The Man Keeping the Martial Down

[AMFV]

That is not a game, and it is not a contest, and it is not strategic, unless you water all those words down until they're meaningless. You cannot "beat" character creation, you cannot "win" character creation, and if you're coming out way ahead of other players on character creation, that is a sign that you've found a flaw in the system or in the GM/campaign's implementation of that system.

I can "win" at character creation. I set up goals in the character creation process and am rewarded with a better character in play if I manage to succeed at those goals. That's the game here, and there are games where that's a big part of it. There are even games where you can actually die during character creation (though I don't necessarily agree with that approach) there are ways to add lots of different elements to character creation.

Not that there's inherently anything wrong with a system that doesn't include those aspects. I enjoy 4E for example, I enjoy AD&D as well. It's just that I love those aspects when I am playing a game where they exist.

The limited resources do not exist to challenge you, or test your system knowledge, or to present you with a "winner vs loser" scenario. They exist for reasons of balance between characters, and to set the characters' competence/power/effectiveness in the context of the setting and campaign.

The quote from the designer of the game in question explicitly says otherwise. Now you can argue that he was not being honest or that it was a "CYA" type thing, but he definitely said that testing knowledge during character building was a reason they set things up that way.

And if an RPG system is designed such that different build options cost the same amount of points or whatever other resources, but result in grossly more or less functional or effective characters, that's never good game design -- even if it's deliberate -- and doubly so if it's obscured or obtuse about it. Trap options, dead ends, and gross disconnects in efficacy per expenditure in character building are never good game design, ever, under any circumstances.

I disagree, as I've said I love building characters in 3.5 and Traveller (two systems that both involve lots of options to have characters be less functional or even dead during character creation) to the point where I'll build characters for those systems even if I'm not playing a game with them as a free time activity. I wouldn't roll up an AD&D character in the same way, or a 4E character, or a 5e character. Because those systems are not as fun in that way, fun in other ways, but I like that way as well.

Class-based systems have a few advantages over point-buy (and similar) game systems. The main advantage is the straightforwardness of character options. You know that at a certain level your character has X abilities, Y stats, and can handle challenges of Z difficulty. When you gain more XP, you gain another package of +1 abilities, +1 stats, and can now handle Z+1 difficulty. It is quick and easy and doesn't take very much thought. There are obviously tweaks you can make to this standard, but the formula will be more or less the same.

But a class based system where system mastery is a goal is actually more difficult than a similar point buy system. I find Mutants and Masterminds character creation to be a lot less fulfilling (for example) than I do other d20 system character creation. And 3.5 is hardly straightforward.

This also makes the game more accessible for new players. They don't need to spend a bunch of time researching options. They don't need to worry about if their character belongs in the same party as another player's of the same level. One of the major downsides is that you might not get to play exactly the character you wanted - for example, you were hoping to play Robin Hood, but couldn't decide between Ranger and Rogue.

There certainly are class based systems where the goal is accessibility and ease for new players. But I wouldn't argue that's always the goal. I mean Monte Cook pretty much explicitly said otherwise at least in the case of 3.5.

The 3.5 and PF multi-classing approach is a band-aid to address those downsides. But, multi-classing without restrictions is just a worse version of point-buy. Point-buy does a better job of rewarding system mastery, is explicit that your character is only as strong as you make it, and is designed to give you the character with the specific abilities that you want. On the other hand, it takes longer to figure out the basics that your character should have (I am reminded of Exalted almost requiring people to take Ox Body if they wanted to be good at combat, but not saying so). It also does a worse job of ensuring that characters have similar power-levels compared to most class-based systems.

I think point buy is much easier it is easier to build a system in point buy than it is in 3.5 and that lack of challenge makes it less fun for me. I mean certainly it's rewarding system mastery, but I've rarely found any game with a point buy system where I'd be inclined to make characters for fun.

