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

[Tony Vargas]

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.

Up-thread someone mentioned post-apocalyptic games and stop signs as weapons. Couldn't find that one, so I hope you don't mind the tangent...

In the last edition of Gamma World, you had a fairly meaningful choice of weapons. One-handed or two-handed; light or heavy; melee, ranged or 'gun.'

Each had a simple advantage: one-handed weapons let you use a shield, two-handed did more damage, light hit more often, heavy hit harder, ranged weapons had unlimited ammo, guns ran out. That's basically 12 weapons.

Now, your weapon could be /anything/. A two-handed heavy melee weapon could be a stop sign or a wallhanger replica sword or a handy tree-trunk - or even a pair dumbbells.

You'd think that, XOMG, that eliminates meaningful choices, since your wallhanger aluminum Katana isn't any different from my pool cue (light two-handed melee weapons, both). But, if you look at the number of meaningful, viable weapon choices games typically have (ever want to get your weapon specialization bonus with a magic weapon in late 1e? best bet's the longsword), 12 really is pretty good.

That you also get to make cosmetic choices without being penalized is just a bonus.

(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" )

Is anything, other than the accuracy of the simulation, made better by more simulationism? I rather doubt it. Realism, verisimilitude, mechanics 'reflecting the game world' (more accurately, determining the game world in an absolute sense), simulationism - they all seem to come up as a justification for refraining from a possible improvement or accepting needless complication, imbalance, and outright boredom. ;P

 

[Tony Vargas]

(Chutes and Ladders may count as a game despite the lack of any decisions. I'm not sure.)

Sure it's a game, it's a random walk (rather like playing a 13A fighter, with the result of your attack roll determining which maneuver you just used - yep, still bitter), but it's a game. Any participatory activity that doesn't accomplish much of practical value but is more engaging than watching grass grow could be a game.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Is anything, other than the accuracy of the simulation, made better by more simulationism? I rather doubt it. Realism, verisimilitude, mechanics 'reflecting the game world' (more accurately, determining the game world in an absolute sense), simulationism - they all seem to come up as a justification for refraining from a possible improvement or accepting needless complication, imbalance, and outright boredom. ;P

Potential benefits of simulationism:

(1) It deepens immersion and therefore enhances the Fantasy aspect of the Eight Kinds of Fun. If living in a fantasy world isn't one of your reasons for playing D&D, this may seem like a net loss for you, "accepting outright boredom."

(2) Deeper systems can also increase opportunities for deep tactics, in an emergent kind of way. If your DM is prone to figuring out WHY certain things work the way they do (e.g. how dragons manage to maintain a minimum viable population despite having so many subspecies), you could argue that that's simulationism for the sake of simulationism--but if you someday manage to leverage that knowledge in a concrete way (e.g. gain access to Starvald Demelain, which dragons use to travel in order to meet mates in other realities) it will no longer seem "outright boring" to you and will hopefully seem kind of awesome actually.

A DM can't always predict in advance what factoids will be utilized by players in this way, so all you can really do is measure the richness of the gameworld and hope that players exploit it appropriately.

(3) A deeply coherent game system can be easier for the DM to run. Instead of having to remember a bunch of special-case rules, you just remember the underlying causes, and you can re-derive the special cases as necessary. Can also make it easier to determine what happens when the players go off the rails and do something you haven't prepared for. Closely related to #2.

Not all implementations will actualize all potential benefits.

TL;DR "needless complication" and "outright boring" are value judgments, not objective metrics. Simulationism increases certain kinds of fun.

 

[dave2008]

@dave2008, 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?"

I haven't seen it. I will take a look. Thanks!

 

[Tony Vargas]

It was more a rhetorical question, but...

TL;DR "needless complication" and "outright boring" are value judgments, not objective metrics. Simulationism increases certain kinds of fun.

Outright boring certainly is a subjective value judgement...

Potential benefits of simulationism:

(1) It deepens immersion

'Immersion' is also a very subjective thing laden with value-judgement.

(2) Deeper systems can also increase opportunities for deep tactics

But greater simulationism doesn't necessarily give you deeper systems (it might, by accident, depending on what it's simulating), a greater emphasis on gamism, OTOH, would include striving for greater depth of play.

(3) A deeply coherent game system can be easier for the DM to run.

Depends on what you mean by coherent. Under the GNS definition of 'coherent,' sure the more you focus on one agenda over the other two, the more 'coherent' your game is. Doesn't matter which agenda, as long as you sacrifice the other two on its altar.
Coherent in the sense of consistent or clear, OTOH, is, again, a function/goal of gamism (or even 'purist for system').

 

[CapnZapp]

[MENTION=6775031]Saelorn[/MENTION], I have no desire to antagonize you. Since we seem to agree to disagree, I'm all good. And all done.

Cheers,
Zapp

 

[dave2008]

@dave2008, 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?"

