You forgot one disruptive archetype. The "I am a Roleplayer". And what makes the "Roleplayers" so disruptive is that they think "Optimizing" is Evil. Because they screw up their characters so hard that they cannot effectively fill the role they want to roleplay, they constantly force the other players to cover for them and babysit their character instead of playing their own part. They essentially do what the powergamer does, only through "roleplay" instead of Numbers.
Agreed with this. These kinds of folks are so elitist. if you don't do what they want to do, they say why bother playing dnd? Go play a video game, a card game or a wargame ttrpg.
@@TheRobversion1 Yeah this annoys me too. I do like video games and wargames, but those kinds of games don't encourage roleplaying to the extent of Tabletop games. I wouldn't be playing Tabletop RPGs if I didn't like roleplaying whatsoever. As stated in the video, wanting to roleplay and wanting be good at the game mechanically aren't mutually exclusive.
@@seacliff217 agreed! a min-maxer optimizer can be a good/enjoy role-playing as well. Plus, even for those who arent into role-playing that much (because they aren't good at it or feel intimidated by the standards set by shows like critical role), a ttrpg just provides a more open sandbox for the player to theorycraft, enjoy combat and immerse themselves in a world (all.the while.enjoying the story the DM provides and the role-playing his co-players do).
I agree. Metagaming is bad. Conflicts in the group of players are bad. Optimisation... well, it is just a style of play. More to say: optimisation is not an opposite to roleplaying. I mean: you dont go to Wall Street and dont tell to rich people: "Hey, why do you make right choices?! Are you meta slaves or what?!" You dont ask scientist: "Why have you learned so hard? Stop optimising, bud!" Then why do you expect that character in a game doesnt wish to live well?
I'd say the real headache is creating an encounter that doesn't make the other players feel bored while the min-maxer does 90% of the damage, moves 120 ft to grab all the treasure, and then "generously" passes out magical items to the party as they see fit.
Just hit the min maxer in their lowest stats. Did they put Int at 8 and strength 18? Then hit them with mind control things targeting int, maybe wisdom or charisma. IMO the best way to deal with them is with the mechanics in the game at your disposal as GM, but maybe I'm bias I am a min maxer after all. But IMO using a deus ex machina like event to subdue your min maxer is disatisfying and lazy. Just look at their character sheet and hit em in the nuts. Min Max implies a min and you can just hit them there. This is my humble opinoin though as someone without a ton of game time in dnd.
Can't wait for the Beast Barbarian. My concept is that he was experimented on by some wizard. Imagine something like the Simic Guild from Magic the Gathering
I'm waiting for it too, the beast barb looks like the more willing to use shields and engage in grappling while having his natural weapons to fight well, that could be a nice deviation from the GWM builds for a more utility frontline.
@@nicolasvillasecaali7662 yes shields are very powerful on them. But I actually think that they are also the best dmg dealing Barbarian. Didn't run the numbers in comparison to others (which I hope Treant will do). But mixing 2handed weapon attacks with his claw + extra free claw attack makes for some insane damage
So I actually got a bit excited and actually ran a primitive form of an Excel for the damage. I made assumptions which are definitely very generous: Every attack hits, no Crits, no Feats: So the Beast Barbarian is quite ahead to Barbarians that don't get a damage boost from their attacks. However they tie with the Zealot from level 1 to 8 and start falling behind the Zealot by around 2 dmg per Action until level 18. Also assuming the Beserker uses Frenzy every fight (I know, not realistic) they would be ahead of everyone by quite a bit. I did this calculations for myself, so there might be some errors. However still wanted to share it
@@Fangoros damage wise i expected the beast B to be good early and fall late, mostly because the lack of +2 magical items for natural weapons and that the GWM builds don't have a lot of sinergy with their features, that is why I'm more interested on a shield grappler, who can have his hand free to grab people while dealing damage with the tail or fangs, or just jump/climb and smacking them with the power of gravity. That being said, they can make quite hard to hit GWM fighters with the tail, that reaction extra AC make them hard to take down while pumping good damage to be a relevant menace at many ranges thanks to reach.
I had brainstormed on the exact same idea. Mechanics aside, I like the extra flavor it gives to the DM and party to build on. Like who was the one who experimented on the character, what has been done and what happened post-experiment, etc. Does the character reciprocate on the notion of being experimented on or were they forced into it and resent the ones who conducted the experiment.
Great video. I've been that DM who has the player come up to them with a dozen different ideas trying to find the most powerful one. It can get a little tiring.
My group has played for several years in survival type campaigns and we roll 4d6d1 In static order at the table and we optimize the party based on these rolls. It’s incredibly fun way to character build.
Min-maxing can happen after the character concept. Esp with really bad stat rolls. Here's a problem though, the way you defined min-maxing suggests mechanics first before concept but they already have a goal in mind, a concept if you will, albeit a mechanics-based concept.
Great analysis - one of my favorite old articles on types of rpg players is Richard Bartle's "Hearts, Clubs, Diamonds, Spades: players who suit MUDs," which creates a taxonomy of player types based on two axes of interaction types. I wonder if that might be helpful for you in the way that you think about the different ways that players approach optimization (or any approach to character creation) decisions. Enjoyed the content, as always
I'd never heard the Yuan-Ti were the most powerful non-flying race. I'll have to check that out. I've only made one Yuan-Ti character, a Ranger no less. Edit: Also, I accidentally optimized the crap out of a level 1 Fighter by making her a Dex build, Variant Human with Defensive Duelist, made Dueling her fighting style, and buying her a shield. +5 damage on attacks and 18 potential AC at level 1. Heh, oops.
It really annoys me when a PC does something bad to the party or its allies and justifies it with "Thats what my character would do!!". I tend to reply to this with "Well the party has decided to kick you out because that's what our characters would do".
I can't fully subscribe to the exact ways you've divided these terms up (as you said, these terms are subjective as all hell), but I do appreciate the attempt. I think it's important to add nuance when discussing these various motivations and behaviors and it's always interesting to hear how other people view these things. You've definitely broadened my perspective with your insight, though
As long as the cherector/build works in the narrative and works with the group, with later bing less important but necessary, it does not mater to me. Munchkins tend to break the narrative and not work well with the group.
9 view gaming. since I haven't watched the video, I have nothing constructive to say except don't disregard condoms and always ban twilight and peace cleric
I don't really like multiclassing because it's either to dip for some mechanics which seems cheap or it makes your character spread thin and weaker. pure class optimization is much better
@@jacobjensen7704 cheap as in your character is really only doing it for the power not because your character has a good story reason for the dip. Like a paladin making a pact with a sword (hexblade) only for 1 lvl and never wanting to gain more power from his sword patron because it's not optimal. Or a wizard being a cleric for only a 1 lvl dip for armor but not wanting to gain more power from their god that they love so much because that's not optimal either.... it just doesn't feel genuine to me, it's like the character doesn't care about their classes and are treating them like game mechanics rather then defining aspects of their personality. But that may just be me.
What annoys me is that "rules-lawyers" are often lumped in with powergamers and munchkins when - in reality - they want the rules to work as-written and are often the biggest adversaries of powergaming at the table. For me, powergaming is everything that deliberately breaks the rules, either written or obviously intended (coffee-lock shenenigans or taking 8 short rests during a long rest, for example). A great example that I sometimes see in forums is stuff like characters ostensibly being able to dual wield longswords for 2d10+STR mod without having any feats or fighting styles that would allows that - when in reality, you would need both the Two-Weapon Fighting Style and the Dual Wielder feat to achieve that. Trying to use "Charm Person" as "mind control" is another one where I get extremely suspicious if the player isn't (relatively) new to 5e. Then there are borderline cases with deliberately vaguely worded illusion spells like Phantasmal Force where the DMs needs to set up the boundries themselves. I will not "rules-lawyer" those unless I see a DM really struggling to say "no" when they clearly mean to.
There's a lot I have to say about this observations in trends there: For the most part, while adversarial and abusive players and DMs exist, I think the problem with powergaming and such (I'll only use powergaming here for brevity) is massively overblown and only very few people actually, unironically build a character to "win" D&D. In fact, there are several facets to this why this problem is cited so often in spite of its relative rarity. For one, a lot of D&D fans are hardline traditionalists who want a mundane, down-to-earth sword & sorcery game much like Conan the Barbarian and Lord of the Rings (let's not talk about how those are generally far more fantastic and heroic than what these people are looking for) and show disdain for any more unusual character options. Non-tolkien races are often a trigger for them to call out the "special snowflake" who refuses to build a "normal" character, feeding into arguments they're doing it purely for the stats. Furthermore, there is a significant bias towards additional sourcebooks being broken and for powergamers only, especially if they're content not sanctioned by the developers. A friend of mine had trouble on a Pathfinder server for a rules interaction for a martial character using a third party ruleset because they really didn't like him trying to clarify any rules interactions. On a build that, all things considered, is hardly broken. While I didn't actually play, I made a completely broken Druid using only core options that completely beat out that character in damage, durability and utility, simply because CoDZilla is just ridiculous. I was accepted without any questions.
What about the player that wants to prove that the GM isn’t good enough? what about the completely oppositional passive aggressive player character? The campaign despoiler. I kicked him not from the game but from my life.
Imo, most of the times such terms are used, it isn't done with the intent of actually discussing the term and parsing out exactly what is bad and what the differences are. We can attribute definitions to each but in actual use, they're most often used for "a player who is trying to squeeze out high power and is toxic". Optimizer is just the most neutral of these. In reality, all of it is a gradient and most people aren't interested in parsing out what levels of what equals bad in relation to these terms because these muchkin, power gamer, and min maxer are more or less pejorative terms and nothing more. So I think that any meaningful conversation about the topic should just be best done discussing various individual actions and motives rather than use of pejoratives that people don't quite agree on the definitions of. The purpose of using a term is to save time and the only time when we'd realistically need to parse out the difference is when we're talking about the individual actions and motives anyway. Why bother saying "Jack is a powergamer" when we're realistically going to follow it up with "because he's doing X and that's bad"? The addition of the term adds nothing to the conversation because we were going to explain what it meant anyway so it doesn't save time and doesn't aid understanding or we weren't going to explain it in which case, it is a non discussion intended pejorative and nothing more at which the actual definition doesn't matter a whole lot.
Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but it sounds like you are trying to justify your playstyle. That people are negatively referring to your approach, and you're it's not as bad as it *could* be... I can't talk, though - I could care less about 9th level spells, and am all about multiclassing. People probably call that minmaxing too...
Not judging TM; I obviously like his videos enough to be subscribed. I am judging the reasoning for making this video. Even the positive replies to this video are negative towards members of the gaming community when you think about it, so you can get off your high horse.
I don't think I mention at all in this video what my playstyle is, but yes, I would like to think I am neither a munchkin or a powergamer, and admittedly I think that's the right way to go.
You mention it a couple times that you consider yourself somewhere between a min/max'er and an optimizer, depending on the build and situation, at least a couple times.
@@ryanweaver3348 Yes. The video makes a differentiation between terms representing playstyle (munchkin and powergamer) and character building style (min/maxer and optimizer). I am both a min/maxer and optimizer.
I find a healthy trait for any cooperative optimiser is if they're looking to "fill a niche" left by the rest of the party. If they're trying to fill holes and support the others, they are running little to no risk of overshadowing and that kind of consideration means they are probably not looking to hog the spotlight either. Ive found its a good vibe all round.
What I have experienced with these "players" is that more often than an issue by themselves, the problem usually is other players especially experienced vanilla grognards that feel uncomfortable with characters outside of the tropes they envision the game. For them the problem is not that the wizard is strong, but that the wizard is of a weird race, wearing armor and contributing to melee combat, for them those characters are "min/maxed powergamers forcing the rules".
Personally I think some of these definitions are a little too far removed from the mainstream definition to really be useful outside of this channel. For instance, I consider myself a powergamer in the sense that I actively look for the most powerful strategies or shore up any weaknesses in the context of my party. Powergaming in gaming terms is ultimately about winning, and isn’t so much about spotlight. Munchkin to me isn’t so much about working against the party, but rather it’s more about bending, breaking, or purposely misinterpreting the rules for the sake of power. MinMaxing is by definition about leveraging all the resources toward achieving specific results, so I guess this one is sorta close. Optimization to me is the most general of these terms. It’s kind of weird for me to think of the two as a spectrum. I guess the idea is one end do concept first then finetune the character options to suit that concept, and the other end is mechanics first and then build the concept around those mechanics?
Came here to make this comment pretty much. I also would describe myself as a power gamer or an optimizer. Min/Maxing in my mind often means sacrificing one aspect of gameplay to maximize another which can sometimes be gimmicky or detrimental to the fun of a party overall, but that’s subjective. To me I think trying to apply terms like power gamer to disruptive playstyles makes them feel more normalized rather than calling them out for what they actually are, selfish and inconsiderate. There’s nothing wrong with wanting to get the most out of a game in terms of effectiveness, I mean for a lot of people that’s a large part of what’s fun. However I don’t think that should be associated with being inconsiderate of other people’s ability to have fun. That’s just being a social unaware person at best, or selfish and disruptive at worst. It’s a not a playstyle imo. Also a little tangent but, I do think it’s possible to play an adversarial character and have everyone still have fun if you’re at the right table and people enjoy role playing that dynamic. However the key difference is the adversarial player being self aware and consciously making a role playing choice vs just being a selfish person. That and having the consent of the party and the dm. Edit: Sometimes what people find fun about games is different and that’s okay, not everyone is meant to play dnd together and it’s about finding the right table for you. I think people not recognizing that has helped shape the view of optimization as something negative.