If one of the main strengths of class-based systems is approximating power-levels, 3e and its derivatives does a very poor job. It is implied by having Effective-Class-Levels, Level Adjustment, and Challenge Ratings that a character's level should tell you something about how strong it is. And I'd say that at level 1, those games do a pretty good job. But, the more complex the character build gets and the more options a character has (casters), the further it gets away from that balance that the system promises. The system implies that a level 10 fighter belongs in a party of other level 10 characters to overcome challenges appropriate to a level 10 party. But, that's not the case.

That's an advantage of discrete levels not discrete classes.

So, why use classes if you don't get the benefits of using classes?

Because that isn't the only benefit of using classes. In the case of a game like the one I'm discussing in theory, using classes is a way to add difficulty to the whole character creation process it makes it more challenging. That's why I love building characters in 3.5 but far less so in M&M.

Deliberately including bad options, and wanting gamers to play those bad options until they get wise to it -- that is not only bad design, it is outright acting in bad faith on the part of the game developer.

It's only bad faith if they are pretending those options aren't there. If they tell you that creating a competent character is a part of the game and that there are worse and better options, then it's not bad faith. They don't want gamers to play the bad options, they want gamers to feel satisfied when they evade them.

No wonder online discussion of D&D and D&D-likes has been so heavily fixated on builds, numerical optimization, etc... players are desperately trying to avoid all the pitfalls that the devs deliberately included in multiple editions worth of the systems.

Because certain editions of D&D involved the building of characters as a major part of the game world and a major element of the game. That's a part of the game. If I play 3.5, I'll often try to come up with something really out there and complex just to try to build it, that's part of the fun of that system. Just like understanding your tactical role is part of the fun in 4e, or clever and quick thinking in OD&D. Those are intentional game elements.

Edit:

It does not. Not at all. I just cracked open the 3.5 PHB, and there is absolutely no indication that they're designed to be imbalanced.

SO one of two things is true:
1. The imbalance is unintentional.
2. The designers intentionally and maliciously lied about the design in the player's handbook.

Did you miss the section where I quoted on of the game's developers talking about how there are intended to be options that are not as good as other options? I do agree that they should have said as much in the PHB, but that's neither here nor there.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Did you miss the section where I quoted on of the game's developers talking about how there are intended to be options that are not as good as other options? I do agree that they should have said as much in the PHB, but that's neither here nor there.

That's after the fact rationalization or admission of malicious intent. Neither of which speaks well. And it certainly is both here and now. I judge things based on the claims they make in the books they printed. They're either malicious or incompetent. Neither one is a good look. And active malice (lying to your customers) is a form of fraud, which is bad design. Incompetence is also a source of bad design.

None of that defends them. It only condemns them more.

[Cluedrew]

Describing lock-picking as a martial pursuit isn't the most absurd thing I've seen in those discussions, but it is up there.

This is post on the other hand is only mildly absurd.

...

... ... ...

Because it doesn't explain anything and expects to be understood. Why is it abused that the archetype family that includes thieves and rogues can pick locks?

There's a lot from your post I could discuss, but I chose this bit. Why? Well, because I'm insane, of course.

You are in good company. And in most games martial can fight longer, I hadn't though about that: "go around - Martial".

Do we care *how many* options a character has? Do we care how many *unique* options they have? Do we care how many *superior* options they have? Do we just care that they have non-zero options?

Yes. Yes. Yes. Not just.

All of these things can be important. The fact that characters with the same build can choose different options gives room for characterization. The unique options helps differentiate them from other builds. Some superior options gives them a time to shine. Having at least one is nice so you are not completely stonewalled.

The fighter uses swords and has the concept of Cut from all their training. An ancient God Killer has summoned (or some other catastrophe) and the party needs to deal with it. The Fighter Cuts the consequences from them to stop the ritual from happening and reality shifts so that while the summon got off without a hitch, nothing happens because it's cause has been cut from any effect. This allows the nullification of a threat that would otherwise require much fighting, or possible time travel.

Would this allow a baker to Bake things into history? Or a weaver to Weave things into the fabric of reality?

