Sometimes I feel like I'm the only one who doesn't care about numbers...

[Reynard]

Often when I read discussions online about D&D -- whether it is stuff about the newly revealed tidbit for 5E, or about the Good Old Days of OD&D -- it seems to be dominated by issues of numbers. When folks discuss the relative value of playing a fighter versus a mage, or about monsters or spells, or even about trying to bribe a guard or seduce an NPC, the only thing that matters is what the numbers involved are.And i have to say, I just don't care. Maybe it is because I started with BECMI and my brothers and I just played it the way we played it, and then I moved on to 2E where the fluff outweighed the crunch 100:1. I never did get into the concepts of builds or balancing encounters or any of that mess in the 3.x/PF era.

Obviously, right now the focus is on 5E discussion. It's hard to get into a thread on, say, the subclass reveals because inevitably the discussion turns to numbers and builds and quantitative comparisons. What I really want to know it, is there enough variety in there to allow players to get into the game and their characters so I can run fun adventures that may result in those characters ending up kings or corpses, depending on some choices and some die rolls. The question of whether the round-by-round damage output of the warlock is greater or less than that of the fighter not only leaves me cold, but actively goes against the whole point of the thing.

Maybe it is because I spend most of my time on the DM side of the screen, and therefore PC class comparisons are not especially relevant to me. Even so, CR balancing and treasure counting are only marginally more interesting, and then only in the context of "is this a fun thing?"

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Here's the thing - numbers matter to the play experience, and they're universal. Words vary, everything else varies, but the numbers are largely shared between groups. They are a common thread. This is why they are discussed so much.

The stuff you say that you want to know? That all relies on numbers.*

Your claim that discussing them "goes actively against the point of the thing" is bollocks, frankly, if intended to be anything other than a totally personally opinion with no particular basis beyond being an opinion. It's ORTHOGONAL to the spirit of D&D. It doesn't go against it or for it.

If you don't care about numbers, and don't think they matter, I have literally no idea why you'd ever have changed off the first RPG you started playing. If you do think they matter, but don't like talking about them, well, we all have hang-ups, I guess, but you should not be sneering at anyone for not sharing your hang-up, and there seems to be a bit of that behind your post.

* = Well, you also want to know some completely subjective and relative stuff that absolutely no-one can tell you, so there's that, I guess.

 

[the Jester]

I rather like to see the breakdown and analysis of the numbers, but I don't care about it very much unless it reveals a significant mathematical aberration.

By 'significant,' I mean that I really don't care about a 1-point difference in average damage. I mean stuff like "this type of fighter does one and a half times as much damage as that type". That's a pretty significant difference; the odd point, or a 10% difference, or something like that- I don't much care.

I do think that a lot of the threads where the numbers come up devolve into an argument between two or three posters with strong feelings that the 1 point difference really matters vs. two or three posters with strong feelings that it doesn't. I often wish those guys would get a room, but whatever.

 

[KirayaTiDrekan]

I have always been in the same boat, more or less. I *can* get into the numbers game, so to speak, and did for a while in 3.5, but tired of it quickly. I also started with BECMI and moved into 2nd Edition. 5E is my new favorite, however. Partly because the numbers are a bit de-emphasized from 3.5 and 4E, but also because the "fluff" is freaking amazing (for the most part). I don't get excited about the numbers and don't care too much if they don't quite balance. Tell me about the warlock pacts and paladin oaths and wizard schools and, and, and...you get the idea.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I often wish those guys would get a room, but whatever.

I think everyone feels that way about some arguments, whether about numbers or not!

I actually concur re: the odd point or 10% or whatever. I usually only start caring when differences are approaching 20% or more in places that matter (sometimes a +1 in the right place can multiply out to be much more than the 5% it superficially seems, of course!).

 

[Umbran]

Here's the thing - numbers matter to the play experience, and they're universal. Words vary, everything else varies, but the numbers are largely shared between groups. They are a common thread. This is why they are discussed so much.

Not just that. They are discussed a lot also because the people in question *like* analyzing and discussing numbers. And that's okay, so long as you admit it.

* = Well, you also want to know some completely subjective and relative stuff that absolutely no-one can tell you, so there's that, I guess.

Folks have been discussing subjective and relative things (say, literature) for centuries. It is entirely possible to have that kind of conversation.

But, there's perhaps a bit of a wording here that matters. "...absolutely no-one can tell you..." The implication being that a large part of the point is in telling - not engaging in discussion and passing ideas back and forth and examining them and building on them, but in *telling* things to others.