Munchkin has always been a pejorative aimed at murder hobos and other typically unsavory players. I agree with you that they're not necessarily working against the party, because a party full of munchkins can get along alright, but if you have 1 munchkin and 3 people who want to be invested in the world, that's gonna suck. (also agreeing that adversarial play, if it's what people signed up for, has its place.) I have a lot baggage from competitive games, so "powergamer" just means following the meta, netdecking or using build orders etc to me. That said, I know that in the RPG world, Powergaming often has the connotation of steamrolling other players and either spotlight hogging or "encouraging" them to take whatever actions the powergamer thinks is optimal or most fun for them. MinMaxing and Optimizing are extremely similar terms, I agree that it's really weird putting them on a spectrum. Again, my gaming priors are showing, but min-max to me has a feeling of just knowing which corners are OK to cut, that X is a dump stat etc. In RPGs, it can sometimes have a more negative connotation, of caring more about the mechanics than the narrative. Where as optimize doesn't have the same baggage. Optimize doesn't even suggest cutting corners or having a dump stat (though, they still will if we're talking mechanical optimization), just having a sense of which choices are stronger when playing.
@@LibertyMonk Yeah I’m from a competitive gaming background too. And I agree, a large part of powergaming is about an understanding of the meta, whether playing along with or against it. I think it somewhat applies to D&D too, in terms of understanding mechanics, builds, spells, DM tendencies, campaign style, so on and so forth.
Agreed, I'm a year late as I only found Chris' channel recently, but I find his personal definitions rather different from my own, and still somewhat removed from how I see these terms used in general conversation, or by people who self identify using these terms (even if just to acknowledge personal biases towards game interaction that they don't want to be problematic and for other players to call them on it). I don't think either Munchkins or Power Gamers need to be adversarial in nature, the traits described can all be party focused and cooperative, filling in for what the party lacks or providing control and support to boost unoptimised characters of other players to increase their fun and character satisfaction. There is however a tendency for these traits to cause problems for the DM to balance challenges and encounters that are suitable for everyone.
Speaking as someone whose closest friends have, for years, used all four terms interchangeably and in exclusively derogatory fashion, this breakdown could not be more appreciated.
Excellent breakdown! The gaming community desperately needs more standardization around our hobby terminology. If I have to hear one more person say "I actually LOVE rules lawyers, who wouldn't want somebody who knows the rules at their table?" without understanding why they're called rules LAWYERS I will take 40d6 psychic damage.
Lawyers can be infamous for bending the wording of laws to suit their clients. So I can understand what Rule Layering implies. That said, I think there should be a neutral term for someone who's informed of what the rules are and just wants to make sure the game is being played faithfully. I think that specific kind of player is good as long as faithfulness is also what the DM is striving for.
DMs on Reddit: One of my player is power gaming because he picked GWM on his barbarian Actual Power Gamers: This two spell combo shuts down the entire boss fight. Let's move on to the next encounter already.
Something that annoys me is when I'm reading a forum where someone is asking about the strength/weakness of a particular option, and a chorus of "play whatever you want" rains down on the thread. That is worthless shade thrown at a good faith question. "Play what you want" helps nobody ever.
My understanding of Munchkin as a term is a bit different. To me, Munchkin is related to the Munchkin Fallacy: the fallacy that if the rules of a system don't specifically disallow something, it must therefor be allowed. Often these are the people who use very powerful optional material without asking the DM first, the people who ignore table-specific rules and RAI, preferring to cling to RAW when it makes them more powerful. It's sort of a malicious combination of Rules Lawyering, power gaming, and a mentality of "It's better to ask forgiveness than permission" when it comes to rules in an RPG.
since that's your tier list, i have some questions For one, why is bard at the very top alongside the wizard? not saying you're wrong, just wanna know the reasoning behind it
No problem. Bard is at the top because they boast a similar range of utility as far as spellcasting goes thanks to Magical Secrets while also using Charisma, a stat that allows for much shenanigans between being party face, to persuasion and trickery, etc. They are also the best Skill monkeys in the game. Add on something like Eloquence to this, which makes that Charisma go even farther and they dominate social encounters.
@@jinxtheunluckypony as for your question about the fighter, Spellcasting not being a base feature is simply that detrimental to any class. Spellcasting is easily the most powerful feature in DnD, without question. As such, a noticeable divide occurs in that, half-casters and up are all higher rated than the full Martials.
Thank you for this video, always enjoy your content and breakdowns. I have never heard the term munchkin before, still.. my general experience with D&D has been a case of my table always has 1-2 people that I guess could be considered min-maxers or far ended optimizers. This includes multiclassing, taking the best subclass or combining feats and spells for powerful characters even if they themselves are decent role players. Some tables don’t RP at all, but I prefer to myself. Regardless the main problem becomes if one or people stack their character then those who are playing “normal” or “lesser” characters end up feeling less involved and useful in and out of combat. And also combat encounters are the DM trying to balance monsters to challenge the power player but not murder the people who aren’t that strong. Such as how a standard Fighter can’t compete with a well built Paladin/Hexblade. So I guess really what do you do in those situations? I would assume speak with your DM, otherwise the sessions can become painful to play due to that happening. There is nothing wrong with making “optimal” choices, and nothing wrong with making “weak” standard characters. There is an issue if someone is overshadowing everyone or making themselves handicapped in person leaving the party one player down.
He's definitely my favorite one currently. I think Dungeon Dudes are a really good educational channel for people getting into D&D whereas Treantmonk is really entertaining for experienced players to watch.
Same as you, and sometimes I even just look what fits my concept best, and only if multiple things would fit simmilarly good, I look what is mechanically better. But I also have to say, even though I have build the basics for many characters, I only played a Star Wars roleplaying game yet, because I started 2019 in autumn, and hadn´t much time where I could play with my group and no chance to find other groups. And my internet connection is too bad to be able to play online without problems
So I don't think I know how to word this perfectly but I guess I just wanted emphasize that adversarial play isn't necessarily bad munchkinning is, I believe the line is typically drawn when actions which are detrimental to the party are taking because of them being detrimental to the party when the adversarial play is coming at the cost of some players fun in a way which they aren't ok with. When it stops "all being in good fun" is when it starts becoming a problem.
i like min maxing as in i focus my character in one certain direction so that others in the group can cover a different aspect. for example high strength and athleticism so that char can do the heavy lifting and others can focus on say perception and investigation
Min-maxing is less of a problem in TTRPGs than it used to be, because nowadays we know if there are a bunch of broken options and a bunch of options that are unplayable, we should blame the designer, and the games are more balanced as a result. Back in the day overall game balance wasn’t a thing. Instead, if you picked something because it was flavorful and your friend only picked the most powerful stuff the difference in the characters would be so enormous it could stop the game from being fun for you. There’s nothing on that level in 5e, even the most broken stuff, so you can optimize your own character without worrying that your friend is playing a wizard with one max hit point, no armor, and only 2 spells a day.
As someone who like to optimize in most games I appreciate the pro optimizer propaganda /s But on a serious note, it's important distinguish that difference between what you are optimizing. Optimize a character concept or optimize for power, the distinction can often feel blurred. The important thing to keep in mind when maximizing a concept is to embrace it's weaknesses, to have a character without flaw is to have a very shallow character. It is easy for an optimizer to cross the boundaries into min-maxing or power gaming so it takes a conscious effort to reign in your desire for raw power in a character or playstyle. Optimizing within a framework is always more interesting than just combining all the most powerful things. Don't always test/question the boundaries of your dm (but do clarify your dms interpretation of rules interactions), don't optimize for pure power but instead optimize for an interesting build idea. DON'T play so that you hog the lime light, accept that you can't and shouldn't always be the person in action. If your party is to passive, instead of grabbing the reigns, have a conversation about how you'd wish others would be more active in the decision making process.
I don't actually like your definitions for two main reasons 1. Munchkin Often a term use on people who makes strong characters. But your definition of a munchkin could be any player regardless if they make their character strong or not. 2. Your definition of min Max has almost nothing to do with minimizing and maximizing your character. I would personally define the terms like this. Optimizer: Someone who aims to make their conceptual character as strong as possible. Power Gamer: Someone who aims to make the strongest character. Min Maxer: A power gamer or optimizer who specializes in a few specific tasks at the expense of doing other things Munchkin: an optimize/power gamer who aims to "beat" the other players and/or GM. Some of them may have a sense of comradery and tries to help the other players optimize their characters so they can take on the dm as a group. Some of them may want to beat the player's, along with the DM, by making the most powerful character and most spotlight hogging character available.
I think of these terms as nested, rather than separate. To me, optimizing is the least restricted, and thus most general. It may not even effect character creation, so much as how a character is played. For instance, you can hand an optimizer a pre-made character, and they'll analyze it and come up with the best way to play it. If allowed to select gear, it might get further refined. The more control offered, the more optimizing. The min-maxer though, won't be satisfied with just any character sheet. He's going to want to have as must control for optimizing as possible, and will often combine things that are hard to justify in concept for their mechanical benefit. The power gamer is both of these, but with the additional trait of narcissism. He'll need constant comparison to others' capabilities to validate his own. The munchkin is all of these, but isn't satisfied with merely outperforming the others. He will need to belittle or denigrate them as well. This player will go so far as to intentionally tpk, as a demonstration of "you can't stop me." It is the difference between wanting to have the most, versus simply wanting to take from others. Where I see a very distinct separation of these traits, is the willingness to see other players enjoy themselves. At the optimizer and min-maxer levels, it is possible and even likely that this player is aware other and encouraging other players' enjoyment of the game. The power gamer is no longer willing to be considerate of others. The munchkin is actively working against the enjoyment of others. Self awareness and maturity may be some defense against the negative traits. But I've know some very aware and mature shitheads, and some very naive and immature benevolent people.
I like your model, although personally I self-identify as a powergamer, and define it as just having a solid understanding of the meta (be it mechanics, builds, party comp, campaign style, DM tendencies etc) and actively pursue powerful strategies.
I'm a min-maxer but i dont seek to hog the spotlight, be adversarial towards teammates, nor intend to overshadow (i just want to be good at what i set out to do, usually combat related). I just tend to overshadow if i'm playing with non-min maxers or the DM doesn't bother to up the ante once in a while even though he knows he's playing with an optimizer. I don't think i'm at the extreme end of min-maxing where i always pick what's the most powerful build the DM would allow. I come to the table with a concept i want to execute (like the gloomstalker assassin alpha striker) and min-max to that concept. I have fun building that character, watching it execute the way i want it to in the DMs world and learning new synergies along the way. So what playstyle am i? Am i a powergamer? A munchkin?
optimizer I suppose. Powergaming to me refers to always playing in the most powerful way at the table. Like I optimize my characters but still make them do stupid or funny stuff when I feel like it "like I tried to get my javilin of lightning to absorb a lightning bolt when i know that it does not work, and took damage because of it". Munchkins are people who try to steal and gain as many powerful/useful items as possible (such as stealing everything and claiming more magic items when they already have one while another party members does not have any yet).
I consider myself a powergamer, but almost none of what you said there applies to me. With one exception: the planar binding minions strategy. That isn't inherently a glory-hog, solo hero strategy. Hell, that's the INTENDED USE of the spell. If you have a group of planar bound minions you could put them under the control of less powerful teammates, or summon things that support teamwork rather than just doing all the combat heavy lifting. Putting planar binding on the same level as a simulacrum chain (definitely not RAI and only very dubiously RAW) seems pretty unfair to me.
I think your take on power gamers is incorrect as a playstyle. While I might accept the general idea you outline for munchin, I dont see powergaming as a style necessarily about limiting the players as a goal, merely a consequence. I think powergaming is fine actually. Maximizing personal power of a character doesnt have to detract from others, but merely trying to push your own effectiveness higher. if the other players lag, then I handle it by offering to provide suggestions to help them.....but if they dont want to take those suggestions, that is THEIR choice to make and keep. For instance, I have a clearly superior character in combat than any other in the team. I use it. But I dont feel the need or desire to STOP other players doing thier thing, or ignore the contributions that they bring....I keep pushing for my own character but not to push someone else down. There is a difference. I think most power gamers are simply wanting to see just how crazy they can get, and its not about screwing others at the table.
Tldr; you can be a min/maxer and a good party member. Long version: I love min/maxing my characters, for me that is a lot of fun seeing how powerful a PC I can create. That said I like to have fun with my friends and to that end I am almost always the last or 2nd to last to make a PC. I do that because I ask what everyone wants to make, and then I decide based on what our party is missing, ie. Do they need a healer, tank, support, or damage dealer. Do we need someone good at exploring or social interactions? I will then build a PC to fill out the needed role, and in that way I help balance my party without overtaking any of them in what they want to do.
