Warpiglet
Adventurer
With background in testing/test theory I am very aware that the way we measure things shapes the conversation about and perception of a 'thing' or construct.
With D&D, the conversation often centers on damage output and the many 'musts.' I am astonished at times at how vehemently people claim something is a 'trap,' when what might be more accurate is 'slightly lower bonus' to a particular roll. When new players read or hear this, I think it gives a skewed view of the game.
Often overlooked are other issues which are important to the game. There is exploration and social encounters and general problem solutions (utility) and so forth. However, we don't really have a metric for this sort of discussion.
I was thinking today about how much a character ability might shape a story. Sure, stabbing the enemy to death is important and we focus on that a lot. But there are a lot of other things we almost hand wave. I was thinking about disguise self recently. Or even think about a cantrip like mage hand...the ability to track in the wilds or detect evil. Some of these other abilities have the potential to do MORE to shape the story or solve problems than the raw power to physically murder (stab, scorch, freeze) the enemy to death. Damn! Think about teleport and scrying and even picking locks! Some of these things open up whole vistas of adventure and story.
And yet they get talked about so much less than DPR. I am in the camp of 'just play.' I have effective but not fully optimized characters you might say--and in the end, immersion plus the dice come together as a whole for me (I think this is pretty common). With this said...
What other ways could we, if so inclined, discuss character ability to move or shape a game other than DPR/DPS or whatever? No we don't have to...but for fun, how would we quantify it? What areas would be included? I am struggling to think of something as succinct as DPR/DPS perhaps because of the variability in actual play. But it seems that accessing, acquiring and avoiding targets and danger should be as important as DPR or whatever. I wonder if the difficulty in quantifying these constructs is part of the reason DPR gets so much press.
With D&D, the conversation often centers on damage output and the many 'musts.' I am astonished at times at how vehemently people claim something is a 'trap,' when what might be more accurate is 'slightly lower bonus' to a particular roll. When new players read or hear this, I think it gives a skewed view of the game.
Often overlooked are other issues which are important to the game. There is exploration and social encounters and general problem solutions (utility) and so forth. However, we don't really have a metric for this sort of discussion.
I was thinking today about how much a character ability might shape a story. Sure, stabbing the enemy to death is important and we focus on that a lot. But there are a lot of other things we almost hand wave. I was thinking about disguise self recently. Or even think about a cantrip like mage hand...the ability to track in the wilds or detect evil. Some of these other abilities have the potential to do MORE to shape the story or solve problems than the raw power to physically murder (stab, scorch, freeze) the enemy to death. Damn! Think about teleport and scrying and even picking locks! Some of these things open up whole vistas of adventure and story.
And yet they get talked about so much less than DPR. I am in the camp of 'just play.' I have effective but not fully optimized characters you might say--and in the end, immersion plus the dice come together as a whole for me (I think this is pretty common). With this said...
What other ways could we, if so inclined, discuss character ability to move or shape a game other than DPR/DPS or whatever? No we don't have to...but for fun, how would we quantify it? What areas would be included? I am struggling to think of something as succinct as DPR/DPS perhaps because of the variability in actual play. But it seems that accessing, acquiring and avoiding targets and danger should be as important as DPR or whatever. I wonder if the difficulty in quantifying these constructs is part of the reason DPR gets so much press.