Optimisation in PC building

[Lanefan]

@Lanefan : That's the American view, a culture in which for some reason every game musthave a winner and loser.


qq: do you have access to the OED, or is this just your gut feeling?

Gut feeling plus observation.

I don’t have paid access, so the closest I can get is from lexico.com, which is “powered by Oxford”. That site helpfully has both US and UK definitions of words. For the word “game” we have as the primary definition:

UK: An activity that one engages in for amusement or fun.
‘the kids were playing a game with their balloons’

US: A form of play or sport, especially a competitive one played according to rules and decided by skill, strength, or luck.
‘For the most part, hockey is truly a team game in a sports world that sells individuals.’

So Lanefan looks like the ‘winner’ here and Aramis the ‘loser’

Yay me?

 

[pemerton]

I think it's pretty clear that there can be games without win conditions. Children play such games all the time.

But I think quite a bit of RPGing has implicit win conditions: as @Fenris-77 noted, defeating foes in combat; beating the dungeon; completing the AP; etc.

 

[Emerikol]

I think it's pretty clear that there can be games without win conditions. Children play such games all the time.

But I think quite a bit of RPGing has implicit win conditions: as @Fenris-77 noted, defeating foes in combat; beating the dungeon; completing the AP; etc.

First let me start by saying I agree if by win condition we mean and ultimate game ending win condition.

I mean if you were an athiest let's say and death is ultimately certain, what would be the win condition of life? A person might experience many minor "wins" throughout their life but what would be the ultimate win condition. For me my players are just like people in the world. They live their lives. The difference is they've decided their characters are adventurers or fortune seekers. Which makes for perhaps a more exciting life but often a shorter one. So all through the game there are battles won of course. Any dungeon completed and encounter survived is a win.

Is it ultimately great stories or memories for the players?

If though you mean there is a competition between the players were one player wins and one or more of the others lose then no such conditions exist in my campaign. My groups are team focused all the way. They are like navy seals. They leave no one behind and they fight for each other.

 

[pemerton]

If though you mean there is a competition between the players were one player wins and one or more of the others lose then no such conditions exist in my campaign. My groups are team focused all the way. They are like navy seals. They leave no one behind and they fight for each other.

In the sort of game you describe, a possible win condition would be surviving the adventure. Or even better, getting enough XP out of the adventure to level up! I think this is fairly standard stuff in a lot of 70s/early-80s style module play. Modules like the Pharaoh series mostly work against this sort of background assumption as to the goal of play.

 

[Emerikol]

In the sort of game you describe, a possible win condition would be surviving the adventure. Or even better, getting enough XP out of the adventure to level up! I think this is fairly standard stuff in a lot of 70s/early-80s style module play. Modules like the Pharaoh series mostly work against this sort of background assumption as to the goal of play.

With such a broad definition of a "win" condition, I would say it's hard for any game not to have one.

I'd prefer to consider the real difference between roleplaying games and most other types of games. Though I will note even the boardgame world has jumped on the bandwagon. The difference to me is the players achieve victory against other players in most games. Another difference is in a roleplaying game the "win" condition is often chosen by the players and could have been something different. It's open ended. So roleplaying broke new ground. So I'll just avoid getting into an endless semantics war about what a win condition is or is not. I think the differences between roleplaying games and other types of games is significant whatever you want to call it.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

You can't argue with this sort of reasoning because you made it unfalsifiable.

I strongly suspect that people who care a lot about balance strongly suspect everyone else does too.

I didn't make it unfalsifiable, it simply is unfalsifiable, AFAICT.

And talking about "caring about balance" is, with respect, missing the point. The player in question didn't and doesn't "care about balance" in the sense that he would suggest we play a more balanced game, let alone complain about someone else's PC or something. He's an interesting player, both committed to his characters and engaged with the game, but not always engaged with the mechanics. However, 4E allowed him to engage with the mechanics and to play a character who was highly effective in combat and yet also fit the tropes he enjoys in characters.

Re: Wizards being "nerfed" since 1E I see where you're coming from, but I think power is always relative. In absolute terms, a 1E Wizard wielded a lot of power, but there was, imho, a much smaller differential between him and say, a Fighter in that edition, than in 3.5E/PF. 3.5E/PF is regarded as the peak of wizardly power because that's when it became easiest to cast spells, and a lot of them, and many of them were as or more effective than 1E/2E versions (not all, to be sure), and you also had the most "certain" path to power in that you could pick more spells, the rules on spell acquisition were arguably more generous and so on. To be fair I didn't play 1E, I've only read it. I started with 2E. In 2E we did notice an LFQW-type effect, though we had no name for it. But from about L9 onwards the Wizard-types (particularly Specialists) grew massively in power as other classes sort of ground to a gradual halt, which I always thought was a curious design choice. In 2E it was mitigated by quite a few factors, and in particular Warriors, felt stronger compared to Wizards relative to their 3.XE/PF versions. With 3.XE/PF the difference became increasingly starkly obvious (perhaps the most bizarre and unnecessary balance error was iterative attacks being at a penalty).

Agree with your ordering of editions re: wizard power otherwise.

Interesting re: not finding 5E playable even as a player? Is it possible for you to give a concise explanation of that (or point me to a previous explanation)? Understand if not, am not here to criticise, but that's interesting as I felt like 5E was very like 2E in a lot of regards.

 

[TheSword]

[Edit] deleted... totally the wrong thread.

 

[pemerton]

In the sort of game you describe, a possible win condition would be surviving the adventure. Or even better, getting enough XP out of the adventure to level up! I think this is fairly standard stuff in a lot of 70s/early-80s style module play. Modules like the Pharaoh series mostly work against this sort of background assumption as to the goal of play.

With such a broad definition of a "win" condition, I would say it's hard for any game not to have one.

I don't think Cthulhu Dark has a win condition in this sense.

 

[Fenris-77]

I don't think Cthulhu Dark has a win condition in this sense.

Dying well? As opposed to dying horribly for no apparent gain or reason.

 

[Emerikol]

Interesting re: not finding 5E playable even as a player? Is it possible for you to give a concise explanation of that (or point me to a previous explanation)? Understand if not, am not here to criticise, but that's interesting as I felt like 5E was very like 2E in a lot of regards.

Well as a player I can't houserule away what I don't like so there is that. As a DM, I could try but to me it's more effort than it is worth. When I say not playable, I don't mean the rules are unintelligible or that I would have difficulty running the game. I ran 4e no problem. In fact when it came to monster stat blocks I liked 4e a lot. I loved the recharge mechanic.

I just mean that aspects of the game design just leave me cold and I wouldn't enjoy it because it would be an ever present annoyance. I hate to mention the specifics because it might derail this thread. Mostly centered around what martial characters can do in some instances and healing. I'll leave it at that.