Magic Circle? Yes I am in. This gives us reason to develop the skill system too.

I also enjoy Arbane's Kill 6 Billion Demons reference.

[Max_Killjoy]

That's after the fact rationalization or admission of malicious intent. Neither of which speaks well. And it certainly is both here and now. I judge things based on the claims they make in the books they printed. They're either malicious or incompetent. Neither one is a good look. And active malice (lying to your customers) is a form of fraud, which is bad design. Incompetence is also a source of bad design.

None of that defends them. It only condemns them more.

Exactly.

It wasn't in the PHB for that edition, it only came out years later, and only makes the whole thing even worse in retrospect.

I can "win" at character creation. I set up goals in the character creation process and am rewarded with a better character in play if I manage to succeed at those goals. That's the game here, and there are games where that's a big part of it.

That's not winning, that's manipulating a broken aspect of the system during the leadup to gameplay, to your own gain during actual gameplay.

The quote from the designer of the game in question explicitly says otherwise. Now you can argue that he was not being honest or that it was a "CYA" type thing, but he definitely said that testing knowledge during character building was a reason they set things up that way.

I understand that he said they did things that way on purpose, but that doesn't change anything. If he's telling the truth there, and not just pulling an "I meant to do that", then they were wrong about how to set up character creation, and misused that part of the mechanics for malicious ends.

That is, the actual purpose of build resources for character creation in an RPG system didn't change -- the designers of 3e just grossly misused the concept in their design.

[Morty]

This is post on the other hand is only mildly absurd.

...

... ... ...

Because it doesn't explain anything and expects to be understood. Why is it abused that the archetype family that includes thieves and rogues can pick locks?

It's simply part of my continued mild exasperation with how "martial" seems to have morphed into "every character that doesn't cast spells".

[Max_Killjoy]

It's simply part of my continued mild exasperation with how "martial" seems to have morphed into "every character that doesn't cast spells".

Pushing back against that notion you're fighting against is part of my motivation every time I post something like "magic is as magic does" or "there's no difference in this context between magic, supernatural, fantastic, superhuman, or other terms".

"If it's not spellcasting, it's not magic" is a broken notion stemming from some wonky worldbuilding and whanot in D&D.

[Lord Raziere]

Pushing back against that notion you're fighting against is part of my motivation every time I post something like "magic is as magic does" or "there's no difference in this context between magic, supernatural, fantastic, superhuman, or other terms".

"If it's not spellcasting, it's not magic" is a broken notion stemming from some wonky worldbuilding and whanot in D&D.

yup. magic should be more than spell books and wizard hats. if its that defined and boringly limited, its not really magic at all, its just a science masquerading as magic.

[Morty]

Pushing back against that notion you're fighting against is part of my motivation every time I post something like "magic is as magic does" or "there's no difference in this context between magic, supernatural, fantastic, superhuman, or other terms".

"If it's not spellcasting, it's not magic" is a broken notion stemming from some wonky worldbuilding and whanot in D&D.

I understand what you mean, but I'm not really talking about magic, rather about how "martial" seems to have come to mean "non-magical", instead of, you know, relating to war and combat. A wizard slinging fireballs is more of a martial character than a rogue sneaking around and stealing stuff.

[Rhedyn]

"Quicken Spell", a metamagic that lets you cast spells faster in 3.5 D&D, is a trap option for Fighters and is rather bad even for fullcasters, since rods of quicken are better and until you have 5th level slots, you can't use this great with real spells.

Now throw on some splat PRCs and decrease the spell mod cost and Quicken spell becomes one of the best feats in the game.

Skill focus (basket weaving) is a bad feat. Skill focus (spot/listen) will likely save your life. Both are just different uses of the skill focus feat.

This applies to other games too, but trap options for some characters, are good for others. When a game allows for enough concepts, not everything has to fit for every character.

[Lord Raziere]

I understand what you mean, but I'm not really talking about magic, rather about how "martial" seems to have come to mean "non-magical", instead of, you know, relating to war and combat. A wizard slinging fireballs is more of a martial character than a rogue sneaking around and stealing stuff.

