Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JamesonCourage" data-source="post: 6029806" data-attributes="member: 6668292">I can quote Urban Dictionary (which goes back to my qualifier of "At least, that's the basic gamer jargon as I know it to be casually used"): Also, the TV Tropes page implies my definition (underlined the part that implies it):Optimization, according to thefreedictionary.com, says this about optimization:So, if your design was a non-combat sage, then if you're optimizing, you'd be trying to make that non-combat sage as functional as possible (making him a better sage, and worse at combat).I admit, though, that none of this is consistently defined jargon. It's just used to how I'm hearing it.It fits your wiki quote, but doesn't fit the three sources I give above (and I'll give another one below). Agreeing to disagree.How can you not admit this is a play style thing? You want everyone to be involved (or at least able to contribute if they want to) in every scene. Okay, that's cool. That's a valid style. How can you say that people who knowingly make a choice to have less breadth and more depth are doing something "really bad"? If they still derive enjoyment from the game after making their informed decision, how is that bad? That's what I'm asking.First, again, this is a play style thing. And second, what's to stop people from chipping in when you have your time? You'll shine, obviously, but if they stuck with the 3/3/3 breadth setup, they should be able to contribute meaningfully still. And, if it's all optional while the default is set to 3/3/3, what's the problem?Color me unconvinced. If I said "yes" over and over, could I convince you?Your "fun" is a bug in a system I want. The ability to optimize a concept where I'm not proficient in every pillar is important to my group, and to others. The optional ability to opt out of an assumed 3/3/3 setup no way harms your group, and it aids mine. You get your fun, still, man. I'm not trying to take it away. No effort needed; just don't change the default.I'm not sure how you know what "fun" is for every group. I'd assume that you don't, since you're missing what might be fun for my group. Having someone who is great at negotiation and social interaction and isn't combat-focused has happened in my RPG, and the player had tons of fun with it. Might be his favorite character of the ones he's played with me. The other players saw him as super valuable, too. They had fun with him.I get that you wouldn't have fun with that. And that's cool. I'm not trying to force an unbalanced default game on you; in fact, I'm in support of 3/3/3 being default and assumed. Just give a clear, optional, supported opt-out to people like me who want to trade their feats for more "talents" or whatever. Easy to do, and won't affect what you want. As I said, it's win/win.You're running up against the problems I listed earlier, and in the other thread. You address them, and I'll address your reply.If I make a level 10 Wizard and run him as a sage, but then hand his sheet to someone else, they'll see his attack bonus, his spells, etc., and they know he's proficient in combat.You're saying "ignore the rules" and that doesn't work on multiple levels:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The mechanics do not reflect the fiction.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Ignoring rules to make the game work is the Oberoni Fallacy (side note: the site where you might read that fallacy, <a href="http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19550770/DO_NOT_TRIM:_Dictionary_of_Terminology" target="_blank">Whoops! Browser Settings Incompatible</a>, also defines "Min/Maxer" as "A player who designs her character, usually within the basic parameters of the rules, to maximize that character’s advantages and minimize its disadvantages").</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">You do not increase your skill level for the sacrifice involved, which kills certain character concepts (or "roleplaying opportunities").</li> </ul>You can ignore the optional opt-out, however, extremely easily, while my group can opt-in. Again, how is this not win/win?  As always, play what you like <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Um, this is cool. I'd be down for this type of progression, but it seems like a tangent to my comments on specialization and hyper-specialization, which I think 5e can add as an option. I think I missed either the segue or the off-ramp somewhere; can you help me out? As always, play what you like <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification