I'm sick of the dnd community

[Dimers]

This anti-powergaming mentality that's taken root in the 5e community has become all-encompassing.

The anti-powergamers on this forum are loud, but I certainly hear other voices too. For instance, Ludic Savant and strangebloke are always willing to help design a build that's highly effective.

DMs and players seem to have unanimously decided ...

Hm. So when you say "5e community" and "DMs and players" are you referring to actual games where you live, actual games on a forum, forum discussions, celebrity games, all that and more ... ?

I'm sick and tired of it, and I have no idea where else to go from here.

4th edition! Seriously, though, two obvious answers are other forums and other game systems. You're likely to encounter some anti-powergamers everywhere no matter what, but it could be significantly lessened with a change of venue. For example, I can't recall a single time I've heard anyone rant about how every 4th-ed character needs to start with 16+ in their attack stat and "that's not real roleplaying"; a degree of powergaming seems to be expected in the 4e community.

[animorte]

First, what a strong sentiment to spark this discussion as a thread topic, though I do not feel it is 5e specific.

Fun is the most important aspect of this game, or just about any game. But just below that are two links that lead to optimizing because sometimes that's fun for me, and just plain wonderful to read through all of that. These things do not have to be separate. I've noticed that one of the things I suggest the most is "get creative" or "use your imagination."

I get that there are certain topics that will get a lot of attention, especially on this forum because this is the internet where people express differing opinions. A great deal of these I tend to keep up with but don't contribute very much because when people feel strongly, they are can be difficult to reason with (myself included). I still love this community because most of the time we have a lot of teamwork going on in arriving at helpful conclusions. I've learned a lot myself and hope I have helped some others along the way.

I think I can speak for all of us when I say that the only real time creativity is bad, we unanimously agree that time is when somebody's creativity is ruining the game for everyone else.

[Pex]

I have a hunch the OP has been trying to find groups to join online, and everyone is saying they want "roleplayers not rollplayers" or words to that effect. If he does manage to get into a group it's all snowflake dramatic roleplay and hardly ever a combat to utilize his character's game mechanics.

I've seen the former often. There's always a snark against power gamers or minmaxers and overly stress the importance roleplay. Roleplaying is part of the fun, but I won't apologize putting a 16 in my prime, 14 in CON, and have 18 AC at first level if proficient when other players have 10 CO, 14 in their prime, and only 15 AC despite proficiency. I don't apologize for knowing how to do stuff with my action, move, and bonus action efficiently. I don't apologize for knowing and using the rules. My roleplay comes with play. I put effort into it, but I don't apologize for also caring about the game mechanics.

[Bardbarian91]

{scrubbed} I suspect the "creative" aspect mentioned might be like my first game as a DM, where the monk thought with the slippers of spider climbing he asked to start the game with when I let everyone have a magic item for flavor, and he decided to run along the ceiling of every dungeon they walked into and use the full length of his quarterstaff to bonk skeletons on the head from a safe distance.

[animorte]

{scrub the post, scrub the quote}

{scrubbed}

[Bardbarian91]

{scrub the post, scrub the quote}

{scrubbed}

[MrStabby]

{scrub the post, scrub the quote} I suspect the "creative" aspect mentioned might be like my first game as a DM, where the monk thought with the slippers of spider climbing he asked to start the game with when I let everyone have a magic item for flavor, and he decided to run along the ceiling of every dungeon they walked into and use the full length of his quarterstaff to bonk skeletons on the head from a safe distance.

{scrubbed}

That said, I do think there is a case to be made for 5th edition not supporting mechanical creativity. I don't think I have seen any suggestion of any build that would qualify as "creative" since the coffeelock. So many things just seem to be "hey! Look! Bonus A can stack with bonus B and when we have both at the same time the thing we do with both of them is actually quite good!".

The possible exception is illusions where you can use knowledge of your target to get creative about selecting the best illusion for their way of thinking.

I think the way to do it is a bit of an excercise in constrained optimisation. Look at the rest of the party, work out where they are going to be the ones to shine (and hence where you should be weak) and where you can shine without stepping onthe toes of anyone else or having your playstyle stop them from doing their cool thing.

[H_H_F_F]

That said, I do think there is a case to be made for 5th edition not supporting mechanical creativity. I don't think I have seen any suggestion of any build that would qualify as "creative" since the coffeelock. So many things just seem to be "hey! Look! Bonus A can stack with bonus B and when we have both at the same time the thing we do with both of them is actually quite good!".

Very succinctly saying what I've been trying to say. Thank you.

I think the way to do it is a bit of an excercise in constrained optimisation. Look at the rest of the party, work out where they are going to be the ones to shine (and hence where you should be weak) and where you can shine without stepping onthe toes of anyone else or having your playstyle stop them from doing their cool thing.

Always true, and always worth saying.

[No brains]

Th thing that bugs me is that some people see powergaming and roleplaying as mutually exclusive when the factually work really well together. There are so many good dramatic hooks that can be pulled from a powergaming perspective. Are you a lancer who needs to perform well to find value when you can't trust that your friends will find you worth keeping? Better optimize into majin Vegeta.

Are you a traumatized horror protagonist who does not want to narrowly survive against a monster who leveled your life? Better optimize into Resident Evil 4 Leon, Aliens Ripley, Dream Warriors Nancy, uh... probably the lady from Halloween as well... I didn't see those movies.

And for all the killer DMs who like drama better than agency: Are you an arrogantly detached intellectual in your pie in the blue skying ivory tower questioning a god you see as within some plus/minus value of your own lofty heights? Do you need to be taught a lesson as to why the natural world is why the way it is and you shouldn't question it? Better optimize into any Faustian story, any other (hopefully entertaining) morality play character, or even literary foundations like Hercules or Gilgamesh.

The pursuit of power, especially how it relates to security and personal worth, is exactly the kind of drama D&D is built to explore. There are a lot of compelling ways to handle the theme within the system. People have known how to handle powergaming characters in stories longer than they have known how to put those stories to written word and have been using them all the way into stories transcending the written word to film.

The only viable argument against powergaming is DMs admitting they don't want to balance against it. I've been guilty of it. Call it a personal admission of ineptitude in the system, veiled cowardice towards balancing encounters, an unwillingness to foster ill will from players, but it's always the fault of DMs who can't hack it. That's not to say they should hack it though: preventing ill-will from players is more important than running a high-power game. Maybe they don't want ill will from the power player who they may feel the need to strike down or maybe they don't want to victimize the rest of the party when they design an encounter that can compete with an optimized character while flagrantly smoking a casual.

So while I do absolve power gamers of most of the tedious OOC drama, I do think there is sometimes grace in them stepping back and playing at a handicap for DMs who can't handle it. If you can play the game more often, that may be more fun than playing the game as hard as you possibly. can. The truest power is knowing when not to exercise power. Go all void ring on dem clowns.

[Segev]

That possibility also occurred to me. I hope you don't mind, I fixed your example.

I mean, Star Trek is objectively better!

Speaking as a power gamer who plays like a puzzle solver and favors "out of the box" solutions, "creativity" could mean "coming up with solutions that bypass the challenge in a way that seems too easy, like walking around a maze or breaking down the walls rather than going through it."

As for a monk walking on the ceiling, that's what ranged, flying, and tall enemies are for.

[Boci]

[color="blue"]As for a monk walking on the ceiling, that's what ranged, flying, and tall enemies are for.

Also quarterstaff isn't a reached weapon, so by RAW they'd never be able to attack safely unless the creature had a reach of 0.

[MrStabby]

The only viable argument against powergaming is DMs admitting they don't want to balance against it. I've been guilty of it. Call it a personal admission of ineptitude in the system, veiled cowardice towards balancing encounters, an unwillingness to foster ill will from players, but it's always the fault of DMs who can't hack it. That's not to say they should hack it though: preventing ill-will from players is more important than running a high-power game. Maybe they don't want ill will from the power player who they may feel the need to strike down or maybe they don't want to victimize the rest of the party when they design an encounter that can compete with an optimized character while flagrantly smoking a casual.

Whilst I agree with some of what you say, I think the problem with optimisation isnt the DM but the other players.

As A DM it is rivial to scale things up or dawn depending on the optimisation level of the pary, to add magic items to enemy NPCs etc., to add some reinforcements or whatever. That's easy.

The problem is if I am a player and I rock up with a character that is expected to have strengths in a particualr area but isn't overly optimised. If someone brings a totally optimised character to the party then either I have to break out of my concept and optimise as well or have less fun because someone brought something that diminishes my concept. This isn't that the other player did anything wrong, just that there is an incompatability between the way different types of people want to play, but to me the challenge isn't accomodating the DM but rather accomodating the other players.

I think it fair to say that I have had more fun sucked out of games by other players trying to be strong than I have by the most controlling or restrictive DM.

