But what if the were no large benefits (only small ones) and/or no obvious strategies? I guessing such a game wouldn't be as much fun for you, am I correct?
I guess I just haven't experienced that. In 25+ years of playing D&D I've only played with 2 groups and none of us have ever optimized a character for anything. We just pick what we want and play and have great time. That is why i'm trying to understand the power gamer and optimizer mindset. It is completely foreign to me.
That is true.Not optimizing is not the same as not knowing how to function.
I think honestly a game where everything is 1+1=2 would get boring real fast.
There are always obvious strategies. The things that a normal person does the first time they play the game? Those are the obvious strategies.
So yeah, I wouldn't find that kind of game interesting--and I doubt you would either. That goes way beyond the scope of your original question though, since your original question was about chargen, and the question you're asking now includes not having meaningful choices even during play. I can have fun in a game with no complicated chargen; but I don't want a game with complicated-but-meaningless chargen.
I was not speaking about a perfect game, just one that is easy to learn and digest based on consistent rules. With random dice roles and choices someone is always going to be better at any given time. However, with clear and consistent rules you hopefully temper the system mastery issues that always leads to better options across the board.
Really hard to say.Would you enjoy playing a version of D&D where you had a lot of character creation and customization options; however, these options do not add up to any additional benefit. That is to say, all options are equally good from a mechanical, optimizing, power gaming point of view.
Basically, would the game be fun for you if you could only build a different character, but not a "better" character?
You do have a point, but you might also put too low value on freedom of choice in itself.As a role-player who primarily plays competent character, which may come off as power-gaming to some, I would welcome a game with a lot of meaningful options that were of equal power. It's actually really hard to do that with a game.
The danger that most such games run into is that they don't include meaningful options. They basically go out of the way to ensure that your unlimited options are meaningless. To use an example, Gamma World 7E gives you meaningless options in terms of weapons and armor - you can use any sort of heavy melee weapon you want, from a zweihander to a stop sign, and it won't affect the efficacy of your attacks in any way.
Not contesting what you said, just noting that those mappings are essentially meaningless, and therefore the difference between fire and force is still interesting.Unless it isn't ... which is what we see in 5e, where people have mapped out the different types of damage, what monsters resistant/vulnerable, and what types of damage is best (hint- force then radiant IIRC). But if the game is perfectly balanced, then it doesn't matter! And it's just flavor- literally, you could re-skin one thing as another.
Hmm.. I see your question now, Dave.To clarify this tread is not about if such a game is possible, but what do people want. Do optimizers, power gamers, etec. need to be "better" or could the accept being as effective as everyone else. That is the question.