TTRPG Advice: Stop Playing to “win the game”

[Big Mac]

Drop The Die has a blog article up called: TTRPG Advice: Stop Playing to “win the game”

I really like this article. I've been in multiple situations where people have told me that "I'm not playing right" unless I have an optimised character that has stacked up combat abilities that can beat monsters. But this article argues from the position that the players should be moving the story forward togeher. That's a different objective and the exact sort of roleplaying that I want to do.

The two types of play are not mutually exclusive, but GMs do make plots that involve ideas other than thumping monsters on the heads with a warhammer. I'm really glad to see this article.

[RobJN]

I've constantly done this in games: choosing what makes my character interesting, over what will help him beat the big bad at the end of the dungeon. Similarly, I've had characters do Stupid Things because that's what the character would do, even though I (and everyone else at the table) knew that stepping on that pressure plate would set off some kind of trap. Hilarity and/or hijinks ensued.

Can a party of three thieves*, a wizard and a fighter with no armor-who-only-uses-blunt weapons possibly survive a dungeon? The Handmaidens' adventure to find the Shield of Halav answers that question fairly well (No. They never actually get to the shield, and are nearly killed by the guardians at the end of the adventure -- but their unraveling the mystery of the temple's location, and then braving the tricks and traps within makes for some great story!)


*Spoilers: Yes, three thieves. "Justin" is a thief, masquerading as a fighter.

[shesheyan]

Some players want to be as powerful as possible. They derive pleasure from that. It doesn't matter what class the character is as long as its the most powerful combo in the edition. I have no problem with it, as long as the optimiser doesn't start trying to force the other players into selecting upgrades in a similar fashion instead of choosing things because they fit with their character concept and evolution. Or event worst critiquing other player actions because they are not «tactically optimal».

I've had to tell several min/maxer over the years to back down from trying to control other player's choices. In fact each campaign a ran since 1981 had at least one min/maxer. One of the most annoying had bought the 1e DMG and kept asking me to put specific magical items in treasure hordes so his character could be more powerful. In the end I got tired of being asked to put a girdle of giant strength. So I put a girdle, but it was the cursed girdle of sex change. The player was so happy he put it on his character without any an identification spell. Needless to say he was not very happy... he never asked for specific items after that.

More recently a 5e player tried to convince me that his Paladin could multi-class as a Hexblade entering a pact with a demon of the Shadowfell in order to wield a special magical evil blade. He wrote this extremely improbable one page background to justify how the character was possible. I told him wasn't possible to play such a character because it made no sens. No deity would continue supporting a Paladin that entered in an evil pact. He proceeded to rules lawyer me for a week via emails. I said no every time. He left our group of players saying he was playing that character in the D&D Adventure League in a store. No one cried over his departure.

[AxesnOrcs]

After slogging through 2 years of a campaign where it was necessary to play to win to actually do anything, and the continuation of that attitude into a pathfinder game I ran afterwards, I decided, among other reasons, to only play pathfinder when my wife runs and not run it.

By play to win, I mean people treated fun as zero sum alongside the ridiculous escalation of threats and exceedingly arbitrariness of the obstacles created by the GM, like all the locks, doors, and the like were suddenly composed of adamantine at the same time my paladin purchased an adamantine greatsword. After the Gm continued this behavior as a player, he once told another player he couldn't sell off an expensive weapon that was loot and if he did he had to split the cash, and into the next arc despite talking to him, I just had to excuse myself. Sometimes the only solution for minmaxery and rules whinery is just leaving the table.

[Seethyr]

It’s funny, for some reason whenever I play a video game (MMORPGs) I min/max like it’s going out of style. I mean, I’d spend 20 hours farming something just to gain an extra hp in damage on an attack typically causing hundreds. Yet I have never been like that in D&D. It’s all about the story for me (but I don’t begrudge others’ play style).

