So, I'm going to preface this with a couple of caveats. First, this is based my own anecdotal experience. My opinion is not data driven. Second, it's impossible to quantify how much someone is or is not into role play. This means it's an impression that I have, not a statement about a fact.
It's easy to pick out from game play and from conversations with fellow players - who puts a ton of thought into the mechanical benefits of their race/class/AS/feat/weapons/spell choices, and who does not. The common narrative is that "power gamers" don't care about the story or role play, and that they're only trying to "win D&D."
As both a player and now as a new DM, my experience so far has been the opposite. Example, there is one player at my table that I chat with regularly through FB messenger, and we are always bouncing ideas off each other for kicka** character builds. At my table he is (by a wide margin) the most engaged in the story, and he lights up when there is a chance for his character to interact with the world and with NPCs. In my game he built a Dex-based Battle Master human variant, with SS and XBE. The second most engaged is very experienced, and also has experience DMing, and he also gives strong consideration to mechanical advantage with his builds. He just doesn't obsess about it like the first guy. This is the general trend usually see after a few years of playing.
Additionally, many of the popular content creators put tons of thought into what is and is not mechanically effective, and they're the same people who are also very much into story. I can name a bunch of examples, but Dungeon Dudes is one of them. Watch Dungeons of Drakkenhiem and tell me they're not into story and role play. They also have a ton of "how to" content that are all about maximizing combat effectiveness.
My hypothesis is that the type of person who would obsessively dive deeply into the game mechanics to come up with powerful builds, are the same people who obsess about the game in general.
So for the rest of you, has your experience been the same or the opposite? What do you think?
I think it depends a lot on the demographics. Obviously, anyone playing on a streaming service is going to be biased toward telling a better story.
New players are going to fixate on one thing or the other while they get their feet wet. Some are drawn in by the mechanics, while others avoid choice paralysis by focusing on the story and letting others figure out how to make it work. Some people never grow out of the "New Player" stage.
Experienced players will either find a group with a healthy dynamic, or they won't. If they do, then they are likely to get their basic psychological needs met, and be able to explore more nuanced play styles. Those who are stuck with unhealthy groups will be pushed to "take" what they need from the group. Roleplay is inherently collaborative, so if the party doesn't play well together, then the roleplay isn't going to be terribly satisfying.
Then there are those who simply want to be the main character. Maximum Roleplay, Maximum Power. Sure, they engage in both, but not in an admirable way.
I'm not sure anyone claims that if you're a minmaxxer then you're not passionate about the game or that they don't get into the story at all. It's that some people, who I'd call minmaxxers, who, when given a choice between optimising their build and following their story's logical progression, they'll choose to optimise their character at every opportunity. Then you get roleplayers who in the same situation, will choose to follow the story, even at the detriment of their character. No one's saying that minmaxxers are somehow uninterested or not passionate about the game. Nor is anyone saying that minmaxxers have no interest in role-playing or that role-players have no interest in building strong characters. It's a false dichotomy to say any of those things.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I'm not sure anyone claims that if you're a minmaxxer then you're not passionate about the game or that they don't get into the story at all. It's that some people, who I'd call minmaxxers, who, when given a choice between optimising their build and following their story's logical progression, they'll choose to optimise their character at every opportunity. Then you get roleplayers who in the same situation, will choose to follow the story, even at the detriment of their character. No one's saying that minmaxxers are somehow uninterested or not passionate about the game. Nor is anyone saying that minmaxxers have no interest in role-playing or that role-players have no interest in building strong characters. It's a false dichotomy to say any of those things.
Oh, I've seen that stereotype a lot. On every D&D forum I've been to, including this one. Granted, they're a minority but I've debated with them for multiple pages, several times. I've heard people say it in person as well, but mostly online where I have much greater exposure to other players.
I often hear “that’s not Min/Max” and then the person goes on to describe a type of build that’s literally impossible, or like in your case, a type of player I’ve literally never ran into.
Conversely, I’ve seen a LOT of criticisms of players merely for making optimization decisions, like choosing a powerful multi-class dip - calling it “min maxing.” “Oh I only ever multi-class if it’s for story, because I care about story.”
What is or is not Min-Maxing is poorly defined and you’ll get a lot of different answers. If people aren’t calling normal optimization Min/Maxing, it’s most commonly described as building a character that is so combat focused that they suck at everything else. That’s literally impossible, for reasons that take to long to explain.
I find that usually the most competent optimizers are usually also the most into roll play and story.