Yeah, that doesn't really make sense, does it? I blame it on DnD's focus on combat: DnD really does rogues and other such things badly with the way it focuses the world on combat encounters when a proper thief or assassin is all about avoiding that as much as possible. the more fights a thief gets into after all, the more chances they lose what they stole or their life, while an assassin doesn't fight, they kill, and the best way to kill is to make sure no fight takes place at all so that there is no defense against the killing attack you make. while a social character can only do so much when the blades get drawn.

so the wizard with all its utility outperforming rogue, becomes the premier noncombat option, so you could say that magic in DnD has come to mean "everything thats not combat". because even though martials meaning being warped is weird, everyone is technically a martial in DnD and therefore the warped distinction is between things that ONLY have use in martial combat between magic users which have far more uses.

[Cluedrew]

It's simply part of my continued mild exasperation with how "martial" seems to have morphed into "every character that doesn't cast spells".

I understand what you mean, but I'm not really talking about magic, rather about how "martial" seems to have come to mean "non-magical", instead of, you know, relating to war and combat. A wizard slinging fireballs is more of a martial character than a rogue sneaking around and stealing stuff.

Now that make sense.

And I kind of agree, that connection (as in what that word means anywhere else) does bother me too but I haven't been able to find a word that works better. Mundane changes connotations from "war" to "boring" which is even worse in my opinion. Muggle has similar issues but is also derogatory in its original context.

So yeah, I usually used martial to mean "non-caster". I've tried to pin down exactly what each is as well but so far haven't really been successful. Even did the "mechanical definitions" earlier in this thread by that didn't really work. (Sort of a base rules to special cases scale.)

[Kyutaru]

I blame it on DnD's focus on combat: DnD really does rogues and other such things badly with the way it focuses the world on combat encounters when a proper thief or assassin is all about avoiding that as much as possible.

It's something new D&D focuses on for sure. Old D&D didn't have so much of this problem. Wizard spellbooks were chock full of useless spells that had no apparent reason for existing other than roleplay flavor. It had proficiency for martials that let them perform non-game related tasks for roleplay reasons. It also had brutally deadly monsters that encouraged avoiding combat as much as possible. Your party might do very well fighting beholders, mind flayers, and liches but a single failed saving throw could result in death very quickly. Better to limit your exposure to such chances, especially in a system where being raised cost you a Constitution point. Players had a fear of dying and did their best to avoid danger.

But make raise spells inexpensive to high level characters, make the best buffs spammable, give combat options that increase action economy for a build, and nerf the devastation of enemies and you will find players feeling a little too big for the britches since they are effectively immortal.

[Max_Killjoy]

I understand what you mean, but I'm not really talking about magic, rather about how "martial" seems to have come to mean "non-magical", instead of, you know, relating to war and combat. A wizard slinging fireballs is more of a martial character than a rogue sneaking around and stealing stuff.

And I see what you mean now, too.

At least in part, "martial means non-magical" comes from the thing I was talking about earlier, where certain players insist and demand that their "fighting man" characters be absolutely non-magical... and at some point picked up the word "martial" as another way of saying "those guys who fight with weapons and fists" as a neologism also meaning "not the spellcaster".

[Quertus]

The biggest advantage of classes, IMO, is the power of names.

Compare, "I took an 8th level Ranger through Keep on the Borderlands" with "I took a 50-point fire/summoning focused character on the GM's custom war politics planar adventure".

-----

Character creation is a fun minigame for some. Optimization is a fun minigame for some. The existence of playing pieces of inherently different strengths allows the optimizer enjoy their optimization minigame without producing an overpowered character.

Personally, I'd almost be happy if the entirety of character creation involved me writing, "Quertus, Wizard" on a character sheet. Or, rather, if it could be that simple to produce a viable character, but the option existed to create characters of increasing complexity as desired, to a) better match the mechanics to the character concept; b) to allow players to scratch their optimization itch; and c) to increase character differentiation / replay value.

