The Man Keeping the Martial Down

[Morty]

That's not necessarily the case, there are games that have differing strategies with different advantages. I mean let's take D&D, what's the best fighter build? There's no direct answer for that question, because there are many different fighter builds with different advantages. I mean there are a lot of builds based around a theme, but getting mileage out of the theme is not always that easy.

There might or might not be a direct answer to the question of the best fighter build. But I'm pretty sure it's not going to involve using a shield, two weapons or a single one-handed weapon regardless. Because, you know, those styles are generally just plain worse than swinging a two-handed weapon, preferably with reach. That doesn't strike me as enabling character-building.

[AMFV]

There might or might not be a direct answer to the question of the best fighter build. But I'm pretty sure it's not going to involve using a shield, two weapons or a single one-handed weapon regardless. Because, you know, those styles are generally just plain worse than swinging a two-handed weapon, preferably with reach. That doesn't strike me as enabling character-building.

Actually there are really top notch fighter builds that involve each of those. Jack-B-Quick uses two-weapon fighting to work, and won't work otherwise. Thug Fighter is much better off with two-weapon fighting.

Here's some for Sword-and-Board:

http://bg-archive.minmaxforum.com/in...?topic=10232.0

I didn't remember them off-hand but I recognize them now. CharOp had a lot more varied things than people in the General forum on GiantITP tend to remember for some reason. And even then those builds are only a starting point, you can modify them or take useful bits from them to make other builds work.

As far as single one-handed weapon... That's a little iffier to make work well, I think, but certainly support for that could have been added in later splats, if they were added. I think Blade Bravo might have used that to work well, but it's been so long since I looked at that one, I can't remember if I was intending to use it in any builds or not.

[Lord Raziere]

That's the whole reason for wanting a "balanced" game system. You see, this is a friendly form of competition that requires a level playing field and clear set of rules and accepted boundaries. It´s more like team-based sports games that have you act together as a team in competition with the other team, but also allows for internal rivalries and competition in individual performance.

The stuff that you describe has not much to do with a friendly rivalry but is rather trying to win at any price.

Pretty much.

My personal metric for crossing the line into something thats just trying to win at any cost is whether they use scry and die tactics. any thing like that or above and that is too much for me, even when I try to do countermeasures. like I won't lie, a game that perhaps has scry and die tactics and such and so on as the base assumption built into the setting and rules would interesting and that is the starting point for it with lower levels being ignored would be interesting to explore, but for DnD? nah.

like the mindset and methods of something like a batman wizard isn't even something that can't be replicated. I can probably design a Fate Accelerated game where I just replace the usual six approaches with: Instant Kill Move, Apply Solution, Bypass, Preparation, Paranoia and Minions, have everyone start with one health and that you can only increase it permanently with paranoia and temporarily with preparation using a prepare contingencies action or have minions take a death for you, things like that, and it would probably work, because guess what being a character who constantly plans and works to up their chances of success through constant planning, paranoia, killing their enemies instantly, teleporting to skip obstacles is still a story that can be told, its just not a usual story you hear thats real compatible with most heroic stories. of course this doesn't actually work for the competitive player since they want to do the work themselves, but capturing the feel and methods of what they play isn't actually hard, its just that most people use narrative games to ESCAPE having to worry about that constant planning and paranoia that isn't fun for them, while people who actually want to play that want to work for it, so there is no market for that.

[Florian]

@Lord Raziere:

My personal line is when you either try to use Combat as War principles in a Combat as Sports game (putting the strategic level over the tactical level) or try to find a way to game the agreed upon rules.

The reason I favor soccer over other team-based games is because the rules are hard-coded not to be broken and preserve the challenge and competition. It´s pretty clear what the "winning moves" are, but those are blocked by design.

Scry and die is just an example where I say: Yeah, great, but you get no XP/GP because you avoided the challenge, same for hyper-level minionmancy, wish loops and so on.

@Morty:

In PF, you wouldn't take a Fighter seriously who doesn't carry a shield...

[Kyutaru]

Yes, that is why i write that seeing the character building minigame as a competition for power is a stupid way to play the game, if actually taken serious.