I'm not sure anyone claims that if you're a minmaxxer then you're not passionate about the game or that they don't get into the story at all. It's that some people, who I'd call minmaxxers, who, when given a choice between optimising their build and following their story's logical progression, they'll choose to optimise their character at every opportunity. Then you get roleplayers who in the same situation, will choose to follow the story, even at the detriment of their character. No one's saying that minmaxxers are somehow uninterested or not passionate about the game. Nor is anyone saying that minmaxxers have no interest in role-playing or that role-players have no interest in building strong characters. It's a false dichotomy to say any of those things.
Oh, I've seen that stereotype a lot. On every D&D forum I've been to, including this one. Granted, they're a minority but I've debated with them for multiple pages, several times. I've heard people say it in person as well, but mostly online where I have much greater exposure to other players.
I'm sure the stereotype exists. However, I've been here on DDB a few months now (granted 90+% on General Discussions) and I've yet to see a single post that I'd consider to have been refuted or even corrected by the examples you've given or the logic you've presented. I've yet to see a post that claimed that minmaxxers are never invested in the story or never RP or are never passionate about the game. I just don't think it's as prevalent in discussion or even in people's minds as you seem to perceive it to be. At least, not here.
Your speculation may just amount to a realization that many people prefer a balanced approach, and someone who is deeply invested will probably delve deep into both sides of things.
Before reading your post, I was reflecting on my style. I tend to go for neither, but just pick what sounds cool to me. I've certainly never sat down with a calculator to work out what two spells will do the most when I level up, so I'm not a minmaxxer. On the other hand, I don't necessarily lean so heavily into RP that I insist that my Wizard must learn these two spells because they're the ones that fit with the character the best, even if only slightly better than those other two spells. I think most players think kind of similar. Minmaxxers and RP'ers are caricatures of the extreme ends of the spectrum that aren't that common. The vast majority are in the middle and just have tendencies towards one or the other.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
The Stormwind fallacy: for when you feel like you really, really need to be part of an oppressed minority
EDIT: to specifically address the title of this thread, I'm in three very different campaigns right now, and the only player I'd consider anything close to a "min/maxer" is not, in fact, "more into role play", although that campaign isn't heavy RP anyway
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)
As far as 5E is concerned, how obsessive are we talking about when referring to diving deeply into the mechanics? I'm asking because other than poring over exhaustive lists of equipment (which in many cases isn't going to be freely available, so that may well be a completely unnecessary effort) and arguably spell lists there's not a ton of mechanically optimized interactions to discover - most of that stuff is pretty obvious if you have a bit of experience with the system, and a lot of the not so obvious stuff is borderline or completely exploitative and likely to get you in hot water with your DM.
And since the Dungeon Dudes were brought up, I'd argue they're not powergamers. They're very knowledgeable certainly - comes with the territory when you play and DM a lot - and they create content about what's strong and what isn't, but to me they don't seem to obsess about optimization. Which is what in my experience the greater majority of players is like: most players will try and pick strong or at least useful options for their character, but not to the exclusion of everything else; they'll work up a concept, an idea for a character, and start from there - not from "what's the most powerful character I can create".
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
The Stormwind fallacy: for when you feel like you really, really need to be part of an oppressed minority
EDIT: to specifically address the title of this thread, I'm in three very different campaigns right now, and the only player I'd consider anything close to a "min/maxer" is not, in fact, "more into role play", although that campaign isn't heavy RP anyway
Really? The Stormwind Fallacy cuts both ways: if you roleplay well, you optimize poorly AND if you optimize well, you roleplay poorly. So who precisely is the oppressed minority you refer to here?
…most players will try and pick strong or at least useful options for their character, but not to the exclusion of everything else; they'll work up a concept, an idea for a character, and start from there - not from "what's the most powerful character I can create”.
This describes the vast majority of my decades of gameplay experience. I’ve really only ever played with one person, out of literally hundreds, who cared only about the numbers, tried to sneak questionable rules combos past the DM and always had very little, like distressingly little, idea of who his characters were as people in their world.
People who spend a lot of time diving deep into the rules, doing a lot of 'side D&D' between sessions, looking up builds and character ideas and going through their material?
They're invested in the game. They're the ones who've spent hundreds of dollars on their investment, if not thousands over the years for long-time players. Of course they're also going to be really invested in actually playing, and in creating awesome stories as well as awesome characters. Why would they get so deep into the material otherwise, if they never had any intention of living up to their own heightened expectations? If it was all about 'winning', they'd just go play a video game. Easier, cheaper, prettier, requires fewer people (and/or the people are supplied automatically per game, in a matchmake-y game) and there's a definitive win condition to strive for.