[Big Mac]

I've constantly done this in games: choosing what makes my character interesting, over what will help him beat the big bad at the end of the dungeon. Similarly, I've had characters do Stupid Things because that's what the character would do, even though I (and everyone else at the table) knew that stepping on that pressure plate would set off some kind of trap. Hilarity and/or hijinks ensued.

I tend to have my PC do something stupid (because he doesn't know what I know and because the action seems logical from a certain point-of-view), but then have him see what happens and make different decisions in the future.

[Big Mac]

Some players want to be as powerful as possible. They derive pleasure from that. It doesn't matter what class the character is as long as its the most powerful combo in the edition. I have no problem with it, as long as the optimiser doesn't start trying to force the other players into selecting upgrades in a similar fashion instead of choosing things because they fit with their character concept and evolution. Or event worst critiquing other player actions because they are not «tactically optimal».

I've had to tell several min/maxer over the years to back down from trying to control other player's choices. In fact each campaign a ran since 1981 had at least one min/maxer. One of the most annoying had bought the 1e DMG and kept asking me to put specific magical items in treasure hordes so his character could be more powerful. In the end I got tired of being asked to put a girdle of giant strength. So I put a girdle, but it was the cursed girdle of sex change. The player was so happy he put it on his character without any an identification spell. Needless to say he was not very happy... he never asked for specific items after that.

I hear you about the trying to control other player's choices. I had a min/maxer trying to back-seat-game on me every time I levelled up my PC, telling me what I should do. I don't mind someone asking me what I am trying to do with my PC, and then suggesting a possible path (to get to a Prestige Class I've said I want to take or whatever) but when someone offers me advice on "what I should do" in or out of the D&D game, and they actually have not found out what I'm trying to do, it's generally just them telling me what they would do, rather than helping.

I think my PC, Braxon, in AuldDragon's live-streamed Spelljammer game, is probably the PC in Auld's game who is most likely to pick up and use a cursed item. One of us is going to get caught out at some point.

More recently a 5e player tried to convince me that his Paladin could multi-class as a Hexblade entering a pact with a demon of the Shadowfell in order to wield a special magical evil blade. He wrote this extremely improbable one page background to justify how the character was possible. I told him wasn't possible to play such a character because it made no sens. No deity would continue supporting a Paladin that entered in an evil pact. He proceeded to rules lawyer me for a week via emails. I said no every time. He left our group of players saying he was playing that character in the D&D Adventure League in a store. No one cried over his departure.

That is a bit nuts.

If someone plays a paladin and thinks they can get a demon into supporting them (without turning evil) they are clearly trying to trick that demon into supporting good. Maybe they should be able to attempt to trick a demon, but there is no way that they can argue that their attempt would work on a sheet of paper. Demons are tricky things themselves and I think that any demon that does allow a paladin to become a Hexblade is probably going to be wise enough to have some sort of plan to get one over on that Paladin and corrupt them into a Blackguard.

I'd probably be inclined to say "no" and back that up by telling the player that their PC would know that it was almost impossible to trick a demon into doing that. But if they came up with a non-min/maxy argument, I'd warn them that they would be risking having their Paladin get duped into becoming an evil NPC that was no longer their character and see if they still wanted to go through with it. I'd also tell them that they were at risk of offending their deity and loosing their Paladin powers until they attone (and that attoning would almost certainly involve refusing to use Hexblade abilities). And if they still wanted to do it, I'd sit down with them and explain the system of making rolls to see if their alignment has changed and make one of those alignment changing charts for their PC.

(But, I'd rather not have someone do something that doesn't fit in with the ethical values of their PC.)

[RobJN]

I've constantly done this in games: choosing what makes my character interesting, over what will help him beat the big bad at the end of the dungeon. Similarly, I've had characters do Stupid Things because that's what the character would do, even though I (and everyone else at the table) knew that stepping on that pressure plate would set off some kind of trap. Hilarity and/or hijinks ensued.

