The video gamer mentality. This is something that I see a lot with dungeons and dragons now. With the digital age and so many players available via the internet, and the vast platforms in which people can play. Roll 20 and discord for example. I feel that many of the newer generations who are playing D&D seem to treat it very much like a… well video game. Players wanting to have the highest possible advantage with their characters and putting all their points into class requirements up to what the rules allow only to sacrifice points into lesser or not ‘needed’ areas.
Now I try to run a game where its not just all about killing stuff and bring in plenty to mix up encounters. You know, things that require a good amount of skill checks. Like trying to talk some info out of a harmless npc or climbing down… something that would need a successful skill check, or even proceeding to solve a puzzle. The list could be endless in the D&D world. This I feel ruins the players experience more so then the DM’s. As a DM you should be able to adapt to stuff like this. Though I feel it sets up roadblocks for the players. On the plus side though if you have a well rounded group some of these issues can be handled based on the mix of stats with the total party.
Before I continue I would like to add that I am writing this while I am waking up and sipping om my coffee.
What I see when reading around this forum and others kinda bothers me. It would seem that a vast bunch of the players are overly concerned with what their character build should be at level 20. This is where I see the ‘video gamer mentality’ at its strongest. The idea that they have to have the strongest/best build and/or pushing to be the most powerful player in the game. Overly concerned with how much damage they can dish out. Only to hurt the character/player/group in other ways. As long time DM I feel I can handle it well but I still see the issues that it can bring to the table and for a new DM it can totally ruin the experience. As well as other players in the group.
Its like the randomness is sort of lost. Or what ever happened to reading through skill options and thinking that it sounds cool so I want to pick that. Now days a vast amount of research is put into character builds to ensure that they are top tier in a way. No doubt this can be handled in several ways. Mainly the DM’s approval with player’s characters to snuff the issue before it starts hopefully. With my next campaign I will most likely have a bunch of pre-rolled ability scores in which the players can decide upon. I was even thinking of having the stat sheets assigned to a chart that the players rolled on to determine what they get. Its just an idea but I feel that it can add some flavor to the game. Making the players build on their given ability scores instated of letting them assign the numbers to a class or specific build that they want to play. I know some will not agree with the idea. Actually I would not be surprised if the vast majority of players would not like the idea just based on what I have see reading around the net.
I could carry on about this but will end it here. I am curious as to what other might think. I did leave a good amount as I am just trying to cover the basics what I see as an issue. Not so much a huge issue but defiantly a wide spread one. I just think this one cover a large portion of the game currently with players.
Part of the problem is that if you're the type to think that something seems cool and pick it, you're unlikely to be posting that build on the forums.
If you're trying to make the character that's the most fun for you personally to play, there's not a lot other people can do to help you out. This means that the majority of the character discussion on the forums is going to be about the few characters that are optimized in a way that other people can contribute towards.
As for the randomness, depending on how you do it, you might get people to try things that are different from their usual, but you are less likely to end up with a character that they actually want to play, even more so if they have no say in the stats.
There is a great deal of video gamer mentality out there now. Most of the players play video games and those new to the game theory craft as they would on the forums of video games to get their max raid build. There is the challenge for us older dms and more experience dms to help guide them to the other aspects of this truly great game. As a player i play to my weaknesses. As a dm i create to exploit the characters weaknesses. Max/min builds have always been in the gamer community as a whole. As a dm mitigating their op ideal builds with simple variety and situational randomness ie the 8 charisma fighter is now brought in front of the town magistrate and must speak for the party creates awkward realizations that perhaps my fighter isn't as op as i thought it was. The world is yours the story is theirs. That -1 roll now becomes all the more larger than life in the success or failure, and would be usually the most talked about and remembered part of the story.
If you have a tried and true table that would be interested in playing the prepared characters then that's great. I wouldn't recommend it to a group of new players who are just getting into the game. And i think that is why you see so much optimizing in the forums about builds and classes being under-powered and over-powered. There are is a definite influx of people getting into the game. More now than ever before, Popularity of shows, (stranger things, Critical Role, Acquisitions inc, etc ) has created the buzz. I had never before been approached at work and asked about the game i have played for a very long time as i have in the past 2 years. I for one am enjoying the ability to see more tables popping up all around the world.
Would be interesting to explain to someone that there's no need to plan for "end game" in D&D. In fact, most characters never get near max level; so might as well create a character that will be fun to roleplay in a way that an RPG simply doesn't allow. "In-character" areas, or servers, are the lowest populated areas of most online games, but the idea of acting out that character is the foundation of what D&D is. Of course, that might scare potential new gamers from D&D..... Hmmmm....