I mean optimisation has its place, I used to be focussed on it myself, but finding ways for as many people to have as much fun as possible tends to bring better games.

[Segev]

The only times I have noticed optimizing removing the fun of other players (and I have been on both sides of this) is when the solution the optimized player presents makes the more fun solution the other player(s) want to try that showcase their abilities a foolish risk and needless time commitment.

At that point, we have to step back and examine what kind of game everyone wants to play.

[Sindal]

Too little context given

Unable to form thoughtful response

[rel]

I have no idea where else to go from here.

Give 3.5 or Pathfinder a go. Almost everyone I know still playing those are doing it for the character creation minigame.

[No brains]

Whilst I agree with some of what you say, I think the problem with optimisation isnt the DM but the other players.

As A DM it is rivial to scale things up or dawn depending on the optimisation level of the pary, to add magic items to enemy NPCs etc., to add some reinforcements or whatever. That's easy.

The problem is if I am a player and I rock up with a character that is expected to have strengths in a particualr area but isn't overly optimised. If someone brings a totally optimised character to the party then either I have to break out of my concept and optimise as well or have less fun because someone brought something that diminishes my concept. This isn't that the other player did anything wrong, just that there is an incompatability between the way different types of people want to play, but to me the challenge isn't accomodating the DM but rather accomodating the other players.

I think it fair to say that I have had more fun sucked out of games by other players trying to be strong than I have by the most controlling or restrictive DM.

I mean optimisation has its place, I used to be focussed on it myself, but finding ways for as many people to have as much fun as possible tends to bring better games.

I'll admit it is a challenge for a DM to make a fun encounter for a party whose composition includes "You*" and "I'm you but stronger", but it's a challenge that can be faced.

*not you as in the reader. Please excuse the irresponsibly vague use of English for the joke's sake.

Part of it is a weakness in how skill challenges are treated. Typically, having one 'the lockpick guy' is as much as a party ever needs. There aren't guides on how to accommodate the redundancy in the DMG. It takes some out-of-the-box thought to make them useful and sometimes out-of-the-box thinking doesn't stand up to the 'is it actually fun' test. Still, DMs trying something can at least be novel.

Splitting the party can help with this a bit, but that has the inherent problem of being a pain in the butt. Objectives that need to be handled simultaneously are neat, but hard to run smoothly. Even so, giving two locks that need to be picked at the same time justifies two lockpickers even of disparate skill. Imagine having the chance to pick locks around an enemy's location and cut off their escape with synched maneuvers.

Another way to tackle this is to play not to the overwhelming strengths, but to the 'ribbon' level weaknesses. It's rare to have carbon copies of characters with exactly the same capabilities, so lean into the little differences when you can. Include a chariot race to justify that land vehicle proficiency. Make a literal poison drinking contest to let poison resistance shine. Use animals in Flintstone-esque technologies to make Handle Animal less of a dead skill. Reward a character for their cute hobby rather than their studied area of expertise.

The most dramatic and draconian way to deal with a redundancy in the party is to exercise lethality. If one person in a redundant role is dead, the party will feel lucky they brought a spare. Often this favors the optimizer who tried harder to survive, but sometimes a vengeful enemy will bring their own overkill to the overkiller and it is the meek who will inherit the party role. When the optimizer survives, there's a lot of roleplay drama that can be milked from the idea of one whose quest for power brought more danger instead of less. Either balrog-ize Gandalfs or Lurz-inate Boromirs as you feel the players can handle it. The Aragorns will prosper.

The point is, when the DM can make the whole town, it's the DM's fault when two players are in a town that's not big enough for the two of them. If we're going to bemoan the power of power gamers, we ought to remember who had the real power all along. But as we've agreed, sometimes the real power was the friends we made along the way, including the DM. I wish I could go on more articulate rants about how I'm grateful for DMs putting in the effort on a hard job even when it isn't perfect.

[MrStabby]

I'll admit it is a challenge for a DM to make a fun encounter for a party whose composition includes "You*" and "I'm you but stronger", but it's a challenge that can be faced.

*not you as in the reader. Please excuse the irresponsibly vague use of English for the joke's sake.

Part of it is a weakness in how skill challenges are treated. Typically, having one 'the lockpick guy' is as much as a party ever needs. There aren't guides on how to accommodate the redundancy in the DMG. It takes some out-of-the-box thought to make them useful and sometimes out-of-the-box thinking doesn't stand up to the 'is it actually fun' test. Still, DMs trying something can at least be novel.

