Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lyxen" data-source="post: 8384393" data-attributes="member: 7032025">And then, sometimes I feel like I'd rather do something else, and I still prepare and run the game for my friends.I would argue that it's not exactly the same, but it's your feelings.But it is. See examples including from another poster about his animals-loving barbarian.They can, which is exactly what I'm arguing, players do not get complete freedom to do whatever they please, either in terms of roleplaying or in technical terms, because a general principle about freedom is that it stops where it infringes on someone else's.I honestly have trouble seeing the difference, unless you imply that the character concept takes into account what others are doing, which is exactly my point.That's perfect, but let me ask you: do these kids, who are apparently indifferent about combat, really want to optimise their characters for that ? Is there a drive for optimisation ? Where does it come from ?Same for me, despite having had continuously two or three campaigns in parallel ever since 5e came out.Considering what you've told me about your gaming group, I am not surprised, but then I am not sure that they display any trait from being a powergamer either.And how did the class/race choices compare to the usual power gaming levels of archetypes ?I don't. I would argue for example that 3e and 4e, which were very technical games which had a precise vocabulary could be taken that way, and indeed, it created a wide powergaming community, and the concept of the RAW. But honestly, with the way 5e has been written, in plain english, with fuzzy rules all very much subject to a DM's interpretation, it's only the force of habit of some that makes them keep on, and what is funny is that they still do it while complaining all the time that the game is not crunchy enough to really create builds.And my take on the design corroborates the stated intent of the designers, this is a fuzzy game where the DM's rulings are needed all the time. Powergamers argue all the time that they are entitled to know in advance about rules and deviation from the RAW, but again the funny thing is that even they cannot really agree what the RAW is. This is not an optimiser's paradise, it's thankfully back to AD&D where the DM is at the centre of things to interpret rules which are incomplete and imprecise.I'm sorry, but it's not the way it is worded. It's not "more to it", it's the very intention of the game, and rules are just tools (these are the words of the designers themselves), not the aim of the game. It really amazes me that people who venerate the rules and spend their time trying to combine them continuously ignore the part of the rules that explains this to them. It's such a biased reading...The rules completely explain how the game is played. Just read the introduction to the PH, or the DMG. But for some reasons, these sections which are less "crunchy" are continuously ignored by people who pretend that they don't exist.Even the most technical section about <a href="https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dmg/a-world-of-your-own#HackandSlash" target="_blank">Hack and Slash</a> is not based on optimisation. This is because the game is about playing it, not exploiting the rules for power, not spending hours in one's basement trying to create a build.Or just watch shows like Critical Role. Do you feel powergaming there ? Do you feel that it's technical ? It's not, all the characters are underused technically, they make mistakes all the time compared to the rules, but no one ever brings it to the table. No powergaming, no rules lawyers. But they focus on their characters personna and story, and have a blast.And again, you are strawmaning here, strongly. Re-read what I wrote.</blockquote>

Verification