I see your point, but there's a danger in deciding other peoples' fun. The reality is, a lot of people play video games - specifically RPGs - in which they've become accustomed to creating powerful characters, maximising their stats and equipment to gain the highest possible advantage. That's what they enjoy - and who are we to deprive them of it?
Ask yourself - why do you care? Don't get me wrong - I agree with you in principle. I think treating D&D as a series of 'optimal choices' limits the rich, storytelling experience of the game, and I wish everyone could experience the absolute joy of completely being absorbed in their character, weaving a communal tale, and making choices that make sense to your character and the story, rather than number on a sheet.
But this isn't a new conversation. Many moons ago, when I played Neverwinter Nights - a video game based on D&D rules - in a roleplaying server, there'd be continued frustration at people min-maxing characters - and that was in a video game. You actually see this same issue raised in video games a lot - the amount of people that hate Skyrim for being 'dumbed down', for example.
It's so very easy to get elitist about D&D. To want to make other people understand how 'tough it is' to play the game by not making optimal choices. To bemoan 'casual' players, who just don't understand 'proper D&D'. But here's the thing - you don't have to play with them.
I often find these people are the same group that are annoyed that D&D is now becoming popular, especially with the birth of popular YouTube series, like Critical Roll. D&D was 'their thing' - and these new players that just treat it like a game (how dare they) are ruining it.
But remember, D&D exists to make money at the end of the day. It is a franchise - and they need to cater to a demographic that's going to make them money. Which is why I'm so damn thankful that 5e allows so much space for roleplay and deep characters. I'd be annoyed if they'd removed the possibility to play D&D my way - but they really haven't. If anything, since 4e they've moved more closely to encouraging players to make roleplaying choices over min-max choices.
And it's popular! I don't think D&D has ever had such a community as it has right now. And if players want to min-max, power-game, and never roleplay - well then at least they're funding an edition of D&D that allows the rest of us to play it how we like to.
Strong agree with Chequers. I love the acting and story part of D&D most, but that doesn't mean it's wrong for people to enoy the video-game part too! There's nothing wrong with wanting your character to be the best they can be and enjoying the strategy and ingenuity that helps make her that way. The real problem I think you're reacting to is when the video-game players ignore or belittle the roleplay aspects of the game (which sometimes gets reversed when would-be Critters who aren't pro voice actors diss people for enjoying combat). That stinks. D&D has multiple facets, every one of which is important to the game and none of which deserves to be hated on. It's also a big, beautiful game that everybody plays differently, and I love it that way.
There are good views here on this subject and I enjoy reading it all. Yes it is always best to let the players play what they want providing it is not a disruption to the whole group. Also playing on their weaknesses can really shake things up and most of the time it is very entertaining. I say most of the time because there is that player out there who would not have it, but in the end there are those players that you just dont have to have in your group. As before when writing on this topic I was in the middle of my first morning coffee. I again sit here doing so again. I had brought up the whole random stat pre-generated list and even an in order stat roll to my group as a future idea. Some thought it would be great and some were not so keen on it, as I suspected. However in the end I feel I have a great group of players and all of them play what they want. I could see how some would not want to have stats restricted in a way forcing them to play something they have no interest in playing at all. But on the same note others love the idea. In the end as long as everyone is having fun it simply does not matter.
I too am thankful that the various podcasts and streaming groups have introduced the game in a way that caused it to explode in popularity. It sure makes it easy to find players via the internet. Sadly for me local players are not so easy to come by. But when a player drops the game due to real life changes it is easy to pick up a replacement when using the internet. The loss of 2 players can spell disaster to a local group and finding replacements can be a real pain.
The whole min/max thing is definitely not a new thing by any means. In fact every one in my group is set up that way. It works for them and thats fine. As a DM I just play on it. It just seems that many of the forums or overly crowded with players wanting that superior build and to me it feels like I just went into a popular MMO forum. Still though., Im fine with it in the end as long as everyone is enjoying themselves.
I started DMing my group a couple of months ago, and this “video game mentality” (I will use VGM for short) is exactly the problem I had been trying to solve for a few years, and now I finally learn the right word for it!
My thoughts on it:
First, it really depends on the player group. If they all have this VGM, DM should probably just run with it. Usually, when all the players are having fun, DM is having fun. Don’t force them to change as a DM, if your players do want to play it that way.
