... And no, that's not a false dichotomy. You made a choice, and one factor weighed more heavily than the other in making that decision -- whether you want to admit it to yourself or not
I assume they're a particularly robotic warforged, because that would be a really weird way for anyone else to talk about themselves
Just because. Though of course it's always fun when someone's all "show me where I said that" because they know most of the time people aren't going to go and fetch the quotes and they can play it off like they haven't been doing the thing they've been doing.
Yes, I wrote a long-winded post about Bohemian Failure Monkeys and how to avoid becoming one. Primarily because much like many other users on this board, I am awfully sick of self-proclaimed, so-called "Role Players" telling me I'm not role playing in my role-playing game because they feel like my character being stronger than theirs within my character's particular purview is somehow a direct attack on the soul of D&D. You, Generic Bohemian Failure Monkey Person,made the decision to be ******* bad at everything because you find incompetence more narratively compelling than competence.
I am an excellent character writer, and before you get on my case for that one I can show you 1.) proof2.) of3.) that4.) too. I can write up and play the thoroughly unheroic village bumpkin swept up by events and in over her head better than the vast majority of True Art-TEESTE(!) Bohemian Failure Monkeys ever could. Every single D&D circle I've ever been in, in these threeish years I've been doing D&D, the DM has been surprised and impressed by the stories I tell with my characters in the world they present to me.
Stormwind. Fallacy. Inscribe it on the inside of your eyelids so you can't stop seeing it. "Optimizing" does not mean someone can't be a phenomenal player. Actively disregarding the math does not automatically make you better than someone who builds characters with the entire game - narrative flow and mechanical structure both - in mind. In many (I would argue most) cases it makes you worse, not better, since you're ignoring all the ways the numbers and crunchy systems can lean into your character's story and make it heavier and more real.
So knock it off with the "all optimizers ever do is ruin games" horseshit, eh?
Optimus is stating that in a game with no fighting, there's little reason to play a fighter. This should be an obvious and self-evident statement - why should someone seek to play a character whose primary focus is on martial prowess and force of arms in a game where both of those things are not only meaningless, but generally actively detrimental to your tale?
Why do people play full casters in settings where magic is outlawed, or super-low magic setting where it's barely present at all?
Why do people play clerics of gods whose worship is forbidden in their campaign world?
Why do people play rogues adventuring in a nation where the penalty for any crime is death?
I created an Eberron warlock once who -- at first level, mind you -- was so wigged out by his powers and was so worried about being discovered that he wouldn't use them when he thought anyone could see him do it, which meant he barely used them at all.
Either the question of "why would you create a character who can't do the things they should be good at" is a confusing one to you, or it isn't. It's got nothing to do with cute memes you picked up from some YouTube video or wherever.
Telling optimizers role-players they're godawful human beings who hate fun, their friends, their game, their DM, and the entire TTRPG hobby just because they don't actively go out of their way to be Bohemian Failure Monkeys fascist math junkies shows a shallow, heavily flawed understanding of how this whole thing works.
Yes all of those things would be good reason not to play the respective classes in those settings...you are severely limited in how you can play the character and not everyone will want to play that....
Arcane casters were extremely rare in Dark Sun as you kinda kill the planet when you cast a spell....so yeah setting/genre is important on class selection...which is exactly what I said.
Why play a full caster in a setting where magic is outlawed, or in a low-magic setting where full casters are incredibly rare and mistrusted/feared? Because that's cool. You have access to a Secret Weapon most of your enemies will not even slightly be ready for, and the added tension of having to conceal your powers or be outlawed/ostracized by society can be a lot of fun for some players.
Playing a cleric to a god whose worship is forbidden is rife with potential opportunities for neat stories. Why was this god's worship banned...and is the creature giving you your powers truly a god falsely maligned by the people, or is it something far darker? There's a hundred interesting tales to be told here.
Why play a rogue in a nation with extravagantly punitive punishments for even minor infractions? Uhhh...because crime still pays. And if not, because being exceptionally good at breaking the law and not getting caught, i.e. being a rogue, is also a great start on being a revolutionary. There was a famous philosophical/ethical parable I cannot remember the author of right now, but it went something resembling this: -A group of low-class workers were making their morning commute to the fields when their wagon wheel broke. They had to stop to repair it, but it meant they would be late to work that day. The laws of the land mandated only one punishment for any crime, including being late to work: execution. The lead worker looked to his friends and said. "Friends, what is the penalty for being late to work?" "Death", they all said mournfully. "And what is the penalty for revolution?" "Death," they all answered again. "Well, my friends," the lead worker said. "It looks like we're late."