-----

I prefer calling nonmagical beings "muggles". "Mundanes" also works, I suppose, but I view it as an insult.

-----

The "Timmy" cards in MTG are the LAST thing that any RPG designer should EVER try to emulate.

So, RPGs shouldn't have big guns?

A game system is not a song, and it is not a work of art -- it is in fact a functional "machine", a tool. It can be judged, objectively, by how well it does its job.

2e produced the most units of "fun"; therefore, 2e is objectively best RPG ever.

[Max_Killjoy]

The biggest advantage of classes, IMO, is the power of names.

Compare, "I took an 8th level Ranger through Keep on the Borderlands" with "I took a 50-point fire/summoning focused character on the GM's custom war politics planar adventure".

I have.

I'll take the latter ever time.

I prefer calling nonmagical beings "muggles". "Mundanes" also works, I suppose, but I view it as an insult.

And yet... you don't view "muggle" as an insult?

So, RPGs shouldn't have big guns?

What?

What do big guns have to do with "looks awesome, actually sucks" cards in CCGs?

[Quertus]

I have.

I'll take the latter ever time.




And yet... you don't view "muggle" as an insult?




What?

What do big guns have to do with "looks awesome, actually sucks" cards in CCGs?

3) Well, sure, *Spike* thinks Timmy cards are bad, but only Spike would call them "unplayable".

(My brother is a Spike, and routinely calls 80+% of the cards in my decks "unplayable". Me, I play to have fun, and don't feel the need to optimize the **** out of my decks.)

2) no, I don't.

1) so you see a difference. OK, cool. Why do you prefer the Nameless?

[Thinker]

1) so you see a difference. OK, cool. Why do you prefer the Nameless?

You can choose your own name for your character's profession. Fire mage. Magma Maven. Heat Beater. Use some imagination.

[Quertus]

You can choose your own name for your character's profession. Fire mage. Magma Maven. Heat Beater. Use some imagination.

That's fair. You could. You could technically call your Ranger by its conceptual space, too. But having the name "Ranger" to fall back on is a prearranged reserved word.

So, apropos to this thread, with classes, you have more options on how to describe your character. In what way is "more options" not better?

[AMFV]

I have.

I'll take the latter ever time.

And it doesn't occur to you that there may be people who having tried both will take the former?

What do big guns have to do with "looks awesome, actually sucks" cards in CCGs?

To have big guns you need to have small guns for comparison's sake.

[Kyutaru]

To have big guns you need to have small guns for comparison's sake.

And that is exactly how MTG stays operating, selling people packs of crap cards that make a small group of meta cards seem that much more powerful.

[Max_Killjoy]

To have big guns you need to have small guns for comparison's sake.

Um, OK.

Sounds a lot like the "need" to have character creation be a contest... or nonsense about how there's no hot without cold, or no good without evil.

And that is exactly how MTG stays operating, selling people packs of crap cards that make a small group of meta cards seem that much more powerful.

And there's that...

Some people just need a pecking order to judge things against, I guess.

Maybe I should be used to it by now, given all the blathering in sports fandom and commentary that insists on "knowing" who the "greatest" player or athlete is.

[AMFV]

And that is exactly how MTG stays operating, selling people packs of crap cards that make a small group of meta cards seem that much more powerful.

Certainly it is. I'm not going to begrudge people making money by making a game that a lot of people love and enjoy. As far as that goes. Imagine if they stopped making new cards, everything stays where it is. You're going to have less and less new people getting interested now, because they aren't going to be really advertising any more, and so eventually you wind up with just a few combinations that are the most powerful and the game eventually becomes known and less fun.

If there is no possibility for failure in a system, then it's going to be less fulfilling if you succeed. The question here is "When should a game introduce a possibility for failure." I would argue that there isn't going to be a hard and fast answer here. But there certainly are games where character creation is a part of the game. 3.5e is one of them. I'm saying that it would be interesting to build a game like that where the metagame applied equally to all of the characters.