 

[Starfox]

We discuss numbers becasue they are tangible and concrete. But I agree with the OP that in-game, numbers matter a lot less than it would seem if you only followed these boards,

 

[Reynard]

Your claim that discussing them "goes actively against the point of the thing" is bollocks, frankly, if intended to be anything other than a totally personally opinion with no particular basis beyond being an opinion.

I was expressing an opinion, of course, but to be a little more specific: I meant that, IMO, the spirit of RPG play is fundamentally different than that of board, card or many video games and that spirit is "perpendicular to" (i.e. not at cross purposes with, but not aligned with either) the kind of meta numbers analysis that pervades those other sorts of games.

If you don't care about numbers, and don't think they matter, I have literally no idea why you'd ever have changed off the first RPG you started playing.

Well, if I don't think numbers are important it would follow that the reason I would try other games would have something to do with the non-numerical qualities of those games. Moreover, it would suggest that those non-numerical qualities are more important to me, so the math or balance of a game would not be a driving factor for my preference. As it relates to D&D specifically, it is simply this: D&D is awesome and I have tried them all. I have my preferences, of course, but those preferences have nothing to do with the numbers.

If you do think they matter, but don't like talking about them, well, we all have hang-ups, I guess, but you should not be sneering at anyone for not sharing your hang-up, and there seems to be a bit of that behind your post.

I did not intend to "sneer" and I apologize if it came off that way. Text, tone and all that.

 

[steeldragons]

No. You are not the only one.

Like you, prior to coming to ENworld, numbers were not something I ever thought of or "analyzed" or considered to matter to the play experience. Other assertions to the contrary notwithstanding, I also am of the opinion that concern for the numbers are, while maybe not completely against the point of the game, completely irrelevant to it.

Since coming here and seeing/hear[read]ing those numbers discussions, I will say there are certain points and things that, again never anything I thought or worried about before, I know do have a passing understanding and..."interest" may be too strong a word...but things that I will look at the numbers to see if they "make sense" in a fluffy/general context.

Stuff like, can the Fighter consistently out damage the Warlock? "He has to or this game sucks/I won't play!" or "Take Z feat with F background and W sub-class, then X points of mastery with this weapon and I'll average 86.264 HP per round! I am the miniest-maxer munchin IN DUR WERLLLLD! FEAR ME!" are not my concern. But, all things being equal [+ randomness of dice], is it likely/possible? It makes sense the class that is "the best at fighting" be reasonably capable of being better at fighting than other classes. Is it necessary? Will I "hate" a game that doesn't do/have this? No and no.

If the scaling of spell damage for Wizards consistent with spell damage for Clerics? Obviously, they have different spells. There are significantly fewer damage-dealing spells for Clerics than for Wizards...but again, all other things being equal, do these two, say, damage-dealing "3rd level spells" make sense [by which I mean = have consistent damage]. If this cleric gets +5 to their spell attacks because of their Wisdom and this mage subclass/background/trickity system trick grants +2 to spell damage...who cares? The two spells have a fair/even base on which players can create characters. That's a good thing, in my book. Is it necessary? Will I hate a game that doesn't do/have this? No and no.

So...in a general way, the obvious, general, indisputable way that no one is talking about, numbers do figure into the game. "What's the goblin's AC? What do I need to roll to hit? How much damage do I do?" are all necessary for the game. But, as stated above, in my view, not relevant to the play experience. [note: if anyone can not see/understand the distinction...I am sorry. I'm not going to debate about it because I think if it's a distinction one "doesn't see/get", it can't really be clarified. But feel free to discuss amongst yerselves if you like. There are far more eloquent folks on here than I so maybe they can adequately explain what I am tawkin' about.]

But again, no. It's not just you. But I do think we are a distinctly endangered species these days.

 

[Reynard]

It makes sense the class that is "the best at fighting" be reasonably capable of being better at fighting than other classes.

I want to address this here, just as an example, and perhaps something of an explanation for why I don't "care" about the numbers. The way I view the game and milieu, there is no requirement for "a" fighter to be the best at fighting. See, the definition of the fighter is not "the best at fighting" but rather "the guy who straps on steel to face down monsters and magic for fortune and glory." There is no requirement for him to be the best at fighting so long as he fulfills his descriptive or "fluff" role. more to the point, the player is choosing a fighter because he wants to be the guy that straps on steel to take on magic and monsters for fortune and glory. If the player wants to be the best at fighting, that player may well choose a fighter, but also might choose a barbarian or warlock or whatever else to get there. But even "best at fighting" -- again, IMO -- is a descriptive term for the character in the world, not the sheet on the table. The PC may well seek to be, or believe him/herself to be, the very best fighter of them all, but only by pitting steel against all comers would the PC ever really prove to be The Best.