I read the article and it is pretty much common sense (at least to me), but it is always good to be reminded of the different reasons people do the things they do. And to see them clearly spelled out is helpful as well. The best part, I think, was discussing how catering to one type of fun may impact other types of fun. That is very helpful to keep in mind as a DM.

However, it is only useful in a discussion if both sides know the jargon. Until I read it I would not have know what you were talking about regarding Challenge or Abnegation (or Submission). I like Angry and visit his site from time to time, but I missed this article. I bet there are a lot of RPGers unfamiliar with it as well. So I feel we could discuss things on those terms now, but I bet most others would be lost.

Regardless, it was fun to read through and see which of the eight are motivators for me. Thank you for sharing - it was helpful.

 

[Tony Vargas]

On further reflection, I think part of the reason I so readily answered 'yes' to the question was because I knew the posited ideal was quite impossible. If I learned anything from my experiences with 3e... OK, among the many things I learned from my experiences with 3e, was the fact that there's no need to design 'rewards for system mastery' into a complex system. Those rewards are inevitable, and intentionally aiming for them just causes you to overshoot the mark and wildly over-reward system masters (or those who spend a few minutes googling their discussions). Rather, aiming to minimize the pay-off of system mastery (striving for the OP's hypothetical conditions) not only still delivers system mastery rewards (just smaller ones), it also makes the optimization exercise a more engaging one, while simultaneously letting players who have no interest in that mini-game play along side those who do with minimal friction.

Sounds obvious now that I've typed it, almost not worth mentioning, but, then...

The Eight Kinds of Fun: http://angrydm.com/2014/01/gaming-for-fun-part-1-eight-kinds-of-fun/

Mostly kinda common-sense stuff once you read it. I have to express ...something (irony, perplexity, bemusement... yeah, bemusement) ... at two points, though:

1) Funny that some cogent analyses of RPG issues are actually analyses of video game issues. Particularly since calling an RPG "videogame" is prettymuch fight'n words.

2) (or rather 8) 'Submission?' Really? There aren't enough false cognates between the RPG and BDSM communities already? And neither that nor 'Abnegation' much suggest the actual type of fun: It's 'Relaxation,' OK. Plain & simple R&R. Gaming as a pleasant pass-time.


OK, actually, a third thought on that article: None of those types of fun seem remotely exclusive or incompatible to me - nor like something I'd want only one of out of an RPG experience (why, yes, I would like a bit of challenge among my relaxation, and to exscape into a narrative &c). I know whether it was the Roll v Role debate or GNS or whatever, gamers seem compelled to find justification for championing one game or style or TrueWay or whatever above all others, but (again), I just don't buy it.

But, honestly, is there anyone who reads through that lists and can't see the fun in 7 of them at all? (Forums have a tremendous track record of conjuring up at least one poster willing to cop to some strange attitude or improbable experience, but I'll be genuinely, if only very slightly, surprised if someone pipes up claiming to grok only 1/8th the fun of RPGs.)

Aside from that, nice relaxing article. ;P

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

They're not supposed to be exclusive or incompatible. They're just eight different dimensions of fun. It can be a useful exercise to discuss which players enjoy which kinds of fun, so you can build your game to include those dimensions. E.g. I personally don't derive any pleasure at all out of physical artifacts, so it's easy for me to overlook the fact that some people really enjoy battleboards and beautifully painted miniatures--but if I'm aware that a given player is into that kind of stuff, I can make allowances, and maybe run certain combats on a battleboard for his sake, or pick up a monster miniature instead of just scribbling an "X" on a scrap of paper and calling it good.

There's nothing wrong with learning stuff from videogames either BTW. E.g. you can learn a lot about level design and the joys of vertical navigation from studying certain video games. (Some of those insights are hard to implement in a TTRPG, but at least it will get you thinking about the possibility of tunnels that go under and bridges that go over things.)

Personally, I'm into Fantasy, Challenge, Discovery, and sometimes Fellowship. (I don't mind Abnegation in CRPGs but I don't want it in RPGs.) Sensory Pleasure, Narrative, and Expression don't matter to me at all, and so I have to try pretty hard to consciously include those elements in the games I run, and I'm not that great at it. (Especially Narrative.)

So I guess that means I meet your criteria? I don't hit 7/8; I don't even hit 5/8. I only hit 3.5/8, as far as what I personally enjoy at the table. The average player I've quizzed seems to usually appreciate between 4 and 7 of them.

 

[Boscogn]

I wouldn't. In my circles there are lots of lazy people who never want to put in the work to make a "better" character. They will bitch and moan for op races though. I used to be a horrible min/maxer I've learned that rolling a toon I love role playing trumps all. However I still like to min/max but have it make sense with the back story and character class/race. However if all my work to make it make sense had no benefit I'd just roll basic toons. Dwarf pally is a noble Thane. No longer would need to make this elaborate story why my dwarf was a pirate just to get the other wise strange prof for a dwarf.

Sent from my HTC6545LVW using Tapatalk