Pangurjan also has the right of it - there's relatively little system mastery required to Get Work Done in 5e. Match your stat to your class, keep your Con mod positive, and you're basically there. The game is so over-simplified and handholdy in character creation, you'rew given so few choices to make concerning your character, that frankly it takes a greater degree of system knowledge and game know-how to build a bad character than to make a competent, well-rounded adventurer.
The Dungeon Dudes are hardly optimancers - you want tooth-grinding, spleen-venting 'this is what I'm talking about when I say minmaxers ruin D&D!' optimancy, watch a Treantmonk video. And be prepared to take a hot bath afterwards because you'll need it to relax after that moose manure - "I'm not saying you shouldn't play this if you want to, I'm just saying the math says you're objectively wrong, you're gimping your party, you're pissing off your DM and you should probably confess your sins to a priest". Screw that guy. But anyways. Frankly, the Dudes are the kind of player you should want at your table - people who know the game very well and can play without prompting or constant look-ups and reminders, who are deeply invested in the campaign they're playing and the success of their table as a whole, and who make good decisions when given the chance to do so, both from a narrative and mechanical standpoint.
Don't be Treantmonk. Don't be a Bohemian Failure Monkey, so enamored with failure and "Narrative Richness" that you forget your character is a professional in an extremely dangerous occupation who would do whatever they reasonably could to acquire the skills, training, and equipment needed to survive. Be somewhere in the middle, with everybody else.
I think that people talk about "Min-Maxers" in much the same way some people talk about "Vegans". The term is usually not meant as a criticism for anyone who dares to not eat meat... it's more expressing frustration at the people who constantly bring it up unprompted and try to belittle anyone who doesn't eat food the same way they do. I think someone who maximizes their character abilities can generally be also a good roleplayer and a fun table member... they're min-maxing, but that's just part of what they bring to the table. Someone who would be disparagingly called a "Min-Maxer" would be someone who doesn't simply maximize their character for combat... it's someone who brings it up constantly, criticizes the other table members for making "sub optimum" picks, or gets upset if some wild combination they built isn't allowed by the DM.
Basically, when someone is called a Min-Maxer as an insult, they're basically being described as "That Guy", but with their specific flavor of That-ness included.
There's also a distinct lack of agreement on definition-of-terms - many people mean very different things when they use these terms they think - erroneously - are universal. 'Optimizer', 'min-maxer', and 'munchkin' can all mean different things to different people, and arguing over who qualifies as what is a huge mess if nobody even knows which definition applies to what.
As just one example: for me and my table, 'optimizer' is someone who makes sensible, good decisions with their characters. Their numbers are about where you'd expect, with a reasonable degree of give for matching different character concepts. They take enough of the right abilities to be a solid, useful addition to the party, and they play those abilities well. They are Optimal People - they strike the best balance between Mechanics and Story they can to create the best tale and the best moments their table can offer. You want a tableful of optimizers.
"Min-Maxer" is someone who makes dumb decisions chasing the best numbers they can get, over-emphasizing lopsided mechanical ability to the detriment of the story. These are the folks who use the stupid, ridiculous, suspension-of-disbelief-damaging 15/15/15/8/8/8 Gangsta Lean point buy array, never seen a combat feat they didn't take and a noncombat feat they didn't skip, and generally play more like an MMO jockey than a roleplayer. Their character is a toon/avatar, not a character, and they don't see a need for all that namby-pamby character development crap when they're here to kill monsters, take their stuff, and use that stuff to kill bigger badder monsters. They aren't malicious, but they don't see any point in the whole 'collaborative storytelling' bit and are here for the fun crunchy stuff. That's fine for some tables and many min-maxers do know how to tone it down or even turn it off if they happen to be sitting at a table where it's not welcome. They're not bad people, they just don't care nearly as much about the narrative as they do about rolling dice, throwing out huge numbers, and winning epic battles with their buddies.
"Munchkin" is as above, save actively disruptive to the table. Munchkins do everything min-maxers do, but they also hog loot, demand other people accede to their wishes, and are drama-obsessed primadonnas who're trying to be The Protagonist. They see the rest of the table as sidekicks at best or annoying loot sinks at worst, and they get bitter, angry, and jealous any time anybody else at the table gets a cool thing or pulls off a sweet moment. These are Problem People that need to be steered back on course if possible or ejected from the table if not.