Splitting the party can help with this a bit, but that has the inherent problem of being a pain in the butt. Objectives that need to be handled simultaneously are neat, but hard to run smoothly. Even so, giving two locks that need to be picked at the same time justifies two lockpickers even of disparate skill. Imagine having the chance to pick locks around an enemy's location and cut off their escape with synched maneuvers.

Another way to tackle this is to play not to the overwhelming strengths, but to the 'ribbon' level weaknesses. It's rare to have carbon copies of characters with exactly the same capabilities, so lean into the little differences when you can. Include a chariot race to justify that land vehicle proficiency. Make a literal poison drinking contest to let poison resistance shine. Use animals in Flintstone-esque technologies to make Handle Animal less of a dead skill. Reward a character for their cute hobby rather than their studied area of expertise.

The most dramatic and draconian way to deal with a redundancy in the party is to exercise lethality. If one person in a redundant role is dead, the party will feel lucky they brought a spare. Often this favors the optimizer who tried harder to survive, but sometimes a vengeful enemy will bring their own overkill to the overkiller and it is the meek who will inherit the party role. When the optimizer survives, there's a lot of roleplay drama that can be milked from the idea of one whose quest for power brought more danger instead of less. Either balrog-ize Gandalfs or Lurz-inate Boromirs as you feel the players can handle it. The Aragorns will prosper.

The point is, when the DM can make the whole town, it's the DM's fault when two players are in a town that's not big enough for the two of them. If we're going to bemoan the power of power gamers, we ought to remember who had the real power all along. But as we've agreed, sometimes the real power was the friends we made along the way, including the DM. I wish I could go on more articulate rants about how I'm grateful for DMs putting in the effort on a hard job even when it isn't perfect.

Oh yeah, my comment was in no way an attempt to be critical of DMs. I know how hard it is to pull a campaign together.

Yeah some things like splitting the party can help (but also add clarity when That One Player isn't around you have more fun).

I mean it's fine to be an optimiser. It's fine to not want to play with optimisers. It's just different styles... not even discrete styles.

[animorte]

I think the way to do it is a bit of an excercise in constrained optimisation. Look at the rest of the party, work out where they are going to be the ones to shine (and hence where you should be weak) and where you can shine without stepping onthe toes of anyone else or having your playstyle stop them from doing their cool thing.

I try to do this a lot, actually most of the time. I make tons of characters and when I look at the party I can pretty much choose from something I already have prepared that fits in with everybody else in this manner. This is really enjoyable for me.

Another way to tackle this is to play not to the overwhelming strengths, but to the 'ribbon' level weaknesses. It's rare to have carbon copies of characters with exactly the same capabilities, so lean into the little differences when you can. Make a literal poison drinking contest to let poison resistance shine.

Completely agree. Also some Princess Bride scenery happening. Love it.

But as we've agreed, sometimes the real power was the friends we made along the way, including the DM. I wish I could go on more articulate rants about how I'm grateful for DMs putting in the effort on a hard job even when it isn't perfect.

I really think more people should be reminded. Add that to your sig.

[Thrudd]

I think the overall design of 5e indicates that the intention was for creativity to emerge largely in the act of playing and interacting with the challenges presented by the DM, rather than in the act of mechanical character optimization. It may or may not be totally successful at this, but it is certainly started out with the intention of reducing the complexity that the 3.5 chargen had developed. That's what most people around here think of when someone says "anti-power gaming", they think you mean anti-charop, although maybe that isn't what the OP was talking about? it's hard to tell.

Or is the OP talking about actually using spells/abilities in-game in a way that isn't obvious or suggested by the rules, which their DM keeps shooting down because the rules don't say that it can be used that way? And it is "power gaming", because they are trying to defeat creatures and problems using effects that need special DM ruling, rather than just doing HP damage and assigning the mechanical effects described by the rules? Like, you want to use a rock moving spell to cause a cave in and do tons of rock falling damage to the bad guys. The DM says "no, the spell can only move rocks, it can't make the ceiling cave in".

I can see this as a potentially valid complaint, not of the D&D community overall but for specific tables- particularly if a DM universally shoots down all attempts to do anything not specifically mentioned in the rules. 5e has rules only for very broad categories of interactions on purpose - that is so each DM can allow almost anything they want. Yes, this can cause a number of problems. But if a DM isn't allowing or even considering anything outside the text of the book, I'd say they are not playing RAI.

[KorvinStarmast]

There is no "D&D community".