If some players don’t like that, DM should give them some character arcs built in or related to the main plot. And the most important thing is communication. Let them know that you will let the VGM players to dominate a lot of combats, but will add more story arcs around the non-VGM’s characters.
I think the potential to min/max and to metagame by planning stuff out to 20th level are just part and parcel of any game that emphasizes combat, for better or for worse. Agree that having a session 0 conversation with potential players is key to avoiding a situation where the DM and the players are a mismatch.
I am going to start DMing myself in a few months with a homebrew campaign and setting where all the PCs will have at least 1 level of Bard. I plan to create a range of character sheets ahead of time and let the players choose from amongst them rather than spend time on point buy and equipment. However, I do plan on letting them adjust a stat or two if they really want to and to make up their own backstory as long as it explains how they ended up being a circus performer (yes, it's one of those campaigns). I should mention that I'm doing this because I know these players IRL and at least 2 of them have said they want to play an all Bard adventure and also b/c they will spend a lot of their time being forcibly shape-shifted into farm animals so their PC stats don't matter as much anyway for most of the campaign.
Anywho, BrokenDM, if you want to, I'll let you know how my campaign goes and I will check back on this thread if you have an update about the results of your pre-rolled ability score plan.
I have done many things to combat Min/Maxers (known as video game mentality now), however the trend will never fade away. There are people from the 3.x era who are used to the gigantic modifiers that came with it, there are the old school AD&D players who fear the meat grinder dungeons, and there is now the new wave of digital gamers who bring that mind set with them. Each era of gamer has it's own quirk, each era brings a new breath to the game, but every era has min/maxers. We, as DMs, can do a little to mitigate the min/maxer crowd but it's easier to use the core function of D&D to do the work for us.
I changed how players' attributes were created many different times. I had them roll 3d6 and write them down in the attributes in the same order they were rolled, you didn't get to choose where the attributes went. Gave them a total of 72 points to split up as they saw fit, but the attributes capped at 16 for level 1. They could roll 4d6 and drop the lowest placing them wherever they wanted. I have now landed on a simple answer: it doesn't matter how the attributes are created, they'll find a way to use the highest numbers to make the strongest characters. They want to win, survive, and succeed a their goals, so they'll take any advantage they can get, even the "non-min/max" players. In the end I settled on roll 1d10 and add 8, then place them as you see fit.
The core function of D&D is where you can really showcase how D&D doesn't care if you're a role player or a min/maxer. D&D is all about problem solving, there's combat, social interactions, puzzles, mysteries, and a whole lot of other things we can throw at our players. It's their job to use their skills to figure out how to solve these problems. Do they fight to the death or do they take prisoners? Is that NPC telling the truth? Do they work for the king or the rebels? What's the best way to storm the wizard's tower? How do you get past the magical door blocking your path? Do you fight the guardian of the gate or do you find a way to negotiate passage? It doesn't matter if you have a 20 strength if you are trying to talk to a magistrate. It doesn't matter if your spell save dc is 18 when dealing with a deity.
Sometimes their min/max mentality will give them the advantage, sometimes it'll be a detriment to them. As long as you're playing the game as an impartial arbiter the game should be fun to everyone. There will be times where the players will hate what's going on, but you're simply explaining how the story unfolds rather than combating someone's choice to max out their skills in one area.
I read another thing on the forums, though, about a problem player that has been playing since first edition and maximizes his character and lies about it to do so. Meanwhile, my friends and I think that a character needs flaws to be interesting, realistic, and fun. For example, I have a friend who ended up with a 2 for his Intelligence score, and he lowered it to a 1 just for the fun of it, and role-played it up until level 15. We all had some flaws in our characters (a good reason to fill out 100% of your character sheet), and made fun of them and used them.
Still, I had some players this year who just wanted to optimize their characters. One of them was a friend of me who played video games (Zelda games, mostly, I think) so that matches up. It wasn't the entire party, but I think everybody did want decent stats. That was mostly because they all wanted to play physical and sneaky characters, not healers or spellcasters, so they wanted to be okay anyway. You're still right about a lot of players, but I'd say it doesn't matter way too much if you're not playing with them. If you are playing with them, talk to them about it.
Powergamers have always existed, long before video games became such a prevalent thing. I've been doing this since the original red box, and I can assure you, powergaming has been around since day one. It even makes sense in-character, if you think about it. You're going to be out there putting your life on the line on a regular basis, other people's lives if not the fate of nations or worlds in your hands, you are going to want to be the best you can be at whatever it is you do. Imagine Batman or Captain America training half-assed, and you get the idea.
