D&D 5E Merwin said it better than Schwalb

[AstroCat]

Yeah, I'm not against tinkering with you character design. I think it's fun too, I guess for me it's when it's taken to the extreme, looking for exploits as the focus. More of a taste thing but I also bum when players create a character solely based on the "numbers" with very little thought to in-game cohesion or rational.

 

[CM]

Yeah, there's a big difference between optimization and favoring mechanics that let you fully realize a character concept. It looks like his followup point addresses that difference.

For me, 4e scratches that itch pretty well. Classes and builds play very differently from each other (even if they have a similar power allocation) and it's hard to break even when pushed. It seems that 5e has learned some lessons from it.

 

[mips42]

regarding

... Just to be clear, I am not talking about min-maxing or choosing the optimal selection for a character. What I am referring to is very clear: when a person insists on doing something at the table that makes the game less fun for everyone else there. There are other ways a player could do that (swearing, smoking, etc.), but most of the time when that has happened in my experiences, it has been when a player uses game-breaking elements to eliminate the chance for others at the table to contribute. This does not help a game grow. It is ultimately antisocial behavior in a social game because it shows no regard for what others want. That is what I am talking about.

If a person derives fun from finding those weird combinations of skills, feats, whatever that optimize their character, good! Go! Have Fun! If, however, a person derives fun from "breaking" the game and, in the process, deprives me from having my kind of fun (social interaction, group storytelling, etc), I don't feel that that is okay. YMMV

 

[Minigiant]

Here is the thing. If the designers leave in something that is broken
or optimized and is blatantly obvious about it, then I am almost duty bound by role play to use it if my character is of average wits. Doubly so if my character is very smart or wise.

I would have to role play excuses for not being sensible.

 

[Jester David]

I dunno if Merwin said it better. The intent seems to be the same, that D&D had more story and imagination elements in the early days than hard rules.

Rules do have their place.
In the Schwab thread I described rules as a crutch, because they let you play and let the game be fun when your imagination is hobbled. I think everyone who has DMed for more than a long weekend has had a session where they just were not "into" the situation and all cylinders were not firing. The imagination was lacking, the story wasn't coming together, and your lack of interest was inevitably going to kill your player's buzz. The rules help you say "Eff it. I'll just give them a dungeon crawl." And it works.

The catch being, as the rules really took over this made the story harder. Because, as a DM, you needed to know the rules to work around them. If you didn't know the rules you could be blindsided by the players. And then there were the cases of RAW coming into play to smack down the DM's ideas, even if the Rule as Written created a weird and illogical situation that was the rule.

It's been a looong time since I DMed without knowing the rules. But I've run for people who know the rules and don't know the rules. And I've played with people who don't know the rules.
I have the most fun when I have more command of the rules than the players. Because I have more control. This is not one-sided though, as I can employ their ignorance to allow them to have more fun. "Sure, you can try that." I'll say and ignore the fact he moved five feet too many or the fact he'd provoke an Attack of Opportunity. It's more about playing the story at that point then playing the game.
When I ran and there were other people who knew the rules it often felt like the main battle was taking place on a meta level. The rule lawyering started, and there was the back-and-forth over if you could do something. There was a lot more presumption that the PC could do something. Less "can I do this" and more "I do this then this then this." Most of the time this is fine if tonally different, but there's always the awkward moments where something fails because of an unknown variable and the player looks at me like I'm cheating.
When I played and the DM didn't know the rules it was even more awkward. Because I didn't want to be that player that said "no, that doesn't work like that" or "well, actually, the rules say...". I tried to be there when he needed a ruling or asked for one and shut my trap the rest of the time. But I know some players who wouldn't be able to do that.

This little rant-ette is really influenced by my view that D&D is equal parts story and rules, that the story and the narrative has equal impact over whether or not you're "playing D&D". When the story gets pushed aside and the narrative takes a back seat you lose an essential part of the experience.

 

[Thalionalfirin]

I've been thinking about this for awhile.

Recently, I've been pretty adamant about not liking "building" characters. That's why I stopped playing 4e, Pathfinder, Shadowrun, etc.

I'm going to have to amend that statement a bit now.

I actually LOVE building characters. I do like looking through skills, feats, whatevers and throwing stuff together on HeroLabs.

What I don't enjoy is actually playing those characters.

