D&D 5E Merwin said it better than Schwalb

[BryonD]

I know I already responded to the post here, but I wanted to go back and address this bit.

Frankly, I don't see the complaint.

I'm ok with that.

We don't have to see things the same way or want the same things. I know that there are a whole lot of people who do see the complaint. That shouldn't bother you any more than some people not seeing it bothers me.

 

[Hussar]

You and I discussed this numerous times back when it was relevant. I accept that the perspective of me and many other players out there. But that doesn't change anything.

Even in your answer here "elemental and cold wand" remains flavor text. The action resolution mechanics are all too frequently the same over and over. Yes, there are exceptions, lots of exceptions, but not nearly enough exceptions.

4E fans brag that the mechanical resolution for every situation, no matter how narratively diverse, can be found on a single page.

You see it as a mischaracterization on my part, but that is because you don't see what else there can be.

You realise that "mechanical resolution for every situation, no matter how narratively diverse, can be found on a single page" is the mantra for just about every rules light game out there today? Having universal rules does not mean that events become the same over and over again. If that was true, then Savage Worlds would be the blandest game in the world. After all, every single action in SW boils down to can you beat a 4. That's it. No matter what you are doing, that's the sum total of SW resolution mechanics.

And SW is not even all that rules light to be honest. More rules medium.

The idea that narrative distinctiveness requires separate sub systems distinct from each other is very much disproven by the sheer number of systems out there with universal mechanics.

 

[The Black Ranger]

What I detest are the gearheads who insist that I'm somehow ruining their game because my character isn't completely optimal. Lords forbid I create a character that doesn't eek out every single ounce of damage per round possible by taking the Great Axe instead of the Great Sword (as a f'rinstance).

And following a character concept != tragically flawed. Also, not being the most completely optimized character EVAR also != tragically flawed.

FTW!

 

[The Black Ranger]

OTOH, there's the dead weight character too. Someone who creates a character purely for concept, but is simply not pulling his/her weight in the game. Now, I'm not talking about someone who is doing 1 HP damage less per round on average than someone else. That's fine. But, I've seen gamers who insist on "playing to concept" who create characters which are very useless. But, if I or anyone else points out that as a group of professional adventurers, whose goal is to survive, we really have no reason to actually cart this dead weight around, now we're suddenly "roll players" who don't care about playing the game right.

There most certainly is two sides on this issue and both of them can be equally problematic. Neither of them is inherently a problem, but, taken beyond a certain point, both sides will cause issues at the table.

They are perfectly entitled to create their character however they see fit. You are in the wrong to even hint that it's a problem.

I think the issue comes in when D&D is assumed to be about winning.

 

[Mort]

They are perfectly entitled to create their character however they see fit. You are in the wrong to even hint that it's a problem.

I think the issue comes in when D&D is assumed to be about winning.

It's not about winning, but it is about fun at the table.

If a player creates a character that is leaching the fun from the table (lets say he creates a character that actively hampers the others in combat, or creates a character that is completely against the groups mission and or concept). The rest of the group can and should speak up.

If the only reason the character is tolerated in the party is because he is a PC and the player expects to be tolerated despite a disruptive character - that's a no go for me.

 

[BryonD]

You realise that "mechanical resolution for every situation, no matter how narratively diverse, can be found on a single page" is the mantra for just about every rules light game out there today? Having universal rules does not mean that events become the same over and over again. If that was true, then Savage Worlds would be the blandest game in the world. After all, every single action in SW boils down to can you beat a 4. That's it. No matter what you are doing, that's the sum total of SW resolution mechanics.

And SW is not even all that rules light to be honest. More rules medium.

The idea that narrative distinctiveness requires separate sub systems distinct from each other is very much disproven by the sheer number of systems out there with universal mechanics.

The idea that narrative distinctiveness requires separate sub systems distinct from each other is very much disproven by 4E.
What is your point?

I know that there are people out there that love that style. I've never disputed that. But I stand by the statement as a more than reasonable characterization of 4E. And I stand by that characterization for why a lot of people don't like it. A non-zero number of people loving it does nothing to change that.

Perm said this was a mischaracterization. You seem to be embracing it.

 

[Umbran]

They are perfectly entitled to create their character however they see fit.

The player is only entitled to create a character within the limitations and expectations agreed upon with the GM.

 

[Nagol]

They are perfectly entitled to create their character however they see fit. You are in the wrong to even hint that it's a problem.

I think the issue comes in when D&D is assumed to be about winning.

And the rest of the characters are entitled to freedom of association. I have seen groups fire PCs and have even participated in such as a player very occasionally. It is in everyone's best interest to create characters that are appropriate for the campaign and that includes an appropriate level of effectiveness.

 

[The Black Ranger]

The player is only entitled to create a character within the limitations and expectations agreed upon with the GM.

The point was that the player can design his character however he sees fit. Nobody is talking about far out there concepts that break the fluff of the game and causes a melt-down, I am talking about players who pick options that suit their concepts - even if they are the worst mechanically.

 

[The Black Ranger]

And the rest of the characters are entitled to freedom of association. I have seen groups fire PCs and have even participated in such as a player very occasionally. It is in everyone's best interest to create characters that are appropriate for the campaign and that includes an appropriate level of effectiveness.

Incorrect.

There is no such thing as level of effectiveness in D&D. You show me text from any, and I mean "any" book that says you must create an effective character. Now the DM can fiat his home brew however he see's fit, just like he can rule that only a fighter can choose greatsword.