I don't know if assigning these meanings to these specific words is really useful. In general I agree with Wikipedia in that these words generally mean the same thing. I think though that certain types of play such as a spotlight hog shouldn't be labeled as one of these 4 but rather call it like you see it. If someone is hogging the spotlight that is what you should let them know rather than using this shorthand. Same thing with be adversarial, ask them to please be cooperative or if they want to play something else that is competitive they can do that instead.
for me "optimization" has a general suggestion of sacrificing something which is considered less necessary for an increase in power, which is similar if not the same as "Min-Max" which tries to take something to the extreme at the expense of all else. In terms of personal playstyle I guess I'd be a "Jane", I have a character goal, and within that goal an awful lot of comparing goes on to choose abilities and combos that will yield good results. I will say that this does sometimes create conflict/chaos, because on a number of occasions I have dropped entirely legit combos or actions on DMs that I had considered at length, but which they had not. This can be bad because blindsiding the DM might lead to an hour long de-railing as everyone tries to figure out what is happening. It terms of actually bad actions, the one I am probably most guilty of is the intentional surprise, where a player gives the DM all the actions, and asks all the questions, but doesn't place them in context with their actual intention. I'm never intending to slow or stop the game, but I think it stems from having an "Us vs him/her" relation of players vs. GM. A sort of fear that a scheme will be (unfairly in my own mind) shot down if the GM is forewarned of it. Example: In a certain place in Out of the Abyss there is a CR10 drow priestess who has her quarters in a stalactite. When the rogue (me) and the ranger sneak in and catch her meditating, I know well that our level 1 characters will die if we fight her conventionally, even with a surprise round. We want to get rid of her though because our stuff is in a nearby box, and she will surely hear us looting it. So, I ask the DM to describe the room, and innocently ask several details, one of which is about windows. The DM, likely believed I was considering escape routes (which I was), and after some thought said there were a couple nice windows of size. Only then did I show my strategy, by communicating with the ranger that the priestess didn't have a great strength score compared to him, and a surprise grapple check using the two of us might just defenestrate her without giving her a chance to use her spells or superior hit points against us. The ranger is very excited by the plan, the party is ecstatic because if the DM allows it they will get their gear, the DM is reeling as he sees death come for what is supposed to be a BBEG for the first leg of the adventure. Ultimately he allowed us to try, and we succeeded in the defenestration. Everyone was happy except for the DM who promised to never give me a window again. I know I shouldn't be adversarial with my GMs, but I still get elated glee from stuff like that.
Min-Maxers who struggle when to give up their spotlight and are on the verge of becoming Powergamers should consider playing a support character instead. Hard to steal the spotlight when you are buffing your own party.
@@Just_som_Ottur Tank/Defender also works amazingly for this. I get to have my power fantasy of being an indestructible powerhouse with insane AC that enemies can't escape from, but the other players still get to be the ones dealing the majority of the damage.
While I think Seacliff's comment could come off as cavalier, it is a very good point to make. If you find yourself wanting to mix-max because that is what you find fun (I'm in this boat), but you don't want to be a powergaming as a natural result of this (particularly if the rest of the party are not min-maxers), then consider mix-maxing a support character. If you buff the rest of the party and enable them to do what they do best, then you've mix-maxed that role - and few of those players will be annoyed by your enthusiasm and dedication to your build.
I was hoping for the barbarian video to finally wrap up TCoE, but without watching it yet this topic sounds pretty useful as well! EDIT: Huh... I'm surprised how much our personnel definitions of these terms vary, and even more surprised how you have chosen to define many of these nearly synonymous terms negatively. Can't say I agree with most of these, but to each their own I suppose.
@@mduckernz define expense. As moebius says, munchkin definitely is the wrong behavior as its adversarial towards other players. For the case of optimizing, min-maxing, powergaming they are just pursuing their own fun. They aren't doing it with the wrong intent. IMO this is more up to the DMs to balance, to give the others a chance to get the spotlight. A good session zero resolves this. Moreover, a good play group balance (there is more than one optimizer) also resolves this. Imo, if one purposely chooses to play sub-optimally (like for the sake of role-playing) they should be made aware at session zero that they will have to live with the ramifications. Any build, theme, limitations (like no damaging non-touch spells) can all be opimized.
Game balance is very important to me, and particularly when I am not the referee (and can't fix all the problems I'm aware of) my fear of other players experiencing the shortcomings of their initial decisions when character building can be obnoxious. It's not out of a need to be a min/maxer or for them to feel as powerful as possible. I just want everyone to have a strong niche and have moments to shine. I hope that my fellow players and cavern makers can forgive my overbearing tendency in this regard.
Felt this. One of our party members made a _baaaad_ decision last session, squishing us between 2 encounters we were supposed to fight separately. I play a controller Wizard, and normally just try to let them know what I'm doing. However, when we got to low resources while half the encounter hadn't even broken into the room yet, I had to take control. I felt like I was micromanaging, and I felt terrible, but we ended up barely surviving.
@@fizzlock Why should you have to do this though....? Isn't making mistakes and the ability to do so what makes winning worthwhile? If you're always going to win why would anyone want to play?
This was a super helpful video. The difference between these terms explains why I have been so dissatisfied with some campaigns. One player in particular is a Munchkin both as a player *and* as a DM. He makes everyone else feel insignificant, even if he is just role-playing ridiculously powerful NPCs.
Wow, you have really set up a system of understanding that is entirely critical and negative. I cannot agree. All of these approaches are a result of the way Dnd is built as a game, and critiquing people for these behaviors seems wrong. I think that your metrics and measurements combine too mcuh
This video is so critical of a huge portion of the community, and despite the attempt to differentiate between these definitions, you are painting with an incredibly broad and unnuanced brush. People who consider themselves to be these terms are different from what you describe. Your assessment here blames behaviors that you dislike at the table with other behaviors you dislike. Nothing about powergaming has anything to do with “hogging the spotlight”, for example.
I'm a min-maxer who wants other members of the party to min-max as well. Why? 5e monsters are incredibly dangerous, and you need a couple min-maxed characters to guarantee your party's survival. I want to avoid a TPK at all costs, but I have no interest in overshadowing other players.
I appreciate what you did here and it is a small hint at an deeper issue of how people play and enjoy not just D&D but any asymmetric or customizable game. People talk about alignment in D&D character but they never consider the ones for players. (Of course it is a three dimensional array but still.)
Everyone says that you can't win in DnD. Maybe. But you could certainly lose in DnD. So if by winning in DnD we would consider going as long as possible (preferably to the end of the campaign if it even have one) than you actually CAN legitemately win. By making a more powerful character not only you will increase your chances to see this metaphorical "win", but also increase your group chances. And, in fact, your DM as well. Because then you win in DnD people of both sides of the table win equaly: DM by telling the great story and players by experiencing it.
If d&d was a static game then yes that would be true. As a DM I tailor my combats to my players, I wouldn't plan the same combat for a poorly optimised group as I would for a min maxed group. I'll also probably give the poorly optimised group more and better magic items to help them along. If you die in my game its more likely because you did something stupid. One of the problems with having one heavily min maxed character is if they go down the rest of the party can't now handle the encounter as it was balanced to challenge the min maxer. I'm saying this as someone who does optimise my characters for a role (not necessarily damage) when I play.
@@benry007 Dnd is a static game sometimes. I run premade stuff and I tend to not always make it easier in every situation. like a two man party of mine challenged 5 vampires because i had 5 vampires in the area, I'm not changing it to 2 just because only 2 players showed up.
@@theeye8276 I like to think I'm pretty good at challenging players without killing them. It requires tailoring the combats for them though. Having a new wave of enemies come in can be really good for that. If the party wipes the floor with some enemies I was wanting to be more of a challenge I'll sometimes have one go fetch allies even if not existed originally. I do this with only the players enjoyment in mind though. Super easy d&d where no one loses more then a 5th of their hp is super boring in my opinion. If you run your 5 vampires exactly the same for two players as you would if there were five players then either the five would be bored or the two would be dead.
I like these definitions, although powergamer I might define in a slightly more favourable way, I've heard alpha gamer for the people that want to overshadow the party at everything, and powergamer for the ones that just want to be good at what they're good at, but are still happy to let the party do stuff too. I like to think I'm closer to optimisation than min-maxing, the one thing I really do on the min-max side is roll my stats before deciding what class and race I want, but once I know how MAD I can be I go for concept more than anything else I think.
Great video! I think the usage of the terms differ, however that's because language is fluid as opposed to any deficiency in how you've presented this. A useful breakdown of all the playstyles and great to show the distinguishing features, particularly in optimisers and min/maxers as I've been called many terms and yet have always considered concept first and foremost.
I’ve had some munchkins in my day, they didn’t all steal from the party though. The biggest red flag was when they would “scout” ahead or “check the chest first” and then casually tell the party they didn’t find anything or that there was no gold. I had a power gamer in my group, but he wasn’t evil: for him it was about the journey to brokenness. He would pull out a combo like reverse gravity prismatic orb or planar bind a holyphant, invalidate 2-3 encounters, then ask to respect his build to start trying again. Except for him I haven’t had any bad power gamers (and he wasn’t bad he simply liked coming up with crazy plans and then testing them), the type who will shut down a combat encounter with a bag of holding or banish the enemy because why fight when you can taunt the dm? Your definition of min-maxer is what I would call a power gamer, someone who tries to construct as powerful a character as possible within an inch of the rules. For me a min-maxer is someone who picks one aspect of the game and maximizes that, such as dps, ac tank, hp, unarmored ac, a specific damage type, play style, etc. that’s the maxing. These players then minimize their weaknesses as much as they can only sacrificing to better their strength. An optimizer is the evolved form of the power gamer (by my definition), someone who only plays with RAW and only builds for effectiveness, so they basically only play wizards and clerics and any martials they make use crossbows because numbers good. I’ve never actually played with an optimizer who has all the numbers crunched but I don’t know that it’d be fun, mostly because for them the players who didn’t optimize are dragging them down and for us they are going hyper agro on stuff we don’t bother with because it’s optimal. And I don’t even know how they’ed work with a role player or a “weakness makes it more interesting” player.
My DM just perma focuses only me every combat, uses gods to give me psychic dmg, and has the God tell the other PCs they’d get any item they wanted if they betrayed me, which they did. Was fun playing clock work sorcerer while it lasted tho!
I really don't play with min-maxers anymore. All the power to them. But I'm here for an adventure and a story... Imagine LotR, with a min-maxed Aragorn, just walking into Mordor and one shotting Sauron. I've crafted such campaigns, and I've played in such campaigns. The worst time of my life. If I wanna roll dice and glee over numbers. I'll go play a Tabletop Wargame. AND EVEN THERE! I go for flavor first, and power second. Please give me an interesting character with an arc, development, and role-playing! Not math hammering. Oh, and don't get me started on power players... UGH!
I've been called all these things by my existing gaming group, because my character FAR outclasses the other characters in combat. People have claimed that the danger of encounters for them is vastly inflated because of how powerful my character is. I am playing a fighter, almost straight up. I did take a single level of (forge) cleric so I could cast and concentrate on bless (and cast identify). Other than that, I'm a plate wearing mountain dwarf axe & shield fighter. I took duelist as a fighting style to bump damage. I did judiciously increase my AC and save throws (and of course weapon) by acquiring appropriate magic items. I really haven't done anything other than that. They by contrast don't pay any attention at all to the idea of increasing their combat effectiveness. We have a rogue with a hand crossbow who took no feats to boost it's effectiveness. We have a cleric who (fortunately) asks me what to do, all the time. He at least is wearing decent armor and is carrying all the necessary support spells. He upcasts spirit guardians and spiritual weapon and stays at the front. Our fourth character is a druid who is so utterly ineffectual it is appalling. Her choices most rounds is use her magic item that casts fireball, or plink a single arrow with her bow, because she can't figure out how her spells might be useful. She's a forest druid in Ptolus, a city/dungeon game. I conclude that the 'pejoratives' of Powergamers, Munchkins, Optimizers and Min/Maxers are relative terms.
I feel like the more supportive of a character you play, the less people care about you Min/Maxing. If you min/max for damage, control, utility, etc, people care more because it hogs more of the spotlight, while people are generally thankful when the support character keeps your character from dying hyper effectively, or buffs them amazingly, haha.
Since watching your videos I've come to appreciate Optimizing much further and nolonger see it as a catchall for the 'munchkin' playstyle. For example my Barbarian/Fighter/rogue is Optimized for grappling any size creature currently being a 9 Barbarian/4 Rune Knight/1 Rogue. Now is Grappling an amazing battlefield control ability? No, it's single target and doesn't stop an enemy casting spells but I wanted the best Grappler I could and I built it that way. Could the build use a lot of tweaks? Oh Hell yeah, it was made doing some back of the napkin considerations but I love my Large Grappler boi who has actually caused the DM to have to rejig monsters. It's not about me doing massive damage, it's about giving the other martials advantage on their attacks when I've knocked someone prone and grappled them. I'm there to help them out.
In short: - Munchkin: Player who optimizes his character or railroads the campaign at the expense of the party - Powergamer: Glory-hog who wants to be the only solution to every encounter, conversation, or turn. Very similar definitions, but a Munchkin actively sabotages the party while a Powergamer ignores the party. - Min/Maxer: Optimization within the boundaries the DM sets. Doesn't _want_ to outshine the party, but it can happen. - Optimizer: Optimizing within a character concept, not just the game mechanics. Very similar again, but a good example is a Chronurgy Wizard who takes Haste because of its power (MM) and one who takes Haste because it can be flavoured as time accelerating (O).
I personally state this, when people have an issue with a build or build idea due to it being a "Minmaxer build" Firstly, my charchter is designed to be a person, not a class race combo. No, I'm not playing the edgy rogue, he's going to be interesting, and his story is dependent on his class. You can make an interesting hexadin, or an engineer mounted kobold. Race and class do NOT define a personality, and I kinda resent those who let their class and race define personality traits alot more than min maxing. Yes, I did ask my DM about oversized weapon rules, he gave me his take, I respectfully gave the differing rule opinions (There are 4 BTW) and wrote down his take. I also don't make first PC. Ever. I design my char around the parties weaknesses. I also min max on class as well as role. Monks aren't good overall, but I felt like playing one so I made the best monk I could (Until tashas HAD to come around and add the best monk DPS boost via a FIGHTING STYLE.) I made a monk vs a mounted combatant because I knew we needed a tank, not a striker.
Yeah, I feel that with min maxing/optimizing. Like when I'm playing a druid, I don't have many choices for proficiency so I tend to choose survival. Since i'm a wisdom caster, I tend to have some insane survival rolls that puts our ranger to shame. It also doesn't help when the ranger player thinks the same thing and has me roll. A fun way I've come to change this is that I roll for them, but THEY get the RP hook with just a little assistance or no assistance from me, if they themselves don't want to roll. (I also tend to roll very high on skill checks, but very low on saving throws and attacks.) Also question, how do you handle someone as a wizard running around with the Ring of Spell Storing + Find Familiar + Sickening Radiance + Wall of Force combo? I have that combo in a game of ours and due to just how strong wall of force is, it just ends encounters. Speaking of Wall of Force, neither me nor our DM can get any clarity on something. Does Wall of Force only create wall segments in a straight line, or can I configure the 10x10 panels in any configuration, or only in configurations that leave an open ceiling/floor?
