In session 0, how can I indicate that I'm not interested in a heavily optimized game without denigrating it as a play style?

Question

This is a question about how to scope out prospective games where I'm a player.

"Casual" isn't really accurate as a description of me as a player, since I'm very invested in story elements, and I love to collaborate with other players in their narrative arcs. While I get that a player's quest to play their most heavily optimized PC who can deal XXX damage per round and have an AC of 30 is valid, too, I'm not interested in playing on a team when their interest in optimization bogs down combat or takes over what could be in-character conversations about the story. I get quiet and bored when sessions involve frequent conversations around what items or builds will increase damage output and by how much. While I can definitely enjoy role play in shops or looking through hoards, it can get tedious and frustrating for me when the plot hooks and activities the group pursues are always directly related to how much gold or stuff we could get from them and we spend a lot of table time doing cost-benefit analysis about which items to attune to etc.

I've tried to be as non-judgmental as I can be in the above paragraph, but reading it back, I still worry that it sounds... I dunno, annoyed? I support anyone's RPG journey, so I'd appreciate having some strategies to figure out in session 0 whether a game is for me or not. And I'd like to do so without accidentally shading anyone's play style.

So, how can I communicate my preference in a clear and non-judgmental way during Session 0s? What questions can I ask in session 0 to suss out whether I'm at a prospective table with players who'll initiate and hold long conversations about optimizing during combat or game play?

Answer 1

Min-Maxers always have a plan. So find out everyone's plans.

Hi, I'm Thomas, and I'm a min-maxer. And I have played with a lot of min-maxers. If there is one thing that could tip you off to a min-maxer at session 0, it is that min-maxers already have a plan. When I intend to play a heavily optmimized character, I've already got my build planned out start to finish by the time I make it to session 0. And every time I have run a game with one or more min-maxers, I have been able to tell without fail at session 0 by just asking each player about their general plans for their character. When I GM, I always just ask everyone at session 0 about the long term plans for a character build, just to gauge this very thing - play style. If your GM doesn't do something similar, or your game doesn't have a GM, just do it yourself:

Hey everyone, at a session 0 I like to sort of get a feel for everyone's playstyle to be sure the game will be a good fit, so I'd like to get an idea about everyone's general plans for their character build as the game progresses.

In my experience, the min-maxers will out themselves right there. They have already planned out how they are going to progress, and you can generally tell from the choices they intend to make if they are going to lean heavily toward optimization, assuming you have a decent idea about what optimization looks like in your game. Do note, not everyone who comes to the table with a long term plan is min-maxing. Like I said, you should be able to tell what you're getting - obvious non-optimal choice is obvious, obvious broken combo is obvious.

I think this is a solid approach if you want to be a little less on the nose than just saying "I don't really enjoy playing with min-maxers, are any of you going to min-max your characters?" But if you don't care about being subtle, you can just ask, as other answers have suggested.

Answer 2

“What sort of playstyle is preferred at this table”? - This is a simple question, neutral sounding, not loaded in any direction and allows you to find out the table’s preferences before you share your own.

Chances are that this is a topic that will be picked up by the DM during session 0 anyway but if it’s not for any reason (e.g. you’re joining a group that has been playing together for a while), there’s nothing wrong with starting the conversation yourself.

If they reply by asking you in turn about what your preferences are, deflect or give a vague answer, just tell them more or less what you said here: “I like to focus more on the storytelling aspect of the game rather than on mechanics and I am not very interested in optimisations or character builds, am I going to fit in with this approach?” Just stick to the facts, be polite, don’t criticise other people’s playstyles and it will be fine, it’s a normal thing to talk about.

I know you’re asking about session 0 only, but if you are joining a game online, the DMs will often describe the style they are going for in their initial recruitment posts in terms of percentages divided between the “three pillars” (role-play, combat and exploration), where the more emphasis put on combat, the more optimisation-heavy the game is likely to be. Whenever I look for people to run a game for, I always state this ratio, as well as a general tone I have in mind for the game and then in session 0 cover everyone’s playstyles quite extensively.