All of those combinations are ones where the character's skillset is still of exceptionall value. Being the only mage in a place where mages are unknown or gives you a huge edge. Being exceptionally good at crime in a place where getting caught doing crime means death gives you the chance to do things nobody else could or would do.
Playing a fighter in a game/setting where no fights will ever happen and if they do they represent a possibly game-ending failure? Less neat. Less useful. The character's skillset is actively working against them in a way none of the other examples are.
Why play a full caster in a setting where magic is outlawed, or in a low-magic setting where full casters are incredibly rare and mistrusted/feared? Because that's cool. You have access to a Secret Weapon most of your enemies will not even slightly be ready for, and the added tension of having to conceal your powers or be outlawed/ostracized by society can be a lot of fun for some players.
Playing a cleric to a god whose worship is forbidden is rife with potential opportunities for neat stories. Why was this god's worship banned...and is the creature giving you your powers truly a god falsely maligned by the people, or is it something far darker? There's a hundred interesting tales to be told here.
Why play a rogue in a nation with extravagantly punitive punishments for even minor infractions? Uhhh...because crime still pays. And if not, because being exceptionally good at breaking the law and not getting caught, i.e. being a rogue, is also a great start on being a revolutionary. There was a famous philosophical/ethical parable I cannot remember the author of right now, but it went something resembling this: -A group of low-class workers were making their morning commute to the fields when their wagon wheel broke. They had to stop to repair it, but it meant they would be late to work that day. The laws of the land mandated only one punishment for any crime, including being late to work: execution. The lead worker looked to his friends and said. "Friends, what is the penalty for being late to work?" "Death", they all said mournfully. "And what is the penalty for revolution?" "Death," they all answered again. "Well, my friends," the lead worker said. "It looks like we're late."
All of those combinations are ones where the character's skillset is still of exceptionall value. Being the only mage in a place where mages are unknown or gives you a huge edge. Being exceptionally good at crime in a place where getting caught doing crime means death gives you the chance to do things nobody else could or would do.
Playing a fighter in a game/setting where no fights will ever happen and if they do they represent a possibly game-ending failure? Less neat. Less useful. The character's skillset is actively working against them in a way none of the other examples are.
Very good points.
One way you could use your skills to RP to NOT get caught using your skills.
The other you just don't use your skills at all lol.
... And no, that's not a false dichotomy. You made a choice, and one factor weighed more heavily than the other in making that decision -- whether you want to admit it to yourself or not
I assume they're a particularly robotic warforged, because that would be a really weird way for anyone else to talk about themselves
Just because. Though of course it's always fun when someone's all "show me where I said that" because they know most of the time people aren't going to go and fetch the quotes and they can play it off like they haven't been doing the thing they've been doing.
Yes, I wrote a long-winded post about Bohemian Failure Monkeys and how to avoid becoming one. Primarily because much like many other users on this board, I am awfully sick of self-proclaimed, so-called "Role Players" telling me I'm not role playing in my role-playing game because they feel like my character being stronger than theirs within my character's particular purview is somehow a direct attack on the soul of D&D. You, Generic Bohemian Failure Monkey Person,made the decision to be ****ing bad at everything because you find incompetence more narratively compelling than competence.
I am an excellent character writer, and before you get on my case for that one I can show you 1.) proof2.) of3.) that4.) too. I can write up and play the thoroughly unheroic village bumpkin swept up by events and in over her head better than the vast majority of True Art-TEESTE(!) Bohemian Failure Monkeys ever could. Every single D&D circle I've ever been in, in these threeish years I've been doing D&D, the DM has been surprised and impressed by the stories I tell with my characters in the world they present to me.
Stormwind. Fallacy. Inscribe it on the inside of your eyelids so you can't stop seeing it. "Optimizing" does not mean someone can't be a phenomenal player. Actively disregarding the math does not automatically make you better than someone who builds characters with the entire game - narrative flow and mechanical structure both - in mind. In many (I would argue most) cases it makes you worse, not better, since you're ignoring all the ways the numbers and crunchy systems can lean into your character's story and make it heavier and more real.