Those are my definitions, the way I use each term. I've seen people here who explicitly flip the first two - 'min-maxer' is someone who makes reasonable decisions and builds a good, solid character, while 'optimizers' are the ones who chase numbers so hard they lose sight of everything else. For some folks 'munchkin' is interchangeable with both terms, while others consider munchkins to be something else entirely. The terms are not universal, not shared, and a lot of the reason these threads boil over into quagmires of nonsensical ****ery is because nobody is using the same definitions as anybody else.
I generally agree with yurei. It might be more that someone who really is engaged in the game and wants to play ends up investing time in reading the rules. In the course of doing so, they can’t help but realize which choices are stronger and which are weaker. And min-maxing in this edition is actually kind of difficult with all the choices after your subclass being on rails. It’s not like 3e where there were all the skill synergy bonuses, and feat taxes so you had to plan your character from the beginning. And then all the splat books would allow some absolutely broken combinations. It practically encouraged min-maxing.
As for who is a min-maxer in this edition; anyone who takes a 1-level dip into hexblade. 😛 Double if they never actually bother with figuring out who their patron is.
I agree that those terms are more descriptive and better embody the differences between different people who go out of their way to prioritize "power" in some way...
I think Min-Maxer is kind of overused, because most uses of the term ignore the "Min" part of the equation. I think most people end up being Optimizer, and Min-Maxer better describes someone who takes incredibly obvious negatives in order to prioritize their really specific skills and abilities.
The term is probably not quite as applicable to 5e, because it's actually kind of hard to build a "bad" character in 5e without just really getting into generous point-buy builds. I think it's a lot more prominent in games that allow a player to take some kind of "disability" to gain additional stats. Like... some games let you play a character with one eye and have worse vision in some way, but you get an extra point to put into a different stat. I remember reading a webcomic that re-interpreted Star Wars as a TTRPG... I believe it was called Darths and Droids. But one of the details of the game was that the guy playing R2-D2 was a serious min-maxer, who took a ton of disabilities (no arms, unable to speak, massively low strength), but as a result had an insane Luck stat and had ridiculous hacking skills... he also refused to roll up a new character between campaigns, so that explains why R2 is in all the movies despite completely changing casts.
I like Yurei’s definitions as well - they work well in the vast majority of cases. I would add a special subclass of munchkin - the newbie munch - they are just starting or relatively new to optimizing and don’t quite get how the rules and language interact and think they can do stuff that is not actually allowed. Then they get invested in the build and sort of go crazy when it’s not allowed or the DM (or us here on DDB) explain reality to them and show them what the overpowered creation could really be. I’ve seen a lot of that recently in the Artificer forum. I somewhat expect to see some of it soon in the ranger forum now that Fizban is out as well.
I chuckled a bit ai Yurie's description of the 15 15 15 8 8 8 character who pushed for every ounce of combat and nothing else numbers wise, because it describes my most recent alter-ego, a Halfling Barbarian Our group kinda NEEDS this character and he needs to be as pure as he can, so I have few options, stat or skill wise, to contribute a lot to the RP/puzzle/task bits. That, however, is where my character takes a sharp left from where she describes them as not wanting or caring to be part of the storytelling. So, he's a little loud, pretty gruff and direct, but good natured and laughs at near everything. Eats like a Hill Giant and is learning already that he shouldn't let his companions go off alone. He will be developing a TON as a character, BUT every single opportunity for a number or choice to improve his slashittoribbons skills will be taken. I want him to be memorable as a character in the party and an absolute monster on the battlefield.
I think a lot of what's been said is true. There are those select few who will be pushy, overbearing and demeaning to others while trying to build a mechanic that rocks the battlefield. More often, it seems, folks trying to tweak ASI/Feat/Spell choice, etc to get the most out of their character are also deeply involved in getting their character embedded into the story with the rest of the team. Happily, it seems the annoying min/max types are the exception, not the rule.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Talk to your Players.Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
Minmax is well defined. How it's applied to 5e is, perhaps, less well defined. My point is just that what I think you are actually talking about is simply being invested in the game. And investment may often translate into both wanting to make mechanically optimized characters/ gameplay choices and characters that pull their weight in the softer narrative side of things. Often those two things are mutually compatible.
If we measured whether people place more emphasis on mechanical optimization versus story-focused character concepts, I'm sure we'd find a gamut with many people somewhere toward the middle. I think at the extremes, you may end up with some conflict. Few players will be at the extreme end of things. Your speculation may just amount to a realization that many people prefer a balanced approach, and someone who is deeply invested will probably delve deep into both sides of things.
From my experience it's rarely a choice between the two. And also you can build your character literally any which way, and there is still no limit to how engaged you are in the story and role play, or your own character's back story.
"Minmax is well defined."
I don't agree, as I hear a variety of explanations for what is Min-Max.