I read a post on Facebook the other day from a guy requesting for advice for “powergaming”. I immediately got upset, why would anyone seek advice on how to be a bad company around the table and why would anyone give advice to that player?! So I read the comments below and the post author’s responses and I realized he was just trying to optimize his character but had the term “powergamer” wrong. So I made I comment, explaining the main differences between the two, specifically saying that powergaming is bad and optimization is good. He’s reply was somewhere in the lines of “I couldn’t care less about your definitions”. Could he be a munchkin after all??
As you said, each of us use those terms in different ways, so sadly I don't agree with most of the definitions you used. First of all, a confrontational/selfish player is just that, a toxic person who wants to "win at D&D" by messing with the fun of the other players/DM. I rather prefer to divide players regarding the importance they give to roleplay: Munchkin is a player who just wants to have more things (mainly weapons) more powerful every time. They don't care if it makes sense to the character, their background or even their class; the moment they get a +1 greatsword they're looking for an enchanter to make it +2. They define themselves for what they have not what they are (ie once I was going to DM a Oneshot at level5 5 and I gave my players an Uncommon Magic Item, and one of them wanted SO BAD a Dwarven Thrower (Very Rare) I almost felt forced to gave it to them). Powergamers are people who decide to fill a role in the party and they do it to the max. If they play a blaster, they choose the higher damage dealing spells and ways to increase damage/area of effect. If they decide to get a high AC, they will search for the best combination to have the highest AC ever. Again, this type of players don't care about roleplay because they tend to play DnD like a videogame. Min/Maxers tend to build their character to not have weak spots. They have lots of skills proficiencies, high AC, great damage and at least a few key spells. They can cover every party role because they are pretty good at everything (and in the hands of a toxic player they can be obnoxious) and the player will change/adapt/multiclass things everytime they think they need to. They can be good roleplayers and truly build a character with deep background in mind, but no weakness whatsoever. Finally, Optimizer is a player who wants to have fun and doesn't worry too much about the spells, magic items and so on; they use to have a concept first and try to Optimize a character around it.
I'm a power gamer. My goal is to create the most powerful characters I can. Most powerful characters I've played shut down entire encounters by themselves with a single Standard Action. Even used your guide to do it. See, D&D is a team based game and team based games rely on multiple players for the team to be effective. It's possible to have a single spotlight hog that does everything themselves and leaves the rest of the team an ineffective mess that flounders against anything approaching a reasonable challenge, but that is the domain of the Munchkin, filthy creatures. To create a team that doesn't struggle, it is better to fill in a required role that the team does not already have or perhaps focus on playing a more supportive role. For example, War Weaver with Crusader Cohort to buff party, tank, act as a secondary healer and lock down enemies via Spells that affect terrain. Everything the party didn't have (with extra healing) to act as a multiplier to the party's overall effectiveness. I dealt more damage in several combat encounters than the other players, just because Babau Slime is a thing and at one point I even grappled an enemy just so I could do something one time. In singleplayer games, I don't have to help anyone. I am the party. I can make an immortal god that auto wins everything, no question.
Props for the Video, clear definitions should be made however I think your definition are overly complex and would just make for a bad rebuttal when it comes too the "roleplayer vs powergamer debate." And I will say I think some are just a bad definition. However definitions should be made. Not about too be one of these "don't put labels on me" people. Im a fairly new player too dnd (under a year given how 2020 went) and quickly realized I was a "powergamer/optimizer/min-maxer," and I immediately hated all the negative stereotypes that came with those labels. Diving into D&D in general i was a powergamer/min-maxer/optimizer (henceforth p/mm/o). But when looking into the p/mm/o side of dnd I was more an optimizer because o do care more about certain stats being good and such and I have seen from other channels that even in the p/mm/o you could optimize but be wrong because "your battlemaster/hexblade wasnt a v-human with polearm master and great weapon master or half elf too add elven accuracy in the mix." I have my own ideas for how too define these things, but no clout or fame, and too new in the dnd world too even have anyone hear me out. So while I do disagree with your definitions (and I do understand you're stating them as your definitions) I think a true wide spread community definition of these term is necessary too finally rid us of this anti-powergamer ideal where we're all looked at as "asshats who don't roleplay, cheat and/or cheat the system for our own benefit, and try too push our ideals on others" because we play wrong. Applause for starting the conversation and I do hope it goes somewhere
I generally agree with your perspective on optimizers/min-maxers. I see optimizers as trying to make their character the best they can within a self-imposed framework, while min-maxers try to make their character the best they can within a DM-imposed framework. However, I don't quite agree with your take on powergamers/munchkins. I see powergamers as squeezing every benefit they can out of the rules themselves through hyper-strategic and hyper-creative uses of their available resources (which can be disruptive if they start to lawyer the rules or subvert the party's fun but isn't inherently disruptive by itself), while munchkins squeeze every benefit they can out of the _DM's interpretation_ of the rules, in a "give them an inch and they'll take a mile" sort of way (which can much more easily get disruptive and out of hand, and can potentially break the game if the DM isn't aware of the implications of their rulings). Essentially, powergamers game the game and munchkins break the game.
Especially if you are playing 5E, powergaming means you'll make dumb RAW choices regardless of if you'd have liked that character to begin with. Going Dwarf for their traits even though you'd rather be an Elf is silly.
I reject these definitions. The most obvious issue is that a player who's focused on POWER will demonstrate that both in playing and building a character. A munchkin will exploit any loopholes both while building their character and while in game. And this isn't to fight the party. A munchkin can advise the party's fighter who's in a tough situation on how to break the game to survive. In a co-op game, the party wins and loses together so there's no reason someone who's hyper focused on winning to work against their party. If they hurt the party and hurt the party's chances, they're not powergaming very well are they? Your god wizard example is a form of powergaming that doesn't seek to hog the spotlight. You build the character well. You pilot the character with consideration for the team to make each battle an efficient and dominant victory. Is that not mechanical, crunch focused play both in game and while building the character?
With Min-Maxing, I'd tend to define it as someone who, essentially, abuses character flaw systems and stat-dumping ("Min") in order to have a lot of points or whatever to spend doing what they want ("Max"). They take as many flaws as they can (especially ones they think they can sidestep or that won't ever come up), dump every stat they don't intend to use, then put all their points into making an otherwise overpowered character. This often results in rather ridiculous (and overpowered) characters with a lot of flaws the player doesn't really intend to play into or that they even consider a positive. On a sidenote, this is part of why game designers need to be careful to not balance mechanical advantages with roleplaying disadvantages (or vice-versa), because not every table enforces that as strongly, and sometimes the 'disadvantage' is either negligible or something the player outright wants. A good example would be cybernetics having a trade-off that that they make you have less empathy and more prone to violence. Problem is, to someone who wants to build a very combat-focused character, that's just a roleplaying excuse to engage in combat whenever. Come to think of it, a better disadvantage would be "the more robotic you become, the more bound by the three laws you are", meaning you can make a robot death god, but in doing so, you can no longer kill anyone.
There’s nothing wrong with min-maxing or optimization, though if you purely design a character with min-maxing in mind, you might end up with a character that’s hard to rationalize or role-play if you’re not careful. I think every character should be optimized as much as possible, though, and in fact I have a game master who runs a Mutants and Masterminds campaign I play in who will optimize players’ characters for them if they wish (I wish I could get him to run a 5e game, but he’s not that interested in 5e, unfortunately).
Me minmaxing purely so that the second combat encounter in the campaign with 10 orcs at level 2 doesn't kill our party of 3 because RNG rolls means hit you survive miss you die.
The only differentiation between min/maxer and powergamer you present here is the intention of hogging the spotlight, while both lead to exactly the same result - having all the spot light. You try to also set the Munchkin apart by claiming that they *want* to be an adversary to their party, which isn't based on anything and only serves to try and differentiate what's really the same. Wikipedia is right to lump all of those terms together. All of this seems to enable players to say "I'm not a powergamer", when what they do has exactly the same effect on the game as any other munchkin, powergamer or min/maxer.
The 2 things I think are really important are how your character affects the other players and how it affects the DM. If you show up with a sorcerer with twin haste on 2 GWM using characters, all the players are having fun and that is great. If the DM is in for that everyone is having fun but I think you should consider how your character is gonna affect the other players and DM. If you show up and start wall of forcing everything and just walking off so it can't find you, the characters who wanna hit things or kill monsters stop having fun cause they can't do their thing. Also consider how it affects your DM. Everyone forgets that sometimes your character might be super effective and awesome but your DM is wanting to scream because anything you throw at them just gets crushed, it sucks the fun out of it for them. Your DM comes up with an awesome encounter they are super excited for you to solve or overcome only for you to just cast a spell and nullyf the whole thing. There is a time and a place for the uber wizard to flex on everything and feel like a god, though not all the time, maybe you just sit back, throw a fireball or 2 and have fun. When the DM busts out 2 Goristro's, a marilith and a Balor, then its time to get serious and start putting things in forcecages so they know who's the real top dog.
Hi there... I think that in the video you didn't cover the minimizing aspect of the Minimaxers... I believe that the real problem is not maximizing or/and optimizing a character, but doing it in the expense of certain other skills/abilities to a ridiculous degree that makes the character a completely lame caricature. Most often I observe people having 8 Int but playing the part as if they were geniuses and also enjoy their 20 in Strength or Constitution... For the most part I agree to everything else covered here.
Pure roleplayers if they exist would put their stats randomly, pick features because of flavour not mechanics, and pick spells because if the flavour text alone They would be utterly useless in any situation, and they most likely don't play d&d If you pick a high stat for your attack or spellcasting stat you are optimising if only lightly...
I like making a build based on game mechanics, say a Fallen Aasimar war cleric and then work out what that character would be like in the game world. He's a cleric who follows the god of war, but he's a fallen... would that make him a pacifist? (In the end I settled on a Valkyrie type of being who saw the true horror of war and turned away from his war-is-glorious god.)
My favorite players are the ones that have a cool idea for a character and only then do they optimize to get the best version of that specific idea that they can. No problem with that. The worse players are the one that just hear about a busted combo on Tik Tok and run it because it's broken so they can be all powerful. I'm so glad I worked for hours on this campaign and these encounters and you lazily watched Tik tok and put no original thought into your character.
Y'all should Google 'The Stormwind Fallacy'. It talks about the folly of assuming that just because somebody has a mechanically sound character that he/she is not interested in or proficient in any other aspect of the game ...
I realized after listening to your but in power gaming that I’ve accidentally been doing it by casting conjure animals and having to make 8 attacks every round so I’ll probably start summoning max 4 so I can lessen those effects
One thing that really gets under my skin is when people call me a Power gamer for attempting to cover the weaknesses of my character in a logical way. Because they rarely mean it as a good thing. Like taking the feats Tough and Warcaster on a wizard so that I don't die within two rounds of an enemy getting in close. This wizard has been in life threatening situations rather regularly. Why wouldn't they do some training to increase their chance of survival in dangerous situations.
I think a couple of questions about character creation from the DM is fine. But like, too much is just badgering. I like to make characters maxed for one thing and be terrible at everything else. Thats what party members are for, right?
Have to disagree with all of these terms having their negativity. Imo a min/max is someone specialising at the expense of other skills and abilities. And something that is encouraged in d&d, you want a high primary stat so we all often have a 'dump stat'. But I see that as good. It encourages team play as a team with strengths and weaknesses to work together.
Honestly, these terms all mean the same thing to me (except for Munchkin which I think has always had a pejorative nature to it). It's like differentiating between "beautiful", "gorgeous", and "stunning".
You forgot one disruptive archetype. The "I am a Roleplayer". And what makes the "Roleplayers" so disruptive is that they think "Optimizing" is Evil. Because they screw up their characters so hard that they cannot effectively fill the role they want to roleplay, they constantly force the other players to cover for them and babysit their character instead of playing their own part. They essentially do what the powergamer does, only through "roleplay" instead of Numbers.
That's not really the topic of the video
Agreed with this. These kinds of folks are so elitist. if you don't do what they want to do, they say why bother playing dnd? Go play a video game, a card game or a wargame ttrpg.
@@TheRobversion1 Yeah this annoys me too.
I do like video games and wargames, but those kinds of games don't encourage roleplaying to the extent of Tabletop games. I wouldn't be playing Tabletop RPGs if I didn't like roleplaying whatsoever. As stated in the video, wanting to roleplay and wanting be good at the game mechanically aren't mutually exclusive.
@@seacliff217 agreed! a min-maxer optimizer can be a good/enjoy role-playing as well. Plus, even for those who arent into role-playing that much (because they aren't good at it or feel intimidated by the standards set by shows like critical role), a ttrpg just provides a more open sandbox for the player to theorycraft, enjoy combat and immerse themselves in a world (all.the while.enjoying the story the DM provides and the role-playing his co-players do).
I agree. Metagaming is bad. Conflicts in the group of players are bad. Optimisation... well, it is just a style of play. More to say: optimisation is not an opposite to roleplaying. I mean: you dont go to Wall Street and dont tell to rich people: "Hey, why do you make right choices?! Are you meta slaves or what?!" You dont ask scientist: "Why have you learned so hard? Stop optimising, bud!" Then why do you expect that character in a game doesnt wish to live well?
Plot twist:
Jane is a minmaxing powergamer and went Bard because Bard good.