So knock it off with the "all optimizers ever do is ruin games" horseshit, eh?
Aww, you really thought you could get away without quoting the whole posts. Adorable.
I think the issue is that the min-maxers tap into various empowering synergies while other characters don't.
From my perspective, min-maxing isn't 'tapping into empowering synergies'; it's that the entire point of your build is those synergies
You aren't making a character, you are optimizing a set of numbers. If that's your thing, fine (but it's not mine)
And as has been said already, the way to "fix" that in a party where some people take that approach and some don't is to make sure everyone is getting a chance to play the style of game they want to play. Let the min-maxers have fun wrecking fools in combat while the role-players take a back seat, but then flip that around next session for a noble family's wedding reception
Just so long as no one expects to be the center of attention all the time, there shouldn't be any issues
That's your idea of a "potshot" and me saying "all optimizers ever do is ruin games"?
As for the other three, the second makes no statement at all on whether those choices are good or bad.
The third was yes, me mocking a specific person for saying what I thought were silly things. Hardly a blanket condemnation of an entire group of D&D players.
The fourth was me making fun of the idea of a character saying, in character, "I am going to optimize myself". Because that would be a weird turn of phrase.
That's it. That's all you could come up with, Yurei.
I take my point as proven, and suggest you stop reading what you expect to see into other people's posts and instead read what they actually wrote. Otherwise, we're done now.
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)
Yes all of those things would be good reason not to play the respective classes in those settings...you are severely limited in how you can play the character and not everyone will want to play that....
That's fair, and I apologize. I was doing what other people keep doing in this thread -- reading more into a post than was there, and interpreting what you originally said as "No one would EVER play a fighter in an RP-heavy campaign and it would be STUPID if you did".
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)
Ask yourself, Anton, why it's not just me who's "reading what you expect to see" in your posts. Optimus has pushed back against you, Gerg has pushed back against you, Sean has pushed back against you, several others have as well.
You keep trying to "prove" that optimization is A.) equivalent to the worst sort of overbearing tyrannical munchkinry, and B.) that anyone who optimizes is by necessity a terrible player who's only in it to throw clicky-clack math rocks at the DM's head until his HP hits zero. Why? People have said, over and over, that there can be more than one reason to make a given decision for a character. You dismissed that with your cute little "but one of them is the REAL reason, and if that reason was the numbers reason then you're a bad player and also a bad person and you should stop playing D&D and ideally extinguish yourself in a basement" bit.
Nah. Multiple factors behind a single decision is simply the way life do. People who make good characters aren't bad people. Stories aren't automatically better because the people in them are terrible at everything. The Byronic Hero is an ******* and a terrible archetype to emulate, and even if people want to there's no excuse for doing it poorly and missing the entire point of the archetype.
There is nothing wrong with creating powerful builds. Heck, there's nothing wrong with min-maxing, and some people just like optimizing (Believe me, 100%ing videogames is a long and arduous task with no reward, but I still enjoy it. Why can't players enjoy optimizing their character builds?).
When people hate on min-maxing, they are usually referring to people who min-max in an attempt to be the most powerful player on the board. Players who abuse the game rules not for the benefit of the party, but for their own personal benefit. Player to player balance is far more important than player to DM balance, as the DM is free to alter anything and everything they throw at the players. It's the DM's role to balance encounters, but a party that is unbalanced within and to itself makes that task difficult.
Make sure your players understand that player-to-player balance is more important than being the strongest in the room.
But the thing is if you have one or a couple players optimizing, and others making weak builds… why should the optimizers be looked at as the problem? How about the weaker ones step up their game? Personally I don’t think it needs to come to that. Mentor them if they want it, because often newer players want to be strong but don’t know how yet. If they don’t and they just want to run with a particular build concept, cool! Seriously, I want them to have that autonomy. BUT…. *IF* you’re going to say the power imbalance is a problem, why should the guy who knows and uses the most effective feats and spells be considered the culprit by default?
The mechanics of 5E make a true “min-max” impossible. If you roll for stats you get whatever the dice give you. Point buy and standard array are very restrictive in both directions (meaning up and down). You can’t sacrifice skills for combat power.
So basically you just have players who distribute their ability scores wisely (and almost all experienced players do at least that much), and who make effective choices for races, subclasses, feats, and/or spells.