One reason you see so many optimization posts on the forums is because they're objective. It deals with cold, hard numbers, which can be compared to other cold, hard numbers. Every other aspect of the game is subjective. "Is this a cool backstory?" is going to have a lot of different answers because different people like different things in a character.
Me, I think character creation should be an exact science. You should, within reasonable limits, be allowed to make precisely what you want. Randomization is for play, not construction. No rolling for stats, hit points, money, no dice should be involved when building your character. It should be as close to your vision as it can get.
Now, here's the thing: Some people think that you can't have a mechanically optimal character AND roleplay, which is BS. I don't know if that's what you're saying or implying, but it's a common misconception that's infected the RPG scene for some time. Just because you want your character to be good mechanically doesn't mean you're neglecting other aspects of the character. It's not an inversely proportionate ratio; you can do both.
Me, I think character creation should be an exact science. You should, within reasonable limits, be allowed to make precisely what you want. Randomization is for play, not construction. No rolling for stats, hit points, money, no dice should be involved when building your character. It should be as close to your vision as it can get.
And that’s the distinction. From my perspective, D&D isn’t about construction - it’s about character - and for me, flaws, traits and evolving choices are what connect me to that character.
I would simply get bored if I built a character in advance, knowing exactly what my stats would be, and what I’d choose at every level up, crunching the numbers to get the most optimal result. For me, interesting characters aren’t an exact science - it’s those quirks and random traits that make them so.
I love not knowing what my character will look like 5 levels from now, because the plot and character experiences might have pulled his story in a different direction.
But I can certainly see why others enjoy planning a character, and then see that character - and the results of their planning - come to life. And of course these characters can be roleplayed - it’s just not the role play that is driving their character sheet choices.
D&D is so great because it allows everyone to play their way. Some people get a buzz out of planning and maximising their choices. Some people get a buzz out of working with the hand they’re dealt and seeing their character evolve in unexpected ways. Some people fall somewhere between. But everyone can have a great time.
Overall I agree with the posters above me with the nuances of what they prefer to do, say how they prefer to build and play their characters. Both paths are viable in their own right. Letting roleplaying influence the character sheet and letting the character sheet influence the roleplaying.
I feel like those two approaches are not mutually exclusive. Neither of them is wrong. What is important is to show people alternatives, letting them explore them and sometimes forcing them a little to "make that jump". For example, I really dislike rolling up a character. Getting really unlucky on hitpoints trying to make a barbarian is going to suck for me because I am too perfectionistic and would constantly be frustrated about the "missing" hitpoints.
However, I tried it. Multiple times in the past. I came to the conclusion that I don't like it. And I am "allowed" to have a definite opinion on the matter because I gave it a try. That's just my personal take on the matter when it comes to liking and disliking things. Try it at least once. Which is the point when it comes to these minmaxing powergamers. Subtly challenge their ideal state of game by putting their characters into situations that they can't just roll themselves out of. Use other players' roleplaying skills to show them how amazing having a great story can be. Negative and positive reinforcement respectively. Those are obviously just examples.
Getting really unlucky on hitpoints trying to make a barbarian is going to suck for me because I am too perfectionistic and would constantly be frustrated about the "missing" hitpoints.
On first level I just give players the full hit points die. If they have to have 1d8 I give them 8, but after that they have to roll. So level 3 it would be 8 + d28. I know some people do it 3d8.
I think part of the problem is that while ideals, flaws and bonds are included in the PHB, a lot of people play without them since they seem to "get in the way" of beating up monsters and taking their stuff. Also, there's just nothing in the rule mechanics that openly encourages players to make multi-dimensional characters if the DM isn't handing out inspiration for it. This is where the DM really sets the tone for the group. This is in turn limited by the commonality of players who just enjoy killing and looting.
Getting really unlucky on hitpoints trying to make a barbarian is going to suck for me because I am too perfectionistic and would constantly be frustrated about the "missing" hitpoints.
On first level I just give players the full hit points die. If they have to have 1d8 I give them 8, but after that they have to roll. So level 3 it would be 8 + d28. I know some people do it 3d8.
That's actually the rule as written, the 'maximum at first level' thing. I personally do the fixed HPs after that.
If the characters get most of their experience (60%-90%) from combat then the players will naturally build their characters for combat. If you make it clear that they are getting at least half (50%-60%) from NON-combat stuff (roleplaying and skill checks and stuff) then the players will naturally build more diverse characters. Two of my players made “nerdy characters” for my current campaign because I warned them at the beginning that non-combat would be half of their experience. In my last two sessions combined I had 9 social encounters, 2 skill encounters, and only 1 combat encounter. They stopped caring about killing stuff every session, their just thrilled that they all had fun and leveled up.
don’t get me wrong, next session WILL be combat heavy, but the combat will earn them no more XP than talking to all of those NPCs and finding all of those clues has.