Because in 3.5e, the fighter has a much worse metagame as far as character creation goes. You basically have to dip, multiclass, pick your feats extremely carefully, and understand large sections of the rules. I enjoy that, as I said. And we've seen going the other way in 4E, where all the characters use the same sort of simple template (which again I enjoy, but for different reasons than 3.5). I think it might be interesting to go the other way, to make it so that Wizards aren't as effective without multiclassing.

Probably this would involve some sort of overhauling of the spell system, I'm not sure exactly how that would operate. Basically you'd need to make it so the Wizard gets less and less useful features by staying a Wizard and more interesting ones by multiclassing. We'd also have to make their feat choices matter more. But this is all just spitballing here.

[Lord Raziere]

I have.

I'll take the latter ever time.

And it doesn't occur to you that there may be people who having tried both will take the former?

When you really think about it, the only difference is that one build is done by developers and the other by players and the label is just a thing slapped onto it afterwards regardless. so why fight over who prefers which illusion?

[AMFV]

When you really think about it, the only difference is that one build is done by developers and the other by players and the label is just a thing slapped onto it afterwards regardless. so why fight over who prefers which illusion?

I don't know, the only fight I've been having is that the thing I prefer (some of the time, not all ofthe time) is not in some way objectively bad. Which I will fight for. I like there being a variety of different games about, so that way if I want a game with a complex character creation mini-game around, I can play one. And if I don't want that, at that particular moment, I can play something else. If people sell others on the idea that something that is entirely a matter of taste is "bad design" then I'll be stuck with only one flavor forever. Which I would really not enjoy.

Um, OK.

Sounds a lot like the "need" to have character creation be a contest... or nonsense about how there's no hot without cold, or no good without evil.

That's not a need, bud. I've never made that statement, in fact I have frequently made the opposite statement, that I enjoy that some of the time and some of the time I don't. It just depends on my mood. I like to have options that suit my mood.

And there's that...

Some people just need a pecking order to judge things against, I guess.

Maybe I should be used to it by now, given all the blathering in sports fandom and commentary that insists on "knowing" who the "greatest" player or athlete is.

We aren't fans or commentators here though, we're the athletes, and knowing if we're good or bad is probably a significant part of why we're doing this. That's a pretty crucial difference. I would imagine that the athletes are a lot more concerned about the quality of their performance than the commentators or the fans are.

[Max_Killjoy]

We aren't fans or commentators here though, we're the athletes, and knowing if we're good or bad is probably a significant part of why we're doing this. That's a pretty crucial difference.

No, we're not "the athletes", or anything like it.

There's nothing to derive some sort of pride or sense of accomplishment from, no contest, no competition, no ranking system, no success or failure, no "good" or "bad" involved. There's nothing to feel superior to other players about.

And even if we were to make some comparison to athletics, getting fixated on character builds as a thing you can "win" is like getting all worked about how well you can tape your ankles -- the actual game hasn't even started yet.

[AMFV]

No, we're not "the athletes", or anything like it.

I am an athlete, I've competed in strongman competitions and various other competitions of athleticism throughout my life. I'm not saying that playing a game well is equivalent to athletic endeavor, I'm saying that we aren't the people watching people play the game.

There's nothing to derive some sort of pride or sense of accomplishment from, no contest, no competition, no ranking system, no success or failure, no "good" or "bad" involved. There's nothing to feel superior to other players about.

There is definitely success and failure in almost every RPG. Now the actual sort of success and failure varies a lot from game to game. There are also games that include ranking systems, and games that include contests.

And even if we were to make some comparison to athletics, getting fixated on character builds as a thing you can "win" is like getting all worked about how well you can tape your ankles -- the actual game hasn't even started yet.

If you not taping your ankles well causes you to become injured then maybe you should have focused on that a little bit more. In that sense 3.5 is like a muddy field, taping your ankles is becomes really important. As a strongman competitor there are definitely competitive events where your set-up is the thing that makes you succeed or fail. That's the same in many sports. Now there are events where it doesn't matter as much, but that doesn't mean that the events where it does don't exist.