Bluntly stated but correct.

It's not a competition but it's still meriting of the depth that exists, even so far as trap options go. People seem to forget that because it's not a competition and nothing is truly at stake there are plenty of thematic choices that pair together for less than optimal purposes. The system will always inherently have trap options even if you remove every option you see as one. Taking Improved Critical for 12 different weapons is not going to give you a stronger character. Taking archery feats on your melee warrior is not going to make him better at combat. A degree of sensibility is needed to not mess up your choices to begin with.

But similarly, people will intentionally "mess up" their build for thematic flavor, roleplay value, or preference of focus. There are players who pick certain classes specifically because they are like the roles 2e gave them -- no buttons, just roll dice at things. For all the talk of balance thrown around, it seems some people would want such a build to be on par with something more complicated in defiance of all balance logic. Yet was the player concerned with balance to begin with? Was that their goal when making the character? To be as strong as wizards or anything else that requires more thought than throwing attack dice at everything as the de facto reaction? Wizards themselves receive flak for playing such a simple style of gameplay, warned not to take Evocation as it's a trap option. As though that even mattered to the player making the character that just wants to sling around Fireballs.

Instead, it seems some people will only be satisfied when it's impossible to create bad characters because all options are uniquely balanced and take into account every other effect that exists as a potential candidate for interaction with said options. Balderdash to that, bad characters have been some of the most fun experiences I've seen players run through. That pure lightning sorcerer is gimping himself tremendously and yet doesn't even care. What he -would- care about is if the book lacked options for him to specialize the way he wanted to, even if that build was terrible from outsider perspective. Oh so my build can't nuke the sun and falls flat against blue dragons? Totally okay with that.

I've even seen people take Toughness in games not because it's a trap option but because they wanted more health as a player and were bad at surviving. It's almost like not every player instantly understands tactics and how to optimally play their class, build, or role. It's as though certain options exist to cater to certain mindsets and these allow them to have the options they desire even if other options they don't want would be mathematically superior for them.

It's never been about competition mini-games. Players turn it into that, and only specific types of people with that mindset. You are free to see it that way or free to oppose it that way but neither is correct. It was never part of the design. The design was all-inclusive, meant to cater to multiple playstyles, not just the min-maxers.

[Kyutaru]

There might or might not be a direct answer to the question of the best fighter build. But I'm pretty sure it's not going to involve using a shield, two weapons or a single one-handed weapon regardless. Because, you know, those styles are generally just plain worse than swinging a two-handed weapon, preferably with reach. That doesn't strike me as enabling character-building.

There's always going to be something that subjectively or objectively appears better to a person, hence why all fighting games have tier lists even though character balance tends to be paramount. The super simple straightforward high damage high health brawler characters rarely are able to compete with the high speed high combo high tech characters being played by someone proficient. It's not even because of bad balance because the simple characters have topped tournaments before. The character is inherently strong. However, it lacks options given its slower speed to react to the opponent. It can only counterattack or exploit very narrow windows in the enemy's combo strings or punish the enemy for overextending. It relies on the opponent being bad rather than the controller being good. Balance does not mean what people often think it means for that simple character is most certainly balanced yet isn't going to rank high in tiers unless he's blatantly overpowered.

And yet, different strokes for different folks. Some people want that shield warrior. Some want to be Aragorn and dual wield. It doesn't matter if there's a more optimal choice to them. Heck, that itself implies their goal is "more damage, more killing". Should we just measure effectiveness by body counts and let all PCs be murder hobos?

Teamwork was brought up earlier and how the party is likened to one. Sports have teams and no all positions are not created equal. The forward positions get a great deal of attention in soccer as they win or lose the game based on their performance because without a scored goal there can be no victory. And yet I'd argue the goalkeeper is even more important of a position for even with 10 goals scored a team will lose if the enemy has 11. Every position on the team is valuable even though not all positions are equal or receive the same level of spotlight activity. At its most basic core, soccer is a game that requires only two people - a striker and a goalkeeper. You can add more players to that to form teams. Every additional person adds layers of complexity to the tactics and rules of the game but isn't necessarily as valuable as the previous addition. At some point you're adding players that just won't contribute anything anymore because they'll never even get a chance to handle the ball. That's not a player shortcoming or a rules shortcoming, it's the fault of the event organizer for having an excessive roster in the team compositions. It's the DM to blame if someone isn't having a chance to shine.