I was not suggesting the optimizers were the problem. All players have a responsibility to build balanced characters, not just chronic-min-maxers. The DM’s role, among so many others, is to guide players through character creation. Buffing and nerfing where necessary is one way of balancing as a DM.
Yes all of those things would be good reason not to play the respective classes in those settings...you are severely limited in how you can play the character and not everyone will want to play that....
That's fair, and I apologize. I was doing what other people keep doing in this thread -- reading more into a post than was there, and interpreting what you originally said as "No one would EVER play a fighter in an RP-heavy campaign and it would be STUPID if you did".
I said "Granted if you are DMing a game that is purposefully mostly RP (80%+) then being up front about that will likely produce more of the result you want.....but do not be surprised if no one wants to play a fighter in your 80%+ RP game."
I am saying that I wouldn't be surprised if no one wants to play a fighter because I personally see no real reason to do it as it would be boring as hell to me....but I do recognize that different strokes for different folks is a thing.
And no worries I have definately misinterpreted posts on here before so for that I can forgive as I am guilty of it myself.
I think reasonable people can agree the overwhelming lion share of complaint threads are directed at optimizers or so-called “min-maxers” The OP of THIS thread is an example, and it’s not just DND Beyond, but all online D&D forums.
I can’t even remember if I’ve ever seen a thread complaining about players making underpowered builds. When there’s a party imbalance the default is always “What should I do about those pesky min-maxers”
I think reasonable people can agree the overwhelming lion share of complaint threads are directed at optimizers or so-called “min-maxers” The OP of THIS thread is an example, and it’s not just DND Beyond, but all online D&D forums.
I can’t even remember if I’ve ever seen a thread complaining about players making underpowered builds. When there’s a party imbalance the default is always “What should I do about those pesky min-maxers”
Truth. I think a player would have to work at it to build a true garbage character in 5e. Or play them very badly.
I think reasonable people can agree the overwhelming lion share of complaint threads are directed at optimizers or so-called “min-maxers” The OP of THIS thread is an example, and it’s not just DND Beyond, but all online D&D forums.
I can’t even remember if I’ve ever seen a thread complaining about players making underpowered builds. When there’s a party imbalance the default is always “What should I do about those pesky min-maxers”
Truth. I think a player would have to work at it to build a true garbage character in 5e. Or play them very badly.
I think I would just dump CON and my main stat.
Fighter with 8 CON and 10 DEX and 12 STR would be a real shit character.
I think reasonable people can agree the overwhelming lion share of complaint threads are directed at optimizers or so-called “min-maxers” The OP of THIS thread is an example, and it’s not just DND Beyond, but all online D&D forums.
I can’t even remember if I’ve ever seen a thread complaining about players making underpowered builds. When there’s a party imbalance the default is always “What should I do about those pesky min-maxers”
Truth. I think a player would have to work at it to build a true garbage character in 5e. Or play them very badly.
I think I would just dump CON and my main stat.
Fighter with 8 CON and 10 DEX and 12 STR would be a real shit character.
this is the only valid way to showcase the how much someone values their role play.
lol
btw I had a friend one time who dumped dexterity on a monk. He did not choose a racial option to bolster AC or focus on strength either. He did not have a good time playing the character. We all have a laugh now occasionally though when we talk about it.
I just want to play a cool character. I don't have a problem with min-maxing players as long as they dont have a problem with my silly voices.
I don't want to be in a party of "murder hobos" and some optimizers definitely fall into this category. I also get worn down by the greed...where's my +1 sword? Etc.
And I admit, that although I tend to focus more on my characters background and personality, I still like to perform cinematic actions in combat.
I guess I'm saying there is room at the table for all sorts of play styles. As a dm or a player, this has rarely been an issue.
A more serious problem is the "my character would never do that" or "I'm only doing what my character would do." These are usually just excuses to disrupt the game and bug other players. Selfish b.s. that gets in the way of party objectives and everyone else's fun.
I just want to play a cool character. I don't have a problem with min-maxing players as long as they dont have a problem with my silly voices.
I don't want to be in a party of "murder hobos" and some optimizers definitely fall into this category. I also get worn down by the greed...where's my +1 sword? Etc.
And I admit, that although I tend to focus more on my characters background and personality, I still like to perform cinematic actions in combat.
I guess I'm saying there is room at the table for all sorts of play styles. As a dm or a player, this has rarely been an issue.