There are games likewise where there isn't really a character creation mini-game, or where that isn't a significant part of the game. As I've said, I enjoy those too. But I also enjoy games where the setup is a crucial part of the game.

[Lord Raziere]

No, we're not "the athletes", or anything like it.

There's nothing to derive some sort of pride or sense of accomplishment from, no contest, no competition, no ranking system, no success or failure, no "good" or "bad" involved. There's nothing to feel superior to other players about.

And even if we were to make some comparison to athletics, getting fixated on character builds as a thing you can "win" is like getting all worked about how well you can tape your ankles -- the actual game hasn't even started yet.

Agreed.

when I look at rpgs, particularly as something people watch and enjoy other people do or as something I do myself, whether they or I do it better than others is the farthest thing from my mind, since its a cooperative thing even in DnD. just watch an actual twitch roleplaying game show, none of them are concerned about the optimal character or anything. DnD is as competitive as going to a party together.

speak to me of competition when we play Dark Souls and I'll consider it an argument, since the skills of Dark souls games are far more quantifiable and practicable, with much clearer measures of success. its the closest thing to a competitive DnD to me, but actual DnD? no.

[AMFV]

Agreed.

But do you see how it could be competitive for others in the game?

when I look at rpgs, particularly as something people watch and enjoy other people do or as something I do myself, whether they or I do it better than others is the farthest thing from my mind, since its a cooperative thing even in DnD. just watch an actual twitch roleplaying game show, none of them are concerned about the optimal character or anything. DnD is as competitive as going to a party together.

Depends on how you're playing it, honestly. There are plenty of people who are very concerned with optimal stuff and do play that way. The current cultural vogue (what you'd see on Twitch) is to have it be about having fun with your friends and beer and pretzels stuff (which is a fine way to play.) But if you'd go back about thirty years to tournament modules and such, then you'd see an entirely different paradigm, one where competitive stuff is a lot more important.

speak to me of competition when we play Dark Souls and I'll consider it an argument, since the skills of Dark souls games are far more quantifiable and practicable, with much clearer measures of success. its the closest thing to a competitive DnD to me, but actual DnD? no.

Well I encourage you to explore more competitive variations of D&D, don't give up the party/beer&pretzels you have with your friends, but try some other stuff as well, because competitive D&D can be a lot of fun, albeit in a very different way.

Edit: Also you're making the implied argument that the Twitch streamers are "playing the game the right way" instead of the actual case which is that the Twitch streamers are showing one way of playing the game while there are many others as well.

[Lord Raziere]

But do you see how it could be competitive for others in the game?

Depends on how you're playing it, honestly. There are plenty of people who are very concerned with optimal stuff and do play that way. The current cultural vogue (what you'd see on Twitch) is to have it be about having fun with your friends and beer and pretzels stuff (which is a fine way to play.) But if you'd go back about thirty years to tournament modules and such, then you'd see an entirely different paradigm, one where competitive stuff is a lot more important.

Well I encourage you to explore more competitive variations of D&D, don't give up the party/beer&pretzels you have with your friends, but try some other stuff as well, because competitive D&D can be a lot of fun, albeit in a very different way.

Edit: Also you're making the implied argument that the Twitch streamers are "playing the game the right way" instead of the actual case which is that the Twitch streamers are showing one way of playing the game while there are many others as well.

No. combos and builds are too easily replicated. its all math and therefore a copy-paste away from being something you can do. the rest is just talking, not measurable at all, observable, but not measurable.

I'd hardly consider what they do to be beer and pretzels. thats a subjective term that I never really experienced myself, they make stories and well played characters, there is too much effort to what they do.

