Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="GreyICE" data-source="post: 6029577" data-attributes="member: 6684526">That's called GURPS.&nbsp; It's a fine system* and D&amp;D should not try to be GURPS, just as GURPS should not try to be D&amp;D.&nbsp; There's a lot of drawbacks to the GURPS system that D&amp;D avoids.&nbsp; One of the benefits/drawbacks to the D&amp;D system is that combat tends to get separated out and made special.&nbsp; And most groups (I'd say 95%+) who play D&amp;D embrace that and play campaigns based on that.&nbsp; I have only very rarely heard of D&amp;D campaigns that embraced political intrigue or other roleplay-heavy systems, and most used D&amp;D settings and were so heavily houseruled that they were more of a D20 homebrew.&nbsp; The 95% of players who play that way should not be blocked off from certain aspects of roleplay because of this.&nbsp; They should not be a &quot;less competent blacksmith&quot; if their character concept is that they're a blacksmith, they should not be a less competent diplomat if their character concept is they're a diplomatic envoy, etc.&nbsp; What Jameson referred to was SPECIFICALLY min-maxing in any case.&nbsp; Minimizing your skills in everything in order to pour every single resource you have into maximizing one narrow area.&nbsp; So it's not a strawman, that's exactly what he described.&nbsp; He even said that if the baseline was 3/3/3 he wanted the ability to make a character who was 5/1/1 - the EXACT definition of min-maxing.&nbsp; I'd appreciate if you didn't make insults up because you don't like what I'm saying.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="GreyICE, post: 6029577, member: 6684526"] That's called GURPS. It's a fine system* and D&D should not try to be GURPS, just as GURPS should not try to be D&D. There's a lot of drawbacks to the GURPS system that D&D avoids. One of the benefits/drawbacks to the D&D system is that combat tends to get separated out and made special. And most groups (I'd say 95%+) who play D&D embrace that and play campaigns based on that. I have only very rarely heard of D&D campaigns that embraced political intrigue or other roleplay-heavy systems, and most used D&D settings and were so heavily houseruled that they were more of a D20 homebrew. The 95% of players who play that way should not be blocked off from certain aspects of roleplay because of this. They should not be a "less competent blacksmith" if their character concept is that they're a blacksmith, they should not be a less competent diplomat if their character concept is they're a diplomatic envoy, etc. What Jameson referred to was SPECIFICALLY min-maxing in any case. Minimizing your skills in everything in order to pour every single resource you have into maximizing one narrow area. So it's not a strawman, that's exactly what he described. He even said that if the baseline was 3/3/3 he wanted the ability to make a character who was 5/1/1 - the EXACT definition of min-maxing. I'd appreciate if you didn't make insults up because you don't like what I'm saying. [/QUOTE]

Verification