For me, building characters is a game in itself. It's fun.

But stick that character in a game where all those choices actually matter.... that's not fun for me.

 

[Umbran]

Amen, brother. Amen.

I think, in choosing your quotes, you have misrepresented the heart of the piece. The really relevant quote is:

"Here’s a newsflash: Breaking the game breaks the game."

It isn't a piece about how rules optimization is somehow bad, or that playing with rules is bad. In effect, you've gotten Morrus to argue against the guy, when I suspect that if you showed Morrus this quote, Morrus would *agree*.

The thing Mr. Merwin misses is epitomized in one of the quotes you give:

"The game has to be about the story if the hobby as a whole is going to flourish."

I think Mr. Merwin forgets that the audience for people who want to play *with rules* (say, in the boardgame and CCG spaces) is apparently much larger than the audience for people who want to play with story. So, we may argue that keeping the focus too much on the story is apt to limit the game. We probably need those rules-enjoying players in order to flourish.

 

[Mercurius]

As some have basically said already, why can't it be "both/and" rather than "either/or"?

Now I agree with the spirit of what Merwin is saying, but also agree with what some others have said - that part of the fun of D&D is tinkering with it.

Dancey said something about the study of 15 years ago delineating five general groups of gamers, one of which are "Power Gamers" - who see the game as primarily a tactical, combat-focused affair, and for whom optimization is central. He says that many, even most, of these folks departed for computer games, so while this is a valid approach to D&D, the bulk of its adherents have departed. Interesting pespective which I think is at least partially true, although it is clear that many "Power Gamers" still play D&D.

I do think there are two general polarities of D&D players - those who like to focus more on fluff and those who like to focus more on crunch. Now of course most of us like both, but it is to what degree that varies. The more crunchy folks are often the ones who care about the letter of the law, and who insist upon a "robust game engine." The more fluffy folks are comfortable with "hand-waving" rules and focus more on tonal qualities. This might be a matter of personality typology, or it could be cognitive styles, or even philosophical temperaments.

Anyhow, one of the things I like about 5E is that it does follow a both/and approach, at least from what we can see so far. A simple, core game, with numerous (mainly future) possible options. It seemingly serves both fluffy and crunchy types, whereas the last two editions were more geared towards the latter.

 

[BryonD]

I think Mr. Merwin forgets that the audience for people who want to play *with rules* (say, in the boardgame and CCG spaces) is apparently much larger than the audience for people who want to play with story. So, we may argue that keeping the focus too much on the story is apt to limit the game. We probably need those rules-enjoying players in order to flourish.

In my opinion and experience a lot of focus on story can be hugely successful, so long as it doesn't directly interfere with the rules side of it. And the rules side includes a lot of freedom to create variety within the mechanics to reflect nuance in how the story show play out. This can hurt a game from either direction. A "rules lite" game obviously doesn't provide that "rules" appeal. But the "math works" 4E approach also divorces the story distinctions from the mechanical nuance. You can define any narrative you can imagine, but at the table the resolution is going to be within that same math works zone.

Obviously both of these areas have big, vocal fan bases. But also obviously, you are right about "much larger" audiences.
Nothing in your post claims that rules-enjoying is in conflict with story focus. But, for me, I'd state even stronger that the "much larger" audience is looking for the systems that actively offer both at the same time.

 

[Lord Mhoram]

regarding
If a person derives fun from finding those weird combinations of skills, feats, whatever that optimize their character, good! Go! Have Fun! If, however, a person derives fun from "breaking" the game and, in the process, deprives me from having my kind of fun (social interaction, group storytelling, etc), I don't feel that that is okay. YMMV

This is exactly how I view it myself. I lived through it to teach it to me though.

I also play HERO, and was one of those game-breakers, then I realized it wasn't fun for everyone. I had a character at the start of one campaign who was fairly moderate compared to my other bad stuff, but ended up being too versatile and could step on everyone else. After the first adventure I realized that as the character progressed, he would break the fun of everyone else. So I talked the GM and made a new character.

When I came back to D&D with 3.0 I brought that attitude with me.

Like Morrus I enjoy engaging with mechanics away from the table to be fun. Sometimes I enjoy that more than the actual game at the table... but no reason that someone who enjoys that should use that interest to break the game for others.