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

[Mistwell]

When I first played with B/X and 1e, the numbers were not very meaningful to me.

When I got into 3e and 4e here on this board and other boards, the numbers mattered a lot to me.

Now that I am older, and have a lot less time (young child at home) to play the charop game at home, the numbers are again a lot less meaningful for me.

Our games of 5e for the playtest have included a lot more roleplaying than they ever did in 3e or 4e, for whatever reason, and I am really enjoying that so much. It's just a lot more interesting for me than the hours we'd spend on combat before, sometimes all in one single combat.

 

[Reynard]

Well there's your problem, traditional rpgs!

I wasn't suggesting traditional RPGs inherently create that situation; I was only saying that I have seen it happen in lots of linear, uncreative con games. I have had some of the most complex and rewarding gaming of my life with 2nd Edition AD&D and some of the worst with narrative indie games. The quality of play is influenced far more by the people at the table than the system or even the adventure.

 

[Ratskinner]

I wasn't suggesting traditional RPGs inherently create that situation; I was only saying that I have seen it happen in lots of linear, uncreative con games.

I was talking about "arguing about numbers". The traditional RPG design tends to push any discussion into the number realm because of the framework of the fiddly-bit design. If you pick up a traditional game and read a description of something (say a character class) and it tells you that this is all about doing X and being Y, and then whenever you try to do X or be Y you fail, that's usually because of all the fiddly bits associated with that class. That's why the numbers come into it, because those fiddly bits are usually math-y things.

I have had some of the most complex and rewarding gaming of my life with 2nd Edition AD&D and some of the worst with narrative indie games. The quality of play is influenced far more by the people at the table than the system or even the adventure.

Surely the people at the table are the most important to the quality of the time I have, but I've seen plenty of games spoiled by lousy rules. FREX, IME, many narrative indie games suffered from the authors' inability to adequately explain how to play the game without learning it directly from them at table. However, discussions about those games rarely involve the numbers more than other issues. That's contrary to the problems I've had with traditional rpgs, which often revolve around; a) the fiddly bits aren't doing what it says on the tin!, or b) why am I bothering when his fiddly bits let him do everything better than I can?

 

[pemerton]

numbers matter to the play experience, and they're universal.

Actually, for a lot of RPGers I'm not sure that this is true. Between GM fudging or other techniques for manipulating action resolution, free-forming, etc, I think for many gamers the numbers don't matter all that much to the play experience - certainly not in some universal way.

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.

If the fighter PC keeps getting beaten up by the monsters s/he tries to face down, is s/he still fulfilling this descriptive role?

in the message board context, numbers are measurable and easily derived, which makes them great debate fodder. There's only so much you can say about various gaming anecdotes where the discussion doesn't boil down to either "I disagree" or "Cool story, bro".

Picking up on something that [MENTION=177]Umbran[/MENTION] said upthread, I think it would be good if we had a bit more serious discusssion about the "literary" aspects of RPG play. At the moment that is mostly confined to alignment threads.

 

[Crothian]

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?"

I completely agree. But people are excited about 5e and this is how they show it. I'd prefer to hear about how people's games have changed using the new ruleset but we might have to wait till we have a game to do that.

 

[pemerton]

Show me a "challenge" in a 4E adventure that cannot be rolled through. Some meaningful portion of an adventure that can be negotiated without either a combat or die rolling fest. Adventures in these editions are constructed to challenge benchmark numbers on a character sheet, not players.

Your contention rests on a false premise: namely, that no player skill is needed to open up the possibility of rolling the dice. [MENTION=2303]Starfox[/MENTION] gives a simple example that illustrates the point.

To answer the question that opens the quote: here is a link to a 4e actual play report in which a meaningful portion of an adventure was negotiated without a die rolling fest.

 

[Nellisir]

There's one very important thing that's contributed to the rise in "numbers discussions" that I haven't seen mentioned, and that, quite bluntly, is technology. Before the early '90's, you were looking at doing all these analyses with pen, paper, and a calculator. Before the mid-1990's, you were typing up the results and sending them snail mail to a few friends, or maybe a fanzine or, at best, Dragon. I forget when it became commonplace to attach files to emails, but yes, there was a time when that wasn't possible.

If the numbers discussions seemed less dominant twenty years ago - well, it was. But it wasn't _just_ because of the game.

 

[Shemeska]

I've avoided the majority of 5e discussions almost entirely because it seems to be focused on rules and numbers, with comparatively little discussion of the flavor/fluff and the differences between it and prior editions.

I completely zone out on rules discussions unless it's specifically talking about a rules element that I may have worked on.

I also can barely fathom why some folks can't see why someone would want to play a given race as a given character class just because it's fun. 'But they have a -2 to Charisma! That's totally not optimized for that class!' To which my response is, 'So what? I think it's cool and I want to experience playing it. I really could care less about the numbers involved. Something about the concept caught my attention, or it makes sense in-game for the character I have in mind'.

 

[billd91]

I also can barely fathom why some folks can't see why someone would want to play a given race as a given character class just because it's fun. 'But they have a -2 to Charisma! That's totally not optimized for that class!' To which my response is, 'So what? I think it's cool and I want to experience playing it. I really could care less about the numbers involved. Something about the concept caught my attention, or it makes sense in-game for the character I have in mind'.

Yes. Sometimes it's great fun to play against type. Half-orc paladins, halfling or elven barbarians, etc. Fun way to put preconceptions away for a while and stretch your creativity.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Show me a "challenge" in a 4E adventure that cannot be rolled through. Some meaningful portion of an adventure that can be negotiated without either a combat or die rolling fest. Adventures in these editions are constructed to challenge benchmark numbers on a character sheet, not players.

Obviously I can only show you published adventures, not my own, but you need look no further than Logan Bonner's Blood Money in Dungeon 200, which is full of such things.

Perhaps you'd like to read it and then comment again?