"Your speculation may just amount to a realization that many people prefer a balanced approach, and someone who is deeply invested will probably delve deep into both sides of things."
Yes, this exactly. Someone who dives deeply into the game mechanics to come up with powerful builds, tends to also be deeply invested in the other aspects of the game. And coming up with powerful builds in no way detracts from those other aspects.
Given the often vehement arguments against basic RP concepts like Clerics being beholden to deities, Warlocks to their patrons, Paladins being (mostly) good, or the like, arguments based on pure mechanics rather than any sort of coherent world building philosophy, I would say that what I consider min/maxing is indeed alive and strong, at the expense of RP.
There is definitely a strong faction who take what I consider a video game approach, treating their characters as numbers on paper and playing the game by playing the numbers and playing for mechanical tactical challenges rather than any serious level of immersion.Now they may well still feel immersed and they may well be at a table where everyone is playing similarly and enjoying themselves immensely. And more power to them!
However not sure that is so much RP as the OP may consider it.
So let's say Bob has a Barbarian chooses PAM and GWM, and even goes so far as to calculate at what AC he should stop using the (-5 +10) from GWM. Let's say he puts that much thought into the mechanics for all his build choices.
Is it your position that that somehow prevents him from having the same level of game immersion? Or is your argument that the type of player or will dive into the math is the type who will care less about story and game immersion?
Really? The Stormwind Fallacy cuts both ways: if you roleplay well, you optimize poorly AND if you optimize well, you roleplay poorly.
LOL. I challenge you to find an example of someone citing Stormwind other than to say, well, exactly what the title of this thread says
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.
So, I'm going to preface this with a couple of caveats. First, this is based my own anecdotal experience. My opinion is not data driven. Second, it's impossible to quantify how much someone is or is not into role play. This means it's an impression that I have, not a statement about a fact.
It's easy to pick out from game play and from conversations with fellow players - who puts a ton of thought into the mechanical benefits of their race/class/AS/feat/weapons/spell choices, and who does not. The common narrative is that "power gamers" don't care about the story or role play, and that they're only trying to "win D&D."
As both a player and now as a new DM, my experience so far has been the opposite. Example, there is one player at my table that I chat with regularly through FB messenger, and we are always bouncing ideas off each other for kicka** character builds. At my table he is (by a wide margin) the most engaged in the story, and he lights up when there is a chance for his character to interact with the world and with NPCs. In my game he built a Dex-based Battle Master human variant, with SS and XBE. The second most engaged is very experienced, and also has experience DMing, and he also gives strong consideration to mechanical advantage with his builds. He just doesn't obsess about it like the first guy. This is the general trend usually see after a few years of playing.
Additionally, many of the popular content creators put tons of thought into what is and is not mechanically effective, and they're the same people who are also very much into story. I can name a bunch of examples, but Dungeon Dudes is one of them. Watch Dungeons of Drakkenhiem and tell me they're not into story and role play. They also have a ton of "how to" content that are all about maximizing combat effectiveness.
My hypothesis is that the type of person who would obsessively dive deeply into the game mechanics to come up with powerful builds, are the same people who obsess about the game in general.
So for the rest of you, has your experience been the same or the opposite? What do you think?
I think it depends a lot on the demographics. Obviously, anyone playing on a streaming service is going to be biased toward telling a better story.
New players are going to fixate on one thing or the other while they get their feet wet. Some are drawn in by the mechanics, while others avoid choice paralysis by focusing on the story and letting others figure out how to make it work. Some people never grow out of the "New Player" stage.
Experienced players will either find a group with a healthy dynamic, or they won't. If they do, then they are likely to get their basic psychological needs met, and be able to explore more nuanced play styles. Those who are stuck with unhealthy groups will be pushed to "take" what they need from the group. Roleplay is inherently collaborative, so if the party doesn't play well together, then the roleplay isn't going to be terribly satisfying.
Then there are those who simply want to be the main character. Maximum Roleplay, Maximum Power. Sure, they engage in both, but not in an admirable way.
I'm not sure anyone claims that if you're a minmaxxer then you're not passionate about the game or that they don't get into the story at all. It's that some people, who I'd call minmaxxers, who, when given a choice between optimising their build and following their story's logical progression, they'll choose to optimise their character at every opportunity. Then you get roleplayers who in the same situation, will choose to follow the story, even at the detriment of their character. No one's saying that minmaxxers are somehow uninterested or not passionate about the game. Nor is anyone saying that minmaxxers have no interest in role-playing or that role-players have no interest in building strong characters. It's a false dichotomy to say any of those things.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Oh, I've seen that stereotype a lot. On every D&D forum I've been to, including this one. Granted, they're a minority but I've debated with them for multiple pages, several times. I've heard people say it in person as well, but mostly online where I have much greater exposure to other players.
