Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6936477" data-attributes="member: 42582">This still brings out a feature of D&amp;D that is different from some other RPGs - eg Burning Wheel.In BW you wouldn't need buy in from the whole table to play Rufus. Rufus is not an absurd character. In fact, in BW a player playing Rufus could, with a bit of cleverness, dominate the table. Burning Wheel also makes playing a faithless cleric viable. The same is not true for you comedy wizard, though: I don't think that character could be built in BW, and if some version of it could be, it probably wouldn't be viable. This is because of the particular way in which BW handles the build and play of wizards.I'm not sure what thesis you are attributing to me. My thesis is that overcoming challenges being the goal of play establishes a certain orientation, in game play, towards the build of PCs. It makes the size of bonuses matter.In BW, the goal of play is to confront challenges. This goal establishes a different orientation, in game play, towards the build of PCs. The bits of your PC that will determine the content of those challenges - Beliefs, Instincts, Relationships, Reputations (all of which are defined elements of PC building, and all of which factor into encounter deign) - become important. This is why Rufus (a reluctant fighter with a club) and a faithless cleric can be viable characters: because they have clear beliefs, instincts (maybe Rufus, who hates fighting, always enters combat in defensive stance), reputations (maybe the faithless cleric has the reputation &quot;Spat on the floor at the feet of the bishop&quot;), etc.If the size of bonuses matters to the goal of play, then it's natural that people will have differeing views about what the minimum viable size of those bonuses is. I'm not saying that optimisers are right. (Nor that they're wrong.) I'm saying that the design of D&amp;D makes the existence of optimisers a pretty natural and understandable thing.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 6936477, member: 42582"] This still brings out a feature of D&D that is different from some other RPGs - eg Burning Wheel. In BW you wouldn't need buy in from the whole table to play Rufus. Rufus is not an absurd character. In fact, in BW a player playing Rufus could, with a bit of cleverness, dominate the table. Burning Wheel also makes playing a faithless cleric viable. The same is not true for you comedy wizard, though: I don't think that character could be built in BW, and if some version of it could be, it probably wouldn't be viable. This is because of the particular way in which BW handles the build and play of wizards. I'm not sure what thesis you are attributing to me. My thesis is that overcoming challenges being the goal of play establishes a certain orientation, in game play, towards the build of PCs. It makes the size of bonuses matter. In BW, the goal of play is to confront challenges. This goal establishes a different orientation, in game play, towards the build of PCs. The bits of your PC that will determine the content of those challenges - Beliefs, Instincts, Relationships, Reputations (all of which are defined elements of PC building, and all of which factor into encounter deign) - become important. This is why Rufus (a reluctant fighter with a club) and a faithless cleric can be viable characters: because they have clear beliefs, instincts (maybe Rufus, who hates fighting, [I]always enters combat in defensive stance[/I]), reputations (maybe the faithless cleric has the reputation "Spat on the floor at the feet of the bishop"), etc. If the size of bonuses matters to the goal of play, then it's natural that people will have differeing views about what the minimum viable size of those bonuses is. I'm not saying that optimisers are right. (Nor that they're wrong.) I'm saying that the design of D&D makes the existence of optimisers a pretty natural and understandable thing. [/QUOTE]

Verification