D&D 5E A New Culture?

[MechaPilot]

If D&D is a tactical wargame, it's very bad at being one.

 

[Tony Vargas]

See, the thing I found about "trap" options is that they only look like traps in games and groups where CharOp is heavily emphasized. In my group, long before any of us had ever heard the term, our Reaping Mauler was quite effective. We didn't get to particularly high levels and we weren't often fighting things against grappling would be ineffective (lots of humanoid enemies), so that might have colored our perspective. But he also choked an owlbear to death, and that was a particularly awesome moment that stuck with us for a long time.

Nod. That's the nature of traps, the unwary don't see them.

That you could've done better didn't matter, because no one else was doing better, either. That's also a thing about system mastery & rewarding it (and balance issues in general) that gets lost and/or confuses things. It's all relative. A broken clock is right twice a day and all.

A system like 3e that over-rewards system mastery is fine fun if played by a group of equally-capable system masters (assuming the DM dials everything up to 11 to challenge them), or, with a bit of luck, by 'casuals' who all blunder into equally-disadvantaged 'traps' (similarly, assuming the DM challenges them appropriately) or all avoid doing so.

There's a lot of reasons a game would purposefully include sub-optimal choices, of which "punishing a lack of system mastery" is only one and fairly poor one at that (and one I would not put past the game's designers).

Rewards for system mastery is how Monty Cook put it:

There's a certain type of gamer that relishes the challenge of selecting a clearly inferior option and making it work. Maybe it's more of a video game thing, but I imagine there's quite a few D&D players who've looked at the weapon lists over the years and thought "I bet I could make a whip fighter work".

I believe I just mentioned the 3.x Fighter I played through 14 levels....

Taking an inferior option and optimizing it up to the point of viability is an engaging challenge, and one that won't end up wrecking the game for everyone else when you finally play it. I don't think it's worth intentionally salting a game with inferior options to enable it (every game will always have some), but it can be engaging...

Which I think is what inspired this thread in the first place. It's not exclusive to optimizers by any stretch though; I think they're more numerous within the D&D fandom for reasons that have been discussed ad nauseam, but rest assured that there's plenty of [insert a more story-focused RPG(s) you have a strong distaste for here]

I actually enjoyed playing Storyteller for many years, but I'll insert it, because it's just so true...

communities out there turning their noses down at anyone who would emphasize the "game" elements of RPGs. "It's role-playing not roll-playing" you can hear them chanting in unison.

Since the 90s, on UseNet, yes.

And we still see echos of it, today.

Calling the Social Pillar 'ROLEplaying,' for instance...

 

[Gradine]

gimped

“Timmy cards.”

I think at least a part of my distaste for optimization might have something to do with some of the language choices associated with them. Growing up with a disabled sibling has left my tolerance for using these kinds of words as pejoratives at well below zero.

Taking an inferior option and optimizing it up to the point of viability is an engaging challenge, and one that won't end up wrecking the game for everyone else when you finally play it. I don't think it's worth intentionally salting a game with inferior options to enable it (every game will always have some), but it can be engaging...

It feels like a great option to include in a single-player experience like a video game. As for group experiences like RPGs, however, I think I can agree with this sentiment. It also seems better suited to a competitive multiplayer experience like M:TG. In a collaborative experience like D&D, all it seems to do is provide roadblocks for accessibility to new players, and create an atmosphere that fosters, as you mentioned, elitism in a community that by all rights ought to extremely open, and all about sharing excellent experiences with each other.

Calling the Social Pillar 'ROLEplaying,' for instance...

I spent a lot more time in video game communities back when major titles were starting to incorporate "RPG elements" and everyone was arguing what did or did not define an "RPG". "No see, you're playing the role of Link!" Another pointless thing I no longer have any tolerance for

 

[Staccat0]

I've started to make my PCs just crappier and crappier to start. They end up super powerful regardless.

 

[ccs]

If D&D is a tactical wargame, it's very bad at being one.

And thanks the gods for that.

 

[Aldarc]

If I could also use Matthew as a counter to Matthew look at the final game of his most recent campaign that he recorded. It was complete with a scale model of the Keep where the party had hold up and you could tell that Matthew was ready for, as you say, an epic tactical wargame. However the whole session played out with no d20 being rolled in combat.