[Rhedyn]

Scry and die is just an example where I say: Yeah, great, but you get no XP/GP because you avoided the challenge, same for hyper-level minionmancy, wish loops and so on.

That just creates situations where people needlessly put themselves at risk to gain XP.

At which point you have killed all roleplaying.

Congrats?

[Kyutaru]

That just creates situations where people needlessly put themselves at risk to gain XP.

At which point you have killed all roleplaying.

Congrats?

The reverse being that if you promote rewards for effortless challenges, like giving all commoners 10 gold and 1 xp, players will see it as part of the game and figure out how to efficiently engage in wholesale slaughter for the maximum gains. Why hunt dragons when there's a village right over there that gives the same rewards?

[Cluedrew]

You are just arguing between challenge and story telling based role-playing games at this point. Please stop or move it to a different thread. You could discuss how either type of design effects the caster/martial divide and this would be a good thread for that. However just arguing about which one is better is off topic.

[Kyutaru]

You are just arguing between challenge and story telling based role-playing games at this point. Please stop or move it to a different thread. You could discuss how either type of design effects the caster/martial divide and this would be a good thread for that. However just arguing about which one is better is off topic.

This is the misconception. D&D I think we can agree is based around both. Which means the system and rules in place must have options for either player. The challenge-oriented players will see lots of trash options and have to navigate a complex system to find their preferred gems. The roleplaying-oriented players will see lots of build variety and have to navigate a complex system to find their preferred gems.

What matters is freedom of choice. This topic isn't about which type is better but a 19-page explanation of why both types exist simultaneously within the rules and how that affects perceptions. Both types affect the other because the system was made for neither independently. Without understanding that, people will continue to bicker about what is effectively the plan to PURGE the other side from their game to make it flawless.

[Talakeal]

I disagree with AMFV, and I still like 3E.

For me the best edition is a toss up between 2E, which looks foul but feels fair, and 3E, which looks fair but feels foul.

The problem isn't that character creation minigames or competitive RPGs are wrong, its that you have one very different sort of game as an entrance to another.

Imagine, for example, that your stereotypical jock has to win a chess match before he could play football or vice versa. Chess and football are fine games, but they are very different and appeal to different people, and smashing them together like that is going to make them worse for the vast majority of people.

I do like barbie gaming...

I love this term. Do you have a definition / origin for it?

[Max_Killjoy]

I disagree with AMFV, and I still like 3E.

For me the best edition is a toss up between 2E, which looks foul but feels fair, and 3E, which looks fair but feels foul.

The problem isn't that character creation minigames or competitive RPGs are wrong, its that you have one very different sort of game as an entrance to another.

Imagine, for example, that your stereotypical jock has to win a chess match before he could play football or vice versa. Chess and football are fine games, but they are very different and appeal to different people, and smashing them together like that is going to make them worse for the vast majority of people.

Whereas I reject the entire concept of "minigames" in RPGs. I've even seen someone describe elements as granular and transitory as a locked door as "the getting around this locked door minigame", and it's just... aggravating. There's no "minigame" there, it's just characters interacting with an element in the setting, an obstacle they want to get around.

I love this term. Do you have a definition / origin for it?

It's evidently a belittling term for anyone approaching their character as a "person who could be real" instead of as a playing piece in a board game.

[PhoenixPhyre]

It's evidently a belittling term for anyone approaching their character as a "person who could be real" instead of as a playing piece in a board game.

That's not how I read it at all.

I figured it meant "building characters for character building purposes, like playing dress-up with dolls, instead of building characters for an actual game".

[Max_Killjoy]

That's not how I read it at all.

I figured it meant "building characters for character building purposes, like playing dress-up with dolls, instead of building characters for an actual game".

