There's just so much to do and explore outside of combat that we often have strictly RP sessions, which is perfectly fine with me.
But if I'm playing with a DM who doesn't put much work into their campaign and setting, then I'll focus more on min-maxing. I usually don't last very long in those campaigns though, because my interest inevitably fizzles out if I can't RP as thoroughly as I'd like to.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Currently playing: Rattle-Clack, Kenku Necromancer, Level 7. 5e Homebrew.
This is almost exactly how I start! I do some min-maxing, but I also do some things that are 100% about my character conception that the min-maxers in my group dislike. For example, creating a Monk with a high Charisma score, which is my current character.
My view on min-maxers is tainted by one player who not only would attempt to max out his character but would constantly make "errors" on his character sheet that always made him more powerful. I had to constantly check his math every time he leveled or got a new piece of equipment. He would try and use abilities when he couldn't and got irritated at the game when he found out that an ability was not as powerful as he thought it should be. He would argue about the rules and was wrong 99% of the time. He also just mostly wanted to kill stuff and had little interest in the story or role playing. That just made me avoid DMing for that type player. I most enjoy playing with players who focus on role playing.
I am sure not everyone who would classify themselves as a min-maxer acts like this. Sorry is I come off too negative toward the more kill everything style of play. If other groups like that style that is great. I honestly would never tell anyone how to have fun or how they should enjoy D&D. I do agree that everyone should play how they want. I just personally enjoy playing with people who get into their character, that like to add to the story, and that can have fun using their skills even when there is nothing to kill. I am not saying that my way is the right way.
I did that by mistake with my first 5e character. I used abilities improperly to make my character for the first few levels. Then when I learned the rules and figured out how I'd been cheating I quietly stopped doing it and started playing him according to the rules which toned him down.
But in my case it was an honest mistake and we were all learning the rules at the same time.
In case anyone is wondering, I was taking two bonus actions per round instead of one.
I did that by mistake with my first 5e character. I used abilities improperly to make my character for the first few levels. Then when I learned the rules and figured out how I'd been cheating I quietly stopped doing it and started playing him according to the rules which toned him down.
But in my case it was an honest mistake and we were all learning the rules at the same time.
In case anyone is wondering, I was taking two bonus actions per round instead of one.
Sure, mistakes happen. This was a case of it happening repeatedly. He would magically have a couple AC or extra HPs. I had to double check everything he did, and it was exhausting. He was a rogue but wanted to be the best at everything. Oh, well it is done now.
I think you also get that kind of player that is unwilling to help the team out. For example I have had a wizard that would only take damage spells to learn rather than thinking about some support abilities or abilities that might help in different situation. Some people treat it like an MMO and want to do max damage all the time rather than working as a team adn that killing isn't always the answer to situation.
I love a DM that recognizes players like this and can find ways of punishing that player. :)
I use minmaxing a lot. I frequently search for ways to optimize my builds, and in one of the games I am in,I basically exploited the absolute s*** out of the DM's homebrew and with some help from the UA Kensai, I could build and OP character at 4th level, with tons of hit. Basically, I try to break the game as much, and when I can't do that, I optimize or minmax.
I use minmaxing a lot. I frequently search for ways to optimize my builds, and in one of the games I am in,I basically exploited the absolute s*** out of the DM's homebrew and with some help from the UA Kensai, I could build and OP character at 4th level, with tons of hit. Basically, I try to break the game as much, and when I can't do that, I optimize or minmax.
I guess I just don't get the point. Ok, you make the game super easy and remove any sense of adventure for yourself. I guess if your DM and group don't mind. Just not a style of play I enjoy, but to each his own.
I put "moderate character". What I really mean by that is I put character first and would rather play a narratively interesting character than a mechanically effective one. But... the most interesting characters tend to be reasonably competent at something, so it's good to be able to appropriately represent that.
It might be fun to play Jar Jar Binks once, but only once.
Ya, I have no problem with characters being competent, but they don't need to be perfect. I tell my players to pick the characters and skills that they find fun and that there is more to D&D than just fighting. It does not matter if your character is ultra optimized as you can't win D&D (as expressed in ET). Sure you can win a fight but fights are often more memorable when something creative happens or you win by the skin of your teeth, and not if everything is just a cake walk. Sometimes it is more fun to figure out a creative way to avoid a fight. Again, that is just what I like. Not telling anyone else what to like.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I used to be much more of a min-maxer before I played a couple characters in Dungeon World a few years ago. These days I find failure and vulnerability create far more interesting characters than those who are great at one thing and avoid trying anything else, which in turn creates much more interesting stories all around. But then, I play with a lot of DMs who ask themselves "What would make the most interesting story," before they outright punish a PC for not succeeding at something. Collaborative storytelling thrives on problems.
"In retrospect, I probably shouldnta given him the machete."
So I think, obviously, a character should be built mechanically soundly so they can be useful, but I do think that just trying to milk the most out of it, dipping into various classes for more abilities so you can do the "most" damage and such is silly. You don't win prizes and such, its just a friendly game between peers. But everyone has their fun in different ways I suppose, so as long as they are not obnoxious with it, I don't care.
