D&D 5E Merwin said it better than Schwalb

[Nagol]

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.

"Characters are assumed to be between 3 and 5th level with a minimum of 3 magic weapons between them". "All published adventures will be use the Wealth by Level guidelines."

There are definitely levels of effectiveness in D&D. I think what you meant to say is there are no defined standard for minimal effectiveness within the rule set. So? This ends up being part of the social contract at the table.

If any character cannot meaningfully contribute then there should be in-game consequence.

 

[keterys]

I'm reminded of one time in a point-buy system where three of us were making characters.

Player A made their PC that dealt 15 damage and had DR 10.
Player B made their PC that dealt 30 damage and had DR 20.
Player C made their PC that dealt 40 damage and had DR 30.

Well, we saw right away that was a problem, so decided to use B as the median approach with minor fluctuations from there (A still had more skills than C, etc). Once we were on the same page for what was remotely acceptable, it was fine.

I don't think people really care about a point of damage here or there, but when someone utterly eclipses them - or the entire party - it's an issue.

Think 3e clerics with karma boosted holy words who (no save) defeat all enemies in an encounter every encounter. Whee. Or using shapechange shenannigans to literally tear the system asunder.

I'm usually on the upper end of optimization for the tables I sit at, though I try to do so in breadth and versatility, as well as a few emergency buttons. Less "I negated the encounter" and more "I saved the bacon when it happened to be needed". I usually do so as a preventative measure, often not even using abilities until and unless things really hit the fans.

I know plenty of people with less restraint. I've even got a couple of friends I DM for that have basically learned to pull back. Make sure everyone gets a couple turns - there's no point in encounters being decided before someone even got to go. In some cases, it was only _after_ they'd burned out DMs on running for them.

It is _very_ possible to optimize your way out of a game. There's a certain amount the designers can do to stop it, but there's _also_ a lot more players can do. Not being willfully ignorant or flagrantly abusive is a big step. Sometimes something isn't worded perfectly. Even most of the time. The goal is always fun, not just "winning".

 

[Umbran]

The point was that the player can design his character however he sees fit.

As a cooperative thing, that's just not strictly true. The player should have a great deal of freedom, but the player may need to make the occasional compromise for the good of the group.

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.

I know this isn't about far-our concepts. My statement still holds, in lots of aspects - there can be an agreement on anything from general character concept, to power level, or alignment, or just about anything. If there's an agreement between GM and player on what's coming to the table, and the player brings something else, there's a problem.

Now, I expect that many GMs fail to properly have the discussion about expectations. But if they do have it, then the player shouldn't be bringing things that don't fit that discussion.

 

[Umbran]

That shouldn't bother you any more than some people not seeing it bothers me.

I am not "bothered" in the least, personally. But I still note the failure of reasoning.

This isn't about whether you *like* what it does. Take the movie "Sin City", as an example. I don't care for it. I also recognize that it is artfully made, with great craftsmanship. It does what it sets out to do well. It is a well-made movie that I just don't happen to like.

4e does what it sets out to do pretty well. That doesn't mean anyone has to like it, but complaining that it fails to do what it wasn't designed to do is like complaining that a cat isn't more doglike. If you wanted a dog, you should get a dog, not a cat!

 

[BryonD]

I am not "bothered" in the least, personally. But I still note the failure of reasoning.

This isn't about whether you *like* what it does. Take the movie "Sin City", as an example. I don't care for it. I also recognize that it is artfully made, with great craftsmanship. It does what it sets out to do well. It is a well-made movie that I just don't happen to like.

4e does what it sets out to do pretty well. That doesn't mean anyone has to like it, but complaining that it fails to do what it wasn't designed to do is like complaining that a cat isn't more doglike. If you wanted a dog, you should get a dog, not a cat!

Agree 100%. I've never claimed otherwise.

But I've never heard Sin City fans complain that Godfather fans didn't give their movie a fair shake.
And I've never heard a cat person complain that cats would be better off if dog lovers would stop being immature dog buyers.

I absolutely respect the love 4E fans have for 4E. But the market is what it is.

 

[billd91]

4e does what it sets out to do pretty well. That doesn't mean anyone has to like it, but complaining that it fails to do what it wasn't designed to do is like complaining that a cat isn't more doglike. If you wanted a dog, you should get a dog, not a cat!

Even that's not entirely objective. I think 4e did a fine job of making an action-oriented fantasy role playing game kind of the way Feng Shui is a fine job of making an Asian cinema action role playing game. I think it's clear it sets out to do that. But if its goal was to be the primary choice of the then-existing D&D player base - as I suspect it was - I don't think it succeeded in that. Then there are all of the corporate business goals WotC would have for it and, given its shortened scope, I doubt it succeeded at those.

Basically, the whole question of whether or not 4e did what it set out to do is a subjective one based on which goals you choose to select and measure. I think 4e may have hit some of them, but almost certainly not others.

 

[Umbran]

But I've never heard Sin City fans complain that Godfather fans didn't give their movie a fair shake.
And I've never heard a cat person complain that cats would be better off if dog lovers would stop being immature dog buyers.

BryonD, I know folks have behaved badly. People on both sides of several different dichotomy wars have behaved badly for years. No argument there.

But, fair enough point as it is, I don't see how it follows from what I was saying. I mean, if you don't want to talk about that point, that's fine. There's no obligation.

 

[Umbran]

But if its goal was to be the primary choice of the then-existing D&D player base - as I suspect it was - I don't think it succeeded in that. Then there are all of the corporate business goals WotC would have for it and, given its shortened scope, I doubt it succeeded at those.

Basically, the whole question of whether or not 4e did what it set out to do is a subjective one based on which goals you choose to select and measure. I think 4e may have hit some of them, but almost certainly not others.

Ah. I was speaking about it doing what it was designed to do in an engineering sense. This is not necessarily related to meeting any particular business goals. Good design does not guarantee success.

I mean, you can engineer and make a darned fine turnip twaddler - it can twaddle like nobody's seen before! But if nobody needs their turnips twaddled, sales won't be good. If the marketing campaign stinks, sales won't be good, and so on. Then the failure isn't due to poor design, but due to some business failure.

 

[BryonD]

BryonD, I know folks have behaved badly. People on both sides of several different dichotomy wars have behaved badly for years. No argument there.

But, fair enough point as it is, I don't see how it follows from what I was saying. I mean, if you don't want to talk about that point, that's fine. There's no obligation.

I guess I'm confused because you are the one who said you did not see *my* complaint. So it seems you are saying to disagree with me, but not on anything....

So, yeah, unless there is a point to talk about, I'm ok with moving on.

 

[keterys]

Instead of movies, which are a brief and flighty exercise in time, it seems to me that people treat their roleplaying games much more like their political parties - where only one can "win", and that one might eat up game time for months or years to come until it can be toppled by a rival.

And even the most minor and insignificant of differences are magnified or exaggerated, or even turned to outright vitriol.

Shame, really.