I tend to have my PC do something stupid (because he doesn't know what I know and because the action seems logical from a certain point-of-view), but then have him see what happens and make different decisions in the future.

There was definitely mistake-learning to be had, yes.

[zontoxira]

It’s funny, for some reason whenever I play a video game (MMORPGs) I min/max like it’s going out of style. I mean, I’d spend 20 hours farming something just to gain an extra hp in damage on an attack typically causing hundreds. Yet I have never been like that in D&D. It’s all about the story for me (but I don’t begrudge others’ play style).

MMORPGs, and video games in general, require min/maxing, since it's all about winning stuff. Storylines, like ones done in ESO (it's the only recent online game I've invested some time in the last 8 years), are meant to be easy, so you can forward the story. But dungeoneering or running trials/raids is an entirely different beast. I'm exactly the same. While I do min/max when gaming on my comp, I rarely do so in D&D.

More recently a 5e player tried to convince me that his Paladin could multi-class as a Hexblade entering a pact with a demon of the Shadowfell in order to wield a special magical evil blade. He wrote this extremely improbable one page background to justify how the character was possible. I told him wasn't possible to play such a character because it made no sens. No deity would continue supporting a Paladin that entered in an evil pact. He proceeded to rules lawyer me for a week via emails. I said no every time. He left our group of players saying he was playing that character in the D&D Adventure League in a store. No one cried over his departure.

I used to know a player with all sorts of weird combos, trying to justify his munchkinism with a generous amount of ridiculous backstory. What's funnier, he would ask to change his character at every session, cuz he had found his combo wasn't that powerful after all, or there was an even stronger (in his own powergaming opinion) combo he could take advantage of. It was all arguments and frustration, just so he could have his 15 minutes of fame.

[shesheyan]

More recently a 5e player tried to convince me that his Paladin could multi-class as a Hexblade entering a pact with a demon of the Shadowfell in order to wield a special magical evil blade. He wrote this extremely improbable one page background to justify how the character was possible. I told him wasn't possible to play such a character because it made no sens. No deity would continue supporting a Paladin that entered in an evil pact. He proceeded to rules lawyer me for a week via emails. I said no every time. He left our group of players saying he was playing that character in the D&D Adventure League in a store. No one cried over his departure.

I used to know a player with all sorts of weird combos, trying to justify his munchkinism with a generous amount of ridiculous backstory. What's funnier, he would ask to change his character at every session, cuz he had found his combo wasn't that powerful after all, or there was an even stronger (in his own powergaming opinion) combo he could take advantage of. It was all arguments and frustration, just so he could have his 15 minutes of fame.

The player I'm talking about would also do that in another DM's game. He wanted to change stuff at the start of every new game. The group and the DM got tired after the third game and we told him to stop doing that. The silly Paladin/Hexblade concept all came down to his desire to be a one-man-army : inflict a lot of damage, cast spells, be able to absorb a lot of damage and heal himself. I kindly reminded him that D&D was a collaborative game in which you must rely on your team mates to succeed. If your character can do everything what is the point of playing with other players? D&D isn't a solo player MMO. In the D&D there is no «cheat patch» you can download to open all game restrictions and cheat your way to the end of the story...

[shesheyan]

That is a bit nuts.

If someone plays a paladin and thinks they can get a demon into supporting them (without turning evil) they are clearly trying to trick that demon into supporting good. Maybe they should be able to attempt to trick a demon, but there is no way that they can argue that their attempt would work on a sheet of paper. Demons are tricky things themselves and I think that any demon that does allow a paladin to become a Hexblade is probably going to be wise enough to have some sort of plan to get one over on that Paladin and corrupt them into a Blackguard.