Have you noticed that the OP never came back to discuss this? Might have been a vent/rant and nothing more.

And to whoever and whatever inspired this OP... who hurt you?

They need to find new friends. (I recently left a group where the pace of play was excruciatingly slow, but it was also "one group too many and not enough good sessions to keep playing" - but you know what I didn't do? I didn't write a rant on a forum about it).

Th thing that bugs me is that some people see powergaming and roleplaying as mutually exclusive when the factually work really well together.

Yes indeed.

The only viable argument against powergaming is DMs admitting they don't want to balance against it. I've been guilty of it.

Difficulty is dialable in D&D 5e.

Too little context given

Unable to form thoughtful response

Perhaps one wasn't desired. It feels to me like a rant.

[False God]

Try an RP-heavy system where the numbers don't matter and the points are all made up.

Yes, I know you're upset with the rejection of optimization, and I'm not dog-piling on you with the suggestion. IMO: one reason I've always power-built is for freedom and options. I dislike being constrained to a limited part of the game or my overall participation in play being restricted because this stat is too low or I don't have a class feature that allows me to do XYZ. What I've found as I've moved away from D&D is that more RP-heavy systems don't do this. How you go about something matters more than if your stat is high enough. You're rarely shut out of any part of the game and if you are, it's more than likely due to a string of bad rolls than any error in the design of your character.

Quite frankly, I really want to play "TV D&D". Where there are no stats, no sheets, and only one die rolled by the DM. You describe your character, you're expected to play true to it, and you describe what you want to do to the DM who rolls the die and determines if you succeed or not.

[Bardbarian91]

Th thing that bugs me is that some people see powergaming and roleplaying as mutually exclusive when the factually work really well together. There are so many good dramatic hooks that can be pulled from a powergaming perspective. Are you a lancer who needs to perform well to find value when you can't trust that your friends will find you worth keeping? Better optimize into majin Vegeta.

Are you a traumatized horror protagonist who does not want to narrowly survive against a monster who leveled your life? Better optimize into Resident Evil 4 Leon, Aliens Ripley, Dream Warriors Nancy, uh... probably the lady from Halloween as well... I didn't see those movies.

And for all the killer DMs who like drama better than agency: Are you an arrogantly detached intellectual in your pie in the blue skying ivory tower questioning a god you see as within some plus/minus value of your own lofty heights? Do you need to be taught a lesson as to why the natural world is why the way it is and you shouldn't question it? Better optimize into any Faustian story, any other (hopefully entertaining) morality play character, or even literary foundations like Hercules or Gilgamesh.

The pursuit of power, especially how it relates to security and personal worth, is exactly the kind of drama D&D is built to explore. There are a lot of compelling ways to handle the theme within the system. People have known how to handle powergaming characters in stories longer than they have known how to put those stories to written word and have been using them all the way into stories transcending the written word to film.

The only viable argument against powergaming is DMs admitting they don't want to balance against it. I've been guilty of it. Call it a personal admission of ineptitude in the system, veiled cowardice towards balancing encounters, an unwillingness to foster ill will from players, but it's always the fault of DMs who can't hack it. That's not to say they should hack it though: preventing ill-will from players is more important than running a high-power game. Maybe they don't want ill will from the power player who they may feel the need to strike down or maybe they don't want to victimize the rest of the party when they design an encounter that can compete with an optimized character while flagrantly smoking a casual.

So while I do absolve power gamers of most of the tedious OOC drama, I do think there is sometimes grace in them stepping back and playing at a handicap for DMs who can't handle it. If you can play the game more often, that may be more fun than playing the game as hard as you possibly. can. The truest power is knowing when not to exercise power. Go all void ring on dem clowns.

Well, most of the issue I see in this is you have a session 0 to lay out characters, everyone is apparently on the same page and then you end up with one person who ends up neglecting all chararacter elements in favor of "...and because I took this, my attack crits on 18, plus with all the spells I buffed with that comes out to...198 damage. Oh! Plus 2 for profiency, even 200." *Quietly pulls the single hobgoblin off the table*
While there's nothing wrong with optimizing, it does make it hard to balance when you have four people, one playing a support AoE, one playing a barbarian, one playing a melee focus Cleric, and then some munchkin who finagled a ridiculous to hit and Bonus damage so they're stabbing for more damage than the barbarian and never getting hit. It's an exaggeration, but it's the extremes that cause problems, anyway, not the moderate.

I mean, Star Trek is objectively better!