The video gamer mentality. This is something that I see a lot with dungeons and dragons now. With the digital age and so many players available via the internet, and the vast platforms in which people can play. Roll 20 and discord for example. I feel that many of the newer generations who are playing D&D seem to treat it very much like a… well video game. Players wanting to have the highest possible advantage with their characters and putting all their points into class requirements up to what the rules allow only to sacrifice points into lesser or not ‘needed’ areas.
Now I try to run a game where its not just all about killing stuff and bring in plenty to mix up encounters. You know, things that require a good amount of skill checks. Like trying to talk some info out of a harmless npc or climbing down… something that would need a successful skill check, or even proceeding to solve a puzzle. The list could be endless in the D&D world. This I feel ruins the players experience more so then the DM’s. As a DM you should be able to adapt to stuff like this. Though I feel it sets up roadblocks for the players. On the plus side though if you have a well rounded group some of these issues can be handled based on the mix of stats with the total party.
Before I continue I would like to add that I am writing this while I am waking up and sipping om my coffee.
What I see when reading around this forum and others kinda bothers me. It would seem that a vast bunch of the players are overly concerned with what their character build should be at level 20. This is where I see the ‘video gamer mentality’ at its strongest. The idea that they have to have the strongest/best build and/or pushing to be the most powerful player in the game. Overly concerned with how much damage they can dish out. Only to hurt the character/player/group in other ways. As long time DM I feel I can handle it well but I still see the issues that it can bring to the table and for a new DM it can totally ruin the experience. As well as other players in the group.
Its like the randomness is sort of lost. Or what ever happened to reading through skill options and thinking that it sounds cool so I want to pick that. Now days a vast amount of research is put into character builds to ensure that they are top tier in a way. No doubt this can be handled in several ways. Mainly the DM’s approval with player’s characters to snuff the issue before it starts hopefully. With my next campaign I will most likely have a bunch of pre-rolled ability scores in which the players can decide upon. I was even thinking of having the stat sheets assigned to a chart that the players rolled on to determine what they get. Its just an idea but I feel that it can add some flavor to the game. Making the players build on their given ability scores instated of letting them assign the numbers to a class or specific build that they want to play. I know some will not agree with the idea. Actually I would not be surprised if the vast majority of players would not like the idea just based on what I have see reading around the net.
I could carry on about this but will end it here. I am curious as to what other might think. I did leave a good amount as I am just trying to cover the basics what I see as an issue. Not so much a huge issue but defiantly a wide spread one. I just think this one cover a large portion of the game currently with players.
Part of the problem is that if you're the type to think that something seems cool and pick it, you're unlikely to be posting that build on the forums.
If you're trying to make the character that's the most fun for you personally to play, there's not a lot other people can do to help you out. This means that the majority of the character discussion on the forums is going to be about the few characters that are optimized in a way that other people can contribute towards.
As for the randomness, depending on how you do it, you might get people to try things that are different from their usual, but you are less likely to end up with a character that they actually want to play, even more so if they have no say in the stats.
There is a great deal of video gamer mentality out there now. Most of the players play video games and those new to the game theory craft as they would on the forums of video games to get their max raid build. There is the challenge for us older dms and more experience dms to help guide them to the other aspects of this truly great game. As a player i play to my weaknesses. As a dm i create to exploit the characters weaknesses. Max/min builds have always been in the gamer community as a whole. As a dm mitigating their op ideal builds with simple variety and situational randomness ie the 8 charisma fighter is now brought in front of the town magistrate and must speak for the party creates awkward realizations that perhaps my fighter isn't as op as i thought it was. The world is yours the story is theirs. That -1 roll now becomes all the more larger than life in the success or failure, and would be usually the most talked about and remembered part of the story.
If you have a tried and true table that would be interested in playing the prepared characters then that's great. I wouldn't recommend it to a group of new players who are just getting into the game. And i think that is why you see so much optimizing in the forums about builds and classes being under-powered and over-powered. There are is a definite influx of people getting into the game. More now than ever before, Popularity of shows, (stranger things, Critical Role, Acquisitions inc, etc ) has created the buzz. I had never before been approached at work and asked about the game i have played for a very long time as i have in the past 2 years. I for one am enjoying the ability to see more tables popping up all around the world.