Not the first time it's come up. Maybe that's not how the user here meant it, I missed some of the context, it might have been edited into the post after I read the post earlier.

[Rhedyn]

The reverse being that if you promote rewards for effortless challenges, like giving all commoners 10 gold and 1 xp, players will see it as part of the game and figure out how to efficiently engage in wholesale slaughter for the maximum gains. Why hunt dragons when there's a village right over there that gives the same rewards?

Yeah you don't reverse it. You don't have xp at all.

Advancements happen after X number of sessions or after story arcs.

I can't remember the last time I played D&D with xp.

[Thinker]

Whereas I reject the entire concept of "minigames" in RPGs. I've even seen someone describe elements as granular and transitory as a locked door as "the getting around this locked door minigame", and it's just... aggravating. There's no "minigame" there, it's just characters interacting with an element in the setting, an obstacle they want to get around.

I think of a "minigame" as referring to distinct mechanics around it with different goals from standard gameplay. Picking locks in Skyrim qualifies because you are taken to a totally different screen and manipulate the lockpick differently from everything else in the game. "Getting around this locked door" doesn't really describe a minigame because there was no difference in play - it was just describing a situation that needed to be overcome. If it was to truly become a minigame, it would have been something like, getting past this door requires solving a maze instead of rolling dice. It wouldn't necessarily be bad, but it would be a distinct change in gameplay.

[noob]

xp adds complexity and is arbitrary.
I mean by having a behaviour that avoids all traps I get no xp while if I acted as dumb as possible I would get way more xp from traps.
because xp is gained from solving the encounters that needs to be solved for your objective and if you do not have the encounter in the first place because you found a way not not need that encounter then you do not need to solve it for your objective.
should people be rewarded for dumbness?
equally weird would be gaining xp from not meeting the traps that were supposed to prevent your progress toward your objective.
no matter which way we choose it works it is weird and arbitrary.

[Talakeal]

Whereas I reject the entire concept of "minigames" in RPGs. I've even seen someone describe elements as granular and transitory as a locked door as "the getting around this locked door minigame", and it's just... aggravating. There's no "minigame" there, it's just characters interacting with an element in the setting, an obstacle they want to get around.

That's a fair point. I can see the risk, as you will always have people who like the main game but dislike the minigame or vice versa, making them put up with one to play the other.

I personally like RPGs that handle "downtime" as a distinct minigame and have gotten a lot of pushback for the idea, so I have put a good deal of thought into it.

It's evidently a belittling term for anyone approaching their character as a "person who could be real" instead of as a playing piece in a board game.

Is it belittling? That's a shame.

I have said several times that the way I approach an RPG is a lot more like a kid playing with dolls than a traditional game of D&D, and I thought it might actually be a style of gaming that appeals to me.

But yeah, I again I can see the pushback. I remember a few years ago talking about how I put so much effort into making a new character, up to and including doing a floorplan for their house and deciding on their outfits, and then the DM put me into what I felt was a no win scenario and resulted in a TPK within the first hour of the game, and someone on the forum telling me that I had these problems BECAUSE I put so much effort into useless character details.

I think of a "minigame" as referring to distinct mechanics around it with different goals from standard gameplay. Picking locks in Skyrim qualifies because you are taken to a totally different screen and manipulate the lockpick differently from everything else in the game. "Getting around this locked door" doesn't really describe a minigame because there was no difference in play - it was just describing a situation that needed to be overcome. If it was to truly become a minigame, it would have been something like, getting past this door requires solving a maze instead of rolling dice. It wouldn't necessarily be bad, but it would be a distinct change in gameplay.

This.

If I like the particular minigame it is a plus, if I don't it is a minus. Probably best not to include minigames at all though, as they are inevitably going to alienate some customers, unless the minigame serves a necessary purpose like giving someone something to do during a loading screen.

[Thinker]

xp adds complexity and is arbitrary.
I mean by having a behaviour that avoids all traps I get no xp while if I acted as dumb as possible I would get way more xp from traps.
Should people be rewarded for dumbness?