Yea well, plot twist plot twist, Jane is the character that Jack made in a game where hes playing as a person creating a character for her Dnd game!
The real headache is for the DM who has to create an encounter that can challenge a min-maxer without annihilating the other PCs
I say, run 'by the book' adventures and let the cards fall where they may.
I'd say the real headache is creating an encounter that doesn't make the other players feel bored while the min-maxer does 90% of the damage, moves 120 ft to grab all the treasure, and then "generously" passes out magical items to the party as they see fit.
Just hit the min maxer in their lowest stats. Did they put Int at 8 and strength 18? Then hit them with mind control things targeting int, maybe wisdom or charisma. IMO the best way to deal with them is with the mechanics in the game at your disposal as GM, but maybe I'm bias I am a min maxer after all. But IMO using a deus ex machina like event to subdue your min maxer is disatisfying and lazy. Just look at their character sheet and hit em in the nuts. Min Max implies a min and you can just hit them there.
This is my humble opinoin though as someone without a ton of game time in dnd.
Im not sure I agree with the definitions themselves, but I do subscribe with the overall need to properly separate them.
Can't wait for the Beast Barbarian.
My concept is that he was experimented on by some wizard. Imagine something like the Simic Guild from Magic the Gathering
I'm waiting for it too, the beast barb looks like the more willing to use shields and engage in grappling while having his natural weapons to fight well, that could be a nice deviation from the GWM builds for a more utility frontline.
@@nicolasvillasecaali7662 yes shields are very powerful on them.
But I actually think that they are also the best dmg dealing Barbarian. Didn't run the numbers in comparison to others (which I hope Treant will do). But mixing 2handed weapon attacks with his claw + extra free claw attack makes for some insane damage
So I actually got a bit excited and actually ran a primitive form of an Excel for the damage. I made assumptions which are definitely very generous: Every attack hits, no Crits, no Feats:
So the Beast Barbarian is quite ahead to Barbarians that don't get a damage boost from their attacks.
However they tie with the Zealot from level 1 to 8 and start falling behind the Zealot by around 2 dmg per Action until level 18.
Also assuming the Beserker uses Frenzy every fight (I know, not realistic) they would be ahead of everyone by quite a bit. I did this calculations for myself, so there might be some errors. However still wanted to share it
@@Fangoros damage wise i expected the beast B to be good early and fall late, mostly because the lack of +2 magical items for natural weapons and that the GWM builds don't have a lot of sinergy with their features, that is why I'm more interested on a shield grappler, who can have his hand free to grab people while dealing damage with the tail or fangs, or just jump/climb and smacking them with the power of gravity.
That being said, they can make quite hard to hit GWM fighters with the tail, that reaction extra AC make them hard to take down while pumping good damage to be a relevant menace at many ranges thanks to reach.
I had brainstormed on the exact same idea. Mechanics aside, I like the extra flavor it gives to the DM and party to build on. Like who was the one who experimented on the character, what has been done and what happened post-experiment, etc. Does the character reciprocate on the notion of being experimented on or were they forced into it and resent the ones who conducted the experiment.
My min/maxed Paladin/Lore Bard (I call it a Practicaladin) kept my feckless party alive, across all of Barovia and back.
Great video. I've been that DM who has the player come up to them with a dozen different ideas trying to find the most powerful one. It can get a little tiring.
My group has played for several years in survival type campaigns and we roll 4d6d1 In static order at the table and we optimize the party based on these rolls. It’s incredibly fun way to character build.
Min-maxing can happen after the character concept. Esp with really bad stat rolls.
Here's a problem though, the way you defined min-maxing suggests mechanics first before concept but they already have a goal in mind, a concept if you will, albeit a mechanics-based concept.
Great analysis - one of my favorite old articles on types of rpg players is Richard Bartle's "Hearts, Clubs, Diamonds, Spades: players who suit MUDs," which creates a taxonomy of player types based on two axes of interaction types. I wonder if that might be helpful for you in the way that you think about the different ways that players approach optimization (or any approach to character creation) decisions.
Enjoyed the content, as always
I'd never heard the Yuan-Ti were the most powerful non-flying race. I'll have to check that out. I've only made one Yuan-Ti character, a Ranger no less.
Edit: Also, I accidentally optimized the crap out of a level 1 Fighter by making her a Dex build, Variant Human with Defensive Duelist, made Dueling her fighting style, and buying her a shield. +5 damage on attacks and 18 potential AC at level 1. Heh, oops.
Lmao, the shot at MinMax's channel
It really annoys me when a PC does something bad to the party or its allies and justifies it with "Thats what my character would do!!". I tend to reply to this with "Well the party has decided to kick you out because that's what our characters would do".
I can't fully subscribe to the exact ways you've divided these terms up (as you said, these terms are subjective as all hell), but I do appreciate the attempt. I think it's important to add nuance when discussing these various motivations and behaviors and it's always interesting to hear how other people view these things. You've definitely broadened my perspective with your insight, though
As long as the cherector/build works in the narrative and works with the group, with later bing less important but necessary, it does not mater to me. Munchkins tend to break the narrative and not work well with the group.
9 view gaming. since I haven't watched the video, I have nothing constructive to say except don't disregard condoms and always ban twilight and peace cleric
Great breakdown
I don't really like multiclassing because it's either to dip for some mechanics which seems cheap or it makes your character spread thin and weaker. pure class optimization is much better
Why is it cheap?
@@jacobjensen7704 cheap as in your character is really only doing it for the power not because your character has a good story reason for the dip. Like a paladin making a pact with a sword (hexblade) only for 1 lvl and never wanting to gain more power from his sword patron because it's not optimal. Or a wizard being a cleric for only a 1 lvl dip for armor but not wanting to gain more power from their god that they love so much because that's not optimal either.... it just doesn't feel genuine to me, it's like the character doesn't care about their classes and are treating them like game mechanics rather then defining aspects of their personality. But that may just be me.
What annoys me is that "rules-lawyers" are often lumped in with powergamers and munchkins when - in reality - they want the rules to work as-written and are often the biggest adversaries of powergaming at the table. For me, powergaming is everything that deliberately breaks the rules, either written or obviously intended (coffee-lock shenenigans or taking 8 short rests during a long rest, for example).
A great example that I sometimes see in forums is stuff like characters ostensibly being able to dual wield longswords for 2d10+STR mod without having any feats or fighting styles that would allows that - when in reality, you would need both the Two-Weapon Fighting Style and the Dual Wielder feat to achieve that. Trying to use "Charm Person" as "mind control" is another one where I get extremely suspicious if the player isn't (relatively) new to 5e. Then there are borderline cases with deliberately vaguely worded illusion spells like Phantasmal Force where the DMs needs to set up the boundries themselves. I will not "rules-lawyer" those unless I see a DM really struggling to say "no" when they clearly mean to.
There's a lot I have to say about this observations in trends there:
For the most part, while adversarial and abusive players and DMs exist, I think the problem with powergaming and such (I'll only use powergaming here for brevity) is massively overblown and only very few people actually, unironically build a character to "win" D&D. In fact, there are several facets to this why this problem is cited so often in spite of its relative rarity.
For one, a lot of D&D fans are hardline traditionalists who want a mundane, down-to-earth sword & sorcery game much like Conan the Barbarian and Lord of the Rings (let's not talk about how those are generally far more fantastic and heroic than what these people are looking for) and show disdain for any more unusual character options. Non-tolkien races are often a trigger for them to call out the "special snowflake" who refuses to build a "normal" character, feeding into arguments they're doing it purely for the stats.
Furthermore, there is a significant bias towards additional sourcebooks being broken and for powergamers only, especially if they're content not sanctioned by the developers. A friend of mine had trouble on a Pathfinder server for a rules interaction for a martial character using a third party ruleset because they really didn't like him trying to clarify any rules interactions. On a build that, all things considered, is hardly broken. While I didn't actually play, I made a completely broken Druid using only core options that completely beat out that character in damage, durability and utility, simply because CoDZilla is just ridiculous. I was accepted without any questions.
What about the player that wants to prove that the GM isn’t good enough?
what about the completely oppositional passive aggressive player character? The campaign despoiler.
I kicked him not from the game but from my life.
Imo, most of the times such terms are used, it isn't done with the intent of actually discussing the term and parsing out exactly what is bad and what the differences are. We can attribute definitions to each but in actual use, they're most often used for "a player who is trying to squeeze out high power and is toxic". Optimizer is just the most neutral of these. In reality, all of it is a gradient and most people aren't interested in parsing out what levels of what equals bad in relation to these terms because these muchkin, power gamer, and min maxer are more or less pejorative terms and nothing more. So I think that any meaningful conversation about the topic should just be best done discussing various individual actions and motives rather than use of pejoratives that people don't quite agree on the definitions of. The purpose of using a term is to save time and the only time when we'd realistically need to parse out the difference is when we're talking about the individual actions and motives anyway. Why bother saying "Jack is a powergamer" when we're realistically going to follow it up with "because he's doing X and that's bad"? The addition of the term adds nothing to the conversation because we were going to explain what it meant anyway so it doesn't save time and doesn't aid understanding or we weren't going to explain it in which case, it is a non discussion intended pejorative and nothing more at which the actual definition doesn't matter a whole lot.
I listen to all your videos at 1.5 speed. Does that make me a Min/Maxer? 😉
I think 1.5 is pretty standard actually ;)
So basically Sam Riegel = Munchkin and Marisha Ray = Power Gamer?
Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but it sounds like you are trying to justify your playstyle. That people are negatively referring to your approach, and you're it's not as bad as it *could* be...
I can't talk, though - I could care less about 9th level spells, and am all about multiclassing. People probably call that minmaxing too...
Way to choose to judge someone in a negative way!
Yeah, don't do this mate. We need less of this in our world.
Not judging TM; I obviously like his videos enough to be subscribed. I am judging the reasoning for making this video.
Even the positive replies to this video are negative towards members of the gaming community when you think about it, so you can get off your high horse.
I don't think I mention at all in this video what my playstyle is, but yes, I would like to think I am neither a munchkin or a powergamer, and admittedly I think that's the right way to go.
You mention it a couple times that you consider yourself somewhere between a min/max'er and an optimizer, depending on the build and situation, at least a couple times.
@@ryanweaver3348 Yes. The video makes a differentiation between terms representing playstyle (munchkin and powergamer) and character building style (min/maxer and optimizer). I am both a min/maxer and optimizer.
I find a healthy trait for any cooperative optimiser is if they're looking to "fill a niche" left by the rest of the party. If they're trying to fill holes and support the others, they are running little to no risk of overshadowing and that kind of consideration means they are probably not looking to hog the spotlight either. Ive found its a good vibe all round.
This is me and yet my DM still wants to kill me because I do too much damage XD
What I have experienced with these "players" is that more often than an issue by themselves, the problem usually is other players especially experienced vanilla grognards that feel uncomfortable with characters outside of the tropes they envision the game. For them the problem is not that the wizard is strong, but that the wizard is of a weird race, wearing armor and contributing to melee combat, for them those characters are "min/maxed powergamers forcing the rules".
Personally I think some of these definitions are a little too far removed from the mainstream definition to really be useful outside of this channel. For instance, I consider myself a powergamer in the sense that I actively look for the most powerful strategies or shore up any weaknesses in the context of my party. Powergaming in gaming terms is ultimately about winning, and isn’t so much about spotlight.
Munchkin to me isn’t so much about working against the party, but rather it’s more about bending, breaking, or purposely misinterpreting the rules for the sake of power.
MinMaxing is by definition about leveraging all the resources toward achieving specific results, so I guess this one is sorta close. Optimization to me is the most general of these terms. It’s kind of weird for me to think of the two as a spectrum. I guess the idea is one end do concept first then finetune the character options to suit that concept, and the other end is mechanics first and then build the concept around those mechanics?
Came here to make this comment pretty much.
I also would describe myself as a power gamer or an optimizer. Min/Maxing in my mind often means sacrificing one aspect of gameplay to maximize another which can sometimes be gimmicky or detrimental to the fun of a party overall, but that’s subjective.
To me I think trying to apply terms like power gamer to disruptive playstyles makes them feel more normalized rather than calling them out for what they actually are, selfish and inconsiderate.
There’s nothing wrong with wanting to get the most out of a game in terms of effectiveness, I mean for a lot of people that’s a large part of what’s fun. However I don’t think that should be associated with being inconsiderate of other people’s ability to have fun. That’s just being a social unaware person at best, or selfish and disruptive at worst. It’s a not a playstyle imo.
Also a little tangent but, I do think it’s possible to play an adversarial character and have everyone still have fun if you’re at the right table and people enjoy role playing that dynamic. However the key difference is the adversarial player being self aware and consciously making a role playing choice vs just being a selfish person. That and having the consent of the party and the dm.
Edit: Sometimes what people find fun about games is different and that’s okay, not everyone is meant to play dnd together and it’s about finding the right table for you. I think people not recognizing that has helped shape the view of optimization as something negative.
Munchkin has always been a pejorative aimed at murder hobos and other typically unsavory players. I agree with you that they're not necessarily working against the party, because a party full of munchkins can get along alright, but if you have 1 munchkin and 3 people who want to be invested in the world, that's gonna suck. (also agreeing that adversarial play, if it's what people signed up for, has its place.)
I have a lot baggage from competitive games, so "powergamer" just means following the meta, netdecking or using build orders etc to me. That said, I know that in the RPG world, Powergaming often has the connotation of steamrolling other players and either spotlight hogging or "encouraging" them to take whatever actions the powergamer thinks is optimal or most fun for them.
