I don't ever min/max my characters, I couldn't give

>>54041980
You weren't, but since you had to ask, yes.

>>54041986

Damn... I have just been lurking this board and I see the opposite of what I am and it makes me real self conscious.

Sweet virtue signaling bro. Tell us how you respect all woman and are suprised we still have poor people in the world too.

If your character doesn't IC want to be the best they can be , it would be weird for them to go on life threatening adventures

>>54042631
Fair assumption. However, there are a lot of players that start doubting they're playing "correctly" when some other fag runs the show with his "build".
The problem is that certain systems will over-complement certain pairings that make no real sense whatsoever, other than the fact the system itself doesn't always step and say, "No, you can't do X and Y simultaneously, that's numerically over-efficient".

Besides, it's bonkers thinking characters min-max in the perspective of D&D's ruleset (making an assumption here but it's an easy target).
Your character, narratively, isn't picking trait pairings from a generator; they are doing what they THINK is most optimal, not what is, in the abstract calculus of "builds".
The character isn't making cognizant choices about their "attributes" per "level" since the character couldn't measure themselves in that way; only we/the system designers do.

Point being, no player should optimize under the assumption the character would try to "get better" through mashing weird traits together to crunch numbers that wouldn't exist.

>>54042859

This is based on the really faulty assumption that the rules logic does not at all align with the games logic and that the mechanically effective combos are always unintuitive.

It also confuses between assholes and optimisers. An asshole will just make their character super powerful, ignoring the context of the rest of the group, and it's bad for the same reasons that making an inappropriate character is always bad, it detracts from the experience of the other players.

However, if you establish as a group an expected level of optimisation? Having people who know the rules and can help you to find the way to most effectively represent your character concept within the system.

Sometimes, that might involve a combination that looks unintuitive from the outside. But if it helps you create a character whose mechanics match your fluff in interesting ways, why not? Bonus points, they'll often have great ideas for fluffing the relationships, or reflavouring the pieces that don't fit in ways that do.

>>54042976
Optimization is definitely part of the game. The game even forces you to, in many cases.
There are mixtures of character traits that make a ton of sense to pair together and these generally form archetypes seen across of systems and settings.


I guess I'm ready to pounce on this topic because I've been stuck with too many assholes and playing systems that keep their number fetishes healthy.
Enthralling to me is building narrative to support weird character choices that actually make sense after a mild explanation; I find that commendable and reflective of real people.

>>54041980
I personally don't have a problem with that, so I'll give you a pass.
>>54043041
I have a 5e necromancer with 6 WIS and a max stat of 16 INT because I rolled dice, and then rolled with the numbers after the GM offered to let me reroll. Instead of being naive with the low WIS, she's distrustful of everyone almost to the point of paranoia. I bullshit that combining that with her rolled short height twisted into a Napoleon complex to the point where I'm certain she's the hellspawn of Vegeta and Liliana

She also has a relatively high 14 CON with good rolls on HD, which has led to the full wizard tanking two mechanically wussy crits to the back and still living through the fight with 1HP missing, max damage lifedrain is a motherfucker. But she also has the Lucky feat, so as far as she knows, she's just good at hitting people/people are shit at hitting her, which feeds the loop of being better than some/everyone.

>>54041980
Nah, sounds fine

I usually try to optimize my character but the only time I actively minmax is when it's the only way to even be viable like playing a Monk in 3.5

>>54041980
>my characters tend to be the opposite of deep 'n edgy
Shallow and one-dimensional? That extreme's no better. Get outta here, That Guy.

File: 1410617802.jpg (32KB, 600x338px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 600x338px

>>54042976
>extreme reddit spacing
Just stop.

>>54041980
As long as you get along with your group and they're not a bunch of compulsive minmaxers you should be good. But as advice from a DM, learn the mechanics you absolute shitter. There's nothing more irritating than players who consider it a mark of pride to be completely ignorant of basic mechanics after months or years of play and force the DM to play their character for them.

>>54045227
>I dunno what basic grammar is
Fuck off.

>>54041980
How about you play a game that is not shit? Something that's not D&D.

>>54045278
>implying only D&D has issues
Really? OP didn't even state a game. for all you know he could be playing RIFTS, or Rolemaster.

>>54045227
Bitch.
I do what I want.

>>54045309
>I am That Guy

>>54041980
No, as a GM you are my sunshine

>>54041980

depends on if this becomes a reason for making utterly worthless characters that don't do anything

>>54041980
My group has 1 girl, 1 gay guy, 2 Mormons, myself, and two other guys.

We get along, don't discuss politics or religion, and we've met almost every week for the past two years to play in a 5e campaign.

By /tg/'s standard we're utter cancer, but these are the friends that have helped me through my depression and life in general.

Long story short, most of what /tg/ says is a steaming pile of Shit because they all deal in generalizations and stereotypes, instead of considering people or games on an individual basis.