Speaking as a power gamer who plays like a puzzle solver and favors "out of the box" solutions, "creativity" could mean "coming up with solutions that bypass the challenge in a way that seems too easy, like walking around a maze or breaking down the walls rather than going through it."

As for a monk walking on the ceiling, that's what ranged, flying, and tall enemies are for.

Well, that sounds fine, but when I told him I was going to be making the ceilings in the dungeons just a little taller so he wouldn't take it badly mid session and understand why I was doing it, his reaction was, literally, "I guess I'll just sell them then," referring to the slippers. This person also likes jokes and rolling slight of hand to prank or steal potions from the party "I was gonna give them back anyway", and every time a merchant had some kind of ring or something he'd refuse to buy it unless the merchant told him what it does or wore it themselves. He never wanted to be pranked, EVER, one time I even managed a small joke and he didn't seem amused at all, and got to be even more of a stickler about not wearing it unless he knew exactly what it does.

[Dimers]

Have you noticed that the OP never came back to discuss this? Might have been a vent/rant and nothing more.

While "might have been" is a reasonable statement, "never came back to discuss this" is pretty cold, given that it's been less than 11 hours since the original post went up. Speaking for myself, sometimes things like sleep and paid work get in the way of posting. (Sometimes.)

[animorte]

Speaking for myself, sometimes things like sleep and paid work get in the way of posting. (Sometimes.)

Such a shame isn’t it. We need to sort out our priorities. Just like when people have an excuse for not showing up to D&D, I question their life decisions.

[Sigreid]

I'll bet the OP just needs to find a group that he jells with and avoid D&D related social media. My observation is that social media that isn't directly limited to people you actually know and care about rarely if ever brings you any happiness and often makes you frustrated and angry.

[Segev]

Well, that sounds fine, but when I told him I was going to be making the ceilings in the dungeons just a little taller so he wouldn't take it badly mid session and understand why I was doing it, his reaction was, literally, "I guess I'll just sell them then," referring to the slippers. This person also likes jokes and rolling slight of hand to prank or steal potions from the party "I was gonna give them back anyway", and every time a merchant had some kind of ring or something he'd refuse to buy it unless the merchant told him what it does or wore it themselves. He never wanted to be pranked, EVER, one time I even managed a small joke and he didn't seem amused at all, and got to be even more of a stickler about not wearing it unless he knew exactly what it does.

"You wouldn't tolerate your own potions being stolen, even as a prank, so no, you may not do it to the other PCs."

Other than that, if it's not interfering with other players' fun, let him get away with putting things over on NPCs. Let him feel clever for avoiding the pitfalls. And, if his caution is too great, so much so that it costs him opportunities, make sure that he gets the privilege of seeing other PCs benefitting from their risks.

Maybe a prankster pranks the party, and those who fell for it in ways that amused him got Charms or Boons. Perhaps Charms or Boons that remind them of how they were pranked, but still are useful.

Maybe the "beard growth potion" prank won the elf who amused the prankster a Charm that lets him cast an oddly-high-strength mage hand at will, but he gets it from growing a bears that extends into prehensile hair that ends in a big hairy hand. He can retract it to being clean-shaven as an action.

[MrStabby]

I'll bet the OP just needs to find a group that he jells with and avoid D&D related social media. My observation is that social media that isn't directly limited to people you actually know and care about rarely if ever brings you any happiness and often makes you frustrated and angry.

I have developed a personal rule to never dip into any thread more than 3 pages long. That has avoided the worst of the frustration. Maybe a bit different if I already posting there.

And if someone just isn't worth the effort... I don't respond to them - no loss to me.

But yeah, real life people offline have a lot of advantages.

[ftafp]

Okay, im conscious again. i still have a lot of posts to catch up on but I want to address this specifically

I would have said the total opposite. That power-gaming is the opposite of playing creatively, since at this point, power-gaming simply involves reading one or more Guides that someone else wrote. And anyone who has read the same Guides you have, knows exactly what you're doing. Oh cool...You're using Tasha's Humanoid to get Darkvision and a Feat...I wonder if it's Crossbow Expert...OMG IT IS! At Level 4, you're gonna get Sharpshooter...OMG you're doing it. Wow. Very cool.