MinMaxing and Optimizing are extremely similar terms, I agree that it's really weird putting them on a spectrum. Again, my gaming priors are showing, but min-max to me has a feeling of just knowing which corners are OK to cut, that X is a dump stat etc. In RPGs, it can sometimes have a more negative connotation, of caring more about the mechanics than the narrative. Where as optimize doesn't have the same baggage. Optimize doesn't even suggest cutting corners or having a dump stat (though, they still will if we're talking mechanical optimization), just having a sense of which choices are stronger when playing.
@@LibertyMonk Yeah I’m from a competitive gaming background too. And I agree, a large part of powergaming is about an understanding of the meta, whether playing along with or against it. I think it somewhat applies to D&D too, in terms of understanding mechanics, builds, spells, DM tendencies, campaign style, so on and so forth.
Agreed, I'm a year late as I only found Chris' channel recently, but I find his personal definitions rather different from my own, and still somewhat removed from how I see these terms used in general conversation, or by people who self identify using these terms (even if just to acknowledge personal biases towards game interaction that they don't want to be problematic and for other players to call them on it).
I don't think either Munchkins or Power Gamers need to be adversarial in nature, the traits described can all be party focused and cooperative, filling in for what the party lacks or providing control and support to boost unoptimised characters of other players to increase their fun and character satisfaction. There is however a tendency for these traits to cause problems for the DM to balance challenges and encounters that are suitable for everyone.
Speaking as someone whose closest friends have, for years, used all four terms interchangeably and in exclusively derogatory fashion, this breakdown could not be more appreciated.
It’s called “use your brain” when you make a long lasted character😕
Excellent breakdown! The gaming community desperately needs more standardization around our hobby terminology. If I have to hear one more person say "I actually LOVE rules lawyers, who wouldn't want somebody who knows the rules at their table?" without understanding why they're called rules LAWYERS I will take 40d6 psychic damage.
Lawyers can be infamous for bending the wording of laws to suit their clients. So I can understand what Rule Layering implies.
That said, I think there should be a neutral term for someone who's informed of what the rules are and just wants to make sure the game is being played faithfully. I think that specific kind of player is good as long as faithfulness is also what the DM is striving for.
I hate how lawyers have a bad name like that.
Solid breakdown of the terms. It creates a good distinction between which kind of behavior to encourage vs discourage.
DMs on Reddit: One of my player is power gaming because he picked GWM on his barbarian
Actual Power Gamers: This two spell combo shuts down the entire boss fight. Let's move on to the next encounter already.
Something that annoys me is when I'm reading a forum where someone is asking about the strength/weakness of a particular option, and a chorus of "play whatever you want" rains down on the thread. That is worthless shade thrown at a good faith question. "Play what you want" helps nobody ever.
My understanding of Munchkin as a term is a bit different.
To me, Munchkin is related to the Munchkin Fallacy: the fallacy that if the rules of a system don't specifically disallow something, it must therefor be allowed.
Often these are the people who use very powerful optional material without asking the DM first, the people who ignore table-specific rules and RAI, preferring to cling to RAW when it makes them more powerful.
It's sort of a malicious combination of Rules Lawyering, power gaming, and a mentality of "It's better to ask forgiveness than permission" when it comes to rules in an RPG.
7:49
"Hmm, I recognize that thumbnail style."
18:12 in.
Oh look. My tier list. Tight
since that's your tier list, i have some questions
For one, why is bard at the very top alongside the wizard? not saying you're wrong, just wanna know the reasoning behind it
@@brunop.8745 watch the video, dude.
Yeah I’ve got some questions about your tier list too. Bard feels over rated, Fighter and Cleric also feel like they could both move up a tier.
No problem. Bard is at the top because they boast a similar range of utility as far as spellcasting goes thanks to Magical Secrets while also using Charisma, a stat that allows for much shenanigans between being party face, to persuasion and trickery, etc. They are also the best Skill monkeys in the game. Add on something like Eloquence to this, which makes that Charisma go even farther and they dominate social encounters.
@@jinxtheunluckypony as for your question about the fighter, Spellcasting not being a base feature is simply that detrimental to any class. Spellcasting is easily the most powerful feature in DnD, without question. As such, a noticeable divide occurs in that, half-casters and up are all higher rated than the full Martials.
Maximising desirable traits while minimising unuseful traits: It's evolution baby!
Thank you for this video, always enjoy your content and breakdowns.
I have never heard the term munchkin before, still.. my general experience with D&D has been a case of my table always has 1-2 people that I guess could be considered min-maxers or far ended optimizers.
This includes multiclassing, taking the best subclass or combining feats and spells for powerful characters even if they themselves are decent role players.
Some tables don’t RP at all, but I prefer to myself. Regardless the main problem becomes if one or people stack their character then those who are playing “normal” or “lesser” characters end up feeling less involved and useful in and out of combat.
And also combat encounters are the DM trying to balance monsters to challenge the power player but not murder the people who aren’t that strong.
Such as how a standard Fighter can’t compete with a well built Paladin/Hexblade.
So I guess really what do you do in those situations? I would assume speak with your DM, otherwise the sessions can become painful to play due to that happening.
There is nothing wrong with making “optimal” choices, and nothing wrong with making “weak” standard characters. There is an issue if someone is overshadowing everyone or making themselves handicapped in person leaving the party one player down.
7:47 not sure if I should be proud of offended, but I dig the notoriety ;)
20:47 yay one moar!
Philosophy of Roleplaying? I take this as evidence supporting Treantmonk being one of the best, if not the best, D&D RUclips channel. Well done sir.
He's definitely my favorite one currently. I think Dungeon Dudes are a really good educational channel for people getting into D&D whereas Treantmonk is really entertaining for experienced players to watch.
Same as you, and sometimes I even just look what fits my concept best, and only if multiple things would fit simmilarly good, I look what is mechanically better. But I also have to say, even though I have build the basics for many characters, I only played a Star Wars roleplaying game yet, because I started 2019 in autumn, and hadn´t much time where I could play with my group and no chance to find other groups. And my internet connection is too bad to be able to play online without problems
So I don't think I know how to word this perfectly but I guess I just wanted emphasize that adversarial play isn't necessarily bad munchkinning is, I believe the line is typically drawn when actions which are detrimental to the party are taking because of them being detrimental to the party when the adversarial play is coming at the cost of some players fun in a way which they aren't ok with. When it stops "all being in good fun" is when it starts becoming a problem.
i like min maxing as in i focus my character in one certain direction so that others in the group can cover a different aspect. for example high strength and athleticism so that char can do the heavy lifting and others can focus on say perception and investigation
Min-maxing is less of a problem in TTRPGs than it used to be, because nowadays we know if there are a bunch of broken options and a bunch of options that are unplayable, we should blame the designer, and the games are more balanced as a result. Back in the day overall game balance wasn’t a thing. Instead, if you picked something because it was flavorful and your friend only picked the most powerful stuff the difference in the characters would be so enormous it could stop the game from being fun for you. There’s nothing on that level in 5e, even the most broken stuff, so you can optimize your own character without worrying that your friend is playing a wizard with one max hit point, no armor, and only 2 spells a day.
Alright, but he has 9 AC and I have had to use all spell scrolls to make mage armor for them...
As someone who like to optimize in most games I appreciate the pro optimizer propaganda /s
But on a serious note, it's important distinguish that difference between what you are optimizing. Optimize a character concept or optimize for power, the distinction can often feel blurred. The important thing to keep in mind when maximizing a concept is to embrace it's weaknesses, to have a character without flaw is to have a very shallow character. It is easy for an optimizer to cross the boundaries into min-maxing or power gaming so it takes a conscious effort to reign in your desire for raw power in a character or playstyle. Optimizing within a framework is always more interesting than just combining all the most powerful things. Don't always test/question the boundaries of your dm (but do clarify your dms interpretation of rules interactions), don't optimize for pure power but instead optimize for an interesting build idea. DON'T play so that you hog the lime light, accept that you can't and shouldn't always be the person in action. If your party is to passive, instead of grabbing the reigns, have a conversation about how you'd wish others would be more active in the decision making process.
I don't actually like your definitions for two main reasons
1. Munchkin Often a term use on people who makes strong characters. But your definition of a munchkin could be any player regardless if they make their character strong or not.
2. Your definition of min Max has almost nothing to do with minimizing and maximizing your character.
I would personally define the terms like this.
Optimizer: Someone who aims to make their conceptual character as strong as possible.
Power Gamer: Someone who aims to make the strongest character.
Min Maxer: A power gamer or optimizer who specializes in a few specific tasks at the expense of doing other things
Munchkin: an optimize/power gamer who aims to "beat" the other players and/or GM. Some of them may have a sense of comradery and tries to help the other players optimize their characters so they can take on the dm as a group. Some of them may want to beat the player's, along with the DM, by making the most powerful character and most spotlight hogging character available.
I think of these terms as nested, rather than separate.
To me, optimizing is the least restricted, and thus most general. It may not even effect character creation, so much as how a character is played. For instance, you can hand an optimizer a pre-made character, and they'll analyze it and come up with the best way to play it. If allowed to select gear, it might get further refined. The more control offered, the more optimizing.
The min-maxer though, won't be satisfied with just any character sheet. He's going to want to have as must control for optimizing as possible, and will often combine things that are hard to justify in concept for their mechanical benefit.
The power gamer is both of these, but with the additional trait of narcissism. He'll need constant comparison to others' capabilities to validate his own.
The munchkin is all of these, but isn't satisfied with merely outperforming the others. He will need to belittle or denigrate them as well. This player will go so far as to intentionally tpk, as a demonstration of "you can't stop me." It is the difference between wanting to have the most, versus simply wanting to take from others.
Where I see a very distinct separation of these traits, is the willingness to see other players enjoy themselves. At the optimizer and min-maxer levels, it is possible and even likely that this player is aware other and encouraging other players' enjoyment of the game. The power gamer is no longer willing to be considerate of others. The munchkin is actively working against the enjoyment of others. Self awareness and maturity may be some defense against the negative traits. But I've know some very aware and mature shitheads, and some very naive and immature benevolent people.
I like your model, although personally I self-identify as a powergamer, and define it as just having a solid understanding of the meta (be it mechanics, builds, party comp, campaign style, DM tendencies etc) and actively pursue powerful strategies.
I'm a min-maxer but i dont seek to hog the spotlight, be adversarial towards teammates, nor intend to overshadow (i just want to be good at what i set out to do, usually combat related). I just tend to overshadow if i'm playing with non-min maxers or the DM doesn't bother to up the ante once in a while even though he knows he's playing with an optimizer. I don't think i'm at the extreme end of min-maxing where i always pick what's the most powerful build the DM would allow. I come to the table with a concept i want to execute (like the gloomstalker assassin alpha striker) and min-max to that concept. I have fun building that character, watching it execute the way i want it to in the DMs world and learning new synergies along the way.
So what playstyle am i? Am i a powergamer? A munchkin?
optimizer I suppose. Powergaming to me refers to always playing in the most powerful way at the table. Like I optimize my characters but still make them do stupid or funny stuff when I feel like it "like I tried to get my javilin of lightning to absorb a lightning bolt when i know that it does not work, and took damage because of it". Munchkins are people who try to steal and gain as many powerful/useful items as possible (such as stealing everything and claiming more magic items when they already have one while another party members does not have any yet).
I consider myself a powergamer, but almost none of what you said there applies to me. With one exception: the planar binding minions strategy.
That isn't inherently a glory-hog, solo hero strategy. Hell, that's the INTENDED USE of the spell. If you have a group of planar bound minions you could put them under the control of less powerful teammates, or summon things that support teamwork rather than just doing all the combat heavy lifting. Putting planar binding on the same level as a simulacrum chain (definitely not RAI and only very dubiously RAW) seems pretty unfair to me.
I think your take on power gamers is incorrect as a playstyle. While I might accept the general idea you outline for munchin, I dont see powergaming as a style necessarily about limiting the players as a goal, merely a consequence. I think powergaming is fine actually. Maximizing personal power of a character doesnt have to detract from others, but merely trying to push your own effectiveness higher. if the other players lag, then I handle it by offering to provide suggestions to help them.....but if they dont want to take those suggestions, that is THEIR choice to make and keep. For instance, I have a clearly superior character in combat than any other in the team. I use it. But I dont feel the need or desire to STOP other players doing thier thing, or ignore the contributions that they bring....I keep pushing for my own character but not to push someone else down. There is a difference. I think most power gamers are simply wanting to see just how crazy they can get, and its not about screwing others at the table.
Tldr; you can be a min/maxer and a good party member.
Long version: I love min/maxing my characters, for me that is a lot of fun seeing how powerful a PC I can create. That said I like to have fun with my friends and to that end I am almost always the last or 2nd to last to make a PC. I do that because I ask what everyone wants to make, and then I decide based on what our party is missing, ie. Do they need a healer, tank, support, or damage dealer. Do we need someone good at exploring or social interactions? I will then build a PC to fill out the needed role, and in that way I help balance my party without overtaking any of them in what they want to do.
I don't know if assigning these meanings to these specific words is really useful. In general I agree with Wikipedia in that these words generally mean the same thing. I think though that certain types of play such as a spotlight hog shouldn't be labeled as one of these 4 but rather call it like you see it. If someone is hogging the spotlight that is what you should let them know rather than using this shorthand. Same thing with be adversarial, ask them to please be cooperative or if they want to play something else that is competitive they can do that instead.
for me "optimization" has a general suggestion of sacrificing something which is considered less necessary for an increase in power, which is similar if not the same as "Min-Max" which tries to take something to the extreme at the expense of all else.
In terms of personal playstyle I guess I'd be a "Jane", I have a character goal, and within that goal an awful lot of comparing goes on to choose abilities and combos that will yield good results. I will say that this does sometimes create conflict/chaos, because on a number of occasions I have dropped entirely legit combos or actions on DMs that I had considered at length, but which they had not. This can be bad because blindsiding the DM might lead to an hour long de-railing as everyone tries to figure out what is happening.
