D&D 5E Merwin said it better than Schwalb

[Minigiant]

The issue is not extreme gearhead breaking the game via scouring through books and creating formulas.

The issue is when very very basic power gaming is used and you find obvious choices and broken mechanics.

When you see two weapons with identical stats except one is 1d10 and one is 1d12?
One in the chapter on spells you see two spells when casted together make you stronger that their group warrior with only a duration limit. Then realize the XYZ increases that duration.

It is one thing to say "I want to be a flail user", it is another to make that weapon obviously worse than others to the point anyone who reads the book can see.

 

[Hussar]

What I detest are the gearheads who insist that I'm somehow ruining their game because my character isn't completely optimal. Lords forbid I create a character that doesn't eek out every single ounce of damage per round possible by taking the Great Axe instead of the Great Sword (as a f'rinstance).

And following a character concept != tragically flawed. Also, not being the most completely optimized character EVAR also != tragically flawed.

OTOH, there's the dead weight character too. Someone who creates a character purely for concept, but is simply not pulling his/her weight in the game. Now, I'm not talking about someone who is doing 1 HP damage less per round on average than someone else. That's fine. But, I've seen gamers who insist on "playing to concept" who create characters which are very useless. But, if I or anyone else points out that as a group of professional adventurers, whose goal is to survive, we really have no reason to actually cart this dead weight around, now we're suddenly "roll players" who don't care about playing the game right.

There most certainly is two sides on this issue and both of them can be equally problematic. Neither of them is inherently a problem, but, taken beyond a certain point, both sides will cause issues at the table.

 

[Thaumaturge]

I understand Merwin, and Schwalb, to be talking less about people who take a greatsword over a greataxe because it does more damage (or other optimization stuff) and more about people who insist the party stop for a few hours so the fighter can heal by chaining short rests (or other--not intended to work this way, bag-o-rat-isms).

Finding optimizations, and using them, is one thing. Finding exploits, and using them, is another.

Thaumaturge.

 

[BryonD]

If the whole group wants to play (or is at least fine with) exploits then nothing is bad.
If the whole group wants to play (or at least is fine with) inefficient concept builds, then nothing is bad.
When you have some moderation of mix, it is often still all good.
When you have extremes at the same table you have problems.

 

[Thaumaturge]

Indeed, different groups will define "exploit" differently.

Thaumaturge.

 

[Minigiant]

There are different levels of optimization.
You can go from...
Joking Ineffective PCs (Half orc wizard with 13 INT)
Effective Joke Characters (Gnome Pikeman with 16 STR)
Powerful Story PCs (Human dual wielding light armor fighter)
Fairly geared all good choice PC (High elf wizard with lowbrow)
Munchkin PCs

The key is not to mix too many of the different types in one party.

 

[Sacrosanct]

But we've seen - repeatedly - a bunch of designers over the past couple weeks tout the rules-light line because anyone who likes heavier crunch is a jerk.

Great! If we've seen it repeatedly, then I'm sure it will be easy for you to show me game designers who are calling anyone who likes heavier crunch rules jerks. Otherwise I'd hope you will stop with this nonsense.

*Edit* And to be a little preemptive here, if I may. Before you say something like, "Merwin and Schwalb just did!", I should point out to you that they aren't talking about everyone who likes heavier crunch. They are talking about people who look for nothing else but to exploit the game, often at the expense of the fun of the other players. So before you answer this, you need to understand that the phrase you used was "anyone who likes heavier crunch", which includes a whole lot of people.

Really? Because as a designer I am surprised at how little care and concern the recent crop of D&D designers have for mechanics. Because they apparently think that anyone who investigates mechanical constructs with any amount of rigor is only there to make the lives of everyone around them miserable.

I'm tired of mechanics-focused individuals being constantly misconstrued as a bunch of trolls.

Once again, I'm going to have to ask you for citation. I'd also be curious to know what games you have designed. When I talk about game designers, I'm not talking about Joe coming up with his own homebrew game. I'm talking about people who were involved in designing a published professional game. This isn't meant as a dig at "hobby" designers, but is meant to call out the difference between someone who writes their own rules and gets a friend to do some artwork, and someone who is involved in working extensively with professional freelancers, printing, editing, publishing, distribution, and marketing. This is important because there is a vast difference between the two. And rather than make assumptions that you're the former rather than the latter, I'll ask for your clarification so I can establish what sort of expertise you have in making all of these generalizations about game design.

My point is this: if you are going to not actually design rules, what purpose is there in me buying the rules for your game. I will not pay money for the magic tea party, and asking me to do so is an insult to my intelligence.

Ah, and here is the money quote. People who use terms like "magic tea party" rarely, if ever, actually want to have a mature conversation. You've not only managed to denigrate an entire population of gamers (implying that rulings over rules is for stupider people than you), but you haven't actually shown anything that is "good" design.

I hate to break it to you, but your opinion on what is good design seems to be a far outlier over what pretty much everyone else does, and therefore you really should stop throwing insults around acting like your preference is some sort of objective truth.

 

[Umbran]

To be frank here, as a designer...

Really? Because as a designer...

Gentlemen,

As a moderator, it is time for me to step in.

First off, all the "as a designer" stuff is what's called "appeal to authority". It means diddly unless we all know what you designed, find it relevant, and like it. In general, if your argument doesn't stand up without this appeal, it isn't as strong as you might think.

Moreover, once you've done that, you are essentially making it personal - from this point on, comments made aren't just about your opinions, but about your professional acumen. That's a good way for people's feelings to be bruised, so we ask you not to do this.

Thanks, all.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Gentlemen,

As a moderator, it is time for me to step in.

First off, all the "as a designer" stuff is what's called "appeal to authority". It means diddly unless we all know what you designed, find it relevant, and like it. In general, if your argument doesn't stand up without this appeal, it isn't as strong as you might think.

Moreover, once you've done that, you are essentially making it personal - from this point on, comments made aren't just about your opinions, but about your professional acumen. That's a good way for people's feelings to be bruised, so we ask you not to do this.

Thanks, all.

Fair enough. For what it's worth, one of my games, Altus Adventum, has had almost 15,000 downloads, and the other, Compact Heroes, won a Best New Game of 2011 award, as well as being carried by Alliance distribution (meaning I have the experience of working with overseas printers and distributions). I don't say any of this to brag at all. I know I'm still small fish, and there are A LOT of more accomplished people than myself out there. I only mention it because I see repeated attacks at game designers from someone who really doesn't seem to have knowledge on what's involved in that process.

 

[Greg K]

But, if I or anyone else points out that as a group of professional adventurers, whose goal is to survive, we really have no reason to actually cart this dead weight around, now we're suddenly "roll players" who don't care about playing the game right

.

Professional adventurers is an individual group or player based assumption. Not every group assumes the characters are professional adventurers- at least, not initially. For many groups, some or all of the characters fall into the role over time. For some groups or campaigns, the characters are never professional adventurers. Therefore, the expectation needs to be discussed before character generation.

There most certainly is two sides on this issue and both of them can be equally problematic. Neither of them is inherently a problem, but, taken beyond a certain point, both sides will cause issues at the table.

Agreed. Discussion before hand can help alleviate part of the problem or to weed out incompatible players.