XP promotes the type of gameplay desired by the game developers or the GM. If the devs or the GM want to promote interaction with the traps, that is what gets rewarded. If they want to promote avoiding danger, that would be rewarded instead (or as well if they want to support both styles of play). It goes back to what the game is about. A game about heroic fantasy would likely prefer that the characters interact with dangerous situations. Avoiding all danger and clinching the goal doesn't seem very heroic.

[Gallowglass]

Whereas I reject the entire concept of "minigames" in RPGs. I've even seen someone describe elements as granular and transitory as a locked door as "the getting around this locked door minigame", and it's just... aggravating. There's no "minigame" there, it's just characters interacting with an element in the setting, an obstacle they want to get around.

well, I'm sorry you are aggravated by a shorthand vernacular term for a concept?

There may not be a "getting around this locked door minigame" but there is -certainly- a "stealth" minigame or "skill challenge" minigame. All that means is a discreet in-game mechanic that different characters may choose to concentrate their build resources to be better at than others. And its used in reference to "someone who plays a rogue probably wants to be better than the wizard at the stealth and locked door minigames, but isn't". Just edit out minigame and replace it with whatever term doesn't aggravate you. mechanic. challenge. whatever. *shrug*

in a roleplaying game there are two things going on. the social interaction involving in character bits and players interacting and the mechanics that drive the different challenges. I will always describe those as minigames because it seems to be a descriptor that most everyone understands and effectively gets my point across. (most everyone)

At some point, as a reasonable participant in a debate, you have to take responsibility for handling language parsing yourself rather than using it as a tool to occlude communication and choose to take offense as a stalling tactic.

Bear in mind, this is from someone who has mostly been on YOUR side of this debate through most of this.

But then, you are on the record, in this thread, as saying you've never played 3e, you quit D&D five years before it came out (in the 90s) so I'm not really sure why you are commenting so vigorously on something that you have no experience with.

Honestly, this thread is completely derailed because of the differing opinions on what "game" means in our imprecise language. Does it mean any activity that is fun and/or challenging? Or does it require specific parameters beyond that?

A couple posts before this, someone pointed out that we are no longer talking about the "martial/caster" divide, and they are right. So I am unfollowing this thread now because I have allowed myself to assist in the derailing of this thread.

bad gallowglass! bad! no biscuit!

[Max_Killjoy]

well, I'm sorry you are aggravated by a shorthand vernacular term for a concept?

There may not be a "getting around this locked door minigame" but there is -certainly- a "stealth" minigame or "skill challenge" minigame. All that means is a discreet in-game mechanic that different characters may choose to concentrate their build resources to be better at than others. And its used in reference to "someone who plays a rogue probably wants to be better than the wizard at the stealth and locked door minigames, but isn't". Just edit out minigame and replace it with whatever term doesn't aggravate you. mechanic. challenge. whatever. *shrug*

Those are not "minigames". A game element having a specific associated mechanic is not a "minigame", and a character going off to do something alone is not a "minigame". Flinging "minigame" around to describe every element of an RPG system both misrepresents those elements, and dilutes the word to uselessness.

I think of a "minigame" as referring to distinct mechanics around it with different goals from standard gameplay. Picking locks in Skyrim qualifies because you are taken to a totally different screen and manipulate the lockpick differently from everything else in the game. "Getting around this locked door" doesn't really describe a minigame because there was no difference in play - it was just describing a situation that needed to be overcome. If it was to truly become a minigame, it would have been something like, getting past this door requires solving a maze instead of rolling dice. It wouldn't necessarily be bad, but it would be a distinct change in gameplay.

That's closer to what a "minigame" actually is.

It's a term that's bled over from videogames, where it actually has some utility. The lock-hacking mechanic in the original Mass Effect could fairly be called a minigame, for example.

[Thinker]

That's a fair point. I can see the risk, as you will always have people who like the main game but dislike the minigame or vice versa, making them put up with one to play the other.

I personally like RPGs that handle "downtime" as a distinct minigame and have gotten a lot of pushback for the idea, so I have put a good deal of thought into it.

This.