Would be interesting to explain to someone that there's no need to plan for "end game" in D&D. In fact, most characters never get near max level; so might as well create a character that will be fun to roleplay in a way that an RPG simply doesn't allow. "In-character" areas, or servers, are the lowest populated areas of most online games, but the idea of acting out that character is the foundation of what D&D is. Of course, that might scare potential new gamers from D&D..... Hmmmm....
I see your point, but there's a danger in deciding other peoples' fun. The reality is, a lot of people play video games - specifically RPGs - in which they've become accustomed to creating powerful characters, maximising their stats and equipment to gain the highest possible advantage. That's what they enjoy - and who are we to deprive them of it?
Ask yourself - why do you care? Don't get me wrong - I agree with you in principle. I think treating D&D as a series of 'optimal choices' limits the rich, storytelling experience of the game, and I wish everyone could experience the absolute joy of completely being absorbed in their character, weaving a communal tale, and making choices that make sense to your character and the story, rather than number on a sheet.
But this isn't a new conversation. Many moons ago, when I played Neverwinter Nights - a video game based on D&D rules - in a roleplaying server, there'd be continued frustration at people min-maxing characters - and that was in a video game. You actually see this same issue raised in video games a lot - the amount of people that hate Skyrim for being 'dumbed down', for example.
It's so very easy to get elitist about D&D. To want to make other people understand how 'tough it is' to play the game by not making optimal choices. To bemoan 'casual' players, who just don't understand 'proper D&D'. But here's the thing - you don't have to play with them.
I often find these people are the same group that are annoyed that D&D is now becoming popular, especially with the birth of popular YouTube series, like Critical Roll. D&D was 'their thing' - and these new players that just treat it like a game (how dare they) are ruining it.
But remember, D&D exists to make money at the end of the day. It is a franchise - and they need to cater to a demographic that's going to make them money. Which is why I'm so damn thankful that 5e allows so much space for roleplay and deep characters. I'd be annoyed if they'd removed the possibility to play D&D my way - but they really haven't. If anything, since 4e they've moved more closely to encouraging players to make roleplaying choices over min-max choices.
And it's popular! I don't think D&D has ever had such a community as it has right now. And if players want to min-max, power-game, and never roleplay - well then at least they're funding an edition of D&D that allows the rest of us to play it how we like to.
There's room for everyone.
Strong agree with Chequers. I love the acting and story part of D&D most, but that doesn't mean it's wrong for people to enoy the video-game part too! There's nothing wrong with wanting your character to be the best they can be and enjoying the strategy and ingenuity that helps make her that way. The real problem I think you're reacting to is when the video-game players ignore or belittle the roleplay aspects of the game (which sometimes gets reversed when would-be Critters who aren't pro voice actors diss people for enjoying combat). That stinks. D&D has multiple facets, every one of which is important to the game and none of which deserves to be hated on. It's also a big, beautiful game that everybody plays differently, and I love it that way.
Wizard (Gandalf) of the Tolkien Club
There are good views here on this subject and I enjoy reading it all. Yes it is always best to let the players play what they want providing it is not a disruption to the whole group. Also playing on their weaknesses can really shake things up and most of the time it is very entertaining. I say most of the time because there is that player out there who would not have it, but in the end there are those players that you just dont have to have in your group. As before when writing on this topic I was in the middle of my first morning coffee. I again sit here doing so again. I had brought up the whole random stat pre-generated list and even an in order stat roll to my group as a future idea. Some thought it would be great and some were not so keen on it, as I suspected. However in the end I feel I have a great group of players and all of them play what they want. I could see how some would not want to have stats restricted in a way forcing them to play something they have no interest in playing at all. But on the same note others love the idea. In the end as long as everyone is having fun it simply does not matter.
I too am thankful that the various podcasts and streaming groups have introduced the game in a way that caused it to explode in popularity. It sure makes it easy to find players via the internet. Sadly for me local players are not so easy to come by. But when a player drops the game due to real life changes it is easy to pick up a replacement when using the internet. The loss of 2 players can spell disaster to a local group and finding replacements can be a real pain.
The whole min/max thing is definitely not a new thing by any means. In fact every one in my group is set up that way. It works for them and thats fine. As a DM I just play on it. It just seems that many of the forums or overly crowded with players wanting that superior build and to me it feels like I just went into a popular MMO forum. Still though., Im fine with it in the end as long as everyone is enjoying themselves.
Love this post.
I started DMing my group a couple of months ago, and this “video game mentality” (I will use VGM for short) is exactly the problem I had been trying to solve for a few years, and now I finally learn the right word for it!
