D&D 5E Characters are not their statistics and abilities

[FormerlyHemlock]

(sorry, wrong thread)

 

[Corwin]

Yes. All of them.

If so, we are clearly using different definitions of the word. And I would wager shoak1's aligns much more closely to what I was speaking to, than whatever you are using for a definition.

Unless you consider never giving it a thought and not caring when the game 'went out of balance' as doing so, in which case, fine, they all 'require it,' but trivially so.

Yet, not caring--in and of itself--is a form of the table deciding the level of balance they seek in the game being played. So, my point stands. All TTRPGs require the players at the table to determine the level of balance they desire and/or tolerate.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Yet, not caring--in and of itself--is a form of the table deciding the level of balance they seek in the game being played. So, my point stands. All TTRPGs require the players at the table to determine the level of balance they desire and/or tolerate.

Since you define 'not making a decision' as a special case of 'making a decision,' yes, it always happens. Congratulations, enjoy being 'right' in that sense.

 

[iserith]

Guys, can we PLEASE get back to the original topic of the thread - pemerton's Burning Wheel campaign?

 

[Corwin]

Since you define 'not making a decision' as a special case of 'making a decision,' yes, it always happens. Congratulations, enjoy being 'right' in that sense.

I never said "not making a decision." We are clearly not having the same conversation.

 

[Sunseeker]

I hear what you're saying. Still, within the context of:

How does your argument cut? As I played him in his adventuring group, he was resistant to the suggestions of other PCs to diversify. Was he being better or worse at self-optimization?

To my mind, he was both: better to HIM, but worse to everyone else he knew.

To me, how you build your character is only my business when it becomes an unreasonable burden, or completely ineffective. Someone who is highly specialized is neither of those things. I'm certain you still threw gobs of lightning at anything and everything and when it wasn't immune or resistant, you absolutely shocked the snot out of them. Personally I prefer consistency and socialization over diversity on a character. I like knowing there is one thing I will always be good at. Having too many options often gives me choice overload.

I throw monsters with all sorts of different resistances and immunities at my party. Being lightning specialized is still likely to let you blow up 3/4 things, just as much as if you were diversified and could blow up 4/4 things. 3/4 ain't bad, even 2/4 ain't bad.

So, if in-game your character feels that excelling in one thing is superior to being a jack-of-all trades, I think he self-optimized just fine. It's self optimization after all, what the character thinks is best for themselves and for the party (if they consider the party at all).

 

[BoldItalic]

The party has reached 4th Level.

Player1: WTF? Why did you just put your ASI into Cha? You're a Dex 13 Ranger! Your archery is terrible! You need more Dex!

Player2: It's what my character would do.

 

[pemerton]

Was there ever a TTRPG that didn't require the people at the table to establish their own ideas and preferences for balance?

There are RPGs that don't give rise to balance issues in the same way that D&D does, because of (i) differences in mechanics, and/or (ii) differences in expected goals of play.

Here are three: HeroQuest revised, Marvel Heroic RP, and Burning Wheel.

The first two of these do not share D&D's granular, list-based approach to PC construction, nor its corresponding granular approach to action resolution. They have basically no tactical play (though MHRP does have dice pool optimisation, every character builds pools in the same way). Hence issues like whether greatswords are balanced against battle axes, whether ranged or melee is a superior strategy, etc, just don't come up.

BW is closer to D&D in build and resolution mechanics, but it has different goal of play - roughly speaking, confronting challenges rather than overcoming challenges) - and also far more of those challenges are generated on the back of player-introduced rather than GM-introduced content than typical approaches to D&D. Hence, again, these recurring issues of mechanical balance for D&D tend not to arise.

That's not to say that these games can't have players who dominate the table to a greater degree than others. But that tends to be a function of their ability to influence what fiction it is that is the focus of play, than the sorts of mechanical balance issues that [MENTION=54380]shoak1[/MENTION] is concerned with.

 

[pemerton]

Guys, can we PLEASE get back to the original topic of the thread - pemerton's Burning Wheel campaign?

If people want to post about what all RPGing involves, it helps to have more reference points than one person's experience with one edition of one RPG.

 

[Ancalagon]

I think what makes this discussion difficult is that there are different *levels* of sub-optimal.

Example 1: Player makes a well designed fighter, of the sword and shield type. However, because of the fighter's background, she takes a scimitar instead of a long-sword (and this is a strength based character). Because of this choice, the character's average damage is 1 less.

This is clearly a sub-optimal design. But the character should still be viable and able to support her party. Does this really matter?

Example 2: Player makes a bard. He maxes out charisma (great). No bonuses in constitution. Ok-ish dex but wears minimal armor. Takes no defensive spells and no defensive magical ittem. Because of this choice, the character has mediocre AC, low HP and no magical protections.

This is clearly a sub-optimal design. Because the character has *next to no* defensive capacities, the character is extremely fragile and requires constant protection from other PCs in combat. An easy fight, a stray arrow or a single goblin who flanks the party and reaches the back line are all major threats to this character.

Example 1 is clearly not a problem. Example 2 is problematic. But it's not a binary "perfect vs horrible" situation. I don't think every character has to be fully optimized. I think it's ok to take a character with a race that isn't great for his or her class. But there comes a point where the character design is so inferior it gets to be a problem.

Anyway, unless we can sort of agree as to what "amount" of suboptimal we are talking about, many people will talk past one another, because they aren't even talking about the same thing.