I'd probably be inclined to say "no" and back that up by telling the player that their PC would know that it was almost impossible to trick a demon into doing that. But if they came up with a non-min/maxy argument, I'd warn them that they would be risking having their Paladin get duped into becoming an evil NPC that was no longer their character and see if they still wanted to go through with it. I'd also tell them that they were at risk of offending their deity and loosing their Paladin powers until they attone (and that attoning would almost certainly involve refusing to use Hexblade abilities). And if they still wanted to do it, I'd sit down with them and explain the system of making rolls to see if their alignment has changed and make one of those alignment changing charts for their PC.

(But, I'd rather not have someone do something that doesn't fit in with the ethical values of their PC.)

If the player had come to me beforehand, saying he wanted his character to have this cool arc story in which he gets into trouble by dealing with a demon, I would have figured something out with him. Maybe a cursed intelligent evil sword he pick up unwittingly would he been an interesting role-play avenue for his Paladin. But his background was already written, and in it, it was his father who had made the pack and thus at the time of death the hexblade was passed along the son - his character. As you can see, he wanted all the benefits of the sword without the negative repercussions. This character built wasn't about role-play. He thought he was being very clever. I couldn't allow that kind of silly munchkinism in my campaign...

[Havard]

An interesting article.

A few thoughts:
1) Munchkinism and min-maxing have been discussed since the Gary Gygax days.
2) There is no right and wrong way to play D&D. Some are there for the story. Some are there for wish fullfillment fantasy. Some are there for a sense of achievement. Some are there for tactical gaming. Some are there just to hang out with friends.
3) The problems usually stem from people not being able to communicate their preferences, or from understanding that if you drive through your way of playing too hard, it might destroy someone else's fun at the table. On the one side you have the guy who will attack while the rest of the group is in the middle of negotiations because he thinks talking stuff is boring. On the other hand, you have the guy who will roleplay out hours long monologues while not paying the attention to the fact that the rest of the players are bored.

I find it interesting that the article author throws in the Tuckers Kobolds DM types with the game optimizing players. But from my own experience, I know that one of our AD&D DMs did run his games in such a "kill the PCs" type way that every player learned to optimize their characters (we didnt know the term, but still), just becaue it was the only way to survive more than one session in his campaign.

-Havard

[shesheyan]

2) There is no right and wrong way to play D&D. Some are there for the story. Some are there for wish fullfillment fantasy. Some are there for a sense of achievement. Some are there for tactical gaming. Some are there just to hang out with friends.

True. The problem stems from players having different intensions when they come to the table and trying to force all the other players to play in one specific way - min/maxing, immersive role-playing with almost no die rolls, hack & slash, etc, etc. Its best to discuss this prior to the campaign as part of the «social contract». Its boring to me when most of the game sessions is constantly used to referee diverging opinions on how the game should be played. Its better to play with like-minded players and DM who developed consensus over time. No gaming is better than acrimonious gaming. It defeats the purpose.

[Illuminatus]

In the end I got tired of being asked to put a girdle of giant strength. So I put a girdle, but it was the cursed girdle of sex change. The player was so happy he put it on his character without any an identification spell. Needless to say he was not very happy... he never asked for specific items after that.

I got tired of some min-max players making use of info from the DMG that their characters couldn’t possibly know. So, having heard them earlier talking about the “Teeth of Dahlvar-Nar” artifacts from the 1e DMG, I created a treasure trove that included a bunch of ordinary human teeth in a velvet-lined golden box. Needless to say they were disappointed after their characters pulled their teeth out for nothing…

When they complained I told them they were lucky. My first idea was “The Head of Vecna.”

[Havard]

When they complained I told them they were lucky. My first idea was “The Head of Vecna.”

Head of Vecna is a classic!

-Havard

[Havard]

Its best to discuss this prior to the campaign as part of the «social contract». Its boring to me when most of the game sessions is constantly used to referee diverging opinions on how the game should be played. Its better to play with like-minded players and DM who developed consensus over time. No gaming is better than acrimonious gaming. It defeats the purpose.