If I like the particular minigame it is a plus, if I don't it is a minus. Probably best not to include minigames at all though, as they are inevitably going to alienate some customers, unless the minigame serves a necessary purpose like giving someone something to do during a loading screen.

I think Downtime is an excellent use of minigame mechanics. You don't want to act out every week of time in the game while waiting for the next important event, but you also don't want to gloss over everything they might do. Blades in the Dark has a very good Downtime game-phase that supports the purpose of the game (Victorian-style underworld-types). I don't think that minigames alienate people, but they have to support the game and can't be a diversion or annoyance.

[Thinker]

well, I'm sorry you are aggravated by a shorthand vernacular term for a concept?

There may not be a "getting around this locked door minigame" but there is -certainly- a "stealth" minigame or "skill challenge" minigame. All that means is a discreet in-game mechanic that different characters may choose to concentrate their build resources to be better at than others. And its used in reference to "someone who plays a rogue probably wants to be better than the wizard at the stealth and locked door minigames, but isn't". Just edit out minigame and replace it with whatever term doesn't aggravate you. mechanic. challenge. whatever. *shrug*

in a roleplaying game there are two things going on. the social interaction involving in character bits and players interacting and the mechanics that drive the different challenges. I will always describe those as minigames because it seems to be a descriptor that most everyone understands and effectively gets my point across. (most everyone)

I disagree with your assertion that those are minigames. There isn't a distinct gameplay mechanic that governs stealth or social settings as compared to dungeon delving. In D&D, it is the GM lays out the scene, the players respond, and, if there's need for a roll, they roll ability check, add modifiers, and the GM adjudicates outcome. If during the stealth bit, the player had to pull a number of blocks from a Jenga tower to avoid detection, that would be a minigame. Otherwise, you're just talking about different situations of the standard play. One of the strengths of RPG's is the ability to adjudicate multiple situations. If we go about calling each type of situation a minigame, we won't notice when an actual minigame does appear.

[Gallowglass]

I disagree with your assertion that those are minigames. There isn't a distinct gameplay mechanic that governs stealth or social settings as compared to dungeon delving. In D&D, it is the GM lays out the scene, the players respond, and, if there's need for a roll, they roll ability check, add modifiers, and the GM adjudicates outcome. If during the stealth bit, the player had to pull a number of blocks from a Jenga tower to avoid detection, that would be a minigame. Otherwise, you're just talking about different situations of the standard play. One of the strengths of RPG's is the ability to adjudicate multiple situations. If we go about calling each type of situation a minigame, we won't notice when an actual minigame does appear.

okay? *shrug*

[Willie the Duck]

okay? *shrug*

*grin* We are about three levels down the Inception-chain, aren't we?

[Kyutaru]

XP promotes the type of gameplay desired by the game developers or the GM. If the devs or the GM want to promote interaction with the traps, that is what gets rewarded. If they want to promote avoiding danger, that would be rewarded instead (or as well if they want to support both styles of play). It goes back to what the game is about. A game about heroic fantasy would likely prefer that the characters interact with dangerous situations. Avoiding all danger and clinching the goal doesn't seem very heroic.

This is the way I see it too. XP and its usage can vary from table to table but it is essentially a carrot on a stick for players to follow. DMs will reward actions they wish to happen and disregard actions that serve no merit. It goes back to the idea of whether this is faulty game logic purely because different people use the same mechanic for different goals.

All-inclusive game design is not bad game design. The game's got to have rules for everyone to be widely appealing. The idea sometimes floats around that if you cater to everyone then no one will be pleased. But the popularity of D&D seems to indicate otherwise, that plenty of people are pleased with it. It makes it easier to disregard weak mechanics like XP because they are purely suggestive hooks to enable a dungeon master to control his players' behavior.

[PanosIs]

On the caster/martial divide, I think the aspect of combat efficiency and the aspect of overall utility need to be addressed separately. The first is something that is mostly present in D&D and again in not all editions, levels or games. And it is something that is clearly an issue when the fighter signed up to bash heads in yet the wizard ends up bashing heads better.