It terms of actually bad actions, the one I am probably most guilty of is the intentional surprise, where a player gives the DM all the actions, and asks all the questions, but doesn't place them in context with their actual intention. I'm never intending to slow or stop the game, but I think it stems from having an "Us vs him/her" relation of players vs. GM. A sort of fear that a scheme will be (unfairly in my own mind) shot down if the GM is forewarned of it.
Example: In a certain place in Out of the Abyss there is a CR10 drow priestess who has her quarters in a stalactite. When the rogue (me) and the ranger sneak in and catch her meditating, I know well that our level 1 characters will die if we fight her conventionally, even with a surprise round. We want to get rid of her though because our stuff is in a nearby box, and she will surely hear us looting it. So, I ask the DM to describe the room, and innocently ask several details, one of which is about windows. The DM, likely believed I was considering escape routes (which I was), and after some thought said there were a couple nice windows of size. Only then did I show my strategy, by communicating with the ranger that the priestess didn't have a great strength score compared to him, and a surprise grapple check using the two of us might just defenestrate her without giving her a chance to use her spells or superior hit points against us. The ranger is very excited by the plan, the party is ecstatic because if the DM allows it they will get their gear, the DM is reeling as he sees death come for what is supposed to be a BBEG for the first leg of the adventure. Ultimately he allowed us to try, and we succeeded in the defenestration. Everyone was happy except for the DM who promised to never give me a window again.
I know I shouldn't be adversarial with my GMs, but I still get elated glee from stuff like that.
Min-Maxers who struggle when to give up their spotlight and are on the verge of becoming Powergamers should consider playing a support character instead. Hard to steal the spotlight when you are buffing your own party.
Ooooooo
I like this idea a fucking lot
@@Just_som_Ottur Tank/Defender also works amazingly for this. I get to have my power fantasy of being an indestructible powerhouse with insane AC that enemies can't escape from, but the other players still get to be the ones dealing the majority of the damage.
@@MoCheezy I'm playing a sword and board 'tank' and vastly outclass the others in terms of damage too. Oh well.
While I think Seacliff's comment could come off as cavalier, it is a very good point to make. If you find yourself wanting to mix-max because that is what you find fun (I'm in this boat), but you don't want to be a powergaming as a natural result of this (particularly if the rest of the party are not min-maxers), then consider mix-maxing a support character. If you buff the rest of the party and enable them to do what they do best, then you've mix-maxed that role - and few of those players will be annoyed by your enthusiasm and dedication to your build.
Lore Bard is hella strong for a support class, and you get to optomize what spells you get. Tell them to play it
I was hoping for the barbarian video to finally wrap up TCoE, but without watching it yet this topic sounds pretty useful as well!
EDIT: Huh... I'm surprised how much our personnel definitions of these terms vary, and even more surprised how you have chosen to define many of these nearly synonymous terms negatively. Can't say I agree with most of these, but to each their own I suppose.
Yeah I agree. The only overtly negative one to me is Munchkin.
@@M0ebius agreed. I see nothing wrong with powergaming, optimizing and min-maxing.
@@TheRobversion1 Even if they come at the expense of other players?
@@mduckernz define expense. As moebius says, munchkin definitely is the wrong behavior as its adversarial towards other players.
For the case of optimizing, min-maxing, powergaming they are just pursuing their own fun. They aren't doing it with the wrong intent. IMO this is more up to the DMs to balance, to give the others a chance to get the spotlight. A good session zero resolves this. Moreover, a good play group balance (there is more than one optimizer) also resolves this. Imo, if one purposely chooses to play sub-optimally (like for the sake of role-playing) they should be made aware at session zero that they will have to live with the ramifications. Any build, theme, limitations (like no damaging non-touch spells) can all be opimized.
Game balance is very important to me, and particularly when I am not the referee (and can't fix all the problems I'm aware of) my fear of other players experiencing the shortcomings of their initial decisions when character building can be obnoxious. It's not out of a need to be a min/maxer or for them to feel as powerful as possible. I just want everyone to have a strong niche and have moments to shine. I hope that my fellow players and cavern makers can forgive my overbearing tendency in this regard.
Felt this. One of our party members made a _baaaad_ decision last session, squishing us between 2 encounters we were supposed to fight separately. I play a controller Wizard, and normally just try to let them know what I'm doing. However, when we got to low resources while half the encounter hadn't even broken into the room yet, I had to take control. I felt like I was micromanaging, and I felt terrible, but we ended up barely surviving.
@@fizzlock Why should you have to do this though....? Isn't making mistakes and the ability to do so what makes winning worthwhile? If you're always going to win why would anyone want to play?
@@Amrylin1337 It was a TPK situation. We're 3 sessions in and were just starting to get our plot hook before the bad decisions were made
This was a super helpful video. The difference between these terms explains why I have been so dissatisfied with some campaigns.
One player in particular is a Munchkin both as a player *and* as a DM. He makes everyone else feel insignificant, even if he is just role-playing ridiculously powerful NPCs.
Wow, you have really set up a system of understanding that is entirely critical and negative.
I cannot agree. All of these approaches are a result of the way Dnd is built as a game, and critiquing people for these behaviors seems wrong. I think that your metrics and measurements combine too mcuh
This video is so critical of a huge portion of the community, and despite the attempt to differentiate between these definitions, you are painting with an incredibly broad and unnuanced brush. People who consider themselves to be these terms are different from what you describe.
Your assessment here blames behaviors that you dislike at the table with other behaviors you dislike. Nothing about powergaming has anything to do with “hogging the spotlight”, for example.
I like idea of dividing the play style from the character building.
I was exhausted just listening to your description of min-maxer, never mind being the DM who had to go through it!
I'm a min-maxer who wants other members of the party to min-max as well. Why? 5e monsters are incredibly dangerous, and you need a couple min-maxed characters to guarantee your party's survival. I want to avoid a TPK at all costs, but I have no interest in overshadowing other players.
I appreciate what you did here and it is a small hint at an deeper issue of how people play and enjoy not just D&D but any asymmetric or customizable game. People talk about alignment in D&D character but they never consider the ones for players. (Of course it is a three dimensional array but still.)
Everyone says that you can't win in DnD. Maybe. But you could certainly lose in DnD. So if by winning in DnD we would consider going as long as possible (preferably to the end of the campaign if it even have one) than you actually CAN legitemately win. By making a more powerful character not only you will increase your chances to see this metaphorical "win", but also increase your group chances. And, in fact, your DM as well. Because then you win in DnD people of both sides of the table win equaly: DM by telling the great story and players by experiencing it.
If d&d was a static game then yes that would be true. As a DM I tailor my combats to my players, I wouldn't plan the same combat for a poorly optimised group as I would for a min maxed group. I'll also probably give the poorly optimised group more and better magic items to help them along. If you die in my game its more likely because you did something stupid. One of the problems with having one heavily min maxed character is if they go down the rest of the party can't now handle the encounter as it was balanced to challenge the min maxer. I'm saying this as someone who does optimise my characters for a role (not necessarily damage) when I play.
@@benry007 Dnd is a static game sometimes. I run premade stuff and I tend to not always make it easier in every situation. like a two man party of mine challenged 5 vampires because i had 5 vampires in the area, I'm not changing it to 2 just because only 2 players showed up.
@@theeye8276 I like to think I'm pretty good at challenging players without killing them. It requires tailoring the combats for them though. Having a new wave of enemies come in can be really good for that. If the party wipes the floor with some enemies I was wanting to be more of a challenge I'll sometimes have one go fetch allies even if not existed originally. I do this with only the players enjoyment in mind though. Super easy d&d where no one loses more then a 5th of their hp is super boring in my opinion. If you run your 5 vampires exactly the same for two players as you would if there were five players then either the five would be bored or the two would be dead.
I really enjoy your takes on play styles, player etiquette and player psychology.
I like these definitions, although powergamer I might define in a slightly more favourable way, I've heard alpha gamer for the people that want to overshadow the party at everything, and powergamer for the ones that just want to be good at what they're good at, but are still happy to let the party do stuff too. I like to think I'm closer to optimisation than min-maxing, the one thing I really do on the min-max side is roll my stats before deciding what class and race I want, but once I know how MAD I can be I go for concept more than anything else I think.
Great video! I think the usage of the terms differ, however that's because language is fluid as opposed to any deficiency in how you've presented this. A useful breakdown of all the playstyles and great to show the distinguishing features, particularly in optimisers and min/maxers as I've been called many terms and yet have always considered concept first and foremost.
I’ve had some munchkins in my day, they didn’t all steal from the party though. The biggest red flag was when they would “scout” ahead or “check the chest first” and then casually tell the party they didn’t find anything or that there was no gold.
I had a power gamer in my group, but he wasn’t evil: for him it was about the journey to brokenness. He would pull out a combo like reverse gravity prismatic orb or planar bind a holyphant, invalidate 2-3 encounters, then ask to respect his build to start trying again. Except for him I haven’t had any bad power gamers (and he wasn’t bad he simply liked coming up with crazy plans and then testing them), the type who will shut down a combat encounter with a bag of holding or banish the enemy because why fight when you can taunt the dm?
Your definition of min-maxer is what I would call a power gamer, someone who tries to construct as powerful a character as possible within an inch of the rules.
For me a min-maxer is someone who picks one aspect of the game and maximizes that, such as dps, ac tank, hp, unarmored ac, a specific damage type, play style, etc. that’s the maxing. These players then minimize their weaknesses as much as they can only sacrificing to better their strength.
An optimizer is the evolved form of the power gamer (by my definition), someone who only plays with RAW and only builds for effectiveness, so they basically only play wizards and clerics and any martials they make use crossbows because numbers good. I’ve never actually played with an optimizer who has all the numbers crunched but I don’t know that it’d be fun, mostly because for them the players who didn’t optimize are dragging them down and for us they are going hyper agro on stuff we don’t bother with because it’s optimal. And I don’t even know how they’ed work with a role player or a “weakness makes it more interesting” player.
My DM just perma focuses only me every combat, uses gods to give me psychic dmg, and has the God tell the other PCs they’d get any item they wanted if they betrayed me, which they did. Was fun playing clock work sorcerer while it lasted tho!
I really don't play with min-maxers anymore. All the power to them. But I'm here for an adventure and a story... Imagine LotR, with a min-maxed Aragorn, just walking into Mordor and one shotting Sauron. I've crafted such campaigns, and I've played in such campaigns. The worst time of my life. If I wanna roll dice and glee over numbers. I'll go play a Tabletop Wargame. AND EVEN THERE! I go for flavor first, and power second. Please give me an interesting character with an arc, development, and role-playing! Not math hammering. Oh, and don't get me started on power players... UGH!
I've been called all these things by my existing gaming group, because my character FAR outclasses the other characters in combat. People have claimed that the danger of encounters for them is vastly inflated because of how powerful my character is.
I am playing a fighter, almost straight up. I did take a single level of (forge) cleric so I could cast and concentrate on bless (and cast identify). Other than that, I'm a plate wearing mountain dwarf axe & shield fighter. I took duelist as a fighting style to bump damage. I did judiciously increase my AC and save throws (and of course weapon) by acquiring appropriate magic items. I really haven't done anything other than that.
They by contrast don't pay any attention at all to the idea of increasing their combat effectiveness. We have a rogue with a hand crossbow who took no feats to boost it's effectiveness. We have a cleric who (fortunately) asks me what to do, all the time. He at least is wearing decent armor and is carrying all the necessary support spells. He upcasts spirit guardians and spiritual weapon and stays at the front. Our fourth character is a druid who is so utterly ineffectual it is appalling. Her choices most rounds is use her magic item that casts fireball, or plink a single arrow with her bow, because she can't figure out how her spells might be useful. She's a forest druid in Ptolus, a city/dungeon game.
I conclude that the 'pejoratives' of Powergamers, Munchkins, Optimizers and Min/Maxers are relative terms.
I feel like the more supportive of a character you play, the less people care about you Min/Maxing. If you min/max for damage, control, utility, etc, people care more because it hogs more of the spotlight, while people are generally thankful when the support character keeps your character from dying hyper effectively, or buffs them amazingly, haha.
Since watching your videos I've come to appreciate Optimizing much further and nolonger see it as a catchall for the 'munchkin' playstyle. For example my Barbarian/Fighter/rogue is Optimized for grappling any size creature currently being a 9 Barbarian/4 Rune Knight/1 Rogue. Now is Grappling an amazing battlefield control ability? No, it's single target and doesn't stop an enemy casting spells but I wanted the best Grappler I could and I built it that way. Could the build use a lot of tweaks? Oh Hell yeah, it was made doing some back of the napkin considerations but I love my Large Grappler boi who has actually caused the DM to have to rejig monsters.
It's not about me doing massive damage, it's about giving the other martials advantage on their attacks when I've knocked someone prone and grappled them. I'm there to help them out.
In short:
- Munchkin: Player who optimizes his character or railroads the campaign at the expense of the party
- Powergamer: Glory-hog who wants to be the only solution to every encounter, conversation, or turn.
Very similar definitions, but a Munchkin actively sabotages the party while a Powergamer ignores the party.
- Min/Maxer: Optimization within the boundaries the DM sets. Doesn't _want_ to outshine the party, but it can happen.
- Optimizer: Optimizing within a character concept, not just the game mechanics.
Very similar again, but a good example is a Chronurgy Wizard who takes Haste because of its power (MM) and one who takes Haste because it can be flavoured as time accelerating (O).
I personally state this, when people have an issue with a build or build idea due to it being a "Minmaxer build"
Firstly, my charchter is designed to be a person, not a class race combo. No, I'm not playing the edgy rogue, he's going to be interesting, and his story is dependent on his class.