One of the problems with the 5e community's handling of "power gaming" is that there isn't one form of power gaming but 4 and people in the community only seem willing to tolerate one specific form, lumping all the other kinds together as toxic gameplay behavior

• Optimizing: This is the most basic form of "power gaming". almost everyone does it to an extent and it takes very little effort, though it offers very little room for creativity. This is dipping artificer 1 on a wizard, or taking sharpshooter/crossbow expert on a fighter. of the 4 types, when people claim to be okay with power gaming they're often exclusively referring to this
• Exploiting: A slightly more complex form, exploiting is exploratory and revolves around finding new synergies, rules interactions and applications for spells that are allowed within the rules. This offers even greater advantages than optimizing, but it doesn't break or trivialize the game. an example might be mixing tiny servant and magic stone to increase a wizard's offensive prowess on the turns it uses cantrips, or using phantasmal force to blind an enemy. Despite largely being harmless, many DMs consider this the "wrong" way to play, and will shut down any attempts to play this way
• Cheesing: Here is where we start getting disruptive. Cheesing refers to tricks that are fully RAW, but are so absurdly unbalancing that they can't be permitted outside of thought exercises and high-level one-shots. Examples include simulacrum chains, coffeelocking, or using conjure animals with tashas's falling rules to do 80d6 bludgeoning damage in a single turn. this form of optimization is only speculative, but many players and DMs adamantly refuse to understand that even if it is explained to them, and will heap abuse on anyone who so much as mentions this
• Cheating: This refers to tricks that flat out ignore both RAW and RAI and break gameplay on top of that, often selectively treating dnd like a physics engine. This is where peasant railguns fit in, or casting mage hand inside the ogre's skull to squeeze his brain. All other forms of powergaming often get lumped in with this, contributing to extreme stigma against powergamers

these four forms of power-gaming are not the same, and the fact they are treated as if they are is the thing that makes me unbearably frustrated with the 5e community's culture

[Dalinar]

I'll bet the OP just needs to find a group that he jells with and avoid D&D related social media. My observation is that social media that isn't directly limited to people you actually know and care about rarely if ever brings you any happiness and often makes you frustrated and angry.

This is why I don't really do socials these days. Occasionally I'll check a subreddit for a topic I'm interested in just to see if anything interesting has happened lately, but that's like it.

Having given it more thought, I am curious where exactly OP is finding this hivemind of virulently anti-powergaming sentiment, because I never see it in the places I go--which is admittedly, like, here and my group, but still. Usually I see the very extremes mocked into the distance and everyone else just sorta tries to meet in the middle somewhere--especially in 5e, where there are relatively few abusable things until you start getting to high enough levels for things like Simulacrum.

That said, given a choice between either extreme, at least munchkinry can be a fun thought exercise and/or challenge for a table that wants to play that way. I don't really see where people get joy from playing something like an 8-INT Wizard. Heck, I played a Sun Soul in T1 one time and it felt so bad that I never returned to the character (granted part of that was the fault of another player being toxic towards said character), and that was with good starting stats too.

If you are that person that likes to give yourself a handicap in what is fundamentally a team game, I'm curious to hear you out. (EDIT: general 'you' not any particular person)

EDIT:

One of the problems with the 5e community's handling of "power gaming" is that there isn't one form of power gaming but 4 and people in the community only seem willing to tolerate one specific form, lumping all the other kinds together as toxic gameplay behavior

• Optimizing: This is the most basic form of "power gaming". almost everyone does it to an extent and it takes very little effort, though it offers very little room for creativity. This is dipping artificer 1 on a wizard, or taking sharpshooter/crossbow expert on a fighter. of the 4 types, when people claim to be okay with power gaming they're often exclusively referring to this
• Exploiting: A slightly more complex form, exploiting is exploratory and revolves around finding new synergies, rules interactions and applications for spells that are allowed within the rules. This offers even greater advantages than optimizing, but it doesn't break or trivialize the game. an example might be mixing tiny servant and magic stone to increase a wizard's offensive prowess on the turns it uses cantrips, or using phantasmal force to blind an enemy. Despite largely being harmless, many DMs consider this the "wrong" way to play, and will shut down any attempts to play this way
• Cheesing: Here is where we start getting disruptive. Cheesing refers to tricks that are fully RAW, but are so absurdly unbalancing that they can't be permitted outside of thought exercises and high-level one-shots. Examples include simulacrum chains, coffeelocking, or using conjure animals with tashas's falling rules to do 80d6 bludgeoning damage in a single turn. this form of optimization is only speculative, but many players and DMs adamantly refuse to understand that even if it is explained to them, and will heap abuse on anyone who so much as mentions this
• Cheating: This refers to tricks that flat out ignore both RAW and RAI and break gameplay on top of that, often selectively treating dnd like a physics engine. This is where peasant railguns fit in, or casting mage hand inside the ogre's skull to squeeze his brain. All other forms of powergaming often get lumped in with this, contributing to extreme stigma against powergamers

these four forms of power-gaming are not the same, and the fact they are treated as if they are is the thing that makes me unbearably frustrated with the 5e community's culture

Ah, welcome back.