Agreed. I rarely have to do this these days since I mostly play with people I have known for years. When we were younger I do remember many situations where play styles clashed. Sadly we were not always mature enough to handle these in the ideal way.

Over the last few years, a few new people have joined my game. Its been interesting, especially since they were friends of one of my players, but I dont really know them outside the game. They have worked out pretty well, but I do notice occasional things where they clearly come from a different tradition than I do. But nothing that I think we can't work around. One guy has been flaky about showing up though, so I dont know if that one will actually last. I still let him know when the games are happening though because its not like the gaming group is packed at the moment.

-Havard

[timemrick]

In our local Pathfinder Society community, there is one player who is notorious for playing every one of his characters as a secretive lone wolf type who likes to show off and antagonize other PCs. He even freely admits to being a glory hound, but is perversely proud of that fact rather than understanding (or caring?) how obnoxious it is. (Yes, a secretive glory hound. He likes being "mysterious." ) The last session I played with him, he moved ahead of the party while we were still in a fight and triggered the encounter in the next room. Frankly, he didn't deserve to survive his own stupidity, but between lucky dice rolls and the GM going (IMO) a touch too soft on him, he lived long enough for us to catch up to him. If there wasn't a rule against PvP in PFS, each of his characters would have gotten a good drubbing at the hands of other PCs by now.

I don't look forward to GMing this guy, because one of these days he's going to seriously screw the pooch for the rest of the party completing the mission successfully. I narrowly evaded having him at my table when I ran my first PFS scenario today, because he realized halfway through the mission briefing that he'd already played the scenario. (So instead he got to go annoy the other table.)

Fortunately, most of the rest of the other regulars at this venue are team players who are great fun to game with. Some of them are inveterate min-maxers, too, but they're self-aware enough of it to avoid ruining other players' fun.

/rant

[shesheyan]

I don't look forward to GMing this guy, because one of these days he's going to seriously screw the pooch for the rest of the party completing the mission successfully. I narrowly evaded having him at my table when I ran my first PFS scenario today, because he realized halfway through the mission briefing that he'd already played the scenario. (So instead he got to go annoy the other table.)

Fortunately, most of the rest of the other regulars at this venue are team players who are great fun to game with. Some of them are inveterate min-maxers, too, but they're self-aware enough of it to avoid ruining other players' fun.

/rant

I recall a Basic Set incident in which players were negociating with a tribe of cavemen. They wanted to travel peacefully across the cavemen's lands in order to reach a remote mountain. The negotiations were going well but it was very slow because of low intelligence of the cavemen. Players were almost successful when suddenly the rules lawyer / min-maxed of the group decided this was taking too long. His character killed the cavemen chief. The other players were really upset by his behaviour and so was I. The cavemen started attacking the killer. He was in real trouble after 2 rounds of combat. He cried for help but the other players decided to hang back and not participate in the battle. Min-Maxer's character died... and the rest of the party were allowed to travel across the cavemen's land. This was what I call a «Wisdom 3» incident. When a player does something really ill-advised I don't help them. Be warned !

[RobJN]

He was in real trouble after 2 rounds of combat. He cried for help but the other players decided to hang back and not participate in the battle. Min-Maxer's character died... and the rest of the party were allowed to travel across the cavemen's land. This was what I call a «Wisdom 3» incident. When a player does something really ill-advised I don't help them. Be warned !

Did the cavemen let the PCs have any of the guy's stuff, or did they keep it for themselves?

[Havard]

I recall a Basic Set incident in which players were negociating with a tribe of cavemen. They wanted to travel peacefully across the cavemen's lands in order to reach a remote mountain. The negotiations were going well but it was very slow because of low intelligence of the cavemen. Players were almost successful when suddenly the rules lawyer / min-maxed of the group decided this was taking too long. His character killed the cavemen chief. The other players were really upset by his behaviour and so was I. The cavemen started attacking the killer. He was in real trouble after 2 rounds of combat. He cried for help but the other players decided to hang back and not participate in the battle. Min-Maxer's character died... and the rest of the party were allowed to travel across the cavemen's land. This was what I call a «Wisdom 3» incident. When a player does something really ill-advised I don't help them. Be warned !