So my question is: If DnD is a tactical wargame then did Matthews group just do it wrong?

Wasn't that the conclusion of the previous session that involved them rolling a lot of d20s (or some other dice) for their respective battalions? So do you think that Matthew is contradicting himself? I don't. I doubt he sees the two as mutually exclusive. And D&D has its roots in tactical wargaming, and there are enough trace elements present for him (and others) to see them.

If D&D is a tactical wargame, it's very bad at being one.

Monopoly may be a bad boardgame, but it's still a boardgame.

 

[Warpiglet]

I am glad I inquired about this issue. I have gained some insight from the responses of others.

I believe the focus on optimization really increased with 3.0 through 3.75. More moving parts means more levers to pull and more options. I am not suggesting this is all bad. In fact, I was in grad school when 3.0 was coming out and it reignited my D&D fire.

However, as some old timers point out, the whole thing is really more of an orientation and a style which is independent of edition. For example, look at some of Gygax's writings. This thread reminded me of some of them in which he specifically addressed the ever present push for players to find an advantage and some level of one upmanship.

Its not all new. But neither is the push for challenge and variety. I look back at the old Axis and Allies game or "true" wargames. Why would anyone EVER take the axis? In almost all games they are doomed to fail. And yet, we used to argue and push to take the underdog because they were interesting.

From this perspective, it seems clear to me that even the precursors to D&D also included the opportunity for some to play with fewer advantages and that some enjoyed that.

In sum, the complementary or competing forces have been present since early wargames. My question about this (meaning optimization) being a new culture could have also been asked from the other viewpoint. When did people start choosing less than optimal at times? The answer is that both have been in dynamic tension since the early days of wargaming.

And beyond that, many people cherry pick some of both sides (the rule of cool and the rule of optimal) to land somewhere in the middle.

I believe the other point about the internet and selection bias is well taken. There probably are more threads about optimization since this analysis benefits from system mastery and greater experience. Choosing what sounds cool relies less on the knowledge base of the player. You can know what you want and then hunt and peck to see if the choice exists. When you try to fill in knowledge gaps or gain mastery, you discuss with others.

(As an aside: this has almost ruined some strategy games for me. As a collective, online communities have analyzed best strategies to the point that some opening moves are now quite static and no real experimentation is required to find and use them. I suppose any angst I have about optimization is that some new players may feel pressure to adopt what others think should be done. In real play experience, you learn how you can cut corners in optimization for more coolness without leaving your character ineffectual).

However this too is not an absolute. I did have a thread some time back which devolved into ways of making a character more imposing and dark magic oriented without consideration for optimization (e.g. Thaumaturgy recommended without much discussion about how it would impact resolution of actions via bonus to die). It really helped me get immersed when I play that character...which is part of the fun for me. The other fun thing for me is capably busting heads with a greatsword and rolling that 'ol 20-sider...

 

[Shasarak]

Wasn't that the conclusion of the previous session that involved them rolling a lot of d20s (or some other dice) for their respective battalions? So do you think that Matthew is contradicting himself? I don't. I doubt he sees the two as mutually exclusive. And D&D has its roots in tactical wargaming, and there are enough trace elements present for him (and others) to see them.

It seems like a non sequitur to talk about DnD being a tactical wargame when you can play it without any tactical wargaming components at all. Certainly you can see bits that were taken directly from wargames for example Armour Class that goes negative as it improves and hit points were taken, as I understand it, from a Naval wargame.

So of course if you play DnD as a tactical wargame then you are going to see it as a tactical wargame.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I look back at the old Axis and Allies game or "true" wargames. Why would anyone EVER take the axis? In almost all games they are doomed to fail.

It's a simulation exercise.

 

[BookBarbarian]

I look back at the old Axis and Allies game or "true" wargames. Why would anyone EVER take the axis? In almost all games they are doomed to fail. And yet, we used to argue and push to take the underdog because they were interesting.

True, my friends and I used an alternate starting where Germany already had a Russian territory. It made a big difference. But it might just have been that my most aggressive friend always played Germany, and by the end every other player was sick of sitting there for 6 hours.