I would argue that in this post specifically you're describing more of a continuum of "this is just the basics on how to play good" to "ooh that's a neat and effective trick" to "wait I don't think that actually works." Dividing things up into discrete tiers is a great way to cause arguments about what behaviors belong where, IMO. I could easily posit that depending on the DM something like a coffeelock could be fine, provided everyone is on the same page, knows how it works, and importantly either doesn't mind a power disparity or otherwise has their own ways of dealing with the challenges presented by the DM.

[Segev]

Okay, im conscious again. i still have a lot of posts to catch up on but I want to address this specifically



One of the problems with the 5e community's handling of "power gaming" is that there isn't one form of power gaming but 4 and people in the community only seem willing to tolerate one specific form, lumping all the other kinds together as toxic gameplay behavior

• Optimizing: This is the most basic form of "power gaming". almost everyone does it to an extent and it takes very little effort, though it offers very little room for creativity. This is dipping artificer 1 on a wizard, or taking sharpshooter/crossbow expert on a fighter. of the 4 types, when people claim to be okay with power gaming they're often exclusively referring to this
• Exploiting: A slightly more complex form, exploiting is exploratory and revolves around finding new synergies, rules interactions and applications for spells that are allowed within the rules. This offers even greater advantages than optimizing, but it doesn't break or trivialize the game. an example might be mixing tiny servant and magic stone to increase a wizard's offensive prowess on the turns it uses cantrips, or using phantasmal force to blind an enemy. Despite largely being harmless, many DMs consider this the "wrong" way to play, and will shut down any attempts to play this way
• Cheesing: Here is where we start getting disruptive. Cheesing refers to tricks that are fully RAW, but are so absurdly unbalancing that they can't be permitted outside of thought exercises and high-level one-shots. Examples include simulacrum chains, coffeelocking, or using conjure animals with tashas's falling rules to do 80d6 bludgeoning damage in a single turn. this form of optimization is only speculative, but many players and DMs adamantly refuse to understand that even if it is explained to them, and will heap abuse on anyone who so much as mentions this
• Cheating: This refers to tricks that flat out ignore both RAW and RAI and break gameplay on top of that, often selectively treating dnd like a physics engine. This is where peasant railguns fit in, or casting mage hand inside the ogre's skull to squeeze his brain. All other forms of powergaming often get lumped in with this, contributing to extreme stigma against powergamers

these four forms of power-gaming are not the same, and the fact they are treated as if they are is the thing that makes me unbearably frustrated with the 5e community's culture

Good analysis, but I wish to point out that the boundaries are likely debatable. For instance, I wouldn't consider "coffeelocking" to be "disruptive." Again, faced with non-white-room play, I suspect (though I know nobody who's tried to play it in a real game) that it would hit all sorts of boundaries and problems that render it far less of a problem than the white room makes it out to be.

Most examples of "cheesing" tend to be highly theoretical simply because they don't work very well in real games. I have seen the lift-and-drop used, however, and it is very effective. Especially if you happen to be fighting vegetable-people near a lava pit. Even so, there are ways around it. The DM may have to be more willing to play ruthlessly than I am, though, to be able to sic a big damage burst on the concentrating druid.

Really, I think, "combat as war" vs. "combat as sport" comes into play a lot over whether cheesing works or not. It tends to be more fiat-forbidden in "as sport," but more practical there, too, if not forbidden, while "as war" tends to see it be highly effective when the party can properly set up for it, but run into all sorts of logistical problems when the DM is playing "as war" right back at them via his NPCs and the verisimilitude of the world. As a DM, I think one of my weaknesses is that I feel bad if I try to hold the party too strictly to the allegedly-minor bookkeeping side of things, such as tracking supplies and dealing with the hazards of the environment (particularly when resting). I always feel like I'm being unfair if I don't let hte players just hand-wave their explanations or let them get their rests and supplies. It's one reason I vastly prefer to have rules - at least as guidelines - for what is considered "normal" in terms of this stuff. And 5e is just a little too fuzzy on how easy/hard foraging is, and frankly I should be harsher on preservation of supplies.