Answer 3

Session zero is quite late to find out

Session zero itself may already be a bit late. If you can talk with the other players before such a kick-off session in the game store, do it, and listen to how they talk about their games. Do they discuss their story, shenanigans and adventures, or are they describing feat combos, powers and damage output? I think it is not that hard to get a read on what someone prefers about the game. If the group has a larger number of players that are about min-maxing, it might not be for you, and you can avoid session zero altogether.

I think this goes even further: you really want to play in a game with people you like and like to share time with. So, find out if you like them, or not. No point to be in a playgroup with a bunch of people you don't.

But if you cannot do that, I think there is nothing wrong about just sharing your preferences openly early on. Let the other players know in the same considerate, friendly way you shared with us here.

Our play group for example also might not be a good fit for you, and I could honestly tell you so if you shared this with me, and would not be annoyed at all: you saved yourself the frustration of being stuck with us arguing over how to opimally attack some drow. (To be honest, it gets on our own nerves, sometimes, too.)

Answer 4

I am unsure of the general applicability of this, but it is my own experience. For simplicity, I'll describe my group as two min-maxers and two role-players.

Prior to session 0, my group had set up a Discord server. Nearly all character build discussion takes place there. The other min-maxer and I discuss our min-maxing fantasies in direct messages, looping in the DM as needed.

There is no min-max discussion during play. We do allow for tactical discussions. During play, the role-players shine and I try to keep up and contribute. When the dice come out, the mix-maxers shine and one role-player tries to keep up. The other role-player is a Wizard -- keeps up just fine.

We also do a lot of role-play in discord channels set aside for that. If two characters want to have a long conversation during a midnight watch or whatever, that's usually where it happens.

Answer 5

Discuss When Assembling the Game, if Possible

As a DM/GM/ST, I make one thing clear to my players: Make sane characters and you get sane encounters. I expound on this by saying if they don't munchkin the characters, I don't have to make challenges that are super absurd combats. My players these days are a mix of people who treat D&D as one degree of separation from a board game, and people who almost don't even need dice because they prefer the RP. By establishing before we even start discussing a time, it telegraphs to my mechanical players that maybe this is the time for that risky/fun build and my social players that there will be a time for specialties.

I agree with Groody the Hobgoblin's assertion that Session 0 as I understand it may be a bit late because in my experience, that's the trial run / demo of the characters to set the tone for the game. Characters are already built and it may not be fair to them given the time/effort they put into it.

In the 7th Sea GameMaster Guide they recommend doing a bit of a survey for the players by asking them to rate on a scale of 1-10 how much they would like to see of Action, Exploration, and Intrigue to gauge where a good middle point would be for the party, or if they need to discuss that everyone wants something different.

---

Coming from the player side, the way I suggest approaching this is to say that you enjoy a more balanced game. That you're more interested in the story and world building, and that you enjoy more streamlined encounters than crunchy combat. This way you can state what you are looking for without trashing the aspects that you don't find attractive. If the DM asks you can elaborate more to them and see how they want to handle it, especially because they frequently have their style cemented and at least know what to tell you to expect from them when they run a game. If the DM isn't willing to work with you, then it won't help much to talk to the players since you know the game you're getting.

Assuming a cooperative DM, then it should come to a discussion with the whole gaming group. Perhaps you can find a place for gaming styles the same way classes fit into a party, and everyone can get what they want.

Following that would be the Char-Gen/Session 0 when you round the edges so the party has a reason to work together and the game here out.

Answer 6

What systems have you played, and what did you like about them?

This is a good question to open with for a number of reasons, but the two important ones are that it's inoffensive, and the answer is usually very informative.

Generally speaking, people will choose to play games they like. If a given system is incredibly rules-intensive, and generally focuses far more on combat and mechanics than it does on narrative importance, the people who play it will usually be people who like those things. Likewise, people who enjoy more narrative-heavy games will usually prefer systems that have more of a narrative focus. As such, if people give you lists that favor mechanical-heavy games, there's a good chance they care more about mechanics than narrative. If it's the opposite, the opposite is true. If it's roughly equal of both, it generally means they care more about the narrative, in that they're concerned more with what fantasy the game lets them act out, as opposed to the mechanics by which is does so.

