D&D 5E How cognizant are you of the rules of the game?

[The Crimson Binome]

This is not a thread to argue that optimization or roleplaying is better or worse (or even mutually exclusive). They are both wonderful.

Again, however, this an opportunity to talk about how you are playing- not a platform to disparage how others play. We're all good and honorable gamers, here.

Could somebody please define FAIL for me?

The question is inherently flawed. Optimization and Role-Playing aren't better or worse or mutually exclusive or anything. Optimization and Role-Playing are two words for the same activity - investment - which are at the opposite end of the sliding scale from not caring at all because it's just a game.

The first poll option - "Completely. It's a game, and I want the best character within the rules." - demonstrates a completely alien mindset. It doesn't fit anywhere along that spectrum.

There is something SERIOUSLY wrong with an encounter that breaks down with the variation of a d6 to a d8.

If the DM isn't specifically tailoring the encounters to match the party, or even if the DM is tailoring the encounters and the luck happens to swing significantly, then the entire party can die. It can totally happen. We've all seen it. Less commonly, or more commonly if the DM is cheating, you get an encounter that is extremely close and actually does come down to a single die roll.

The thing is, if you know that you might find yourself in that sort of situation, why would you ever accept any more risk than you absolutely need to? Why accept an 11% chance of death, if one simple choice could get that down to a 10% chance? The only possible answer is that the character is insane and somehow wants to die. And there's no reason why any sane individual would allow such a liability into the party. End of story.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

In 3e I would have been "Mostly." Currently in 5e I'm halfway between "Mostly" and "A Little." Where I'd like to be is at "A Little."

The reason I want to be at "A Little" is because characters are powerful in 5e (compared to AD&D and 3e). You just don't need to be optimized to succeed. Heck, you can even thrive without optimization. Too much optimization, for me, makes the game less fun because I'm not being as creative. If you have a really great combo that works most of the time, you aren't thinking of swinging from the chandelier or pushing creatures into the campfire, because it's more effective just to use what's on your character sheet.

The reason I'm not yet at "A Little", is partly because of habit, and partly because I want to make sure that I'm on the same page with the other players. It isn't fun for me to have a great, non-optimized, concept, but end up weaker than everyone else. So, once I'm sure we're all going for fun over optimization, then I'll be able to relax more and just stick to "A Little".

 

[pming]

Hiya!

The thing is, if you know that you might find yourself in that sort of situation, why would you ever accept any more risk than you absolutely need to? Why accept an 11% chance of death, if one simple choice could get that down to a 10% chance? The only possible answer is that the character is insane and somehow wants to die. And there's no reason why any sane individual would allow such a liability into the party. End of story.

*blink* *blink*

So, Saelorn, tomorrow when you go to work/school/the store/across the street/wherever... what is your % chance of death from a vehicle?

What's that? You don't know because there are a bajillion variables to consider? Oh... I guess that's kind of like...

"Well, yeah, the dragon got lucky, you guys had some bad rolls, but you did pull of that bucket of water slash enlarge slash ray of frost maneuver (which was cool...sucked for the dragon, but cool for you guys). And the dragon did manage to get lucky with that legendary lair power to divide you up...except for the rogue who managed to grab its tail and swing over the lava river to the other side! Awesome move! But then the dragon got that sweeping breath weapon on you guys, leaving the poor rogue to die alone, eaten by a dragon. *shrug* Anyway....you guys would have won if Dingleberry over there was using a Warhammer and not that stupid Mace! C'mon man! What were you thinking! *fume*".

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[MG.0]

In any proper Simulationist game, such as every version of D&D prior to 4E...

From the 1st Edition DMG (page 9):

Of the two approaches to hobby games today, one is best defined as the realism-simulation school and the other as the game school. AD&D is assuredly an adherent of the latter school. It does not stress any realism (in the author’s opinion an absurd effort at best considering the topic!). It does little to attempt to simulate anything either. ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS is first and foremost a game for the fun and enjoyment of those who seek to use imagination and creativity.




(Edited to fix broken quote.)

 

[The Crimson Binome]

So, Saelorn, tomorrow when you go to work/school/the store/across the street/wherever... what is your % chance of death from a vehicle?

If I had to guess? About 0.1% chance that I'll be in an accident of some sort, and then probably a one-in-three chance that the accident would be fatal.

The specific numbers aren't important. There are a lot of variables involved. The important thing is that we make the right choices based on the information available to us. I'm not going to do anything to increase my risk of death, unless the reward for doing so is sufficient to justify it.

The likelihood that it will actually matter whether it's a d6 mace or a d8 warhammer is pretty small for any given encounter (probably less than 1%), but it's an unnecessary risk. There's no reason to take that risk.

 

[The Lich]

There's no reason to take that risk.

Yes, there is: wanting to play a character who wields a mace instead of a warhammer. As far as reasons go for doing anything in D&D, desiring to play your character in a certain way is as good as they come.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Would players really complain about another player using a mace instead of a warhammer? I really don't see that as a big deal and can't imagine anyone at my table who would do so. We're there to have fun and if a fighter wants to run with a mace then they can run with a mace, it is unlikely to hold the party back.

Players should not be wielding either maces or warhammers around the game table.

My character might have a problem with another character, if the actions of the latter are liable to get the former killed. This is an in-game matter. No reason to drag the players into it.

It's only a problem if the player thinks he has the meta-game right to tag along with the rest of the party, just because he's being controlled by someone other than the DM. If a new player is joining the group, then it behooves the new player to build a character who will fit in with the existing party, rather than trying to fit in something that obviously doesn't belong (be that a necromancer into a group of paladins, or a suicidally incompetent character into a group of professionals).

 

[The Lich]

Players should not be wielding either maces or warhammers around the game table.

My character might have a problem with another character, if the actions of the latter are liable to get the former killed. This is an in-game matter. No reason to drag the players into it.

You just wrote:

The likelihood that it will actually matter whether it's a d6 mace or a d8 warhammer is pretty small for any given encounter (probably less than 1%)

That's hardly "liable."

Liable: likely to do something

 

[jrowland]

I voted "a little". Optimization is easy mode. Now, unoptimization is where the true masters play. Anyone can kick monster-butt playing CODzilla, but not everyone can play a Heavy Armored Wood Elven War Cleric with a Maul with high dex, cha, low con, str, and still kick butt.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

That's hardly "liable."

liable : legally responsible for something

If we die because of your incompetence, then it is your fault and you are liable.