Literally all over social media, though. And these forums. Stormwind fallacy is alive and well.
BogWitchKris,
I often hear “that’s not Min/Max” and then the person goes on to describe a type of build that’s literally impossible, or like in your case, a type of player I’ve literally never ran into.
Conversely, I’ve seen a LOT of criticisms of players merely for making optimization decisions, like choosing a powerful multi-class dip - calling it “min maxing.” “Oh I only ever multi-class if it’s for story, because I care about story.”
What is or is not Min-Maxing is poorly defined and you’ll get a lot of different answers. If people aren’t calling normal optimization Min/Maxing, it’s most commonly described as building a character that is so combat focused that they suck at everything else. That’s literally impossible, for reasons that take to long to explain.
I find that usually the most competent optimizers are usually also the most into roll play and story.
I'm sure the stereotype exists. However, I've been here on DDB a few months now (granted 90+% on General Discussions) and I've yet to see a single post that I'd consider to have been refuted or even corrected by the examples you've given or the logic you've presented. I've yet to see a post that claimed that minmaxxers are never invested in the story or never RP or are never passionate about the game. I just don't think it's as prevalent in discussion or even in people's minds as you seem to perceive it to be. At least, not here.
Before reading your post, I was reflecting on my style. I tend to go for neither, but just pick what sounds cool to me. I've certainly never sat down with a calculator to work out what two spells will do the most when I level up, so I'm not a minmaxxer. On the other hand, I don't necessarily lean so heavily into RP that I insist that my Wizard must learn these two spells because they're the ones that fit with the character the best, even if only slightly better than those other two spells. I think most players think kind of similar. Minmaxxers and RP'ers are caricatures of the extreme ends of the spectrum that aren't that common. The vast majority are in the middle and just have tendencies towards one or the other.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
The Stormwind fallacy: for when you feel like you really, really need to be part of an oppressed minority
EDIT: to specifically address the title of this thread, I'm in three very different campaigns right now, and the only player I'd consider anything close to a "min/maxer" is not, in fact, "more into role play", although that campaign isn't heavy RP anyway
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)
As far as 5E is concerned, how obsessive are we talking about when referring to diving deeply into the mechanics? I'm asking because other than poring over exhaustive lists of equipment (which in many cases isn't going to be freely available, so that may well be a completely unnecessary effort) and arguably spell lists there's not a ton of mechanically optimized interactions to discover - most of that stuff is pretty obvious if you have a bit of experience with the system, and a lot of the not so obvious stuff is borderline or completely exploitative and likely to get you in hot water with your DM.
And since the Dungeon Dudes were brought up, I'd argue they're not powergamers. They're very knowledgeable certainly - comes with the territory when you play and DM a lot - and they create content about what's strong and what isn't, but to me they don't seem to obsess about optimization. Which is what in my experience the greater majority of players is like: most players will try and pick strong or at least useful options for their character, but not to the exclusion of everything else; they'll work up a concept, an idea for a character, and start from there - not from "what's the most powerful character I can create".
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Really? The Stormwind Fallacy cuts both ways: if you roleplay well, you optimize poorly AND if you optimize well, you roleplay poorly. So who precisely is the oppressed minority you refer to here?
This describes the vast majority of my decades of gameplay experience. I’ve really only ever played with one person, out of literally hundreds, who cared only about the numbers, tried to sneak questionable rules combos past the DM and always had very little, like distressingly little, idea of who his characters were as people in their world.
People who spend a lot of time diving deep into the rules, doing a lot of 'side D&D' between sessions, looking up builds and character ideas and going through their material?
They're invested in the game. They're the ones who've spent hundreds of dollars on their investment, if not thousands over the years for long-time players. Of course they're also going to be really invested in actually playing, and in creating awesome stories as well as awesome characters. Why would they get so deep into the material otherwise, if they never had any intention of living up to their own heightened expectations? If it was all about 'winning', they'd just go play a video game. Easier, cheaper, prettier, requires fewer people (and/or the people are supplied automatically per game, in a matchmake-y game) and there's a definitive win condition to strive for.
Pangurjan also has the right of it - there's relatively little system mastery required to Get Work Done in 5e. Match your stat to your class, keep your Con mod positive, and you're basically there. The game is so over-simplified and handholdy in character creation, you'rew given so few choices to make concerning your character, that frankly it takes a greater degree of system knowledge and game know-how to build a bad character than to make a competent, well-rounded adventurer.