A more serious problem is the "my character would never do that" or "I'm only doing what my character would do." These are usually just excuses to disrupt the game and bug other players. Selfish b.s. that gets in the way of party objectives and everyone else's fun.
Yeah if you do 0 RP and just want loot that is a fair complaint.
I have been in plenty of parties with heavy optimizers who also had amazing roleplay and played their character well.
I have also been a group with the person who doesn't talk unless its their turn in combat and then only to say "I attack" then roll, do damage, then play on their phone until its their turn again.
Funny enough the optimiziers I have played with have much more often fit into the former rather than the latter....if you care enough about learning the character enough to optimize then you generally care enough to RP them as well. But that is my experience and YMMV obviously.
I think the main point is that the Stormwind Fallacy is indeed a thing and I do think there is a disturbing amount of people who truly believe it.
Worth noting, when you optimize and play tactically that can actually enhance creativity and narration in combat, because you can do more things. I built a beast barbarian with shield master (SM is underrated on a barb IMO, but that's another topic). With high strength and rage giving advantage on strength checks, I shield bashed a few enemies off of a ship. I climbed up a tower and threw one of the archers over the rail. And here's a neat trick... the beast barb with shield master could grow a tail on rage, attack once, grapple once, the bonus action shove prone. Next round the enemy had to use its action try to break the grapple of a raging barbarian, meanwhile I'm attacking him while he's prone with my tail. You can narrate that one all kinds of ways.
I think reasonable people can agree the overwhelming lion share of complaint threads are directed at optimizers or so-called “min-maxers” The OP of THIS thread is an example, and it’s not just DND Beyond, but all online D&D forums.
I can’t even remember if I’ve ever seen a thread complaining about players making underpowered builds. When there’s a party imbalance the default is always “What should I do about those pesky min-maxers”
Truth. I think a player would have to work at it to build a true garbage character in 5e. Or play them very badly.
I think I would just dump CON and my main stat.
Fighter with 8 CON and 10 DEX and 12 STR would be a real shit character.
this is the only valid way to showcase the how much someone values their role play.
lol
btw I had a friend one time who dumped dexterity on a monk. He did not choose a racial option to bolster AC or focus on strength either. He did not have a good time playing the character. We all have a laugh now occasionally though when we talk about it.
Oof....yeah STR monks with dumped dex would be really really bad too.
The fourth was me making fun of the idea of a character saying, in character, "I am going to optimize myself". Because that would be a weird turn of phrase.
A complete strawman, because nobody suggested such an idea.
I think the main point is that the Stormwind Fallacy is indeed a thing and I do think there is a disturbing amount of people who truly believe it.
Nah. I actually think the belief that it's widespread is part of the problem. Calling "Stormwind Fallacy" -- or any short-hand label, really -- is too often just another way to dismiss what someone is actually saying.
I mean, I explicitly said this back on page three of this thread:
That doesn't mean you can't make a choice based on story that results in a strong build, or that you can't optimize a choice but still come up with a cool story around it.
And yet, that didn't seem to stop Yurei from trying to stick that Stormwind Fallacy label on me, did it?
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)
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Just because. Though of course it's always fun when someone's all "show me where I said that" because they know most of the time people aren't going to go and fetch the quotes and they can play it off like they haven't been doing the thing they've been doing.
Yes, I wrote a long-winded post about Bohemian Failure Monkeys and how to avoid becoming one. Primarily because much like many other users on this board, I am awfully sick of self-proclaimed, so-called "Role Players" telling me I'm not role playing in my role-playing game because they feel like my character being stronger than theirs within my character's particular purview is somehow a direct attack on the soul of D&D. You, Generic Bohemian Failure Monkey Person, made the decision to be ******* bad at everything because you find incompetence more narratively compelling than competence.
I am an excellent character writer, and before you get on my case for that one I can show you 1.) proof 2.) of 3.) that 4.) too. I can write up and play the thoroughly unheroic village bumpkin swept up by events and in over her head better than the vast majority of True Art-TEESTE(!) Bohemian Failure Monkeys ever could. Every single D&D circle I've ever been in, in these threeish years I've been doing D&D, the DM has been surprised and impressed by the stories I tell with my characters in the world they present to me.
