Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9210424" data-attributes="member: 6790260">What is the point of doing so? It only opens opportunities for the DM to inflict problems on you. Avoiding it maximizes your chances of winning. Having a conversation with your fellow runners worsens your chance of crossing the finish first.Oh, believe me, I agree! That's why I prefer games which actually reward and foster teamwork, rather than ruthless personal optimization. Because ruthless personal optimization pushes you to thinking only in monodimensional, selfish terms, with little to no interest in what others are doing, who they are, etc. beyond their pure instrumental value...and even that is usually perfunctory at best.Such selfish thinking was, and still is, pervasive in 3e/PF1e groups. It is considered a truism that the game should be played in a fully self-centered way.Except that it is, for both the reason I just stated above, and for the "optimize the fun out of the game" argument in general. Camaraderie moments add nothing to your chances of success, but potentially might subtract from them. Hence, if one is optimizing for success über alles, one is both pushing forward all elements which increase (or are likely to increase) one's chance of success, and eliminating or reducing all elements which reduce (or have a chance of reducing) one's chance of success. "Minmaxing," to use the jargon term. The 5MWD is a pure, distilled demonstration of minmaxing. Minimize all elements which are not "use spells to solve problems." Maximize all elements which are "use spells to solve problems."In-character camaraderie is, thus, something to be minimized out whenever possible. It does not contribute to victory (that's what spells are for), but may contribute to defeat.I prefer to play games where the characters are expected to get along reasonably well, mostly because that, too, is a big part of encouraging actual teamwork, rather than "X solo adventurers who just happen to adventure in the same place at the same time." That doesn't mean there can't be conflicts--every group of humans with at least two members has internal conflict now and then, and the N=1 case isn't a guarantee of no conflict either!--but if you want teamwork, you need to have a team, and that means, y'know, people who get along to at least some degree.Edit: Also, I'm a bit surprised you haven't had to deal with the rather common "old-school" approach of "side chatter is always IC, so any goofing around can and will be used against you." Folks on this very forum still advocate this approach today.</blockquote>

Verification