Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ainamacar" data-source="post: 5288232" data-attributes="member: 70709">Fair enough, I just didn't get that perspective based on your first&nbsp; post.&nbsp; Whether you like the process of building or not is immaterial to me, it was just the reasons you gave that struck me as peculiar.&nbsp; I'm glad to have a better understanding of your position.&nbsp; Nearly as glad as I am that this didn't turn into INTERNET FIGHT! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />Understandable.&nbsp; It's certainly clear that a system with little or no room for serious build optimization (or other forms of rules mastery) is less likely to attract players for whom those parts of a game are a big draw.&nbsp; Those sorts of dynamics will alter the &quot;gamer demographic&quot; from which players of that specific game are drawn.&nbsp; Insofar as the many fiddly bits of recent D&amp;D editions is a draw to those who like rules mastery, we are more likely to run into D&amp;D players for whom that is the chief or only draw (for better or worse...they deserve the opportunity to play too, but they don't deserve to ruin games.)I'm definitely of the latter type.&nbsp; In world-building I prefer to think of all creatures as being derived from the same basic rules, and for me that forms a pillar of the world's coherence and verisimilitude.&nbsp; It's not an absolute rule, but I deviate from it with caution, albeit somewhat more frequently after 4e's release, because it damages my own view of what I'm creating.&nbsp; For example, I'd never give a 3.5 creature more hit points without giving them HD, Con, or some appropriate feat, barring a seriously compelling in-world reason.&nbsp; The fact that elites in 4e just get more hit points without changing levels bothers me a bit conceptually, but when working in 4e I just go with it because it's a foundational assumption of the mechanics, and also because sometimes leads to serious pragmatic advantages (but it's a tradeoff I take seriously).&nbsp; Since I also find optimization to be inherently interesting, the framework that treats all creatures as derived from common rules serves me much better in most cases.Fortunately, the hobby supports many types.&nbsp; I'm playing two campaigns at the moment.&nbsp; The first uses a custom character point system which has a lot of the build and tactical knobs I love because I and the other designer wanted them there.&nbsp; The second is a Call of Cthulu campaign with a pregen character the DM handed me at the first session.&nbsp; Both great games, and frequently for very different reasons.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ainamacar, post: 5288232, member: 70709"] Fair enough, I just didn't get that perspective based on your first post. Whether you like the process of building or not is immaterial to me, it was just the reasons you gave that struck me as peculiar. I'm glad to have a better understanding of your position. Nearly as glad as I am that this didn't turn into INTERNET FIGHT! ;) Understandable. It's certainly clear that a system with little or no room for serious build optimization (or other forms of rules mastery) is less likely to attract players for whom those parts of a game are a big draw. Those sorts of dynamics will alter the "gamer demographic" from which players of that specific game are drawn. Insofar as the many fiddly bits of recent D&D editions is a draw to those who like rules mastery, we are more likely to run into D&D players for whom that is the chief or only draw (for better or worse...they deserve the opportunity to play too, but they don't deserve to ruin games.) I'm definitely of the latter type. In world-building I prefer to think of all creatures as being derived from the same basic rules, and for me that forms a pillar of the world's coherence and verisimilitude. It's not an absolute rule, but I deviate from it with caution, albeit somewhat more frequently after 4e's release, because it [I]damages [/I]my own view of what I'm creating. For example, I'd never give a 3.5 creature more hit points without giving them HD, Con, or some appropriate feat, barring a seriously compelling in-world reason. The fact that elites in 4e just get more hit points without changing levels bothers me a bit conceptually, but when working in 4e I just go with it because it's a foundational assumption of the mechanics, and also because sometimes leads to serious pragmatic advantages (but it's a tradeoff I take seriously). Since I also find optimization to be inherently interesting, the framework that treats all creatures as derived from common rules serves me much better in most cases. Fortunately, the hobby supports many types. I'm playing two campaigns at the moment. The first uses a custom character point system which has a lot of the build and tactical knobs I love because I and the other designer wanted them there. The second is a Call of Cthulu campaign with a pregen character the DM handed me at the first session. Both great games, and frequently for very different reasons. [/QUOTE]

Verification