Stormwind. Fallacy. Inscribe it on the inside of your eyelids so you can't stop seeing it. "Optimizing" does not mean someone can't be a phenomenal player. Actively disregarding the math does not automatically make you better than someone who builds characters with the entire game - narrative flow and mechanical structure both - in mind. In many (I would argue most) cases it makes you worse, not better, since you're ignoring all the ways the numbers and crunchy systems can lean into your character's story and make it heavier and more real.
So knock it off with the "all optimizers ever do is ruin games" horseshit, eh?
Please do not contact or message me.
Yes all of those things would be good reason not to play the respective classes in those settings...you are severely limited in how you can play the character and not everyone will want to play that....
Arcane casters were extremely rare in Dark Sun as you kinda kill the planet when you cast a spell....so yeah setting/genre is important on class selection...which is exactly what I said.
To be fair? Those situations are not parallels.
Why play a full caster in a setting where magic is outlawed, or in a low-magic setting where full casters are incredibly rare and mistrusted/feared? Because that's cool. You have access to a Secret Weapon most of your enemies will not even slightly be ready for, and the added tension of having to conceal your powers or be outlawed/ostracized by society can be a lot of fun for some players.
Playing a cleric to a god whose worship is forbidden is rife with potential opportunities for neat stories. Why was this god's worship banned...and is the creature giving you your powers truly a god falsely maligned by the people, or is it something far darker? There's a hundred interesting tales to be told here.
Why play a rogue in a nation with extravagantly punitive punishments for even minor infractions? Uhhh...because crime still pays. And if not, because being exceptionally good at breaking the law and not getting caught, i.e. being a rogue, is also a great start on being a revolutionary. There was a famous philosophical/ethical parable I cannot remember the author of right now, but it went something resembling this:
-A group of low-class workers were making their morning commute to the fields when their wagon wheel broke. They had to stop to repair it, but it meant they would be late to work that day. The laws of the land mandated only one punishment for any crime, including being late to work: execution. The lead worker looked to his friends and said. "Friends, what is the penalty for being late to work?"
"Death", they all said mournfully.
"And what is the penalty for revolution?"
"Death," they all answered again.
"Well, my friends," the lead worker said. "It looks like we're late."
All of those combinations are ones where the character's skillset is still of exceptionall value. Being the only mage in a place where mages are unknown or gives you a huge edge. Being exceptionally good at crime in a place where getting caught doing crime means death gives you the chance to do things nobody else could or would do.
Playing a fighter in a game/setting where no fights will ever happen and if they do they represent a possibly game-ending failure? Less neat. Less useful. The character's skillset is actively working against them in a way none of the other examples are.
Please do not contact or message me.
Very good points.
One way you could use your skills to RP to NOT get caught using your skills.
The other you just don't use your skills at all lol.
Aww, you really thought you could get away without quoting the whole posts. Adorable.
That's your idea of a "potshot" and me saying "all optimizers ever do is ruin games"?
As for the other three, the second makes no statement at all on whether those choices are good or bad.
The third was yes, me mocking a specific person for saying what I thought were silly things. Hardly a blanket condemnation of an entire group of D&D players.
The fourth was me making fun of the idea of a character saying, in character, "I am going to optimize myself". Because that would be a weird turn of phrase.
That's it. That's all you could come up with, Yurei.
I take my point as proven, and suggest you stop reading what you expect to see into other people's posts and instead read what they actually wrote. Otherwise, we're done now.
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)
That's fair, and I apologize. I was doing what other people keep doing in this thread -- reading more into a post than was there, and interpreting what you originally said as "No one would EVER play a fighter in an RP-heavy campaign and it would be STUPID if you did".
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)
*Sigh*.
Ask yourself, Anton, why it's not just me who's "reading what you expect to see" in your posts. Optimus has pushed back against you, Gerg has pushed back against you, Sean has pushed back against you, several others have as well.
You keep trying to "prove" that optimization is A.) equivalent to the worst sort of overbearing tyrannical munchkinry, and B.) that anyone who optimizes is by necessity a terrible player who's only in it to throw clicky-clack math rocks at the DM's head until his HP hits zero. Why? People have said, over and over, that there can be more than one reason to make a given decision for a character. You dismissed that with your cute little "but one of them is the REAL reason, and if that reason was the numbers reason then you're a bad player and also a bad person and you should stop playing D&D and ideally extinguish yourself in a basement" bit.