Nice story.

I was in a similar situation, but sadly the players were too nice to let the "action is more fun than talking" guy loose his character alone. I still wish the DM had killed his character though.

-Havard

[shesheyan]

He was in real trouble after 2 rounds of combat. He cried for help but the other players decided to hang back and not participate in the battle. Min-Maxer's character died... and the rest of the party were allowed to travel across the cavemen's land. This was what I call a «Wisdom 3» incident. When a player does something really ill-advised I don't help them. Be warned !

Did the cavemen let the PCs have any of the guy's stuff, or did they keep it for themselves?

LOL! I think they left the body and equipment behind but I can't be sure. That was in 1982. What I remember is that we played in his parent's house... for a moment I was sure he would kick us out of the basement. But instead he went in his bedroom and created a new character. He made other Wisdom 3 mistakes over the next few years but none that resulted in his character's death. We played on and off with him until 1990.

[Lord Sheriff Takari]

I have one of these in my group who is constantly trying to one up the others in the party and has not a single care for RP
he just wants to hit things and cash in on their loot for better stuff
since he "Play's to win" and beat the GM, the rest of us have a harder time of it working our way through a module or encounter because the GM has to
set the bar higher.
when we as a group decide to do a roleplay heavy night for character development which also includes hints and leads for the next scenario
he packs up and goes home because he's bored or he trashes the night by getting into a fight with an important NPC we need to negotiate with
or blows off our tactical planning to minimize the amount of damage by just charging straight into the Teeth of the hostile force

while I've min/maxed myself many times, I've never let it overshadow the Roleplay integral to a night of gaming and thoroughly enjoy playing a night where the only reason I pick up my Dice is to move them out of my way to eat dinner
everyone else in my group is out to enjoy the night sitting around the dinner table surrounded by friends for a night of fun
we don't play to win, we play to enjoy the game and make sure our DM is also enjoying it by challenging us

[shesheyan]

while I've min/maxed myself many times, I've never let it overshadow the Roleplay integral to a night of gaming and thoroughly enjoy playing a night where the only reason I pick up my Dice is to move them out of my way to eat dinner everyone else in my group is out to enjoy the night sitting around the dinner table surrounded by friends for a night of fun we don't play to win, we play to enjoy the game and make sure our DM is also enjoying it by challenging us

Excellent. You are correct, there is nothing wrong with optimizing per se. The problem stems from the attitude of some individuals.

[Havard]

while I've min/maxed myself many times, I've never let it overshadow the Roleplay integral to a night of gaming and thoroughly enjoy playing a night where the only reason I pick up my Dice is to move them out of my way to eat dinner everyone else in my group is out to enjoy the night sitting around the dinner table surrounded by friends for a night of fun we don't play to win, we play to enjoy the game and make sure our DM is also enjoying it by challenging us

Excellent. You are correct, there is nothing wrong with optimizing per se. The problem stems from the attitude of some individuals.

Agreed. I don't think there are many experienced gamers who aren't at least aware that some combinations are more useful than others and will make choices based on that. The problem is as you say the attitide about it.

I also think that the article has a point that if you decide to stop "playing to win" you could discover new amazing ways to have fun. If you are there just to win, why not play a board game or a video game instead?

-Havard

[shesheyan]

I also think that the article has a point that if you decide to stop "playing to win" you could discover new amazing ways to have fun. If you are there just to win, why not play a board game or a video game instead?

-Havard

Correct. But some min/maxers are toxic. They enjoy acrimony, conflict and imposing their point of view on others. Gaming bullies. They are not there for the game. They are at the table to impose their ego. I've met a few over the years...