The Dungeon Dudes are hardly optimancers - you want tooth-grinding, spleen-venting 'this is what I'm talking about when I say minmaxers ruin D&D!' optimancy, watch a Treantmonk video. And be prepared to take a hot bath afterwards because you'll need it to relax after that moose manure - "I'm not saying you shouldn't play this if you want to, I'm just saying the math says you're objectively wrong, you're gimping your party, you're pissing off your DM and you should probably confess your sins to a priest". Screw that guy. But anyways. Frankly, the Dudes are the kind of player you should want at your table - people who know the game very well and can play without prompting or constant look-ups and reminders, who are deeply invested in the campaign they're playing and the success of their table as a whole, and who make good decisions when given the chance to do so, both from a narrative and mechanical standpoint.
Don't be Treantmonk. Don't be a Bohemian Failure Monkey, so enamored with failure and "Narrative Richness" that you forget your character is a professional in an extremely dangerous occupation who would do whatever they reasonably could to acquire the skills, training, and equipment needed to survive. Be somewhere in the middle, with everybody else.
Please do not contact or message me.
I think that people talk about "Min-Maxers" in much the same way some people talk about "Vegans". The term is usually not meant as a criticism for anyone who dares to not eat meat... it's more expressing frustration at the people who constantly bring it up unprompted and try to belittle anyone who doesn't eat food the same way they do. I think someone who maximizes their character abilities can generally be also a good roleplayer and a fun table member... they're min-maxing, but that's just part of what they bring to the table. Someone who would be disparagingly called a "Min-Maxer" would be someone who doesn't simply maximize their character for combat... it's someone who brings it up constantly, criticizes the other table members for making "sub optimum" picks, or gets upset if some wild combination they built isn't allowed by the DM.
Basically, when someone is called a Min-Maxer as an insult, they're basically being described as "That Guy", but with their specific flavor of That-ness included.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
There's also a distinct lack of agreement on definition-of-terms - many people mean very different things when they use these terms they think - erroneously - are universal. 'Optimizer', 'min-maxer', and 'munchkin' can all mean different things to different people, and arguing over who qualifies as what is a huge mess if nobody even knows which definition applies to what.
As just one example: for me and my table, 'optimizer' is someone who makes sensible, good decisions with their characters. Their numbers are about where you'd expect, with a reasonable degree of give for matching different character concepts. They take enough of the right abilities to be a solid, useful addition to the party, and they play those abilities well. They are Optimal People - they strike the best balance between Mechanics and Story they can to create the best tale and the best moments their table can offer. You want a tableful of optimizers.
"Min-Maxer" is someone who makes dumb decisions chasing the best numbers they can get, over-emphasizing lopsided mechanical ability to the detriment of the story. These are the folks who use the stupid, ridiculous, suspension-of-disbelief-damaging 15/15/15/8/8/8 Gangsta Lean point buy array, never seen a combat feat they didn't take and a noncombat feat they didn't skip, and generally play more like an MMO jockey than a roleplayer. Their character is a toon/avatar, not a character, and they don't see a need for all that namby-pamby character development crap when they're here to kill monsters, take their stuff, and use that stuff to kill bigger badder monsters. They aren't malicious, but they don't see any point in the whole 'collaborative storytelling' bit and are here for the fun crunchy stuff. That's fine for some tables and many min-maxers do know how to tone it down or even turn it off if they happen to be sitting at a table where it's not welcome. They're not bad people, they just don't care nearly as much about the narrative as they do about rolling dice, throwing out huge numbers, and winning epic battles with their buddies.
"Munchkin" is as above, save actively disruptive to the table. Munchkins do everything min-maxers do, but they also hog loot, demand other people accede to their wishes, and are drama-obsessed primadonnas who're trying to be The Protagonist. They see the rest of the table as sidekicks at best or annoying loot sinks at worst, and they get bitter, angry, and jealous any time anybody else at the table gets a cool thing or pulls off a sweet moment. These are Problem People that need to be steered back on course if possible or ejected from the table if not.
Those are my definitions, the way I use each term. I've seen people here who explicitly flip the first two - 'min-maxer' is someone who makes reasonable decisions and builds a good, solid character, while 'optimizers' are the ones who chase numbers so hard they lose sight of everything else. For some folks 'munchkin' is interchangeable with both terms, while others consider munchkins to be something else entirely. The terms are not universal, not shared, and a lot of the reason these threads boil over into quagmires of nonsensical ****ery is because nobody is using the same definitions as anybody else.