I find it more curious why your so quick to label and divide. it seems very dismissive. and then you accuse me of one true wayism by implication. why you'd want me around for something I don't want or like, that seems like a losing plan for everyone involved, I don't know. personally, my roleplaying experience is that I come up with special snowflake characters blocks to try and fit into round hole games other people want to play, then find more fun with the people who don't hold themselves to too high of a standards because the ones that do hold themselves to higher standards in any area tend to be really inflexible about how a game goes and thus have weaknesses to the flexibility roleplaying often requires to keep a game going.

but then again I mostly play online. my primary concern is games that function and become sustainable at all rather than trying for ones that have intense rules and competition that could easily lead to hurt feelings over characters one has poured time and effort into. I certainly have a hard time losing characters myself and get emotional over the thought of losing characters I get attached to.

so even if I tried, the "competitive DnD" would probably limit me to some very strict options/builds and I'd make a character that I'd be bored with and not be interested and "lose" constantly and get bitter, or somehow manage to pull out a miracle character that is both optimized something I like (which is often the esoteric, the strange and the intentional defying of convention) get too attached, try to play as hard as I can end up improvising my way into mess after mess before the character dies and me leaving in some emotional eruption. as much as I wish it otherwise, I have this binary tendency to either not care at all and thus not bother or care too much about something and go at passionately with no half measures.

so no, I don't really care for competitive DnD. I'm too easily enflamed or embittered, and competition is no place for emotion in excess.

[AMFV]

No. combos and builds are too easily replicated. its all math and therefore a copy-paste away from being something you can do. the rest is just talking, not measurable at all, observable, but not measurable.

Just because something is easily replicated doesn't mean that there isn't skill involved for the first person who comes up with it. That's like arguing that people who win at competitive trading card games don't have any skill involved. And talking is a skill as well, being able to outline or come up with an innovative solution is a skill.

And in early D&D it could be measured by your ability to collect the treasures and complete the modules. Of course at that stage you didn't really have "builds" as such. That's a token of a later era.

I'd hardly consider what they do to be beer and pretzels. thats a subjective term that I never really experienced myself, they make stories and well played characters, there is too much effort to what they do.

Beer & Pretzels wasn't intended to be a put-down or a negative. The D&D games I've watched on YouTubes or what-not have mostly fallen into what I would consider to be beer & pretzels style playing where the most important thing is having cool stories to share with your friends. Which again is okay, I play that style of game from time to time. And they do put effort in. I mean Penny Arcade's AI games have a ton of effort, but they aren't the type of games I like to play all the time, only some of the time.

I find it more curious why your so quick to label and divide. it seems very dismissive. and then you accuse me of one true wayism by implication. why you'd want me around for something I don't want or like, that seems like a losing plan for everyone involved, I don't know. personally, my roleplaying experience is that I come up with special snowflake characters blocks to try and fit into round hole games other people want to play, then find more fun with the people who don't hold themselves to too high of a standards because the ones that do hold themselves to higher standards in any area tend to be really inflexible about how a game goes and thus have weaknesses to the flexibility roleplaying often requires to keep a game going.

It's not intended to be dismissive. And there's only one or two contributers to this thread who I think are guilty of one-true-wayism. I thought that you might be slipping into seeming that way without intending it. That was the point I was trying to make. And to make sure that you realized that there might be people with different preferences.

but then again I mostly play online. my primary concern is games that function and become sustainable at all rather than trying for ones that have intense rules and competition that could easily lead to hurt feelings over characters one has poured time and effort into. I certainly have a hard time losing characters myself and get emotional over the thought of losing characters I get attached to.

I would agree that in-person is better for that style outside of very specific exceptions like ToS. And if you're playing that kind of game getting super attached to a character is probably not the way to go.

so no, I don't really care for competitive DnD. I'm too easily enflamed or embittered, and competition is no place for emotion in excess.

That's fair, you don't have to try it or enjoy it. It's just something I consider fun. That's why I would try and share that with people. I love the character creation mini-game, and I find that it's often derided as being "not-creative" but you have to remember that somebody had to come up with all those builds people are copy-pasting in the first place, and that applying those builds in different ways requires creativity.