Nah. Multiple factors behind a single decision is simply the way life do. People who make good characters aren't bad people. Stories aren't automatically better because the people in them are terrible at everything. The Byronic Hero is an ******* and a terrible archetype to emulate, and even if people want to there's no excuse for doing it poorly and missing the entire point of the archetype.
Please do not contact or message me.
I was not suggesting the optimizers were the problem. All players have a responsibility to build balanced characters, not just chronic-min-maxers. The DM’s role, among so many others, is to guide players through character creation. Buffing and nerfing where necessary is one way of balancing as a DM.
I said "Granted if you are DMing a game that is purposefully mostly RP (80%+) then being up front about that will likely produce more of the result you want.....but do not be surprised if no one wants to play a fighter in your 80%+ RP game."
I am saying that I wouldn't be surprised if no one wants to play a fighter because I personally see no real reason to do it as it would be boring as hell to me....but I do recognize that different strokes for different folks is a thing.
And no worries I have definately misinterpreted posts on here before so for that I can forgive as I am guilty of it myself.
I think reasonable people can agree the overwhelming lion share of complaint threads are directed at optimizers or so-called “min-maxers” The OP of THIS thread is an example, and it’s not just DND Beyond, but all online D&D forums.
I can’t even remember if I’ve ever seen a thread complaining about players making underpowered builds. When there’s a party imbalance the default is always “What should I do about those pesky min-maxers”
Truth. I think a player would have to work at it to build a true garbage character in 5e. Or play them very badly.
I think I would just dump CON and my main stat.
Fighter with 8 CON and 10 DEX and 12 STR would be a real shit character.
this is the only valid way to showcase the how much someone values their role play.
lol
btw I had a friend one time who dumped dexterity on a monk. He did not choose a racial option to bolster AC or focus on strength either. He did not have a good time playing the character. We all have a laugh now occasionally though when we talk about it.
I just want to play a cool character. I don't have a problem with min-maxing players as long as they dont have a problem with my silly voices.
I don't want to be in a party of "murder hobos" and some optimizers definitely fall into this category. I also get worn down by the greed...where's my +1 sword? Etc.
And I admit, that although I tend to focus more on my characters background and personality, I still like to perform cinematic actions in combat.
I guess I'm saying there is room at the table for all sorts of play styles. As a dm or a player, this has rarely been an issue.
A more serious problem is the "my character would never do that" or "I'm only doing what my character would do." These are usually just excuses to disrupt the game and bug other players. Selfish b.s. that gets in the way of party objectives and everyone else's fun.
Yeah if you do 0 RP and just want loot that is a fair complaint.
I have been in plenty of parties with heavy optimizers who also had amazing roleplay and played their character well.
I have also been a group with the person who doesn't talk unless its their turn in combat and then only to say "I attack" then roll, do damage, then play on their phone until its their turn again.
Funny enough the optimiziers I have played with have much more often fit into the former rather than the latter....if you care enough about learning the character enough to optimize then you generally care enough to RP them as well. But that is my experience and YMMV obviously.
I think the main point is that the Stormwind Fallacy is indeed a thing and I do think there is a disturbing amount of people who truly believe it.
Worth noting, when you optimize and play tactically that can actually enhance creativity and narration in combat, because you can do more things. I built a beast barbarian with shield master (SM is underrated on a barb IMO, but that's another topic). With high strength and rage giving advantage on strength checks, I shield bashed a few enemies off of a ship. I climbed up a tower and threw one of the archers over the rail. And here's a neat trick... the beast barb with shield master could grow a tail on rage, attack once, grapple once, the bonus action shove prone. Next round the enemy had to use its action try to break the grapple of a raging barbarian, meanwhile I'm attacking him while he's prone with my tail. You can narrate that one all kinds of ways.
No poster here should be surprised when others react negatively to the shitty approaches adopted in their posts. Sorry.
We, above all people, should recognise that actions can have consequences.
Oof....yeah STR monks with dumped dex would be really really bad too.
A complete strawman, because nobody suggested such an idea.
Nah. I actually think the belief that it's widespread is part of the problem. Calling "Stormwind Fallacy" -- or any short-hand label, really -- is too often just another way to dismiss what someone is actually saying.
I mean, I explicitly said this back on page three of this thread:
And yet, that didn't seem to stop Yurei from trying to stick that Stormwind Fallacy label on me, did it?
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)