"This other thing is a better fit for you" arguments always make do that thing where you chuckle while rolling your eyes. Is there a word for that?
Anyway, DnD isn't any less for the players that play differently from you, than it is for you.
We do bones, motherf***ker!
We all have imagination bias. The fun part is finding a table that accepts it.
I don't mind when people specialize with their character builds. Making a great monk focused on mobility and damage or a barbarian who wants to smash is what they're geared towards. Some people broaded min maxing all the way out to that sort of play. I think finding a role and planning to do well at is makes for a fun D&D game.
We do bones, motherf***ker!
Definitely lean towards character development and roleplaying, but I still want decent skills. Although I favor utility skills over combat skills, since utility skills lend themselves better to roleplaying!
However, it all depends on the DM I'm playing with. Luckily my usual DM creates wonderful homebrew campaigns and worlds, that are rich with lore and story hooks. There's just so much to do and explore outside of combat that we often have strictly RP sessions, which is perfectly fine with me.
But if I'm playing with a DM who doesn't put much work into their campaign and setting, then I'll focus more on min-maxing. I usually don't last very long in those campaigns though, because my interest inevitably fizzles out if I can't RP as thoroughly as I'd like to.
Currently playing: Rattle-Clack, Kenku Necromancer, Level 7. 5e Homebrew.
This is almost exactly how I start! I do some min-maxing, but I also do some things that are 100% about my character conception that the min-maxers in my group dislike. For example, creating a Monk with a high Charisma score, which is my current character.
Professional computer geek
My view on min-maxers is tainted by one player who not only would attempt to max out his character but would constantly make "errors" on his character sheet that always made him more powerful. I had to constantly check his math every time he leveled or got a new piece of equipment. He would try and use abilities when he couldn't and got irritated at the game when he found out that an ability was not as powerful as he thought it should be. He would argue about the rules and was wrong 99% of the time. He also just mostly wanted to kill stuff and had little interest in the story or role playing. That just made me avoid DMing for that type player. I most enjoy playing with players who focus on role playing.
I am sure not everyone who would classify themselves as a min-maxer acts like this. Sorry is I come off too negative toward the more kill everything style of play. If other groups like that style that is great. I honestly would never tell anyone how to have fun or how they should enjoy D&D. I do agree that everyone should play how they want. I just personally enjoy playing with people who get into their character, that like to add to the story, and that can have fun using their skills even when there is nothing to kill. I am not saying that my way is the right way.
I did that by mistake with my first 5e character. I used abilities improperly to make my character for the first few levels. Then when I learned the rules and figured out how I'd been cheating I quietly stopped doing it and started playing him according to the rules which toned him down.
But in my case it was an honest mistake and we were all learning the rules at the same time.
In case anyone is wondering, I was taking two bonus actions per round instead of one.
Professional computer geek
I think you also get that kind of player that is unwilling to help the team out. For example I have had a wizard that would only take damage spells to learn rather than thinking about some support abilities or abilities that might help in different situation. Some people treat it like an MMO and want to do max damage all the time rather than working as a team adn that killing isn't always the answer to situation.
I love a DM that recognizes players like this and can find ways of punishing that player. :)
I use minmaxing a lot. I frequently search for ways to optimize my builds, and in one of the games I am in,I basically exploited the absolute s*** out of the DM's homebrew and with some help from the UA Kensai, I could build and OP character at 4th level, with tons of hit. Basically, I try to break the game as much, and when I can't do that, I optimize or minmax.
Just an average metalhead who plays DnD in his spare time.
PbP Character: Roberta Thalan, Void Beyond the Stars Otherside
PbP Character: Primus Eidolon, Eotha 2
PbP Character: Usmor Illiqai, Tomb of Corrosion
PbP Character: "Templar" Danver, You're the Villains
Homebrew stuff
Its not for the supereasy part, its because I get the sense that wow, I broke the game. I'm god. Cool!
I do some non min maxing every now and then, but for some reason I always end up trying to exploit or optimize.
Just an average metalhead who plays DnD in his spare time.
PbP Character: Roberta Thalan, Void Beyond the Stars Otherside
PbP Character: Primus Eidolon, Eotha 2
PbP Character: Usmor Illiqai, Tomb of Corrosion
PbP Character: "Templar" Danver, You're the Villains
Homebrew stuff
I put "moderate character". What I really mean by that is I put character first and would rather play a narratively interesting character than a mechanically effective one. But... the most interesting characters tend to be reasonably competent at something, so it's good to be able to appropriately represent that.
It might be fun to play Jar Jar Binks once, but only once.
No, it would be miserable playing Jar Jar Binks. All of my friends would hate me for doing that and I'd never live it down!
Professional computer geek
Ya, I have no problem with characters being competent, but they don't need to be perfect. I tell my players to pick the characters and skills that they find fun and that there is more to D&D than just fighting. It does not matter if your character is ultra optimized as you can't win D&D (as expressed in ET). Sure you can win a fight but fights are often more memorable when something creative happens or you win by the skin of your teeth, and not if everything is just a cake walk. Sometimes it is more fun to figure out a creative way to avoid a fight. Again, that is just what I like. Not telling anyone else what to like.