D&D General Requesting permission to have something cool

[Micah Sweet]

What else can it be?

The play style advocated for isn't about creating a character with a backstory, goals or motivation. It's about rolling 3d6 and hoping you get lucky that THIS PC sticks. They might get a name if they make it to 3rd level, and might even develop a personality at 5th.

I don't like the OSR/DDC style of character generation by attrition. Never have, never will. And I'm glad the game has moved away from it, circa Dragonlance. But if you like it, play it. I don't find it superior in any way, shape or form and you cannot convince me otherwise.

Not trying to convince you of anything. I'm asking you to be respectful of other people's preferences in your rhetoric. I often have an idea for my PC in OSR games, and if the dice let me play it, I do. If they don't, I play what I fancy from the options I get. I make a backstory, goals, and/or motivation for that PC as appropriate and if I feel like it. If they die, I let it go and do it again with a new PC. Most of the OSR players I know do the same. You're painting with a very broad brush and making assumptions about the players because that style doesn't match your preference. That's fine to like what you like of course, but you are muscharacterizing fans of that style in your method of writing here.

 

[TwoSix]

Sure, but to be fair, champion is underwhelming performance-wise. They could easily give it just somewhat numerically better features that still were passive and simple to play.

I believe as a general rule that complex characters should slightly outperform simpler characters at their relevant goals.

My rationale is this. The player base that enjoys complexity for its own sake has a large overlap with the player base that will notice and care about the performance difference. The player base that enjoys a simpler character, to allow for focus on in-game performance (or because they simply don't enjoy complex mechanics), is also going to largely overlap the player base that only notices balance concerns when they're incredibly obvious.

Making the simplest option the most powerful is going to anger a far larger portion of the player base than making the simplest option a slightly weaker but still competitive option (which is where I would put current champion fighter).

 

[mamba]

If we are talking about D&D Beyond numbers, they can track active characters

I have no idea how a statistic that says ‘30% of characters are Fighters’ gets there, active vs all, what does ‘active’ mean, played ever, played in the last month,… add to this that there are always new players coming in and old ones leaving, and you have a constant stream of new active fighters

The rest of my post already treated this as an implausible scenario, so this was not my explanation anyway and there is limited use in refuting it, but if this were purely a sign of popularity, then the satisfaction rating would not be that low either, so at least to some degree something similar seems plausible

 

[TwoSix]

There is nothing in OD&D or 5E or any edition in between that either requires or precludes a "backstory, goals or motivation" and there never has been.

That's true, but I think that's ignoring the divergent expectations of the engaged player base for both styles of games.

5e has low lethality, doesn't have any sort of stat or race restrictions on class choices, and has a myriad of player facing options that allows for relatively complex character building, precisely because it considers building a starting character with a distinct concept and narrative to be a virtue. The game design wants your character to have a backstory and goals, there's a reason that "background" is a mechanical choice and flaws, ideals, etc, are presented in the PHB.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I believe as a general rule that complex characters should slightly outperform simpler characters at their relevant goals.

My rationale is this. The player base that enjoys complexity for its own sake has a large overlap with the player base that will notice and care about the performance difference. The player base that enjoys a simpler character, to allow for focus on in-game performance (or because they simply don't enjoy complex mechanics), is also going to largely overlap the player base that only notices balance concerns when they're incredibly obvious.

Making the simplest option the most powerful is going to anger a far larger portion of the player base than making the simplest option a slightly weaker but still competitive option (which is where I would put current champion fighter).

I agree, with a caveat.

The simplest options should be competitive.

The complex options should be "better" (if utilized correctly) or "worse" (if utilized incorrectly).

That way, everyone wins.

People who like complexity can try and eke out some small advantage, but only by showing how super awesome they are (which is the point, right? ). But failing to take properly advantage of the complexity will put them in a worse position than the simple character.

Meanwhile, Derek can eat pizza and get blasted on Malört while he hits stuff with the Champion, knowing he's doing just fine.

 

[TwoSix]

I agree, with a caveat.

The simplest options should be competitive.

The complex options should be "better" (if utilized correctly) or "worse" (if utilized incorrectly).

That way, everyone wins.

People who like complexity can try and eke out some small advantage, but only by showing how super awesome they are (which is the point, right? ). But failing to take properly advantage of the complexity will put them in a worse position than the simple character.

Meanwhile, Derek can eat pizza and get blasted on Malört while he hits stuff with the Champion, knowing he's doing just fine.

I didn't want to get to in the weeds with defining performance floors and ceilings, but yes, 100% agree. Complex character choices should have a higher "skill cap", with a lower floor and a higher ceiling.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I didn't want to get to in the weeds with defining performance floors and ceilings, but yes, 100% agree. Complex character choices should have a higher "skill cap", with a lower floor and a higher ceiling.

Your post was #506 in this thread. I wouldn't get too worried about getting into the weeds.

We are, at this point, more into the weeds than Snoop Dogg.

 

[Aldarc]

I didn't want to get to in the weeds with defining performance floors and ceilings, but yes, 100% agree. Complex character choices should have a higher "skill cap", with a lower floor and a higher ceiling.

However, this sort of reasoning is how we get caster supremacy.

 

[Reynard]

That's true, but I think that's ignoring the divergent expectations of the engaged player base for both styles of games.

5e has low lethality, doesn't have any sort of stat or race restrictions on class choices, and has a myriad of player facing options that allows for relatively complex character building, precisely because it considers building a starting character with a distinct concept and narrative to be a virtue. The game design wants your character to have a backstory and goals, there's a reason that "background" is a mechanical choice and flaws, ideals, etc, are presented in the PHB.

You are talking about style and preference and I am saying that "both" (a huge oversimplification) styles have existed since the first proto-D&D game and still exist today. Lots of people very successfully tell stories in AD&D and run grinders in 5E. "Background" doesn't require a "story" any more than kits or secondary skills did. You can create a backstory with that information, but it is a mechanical element of character generation like everything else.

I think it is too common that we apply broad generalizations about how people used to play "back in the day."

 

[TwoSix]

You are talking about style and preference and I am saying that "both" (a huge oversimplification) styles have existed since the first proto-D&D game and still exist today. Lots of people very successfully tell stories in AD&D and run grinders in 5E. "Background" doesn't require a "story" any more than kits or secondary skills did. You can create a backstory with that information, but it is a mechanical element of character generation like everything else.

I think it is too common that we apply broad generalizations about how people used to play "back in the day."

I get that. I'm saying that 5e's systems are oriented towards the "focus on character building and concept" camp, and also that the bulk of the 5e player base prefers that style.