The important thing about this question is that it also gives you an insight into a person's personality. If the reason someone likes a particularly narrative-heavy game is entirely because of their ability to make extremely over-powered characters in it, that's a red flag they might care more about mechanics than narrative. By contrast, someone who plays a very mechanics-heavy game because it's the only one that exists for a specific setting is more likely to enjoy games for the narrative and lore.

All that said, it's important to keep in mind that these two playstyles are not mutually exclusive. Some players do have the ability, and even enjoy, taking part in both kinds of games. These people are generally those who enjoy TTRPGs for the social aspects, more than anything else. It's important to take note of these players, because a table made up of mostly these kinds of players will usually become whatever play style the DM and the other players are most interested in playing. If you push hard enough to roleplay and explore narratives with these kinds of people, they'll usually be happy to reciprocate. However, they'll be just as happy crunching numbers and exploring loot tables. Sometimes, you just have to be clear with everyone which you prefer, and ask the person running the game to make sure you've got time for what you think is fun. If the number-crunchers at the table are happy to give you your time to play how you want, seems only fair they get what they want, as well.

Answer 7

Ask if min-max discussions can be restricted to specific times.

I was going to let the already-excellent answers stand, but something CabinetCat said in the comments sparked an idea, so I'll share it. They mentioned the fact that they do not mind playing alongside optimized characters, it's just the long discussions about it that bother them. I am the same way--lengthy debates about how to maximize damage or whatever pull me out of the story.

So you may ask if the GM is willing to do what I do when I run my games: restrict all min-max-related discussion to specific times. Before I start a game, I give players 10-15 minutes to strategize and coordinate spells and abilities and item use with the understanding that during play, I will cut short such discussions. Roleplayers are free to show up late or have a beer out on the deck during this time. The min-maxers have come to consider this an extra challenge to their planning and coordination skills, so they actually like it. As one min-maxer intimated above, even min-maxers like to see the game keep moving and can annoy themselves with these discussions.

When it's time to level up (when min-max discussions are most critical), I stop the game. Min-maxers are free to hang out and debate feats and skill points ad nauseum and roleplayers are free to leave, or hang out and talk about something else in the next room.

Don't frame it as "Min-max conversations are dull, can we do this so I don't have to listen to endless discussions..." Frame it as "This system is pretty crunchy and that can impact story immersion, can we do this in order to keep the game moving at a brisk pace?"

Answer 8

An aspect of this is to make sure that the other players realize, and accept, that you are not going to try to play a min-max game. Other players' responses to this may provide indications of their motivations. And this in necessarily neutral in that it you expressing how you want to play this game. I recognize that this is only a partial answer in that having your choices accepted within an overall min-max style game is not the same as sitting at a table where the group's approach better aligns with yours, but expressing how you plan on playing is a part of the session 0 discussion.

Answer 9

“I don’t like min-maxing and I don’t enjoy playing with people who do”

What you do and don’t like doesn’t denigrate what other people do and don’t like.

Also, do this when forming the group - by Session 0 the group composition is pretty immutable.

Answer 10

Just tell them you’d like to have a game which is less focused on dice and stats and more focused on actual role playing and interesting characters with an emphasis on immersion (i.e. no meta-gaming)?

Answer 11

You're getting some frame-challenge advice saying you don't need to tell people anything, since you can surreptitiously sniff out min-maxing. That seems fine. But to directly answer the question, I suppose tell them that you're in the mood for a campaign with B-tier characters, or low-power or badly built characters. Now you're not calling them min-maxers; you're agreeing that there are A-level character builds and playstyles, and you're the weirdo who wants to play with the junky builds and bad decisions.

Min-maxers often prefer to play with other min-maxers to get a really kick-ass party and not wait while one player compliments the inn-keeper on such fine ale. They may dump you as someone they don't want to have to carry. You haven't insulted them, they've sort of insulted you. But even if that doesn't happen, obviously a low-tier build isn't going to be fun for you when everyone else is playing the right way. You're dropping out because you want to try an inferior playstyle -- not because min-maxers are boring to be around.