The second is an entirely different thing that has to do with both participation in different aspects of play as well as access to narrative-changing powers which most casters in D&D have (Teleport, Plane Shift, Scrying) yet most martials don't (i don't see many barbarians diverting rivers). Both of these might or might not be issues depending on the type of game you're running and the type of players in said games.

I don't consider a fighter not having a way to cross great distances quickly a-la teleport an issue, but I do consider it an issue when the fighter does not have the ability to participate in anything other than combat because all his resources have to be put into that to shore up an otherwise lackluster class (See 3.5 fighter).

Note that the first point is something that is mostly present just in certain D&D editions, while at least the narrative-changing aspect of the second is present in most games that feature fighters and wizards.

[Rhedyn]

This is the way I see it too. XP and its usage can vary from table to table but it is essentially a carrot on a stick for players to follow. DMs will reward actions they wish to happen and disregard actions that serve no merit. It goes back to the idea of whether this is faulty game logic purely because different people use the same mechanic for different goals.

All-inclusive game design is not bad game design. The game's got to have rules for everyone to be widely appealing. The idea sometimes floats around that if you cater to everyone then no one will be pleased. But the popularity of D&D seems to indicate otherwise, that plenty of people are pleased with it. It makes it easier to disregard weak mechanics like XP because they are purely suggestive hooks to enable a dungeon master to control his players' behavior.

Wouldn't that just make it a bad mechanic?

[Willie the Duck]

Wouldn't that just make it a bad mechanic?

The phrasing there was certainly a little confrontational, but the basic concept of creating boundaries isn't inherently problematic. Especially when it's clearly one of incentivization, rather than making demands. If the game is 'about' (and here I'm going to assume that there's some DM-player shared buy-in) something, then incentivizing/rewarding that thing is a net positive.

• In an old school dungeon crawl, the 'goal' is to go into this night's dungeon, and come out with as much loot as possible. To facilitate this, early era D&D editions rewarding obtaining treasure (far and away more than defeating monsters). This, combined with hit points, rations, torches, spells memorized, and the like being slowly depleting resources incentivized a gameplay where one carefully weighed slow and cautious progression versus audacious action to try to maximize your loot reward while minimizing your exposure to risk and depletion of resources.
• Later, as the dungeon heist model declined in favor and people decided that they wanted to play such that defeating the forces of evil was preferable to sneaking past them and/or robbing them, xp rewards started focusing on winning combats.
• Other games incentivize accomplishing adventure goals or developing your character's goals. Invisible Suns, my current recent purchase that I am exploring rewards characters accomplishing/finishing individual personal character arcs like 'make a discovery' or 'start a business' or the like. That has it's own incentivization structure (unfortunately it tends to mean whichever player is best at monopolizing the metaphoric spotlight will advance most quickly).
• The only really neutral method I can think of is where characters don't advance, or simply advance because the group wants to explore different power levels (e.g. 'okay, we've played at level 3 for long enough, everyone gain a level and we'll see how that feels'). Which I've also played in a game that uses that model (a homebrew).

[Kyutaru]

Wouldn't that just make it a bad mechanic?

No, why would it? Do you have an alternate method of doing the same task that functions better and simpler than XP? Video games use it for the same purpose, discouraging players from going back to old zones with weak enemies and effortlessly racking up progression strength. Often you can do this to some extent for farming if higher enemies are too strong for your team but it's much less efficient and grindy, promoting again the idea that taking on stronger challenges is worthwhile while not completely isolating players who are unable to do so. Similarly, if Crafting gives XP, the game devs want you to craft. If murdering every bunny you see gives no XP then the devs don't want you to go on mass killing sprees of the NPC fauna. Sometimes they'll even include it as a joke and give 1 xp. Feel free to kill 800,000 bunnies to level up (disincentive without banning).

Like all things in the book, it's one idea DMs are free to take or leave. Variant suggestions exist because the idea is not definitive or mandatory for the game experience. You are free to take as much or as little of the book as you want, establishing the rules as guidelines rather than a war game's hard-and-fast strict structure of permissions. It's a mechanic that facilitates what it aims to do -- assist the storyteller.