My thoughts on it:
First, it really depends on the player group. If they all have this VGM, DM should probably just run with it. Usually, when all the players are having fun, DM is having fun. Don’t force them to change as a DM, if your players do want to play it that way.
If some players don’t like that, DM should give them some character arcs built in or related to the main plot. And the most important thing is communication. Let them know that you will let the VGM players to dominate a lot of combats, but will add more story arcs around the non-VGM’s characters.
I think the potential to min/max and to metagame by planning stuff out to 20th level are just part and parcel of any game that emphasizes combat, for better or for worse. Agree that having a session 0 conversation with potential players is key to avoiding a situation where the DM and the players are a mismatch.
I am going to start DMing myself in a few months with a homebrew campaign and setting where all the PCs will have at least 1 level of Bard. I plan to create a range of character sheets ahead of time and let the players choose from amongst them rather than spend time on point buy and equipment. However, I do plan on letting them adjust a stat or two if they really want to and to make up their own backstory as long as it explains how they ended up being a circus performer (yes, it's one of those campaigns). I should mention that I'm doing this because I know these players IRL and at least 2 of them have said they want to play an all Bard adventure and also b/c they will spend a lot of their time being forcibly shape-shifted into farm animals so their PC stats don't matter as much anyway for most of the campaign.
Anywho, BrokenDM, if you want to, I'll let you know how my campaign goes and I will check back on this thread if you have an update about the results of your pre-rolled ability score plan.
I have done many things to combat Min/Maxers (known as video game mentality now), however the trend will never fade away. There are people from the 3.x era who are used to the gigantic modifiers that came with it, there are the old school AD&D players who fear the meat grinder dungeons, and there is now the new wave of digital gamers who bring that mind set with them. Each era of gamer has it's own quirk, each era brings a new breath to the game, but every era has min/maxers. We, as DMs, can do a little to mitigate the min/maxer crowd but it's easier to use the core function of D&D to do the work for us.
I changed how players' attributes were created many different times. I had them roll 3d6 and write them down in the attributes in the same order they were rolled, you didn't get to choose where the attributes went. Gave them a total of 72 points to split up as they saw fit, but the attributes capped at 16 for level 1. They could roll 4d6 and drop the lowest placing them wherever they wanted. I have now landed on a simple answer: it doesn't matter how the attributes are created, they'll find a way to use the highest numbers to make the strongest characters. They want to win, survive, and succeed a their goals, so they'll take any advantage they can get, even the "non-min/max" players. In the end I settled on roll 1d10 and add 8, then place them as you see fit.
The core function of D&D is where you can really showcase how D&D doesn't care if you're a role player or a min/maxer. D&D is all about problem solving, there's combat, social interactions, puzzles, mysteries, and a whole lot of other things we can throw at our players. It's their job to use their skills to figure out how to solve these problems. Do they fight to the death or do they take prisoners? Is that NPC telling the truth? Do they work for the king or the rebels? What's the best way to storm the wizard's tower? How do you get past the magical door blocking your path? Do you fight the guardian of the gate or do you find a way to negotiate passage? It doesn't matter if you have a 20 strength if you are trying to talk to a magistrate. It doesn't matter if your spell save dc is 18 when dealing with a deity.
Sometimes their min/max mentality will give them the advantage, sometimes it'll be a detriment to them. As long as you're playing the game as an impartial arbiter the game should be fun to everyone. There will be times where the players will hate what's going on, but you're simply explaining how the story unfolds rather than combating someone's choice to max out their skills in one area.
I see your point, and I agree, to an extent...
I read another thing on the forums, though, about a problem player that has been playing since first edition and maximizes his character and lies about it to do so. Meanwhile, my friends and I think that a character needs flaws to be interesting, realistic, and fun. For example, I have a friend who ended up with a 2 for his Intelligence score, and he lowered it to a 1 just for the fun of it, and role-played it up until level 15. We all had some flaws in our characters (a good reason to fill out 100% of your character sheet), and made fun of them and used them.
Still, I had some players this year who just wanted to optimize their characters. One of them was a friend of me who played video games (Zelda games, mostly, I think) so that matches up. It wasn't the entire party, but I think everybody did want decent stats. That was mostly because they all wanted to play physical and sneaky characters, not healers or spellcasters, so they wanted to be okay anyway. You're still right about a lot of players, but I'd say it doesn't matter way too much if you're not playing with them. If you are playing with them, talk to them about it.
