D&D 5E A simple questions for Power Gamers, Optimizers, and Min-Maxers.

[FormerlyHemlock]

[MENTION=83242]dave2008[/MENTION], I have to ask: are you familiar with this post? The Eight Kinds of Fun: http://angrydm.com/2014/01/gaming-for-fun-part-1-eight-kinds-of-fun/

If you're looking for insight into psychology, it might help to have a vocabulary. Then you can ask, e.g., "People that consider yourselves powergamers: are you more interested in having an in-play experience featuring Challenge, or Abnegation? Do you want your pre-game choices to trivialize the game's difficulty, or do you want difficulty to scale? Do you prefer for the DM to scale difficulty for you, or would you rather seek it out yourself, e.g. by going down to level X of the dungeon even though you're only a 7th level PC?"

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I mean, being able to fight with a stop sign without hefty penalties is a definite plus, for the player that finds a stop sign wielding hero an awesome image. And indeed, in post-apocalyptic games the game can actively encourage you to use a stop sign by not weighing it down with realistic penalties!.

A game is defined as a series of meaningful choices, and the choice of whether to use a stop sign or a zweihander is not meaningful if it doesn't impact any future outcome.

It could still be interesting from a narrative standpoint, but that's not really within the purview of this thread. (Although it could also be meaningful, if you come across someone who reacts differently depending on your choice of weapon. On the other hand, a world where stops signs really were as effective as zweihanders would be quite different from most worlds in reality or fiction; why would anyone go to the trouble of inventing swords in the first place, if they were no more effective than any random stick you pick up off the ground?)

 

[CapnZapp]

A game is defined as a series of meaningful choices, and the choice of whether to use a stop sign or a zweihander is not meaningful if it doesn't impact any future outcome.

It could still be interesting from a narrative standpoint, but that's not really within the purview of this thread. (Although it could also be meaningful, if you come across someone who reacts differently depending on your choice of weapon. On the other hand, a world where stops signs really were as effective as zweihanders would be quite different from most worlds in reality or fiction; why would anyone go to the trouble of inventing swords in the first place, if they were no more effective than any random stick you pick up off the ground?)

We will simply have to agree to disagree on this one.

Style is very meaningful in some cases.

That WFRP has "hand weapon" to cover everything from a short sword, a longer sword, a hammer, an axe, or a club, is not something you get to define as "not meaningful" and thus not part of a game's design. Making that fashion statement can definitely be a very meaningful choice. It goes much further than that: by not "meaningfully" distinguish between axes and clubs, you vastly expand the ways a character can arm himself (and thus express himself) without actually having to pay a cost in effectiveness, which can make everything more fun. (And even more: by making a concious decision where to put your game's complexity and where not to put it, you exhibit insight in the old adage "not everything is better with more simulationism" )

I mean, sure I can minmax with the best. But not even I is that minmax-y that I can't see this.

I mean, it looks to me as if you're essentially arguing that anything that can't be reduced to a number and inserted on the great spreadsheet that is your game world is "meaningless".

If that is the case, I wish you godspeed Saelorn, because we have nothing further to discuss.

Best regards

 

[Lanliss]

A game is defined as a series of meaningful choices, and the choice of whether to use a stop sign or a zweihander is not meaningful if it doesn't impact any future outcome.

It could still be interesting from a narrative standpoint, but that's not really within the purview of this thread. (Although it could also be meaningful, if you come across someone who reacts differently depending on your choice of weapon. On the other hand, a world where stops signs really were as effective as zweihanders would be quite different from most worlds in reality or fiction; why would anyone go to the trouble of inventing swords in the first place, if they were no more effective than any random stick you pick up off the ground?)

I am pretty sure that is not the definition of a game. To me, the definition of a game is a thing designed to create fun.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I am pretty sure that is not the definition of a game. To me, the definition of a game is a thing designed to create fun.

Is reading your favorite book a form of game-playing?

 

[Lanliss]

Is reading your favorite book a form of game-playing?

Not at all, but would you play a game of it wasn't fun? If a thing called a "game" was full of meaningful decisions, but was never fun, I would not consider it a game. It would be taxes, or a job search.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Not at all, but would you play a game of it wasn't fun? If a thing called a "game" was full of meaningful decisions, but was never fun, I would not consider it a game. It would be taxes, or a job search.

I think you've just disproved both definitions that have been offered so far.

Defining "game" is tricky, like defining "play" or "fun." I don't know of a good definition for any of those things; but I do think the ability to make meaningful decisions is a necessary part of any game that I would play as an adult. (At age three, Chutes and Ladders is fun and may count as a game despite the lack of any decisions. I'm not sure.)

Ensuring that player decisions have impact and are perceived as having impact is one of my chief concerns as a DM.

 

[nswanson27]

That's helpful definitely. So would enjoy a game where everyone always builds great characters? Also, if everyone is built well, how do you determine that, what is your point of reference?

Well, in effect, when a challenge presents itself (whether battle or social), the group works "well" together to overcome. I've found that players that build good characters are also usually ones that problem-solve well.
On the other hand, there are characters that sometimes insist on being "what they want to be" even if it means jeopardizing the safety of the group (or just taking their personal RP as more important than working as a team). This might be fun in another sense for some, but this isn't what I approach D&D for. Fact is, I've yet to sit down to an adventure where death for isn't a real possibility, and I'm not signing up for a precarious adventure just to not to take accomplishing our goal seriously.
I'm not trying to slam those who enjoy RP more than being tactical, but I just think that needs to be agreed upon that it's "going to be that kind of table" beforehand - otherwise I think problems mid-game are just bound to happen.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I mean, it looks to me as if you're essentially arguing that anything that can't be reduced to a number and inserted on the great spreadsheet that is your game world is "meaningless".

Any decision which has no future ramifications is a meaningless decision. Not all meaning can be expressed in numbers, though. Like I said before, the difference between bludgeoning damage and slashing damage is meaningful, even without regard for how common such resistances/vulnerabilities are within the world. Any choice which might change the outcome of any situation is meaningful.

I'm not a fan of introducing spreadsheets to the hobby. One of my favorite aspects of a tabletop system is that there are few enough variables that we shouldn't need a spreadsheet to figure out an optimal solution. A tabletop game system reduces the number of variables to only those which are most important, and assumes that the lesser variables are negligible enough that we don't need to model them. But it still needs to reflect the reality of the game world, while doing so. It's a tough balance to strike.

If you honestly believe that the rules of the game shouldn't reflect the reality of the game world, then we have nothing more to discuss, and feel free to block me if you don't want me to call you out for forgetting that.

I am pretty sure that is not the definition of a game. To me, the definition of a game is a thing designed to create fun.

Many games are designed to be fun (most video games fall into this category), but not everything that's fun is necessarily a game (comics and movies are fun, but not games), and not all games are even intended to be fun (the prisoner's dilemma, for example).

It could also be that the term sees such widespread use, in such a wide variety of contexts, that it's lost any inherent meaning- kind of like the term "RPG" itself, which has found itself attached to things as dissimilar as Mass Effect and FATE, to the point where simply using the term does not convey enough information to understand its meaning. At the very least, in the context of power-gaming, it's important for choices to be meaningful in order for it to remain that sort of game.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Many games are designed to be fun (most video games fall into this category), but not everything that's fun is necessarily a game (comics and movies are fun, but not games), and not all games are even intended to be fun (the prisoner's dilemma, for example).

Aha.

Saelorn is using the definitions of multiagent decision theory.