So...maybe fix that, for the future?
Please do not contact or message me.
I generally agree with yurei. It might be more that someone who really is engaged in the game and wants to play ends up investing time in reading the rules. In the course of doing so, they can’t help but realize which choices are stronger and which are weaker.
And min-maxing in this edition is actually kind of difficult with all the choices after your subclass being on rails. It’s not like 3e where there were all the skill synergy bonuses, and feat taxes so you had to plan your character from the beginning. And then all the splat books would allow some absolutely broken combinations. It practically encouraged min-maxing.
As for who is a min-maxer in this edition; anyone who takes a 1-level dip into hexblade. 😛 Double if they never actually bother with figuring out who their patron is.
I agree that those terms are more descriptive and better embody the differences between different people who go out of their way to prioritize "power" in some way...
I think Min-Maxer is kind of overused, because most uses of the term ignore the "Min" part of the equation. I think most people end up being Optimizer, and Min-Maxer better describes someone who takes incredibly obvious negatives in order to prioritize their really specific skills and abilities.
The term is probably not quite as applicable to 5e, because it's actually kind of hard to build a "bad" character in 5e without just really getting into generous point-buy builds. I think it's a lot more prominent in games that allow a player to take some kind of "disability" to gain additional stats. Like... some games let you play a character with one eye and have worse vision in some way, but you get an extra point to put into a different stat. I remember reading a webcomic that re-interpreted Star Wars as a TTRPG... I believe it was called Darths and Droids. But one of the details of the game was that the guy playing R2-D2 was a serious min-maxer, who took a ton of disabilities (no arms, unable to speak, massively low strength), but as a result had an insane Luck stat and had ridiculous hacking skills... he also refused to roll up a new character between campaigns, so that explains why R2 is in all the movies despite completely changing casts.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
I like Yurei’s definitions as well - they work well in the vast majority of cases. I would add a special subclass of munchkin - the newbie munch - they are just starting or relatively new to optimizing and don’t quite get how the rules and language interact and think they can do stuff that is not actually allowed. Then they get invested in the build and sort of go crazy when it’s not allowed or the DM (or us here on DDB) explain reality to them and show them what the overpowered creation could really be. I’ve seen a lot of that recently in the Artificer forum. I somewhat expect to see some of it soon in the ranger forum now that Fizban is out as well.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
I chuckled a bit ai Yurie's description of the 15 15 15 8 8 8 character who pushed for every ounce of combat and nothing else numbers wise, because it describes my most recent alter-ego, a Halfling Barbarian Our group kinda NEEDS this character and he needs to be as pure as he can, so I have few options, stat or skill wise, to contribute a lot to the RP/puzzle/task bits. That, however, is where my character takes a sharp left from where she describes them as not wanting or caring to be part of the storytelling. So, he's a little loud, pretty gruff and direct, but good natured and laughs at near everything. Eats like a Hill Giant and is learning already that he shouldn't let his companions go off alone. He will be developing a TON as a character, BUT every single opportunity for a number or choice to improve his slashittoribbons skills will be taken. I want him to be memorable as a character in the party and an absolute monster on the battlefield.
I think a lot of what's been said is true. There are those select few who will be pushy, overbearing and demeaning to others while trying to build a mechanic that rocks the battlefield. More often, it seems, folks trying to tweak ASI/Feat/Spell choice, etc to get the most out of their character are also deeply involved in getting their character embedded into the story with the rest of the team. Happily, it seems the annoying min/max types are the exception, not the rule.
Talk to your Players. Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
From my experience it's rarely a choice between the two. And also you can build your character literally any which way, and there is still no limit to how engaged you are in the story and role play, or your own character's back story.
"Minmax is well defined."
I don't agree, as I hear a variety of explanations for what is Min-Max.
"Your speculation may just amount to a realization that many people prefer a balanced approach, and someone who is deeply invested will probably delve deep into both sides of things."
Yes, this exactly. Someone who dives deeply into the game mechanics to come up with powerful builds, tends to also be deeply invested in the other aspects of the game. And coming up with powerful builds in no way detracts from those other aspects.
So let's say Bob has a Barbarian chooses PAM and GWM, and even goes so far as to calculate at what AC he should stop using the (-5 +10) from GWM. Let's say he puts that much thought into the mechanics for all his build choices.
Is it your position that that somehow prevents him from having the same level of game immersion? Or is your argument that the type of player or will dive into the math is the type who will care less about story and game immersion?
LOL. I challenge you to find an example of someone citing Stormwind other than to say, well, exactly what the title of this thread says
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)