Powergamers have always existed, long before video games became such a prevalent thing. I've been doing this since the original red box, and I can assure you, powergaming has been around since day one. It even makes sense in-character, if you think about it. You're going to be out there putting your life on the line on a regular basis, other people's lives if not the fate of nations or worlds in your hands, you are going to want to be the best you can be at whatever it is you do. Imagine Batman or Captain America training half-assed, and you get the idea.
One reason you see so many optimization posts on the forums is because they're objective. It deals with cold, hard numbers, which can be compared to other cold, hard numbers. Every other aspect of the game is subjective. "Is this a cool backstory?" is going to have a lot of different answers because different people like different things in a character.
Me, I think character creation should be an exact science. You should, within reasonable limits, be allowed to make precisely what you want. Randomization is for play, not construction. No rolling for stats, hit points, money, no dice should be involved when building your character. It should be as close to your vision as it can get.
Now, here's the thing: Some people think that you can't have a mechanically optimal character AND roleplay, which is BS. I don't know if that's what you're saying or implying, but it's a common misconception that's infected the RPG scene for some time. Just because you want your character to be good mechanically doesn't mean you're neglecting other aspects of the character. It's not an inversely proportionate ratio; you can do both.
And that’s the distinction. From my perspective, D&D isn’t about construction - it’s about character - and for me, flaws, traits and evolving choices are what connect me to that character.
I would simply get bored if I built a character in advance, knowing exactly what my stats would be, and what I’d choose at every level up, crunching the numbers to get the most optimal result. For me, interesting characters aren’t an exact science - it’s those quirks and random traits that make them so.
I love not knowing what my character will look like 5 levels from now, because the plot and character experiences might have pulled his story in a different direction.
But I can certainly see why others enjoy planning a character, and then see that character - and the results of their planning - come to life. And of course these characters can be roleplayed - it’s just not the role play that is driving their character sheet choices.
D&D is so great because it allows everyone to play their way. Some people get a buzz out of planning and maximising their choices. Some people get a buzz out of working with the hand they’re dealt and seeing their character evolve in unexpected ways. Some people fall somewhere between. But everyone can have a great time.
Overall I agree with the posters above me with the nuances of what they prefer to do, say how they prefer to build and play their characters. Both paths are viable in their own right. Letting roleplaying influence the character sheet and letting the character sheet influence the roleplaying.
I feel like those two approaches are not mutually exclusive. Neither of them is wrong. What is important is to show people alternatives, letting them explore them and sometimes forcing them a little to "make that jump". For example, I really dislike rolling up a character. Getting really unlucky on hitpoints trying to make a barbarian is going to suck for me because I am too perfectionistic and would constantly be frustrated about the "missing" hitpoints.
However, I tried it. Multiple times in the past. I came to the conclusion that I don't like it. And I am "allowed" to have a definite opinion on the matter because I gave it a try. That's just my personal take on the matter when it comes to liking and disliking things. Try it at least once. Which is the point when it comes to these minmaxing powergamers. Subtly challenge their ideal state of game by putting their characters into situations that they can't just roll themselves out of. Use other players' roleplaying skills to show them how amazing having a great story can be. Negative and positive reinforcement respectively. Those are obviously just examples.
Let chaos rain... uh, reign!
On first level I just give players the full hit points die. If they have to have 1d8 I give them 8, but after that they have to roll. So level 3 it would be 8 + d28. I know some people do it 3d8.
I think part of the problem is that while ideals, flaws and bonds are included in the PHB, a lot of people play without them since they seem to "get in the way" of beating up monsters and taking their stuff. Also, there's just nothing in the rule mechanics that openly encourages players to make multi-dimensional characters if the DM isn't handing out inspiration for it. This is where the DM really sets the tone for the group. This is in turn limited by the commonality of players who just enjoy killing and looting.
That's actually the rule as written, the 'maximum at first level' thing. I personally do the fixed HPs after that.
If the characters get most of their experience (60%-90%) from combat then the players will naturally build their characters for combat. If you make it clear that they are getting at least half (50%-60%) from NON-combat stuff (roleplaying and skill checks and stuff) then the players will naturally build more diverse characters. Two of my players made “nerdy characters” for my current campaign because I warned them at the beginning that non-combat would be half of their experience. In my last two sessions combined I had 9 social encounters, 2 skill encounters, and only 1 combat encounter. They stopped caring about killing stuff every session, their just thrilled that they all had fun and leveled up.
don’t get me wrong, next session WILL be combat heavy, but the combat will earn them no more XP than talking to all of those NPCs and finding all of those clues has.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting