Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="TheSword" data-source="post: 9253099" data-attributes="member: 6879661">I’m not sure that is reliably true. Why would a person feel strongly that it was important to make very effective and competent characters to the point of the groups detriment in one system but not others? The logic of why they would do that doesn’t make sense to me.It doesn’t suit everyone. Many people like a healthy amount of granularity and complexity and don’t want to see that stripped out so every spell is turned into a 15ft burst doing your Best Stat Bonus + 2d6. Some like the many moving parts provided by race, feats, class, background and equipment etc without feeling the need to create bladesingers with AC 25As I said there’s no such thing as a perfectly balanced complex system. Making one that’s impossible to over -optimize is a fools errand.There’s nothing wrong with designing competent characters. There is a problem with one player deciding that it’s a good use of the groups game time is to elaborate their own personal pun pun. The player who acts out their simulacrum wish strategy round the table - rather than as a white room theory for sport - is demonstrating a social contract issue not a game issue - because many players can use that spell without twisting it into a corkscrew (if they get to that level).I use the phrase over-optimizing because it describes a pattern of taking rules past the point that it’s complimentary to the rest of the group - the point of being a personal distraction. I’ve got no time for that and I would have an honest conversation with someone who did it. I wouldn’t kick them, I’d ask them to modify their behavior. It’s about putting the health of group’s game before personal kicks.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="TheSword, post: 9253099, member: 6879661"] I’m not sure that is reliably true. Why would a person feel strongly that it was important to make very effective and competent characters to the point of the groups detriment in one system but not others? The logic of why they would do that doesn’t make sense to me. It doesn’t suit everyone. Many people like a healthy amount of granularity and complexity and don’t want to see that stripped out so every spell is turned into a 15ft burst doing your Best Stat Bonus + 2d6. Some like the many moving parts provided by race, feats, class, background and equipment etc without feeling the need to create bladesingers with AC 25 As I said there’s no such thing as a perfectly balanced complex system. Making one that’s impossible to over -optimize is a fools errand. There’s nothing wrong with designing competent characters. There is a problem with one player deciding that it’s a good use of the groups game time is to elaborate their own personal pun pun. The player who acts out their simulacrum wish strategy round the table - rather than as a white room theory for sport - is demonstrating a social contract issue not a game issue - because many players can use that spell without twisting it into a corkscrew (if they get to that level). I use the phrase over-optimizing because it describes a pattern of taking rules past the point that it’s complimentary to the rest of the group - the point of being a personal distraction. I’ve got no time for that and I would have an honest conversation with someone who did it. I wouldn’t kick them, I’d ask them to modify their behavior. It’s about putting the health of group’s game before personal kicks. [/QUOTE]

Verification