You can make an interesting hexadin, or an engineer mounted kobold. Race and class do NOT define a personality, and I kinda resent those who let their class and race define personality traits alot more than min maxing. Yes, I did ask my DM about oversized weapon rules, he gave me his take, I respectfully gave the differing rule opinions (There are 4 BTW) and wrote down his take.
I also don't make first PC. Ever. I design my char around the parties weaknesses. I also min max on class as well as role. Monks aren't good overall, but I felt like playing one so I made the best monk I could (Until tashas HAD to come around and add the best monk DPS boost via a FIGHTING STYLE.) I made a monk vs a mounted combatant because I knew we needed a tank, not a striker.
Yeah, I feel that with min maxing/optimizing. Like when I'm playing a druid, I don't have many choices for proficiency so I tend to choose survival. Since i'm a wisdom caster, I tend to have some insane survival rolls that puts our ranger to shame. It also doesn't help when the ranger player thinks the same thing and has me roll.
A fun way I've come to change this is that I roll for them, but THEY get the RP hook with just a little assistance or no assistance from me, if they themselves don't want to roll. (I also tend to roll very high on skill checks, but very low on saving throws and attacks.)
Also question, how do you handle someone as a wizard running around with the Ring of Spell Storing + Find Familiar + Sickening Radiance + Wall of Force combo? I have that combo in a game of ours and due to just how strong wall of force is, it just ends encounters. Speaking of Wall of Force, neither me nor our DM can get any clarity on something. Does Wall of Force only create wall segments in a straight line, or can I configure the 10x10 panels in any configuration, or only in configurations that leave an open ceiling/floor?
For me:
1.) Where is the group lacking?
a.) Do I really want to be a healer?
2.) What concept do I want to go for?
3.) Let's get this cracked.
I read a post on Facebook the other day from a guy requesting for advice for “powergaming”. I immediately got upset, why would anyone seek advice on how to be a bad company around the table and why would anyone give advice to that player?!
So I read the comments below and the post author’s responses and I realized he was just trying to optimize his character but had the term “powergamer” wrong.
So I made I comment, explaining the main differences between the two, specifically saying that powergaming is bad and optimization is good. He’s reply was somewhere in the lines of “I couldn’t care less about your definitions”.
Could he be a munchkin after all??
As you said, each of us use those terms in different ways, so sadly I don't agree with most of the definitions you used.
First of all, a confrontational/selfish player is just that, a toxic person who wants to "win at D&D" by messing with the fun of the other players/DM. I rather prefer to divide players regarding the importance they give to roleplay:
Munchkin is a player who just wants to have more things (mainly weapons) more powerful every time. They don't care if it makes sense to the character, their background or even their class; the moment they get a +1 greatsword they're looking for an enchanter to make it +2. They define themselves for what they have not what they are (ie once I was going to DM a Oneshot at level5
5 and I gave my players an Uncommon Magic Item, and one of them wanted SO BAD a Dwarven Thrower (Very Rare) I almost felt forced to gave it to them).
Powergamers are people who decide to fill a role in the party and they do it to the max. If they play a blaster, they choose the higher damage dealing spells and ways to increase damage/area of effect. If they decide to get a high AC, they will search for the best combination to have the highest AC ever. Again, this type of players don't care about roleplay because they tend to play DnD like a videogame.
Min/Maxers tend to build their character to not have weak spots. They have lots of skills proficiencies, high AC, great damage and at least a few key spells. They can cover every party role because they are pretty good at everything (and in the hands of a toxic player they can be obnoxious) and the player will change/adapt/multiclass things everytime they think they need to.
They can be good roleplayers and truly build a character with deep background in mind, but no weakness whatsoever.
Finally, Optimizer is a player who wants to have fun and doesn't worry too much about the spells, magic items and so on; they use to have a concept first and try to Optimize a character around it.
I'm a power gamer.
My goal is to create the most powerful characters I can. Most powerful characters I've played shut down entire encounters by themselves with a single Standard Action.
Even used your guide to do it.
See, D&D is a team based game and team based games rely on multiple players for the team to be effective. It's possible to have a single spotlight hog that does everything themselves and leaves the rest of the team an ineffective mess that flounders against anything approaching a reasonable challenge, but that is the domain of the Munchkin, filthy creatures. To create a team that doesn't struggle, it is better to fill in a required role that the team does not already have or perhaps focus on playing a more supportive role.
For example, War Weaver with Crusader Cohort to buff party, tank, act as a secondary healer and lock down enemies via Spells that affect terrain. Everything the party didn't have (with extra healing) to act as a multiplier to the party's overall effectiveness. I dealt more damage in several combat encounters than the other players, just because Babau Slime is a thing and at one point I even grappled an enemy just so I could do something one time.
In singleplayer games, I don't have to help anyone. I am the party. I can make an immortal god that auto wins everything, no question.
Props for the Video, clear definitions should be made however I think your definition are overly complex and would just make for a bad rebuttal when it comes too the "roleplayer vs powergamer debate." And I will say I think some are just a bad definition. However definitions should be made. Not about too be one of these "don't put labels on me" people.
Im a fairly new player too dnd (under a year given how 2020 went) and quickly realized I was a "powergamer/optimizer/min-maxer," and I immediately hated all the negative stereotypes that came with those labels. Diving into D&D in general i was a powergamer/min-maxer/optimizer (henceforth p/mm/o). But when looking into the p/mm/o side of dnd I was more an optimizer because o do care more about certain stats being good and such and I have seen from other channels that even in the p/mm/o you could optimize but be wrong because "your battlemaster/hexblade wasnt a v-human with polearm master and great weapon master or half elf too add elven accuracy in the mix."
I have my own ideas for how too define these things, but no clout or fame, and too new in the dnd world too even have anyone hear me out. So while I do disagree with your definitions (and I do understand you're stating them as your definitions) I think a true wide spread community definition of these term is necessary too finally rid us of this anti-powergamer ideal where we're all looked at as "asshats who don't roleplay, cheat and/or cheat the system for our own benefit, and try too push our ideals on others" because we play wrong. Applause for starting the conversation and I do hope it goes somewhere
I generally agree with your perspective on optimizers/min-maxers. I see optimizers as trying to make their character the best they can within a self-imposed framework, while min-maxers try to make their character the best they can within a DM-imposed framework.
However, I don't quite agree with your take on powergamers/munchkins. I see powergamers as squeezing every benefit they can out of the rules themselves through hyper-strategic and hyper-creative uses of their available resources (which can be disruptive if they start to lawyer the rules or subvert the party's fun but isn't inherently disruptive by itself), while munchkins squeeze every benefit they can out of the _DM's interpretation_ of the rules, in a "give them an inch and they'll take a mile" sort of way (which can much more easily get disruptive and out of hand, and can potentially break the game if the DM isn't aware of the implications of their rulings). Essentially, powergamers game the game and munchkins break the game.
Especially if you are playing 5E, powergaming means you'll make dumb RAW choices regardless of if you'd have liked that character to begin with. Going Dwarf for their traits even though you'd rather be an Elf is silly.
I reject these definitions.
The most obvious issue is that a player who's focused on POWER will demonstrate that both in playing and building a character. A munchkin will exploit any loopholes both while building their character and while in game.
And this isn't to fight the party. A munchkin can advise the party's fighter who's in a tough situation on how to break the game to survive. In a co-op game, the party wins and loses together so there's no reason someone who's hyper focused on winning to work against their party. If they hurt the party and hurt the party's chances, they're not powergaming very well are they?
Your god wizard example is a form of powergaming that doesn't seek to hog the spotlight. You build the character well. You pilot the character with consideration for the team to make each battle an efficient and dominant victory. Is that not mechanical, crunch focused play both in game and while building the character?
With Min-Maxing, I'd tend to define it as someone who, essentially, abuses character flaw systems and stat-dumping ("Min") in order to have a lot of points or whatever to spend doing what they want ("Max"). They take as many flaws as they can (especially ones they think they can sidestep or that won't ever come up), dump every stat they don't intend to use, then put all their points into making an otherwise overpowered character. This often results in rather ridiculous (and overpowered) characters with a lot of flaws the player doesn't really intend to play into or that they even consider a positive.
On a sidenote, this is part of why game designers need to be careful to not balance mechanical advantages with roleplaying disadvantages (or vice-versa), because not every table enforces that as strongly, and sometimes the 'disadvantage' is either negligible or something the player outright wants.
A good example would be cybernetics having a trade-off that that they make you have less empathy and more prone to violence. Problem is, to someone who wants to build a very combat-focused character, that's just a roleplaying excuse to engage in combat whenever. Come to think of it, a better disadvantage would be "the more robotic you become, the more bound by the three laws you are", meaning you can make a robot death god, but in doing so, you can no longer kill anyone.
There’s nothing wrong with min-maxing or optimization, though if you purely design a character with min-maxing in mind, you might end up with a character that’s hard to rationalize or role-play if you’re not careful. I think every character should be optimized as much as possible, though, and in fact I have a game master who runs a Mutants and Masterminds campaign I play in who will optimize players’ characters for them if they wish (I wish I could get him to run a 5e game, but he’s not that interested in 5e, unfortunately).
tl;dr
Munchkin: chaotic stupid
Powergamer: Lawful asshole
Min/Maxer: Chaotic broken
Optimizer: Lawful useful
;P
Me minmaxing purely so that the second combat encounter in the campaign with 10 orcs at level 2 doesn't kill our party of 3 because RNG rolls means hit you survive miss you die.
The only differentiation between min/maxer and powergamer you present here is the intention of hogging the spotlight, while both lead to exactly the same result - having all the spot light. You try to also set the Munchkin apart by claiming that they *want* to be an adversary to their party, which isn't based on anything and only serves to try and differentiate what's really the same.
Wikipedia is right to lump all of those terms together. All of this seems to enable players to say "I'm not a powergamer", when what they do has exactly the same effect on the game as any other munchkin, powergamer or min/maxer.
The 2 things I think are really important are how your character affects the other players and how it affects the DM. If you show up with a sorcerer with twin haste on 2 GWM using characters, all the players are having fun and that is great. If the DM is in for that everyone is having fun but I think you should consider how your character is gonna affect the other players and DM. If you show up and start wall of forcing everything and just walking off so it can't find you, the characters who wanna hit things or kill monsters stop having fun cause they can't do their thing. Also consider how it affects your DM. Everyone forgets that sometimes your character might be super effective and awesome but your DM is wanting to scream because anything you throw at them just gets crushed, it sucks the fun out of it for them. Your DM comes up with an awesome encounter they are super excited for you to solve or overcome only for you to just cast a spell and nullyf the whole thing. There is a time and a place for the uber wizard to flex on everything and feel like a god, though not all the time, maybe you just sit back, throw a fireball or 2 and have fun. When the DM busts out 2 Goristro's, a marilith and a Balor, then its time to get serious and start putting things in forcecages so they know who's the real top dog.
Hi there... I think that in the video you didn't cover the minimizing aspect of the Minimaxers... I believe that the real problem is not maximizing or/and optimizing a character, but doing it in the expense of certain other skills/abilities to a ridiculous degree that makes the character a completely lame caricature. Most often I observe people having 8 Int but playing the part as if they were geniuses and also enjoy their 20 in Strength or Constitution... For the most part I agree to everything else covered here.
Pure roleplayers if they exist would put their stats randomly, pick features because of flavour not mechanics, and pick spells because if the flavour text alone
They would be utterly useless in any situation, and they most likely don't play d&d
If you pick a high stat for your attack or spellcasting stat you are optimising if only lightly...
I like making a build based on game mechanics, say a Fallen Aasimar war cleric and then work out what that character would be like in the game world. He's a cleric who follows the god of war, but he's a fallen... would that make him a pacifist? (In the end I settled on a Valkyrie type of being who saw the true horror of war and turned away from his war-is-glorious god.)
My favorite players are the ones that have a cool idea for a character and only then do they optimize to get the best version of that specific idea that they can. No problem with that. The worse players are the one that just hear about a busted combo on Tik Tok and run it because it's broken so they can be all powerful. I'm so glad I worked for hours on this campaign and these encounters and you lazily watched Tik tok and put no original thought into your character.
Y'all should Google 'The Stormwind Fallacy'. It talks about the folly of assuming that just because somebody has a mechanically sound character that he/she is not interested in or proficient in any other aspect of the game ...
I realized after listening to your but in power gaming that I’ve accidentally been doing it by casting conjure animals and having to make 8 attacks every round so I’ll probably start summoning max 4 so I can lessen those effects
One thing that really gets under my skin is when people call me a Power gamer for attempting to cover the weaknesses of my character in a logical way.
Because they rarely mean it as a good thing.
Like taking the feats Tough and Warcaster on a wizard so that I don't die within two rounds of an enemy getting in close.
This wizard has been in life threatening situations rather regularly. Why wouldn't they do some training to increase their chance of survival in dangerous situations.
Min/Maxers that have tantrums when DMs/Players target their "Min"s.
Optimizers shore weaknesses to create ROBUST characters!
I think a couple of questions about character creation from the DM is fine. But like, too much is just badgering. I like to make characters maxed for one thing and be terrible at everything else. Thats what party members are for, right?
Better ask beforehand than presume and argue during the game...
@@havasimark But at some point, there is too much. Most people know what is reasonable to ask and what is not.
Have to disagree with all of these terms having their negativity.
Imo a min/max is someone specialising at the expense of other skills and abilities. And something that is encouraged in d&d, you want a high primary stat so we all often have a 'dump stat'.
But I see that as good. It encourages team play as a team with strengths and weaknesses to work together.
Honestly, these terms all mean the same thing to me (except for Munchkin which I think has always had a pejorative nature to it). It's like differentiating between "beautiful", "gorgeous", and "stunning".
*Sees bilbron has also seen the video and fist pumps*
Video potential in the works