Optimisation in PC building

[aramis erak]

That's the American view, a culture in which for some reason every game must have a winner and loser.

Funny, but it's pretty much the same as the OED.

And ties are a dual failure to win, or, more succinctly, both suffer a mild loss; many sports have overtime to push to a single victor, and only allow ties in regular season rather than tournament. The ones that don't tend to be multiplayer-solitaire; you're not interacting with your opponents in a meaningful way. (EG: Golf, Riflery, Archery, And that's a worldwide thing.

Play without either victory or loss conditions is still play, but it's not a game. For some, going out in the blaze of glory is a win condition...

 

[aramis erak]

This was true until roleplaying games. Roleplaying games were loved because they were not defined by these rules.

The way many played it, it does have a win condition: surviving the dungeon.

 

[Lanefan]

Funny, but it's pretty much the same as the OED.

And ties are a dual failure to win,

They're also a dual success in not losing. Depends on one's perspective.

or, more succinctly, both suffer a mild loss; many sports have overtime to push to a single victor, and only allow ties in regular season rather than tournament. The ones that don't tend to be multiplayer-solitaire; you're not interacting with your opponents in a meaningful way. (EG: Golf, Riflery, Archery, And that's a worldwide thing.

Play without either victory or loss conditions is still play, but it's not a game.

Taken literally, along with the concept of there's no win-loss conditions in RPGs, this says RPGs aren't games. And I don't see you getting much agreement on that stance somehow.

Counting how many sheep you see while riding in a train is a game; even though there's no win condition, no loss condition, and no defined end point.

 

[Emerikol]

My observation is that a lot of people who think that they don't care about this stuff actually do, just not in nearly as conscious a way. That people who you think are fine with weak characters are, in at least some cases, simply not speaking up because they think it's "the way it is".

So I strongly suspect a lot of other people are the same way, and until they get to play a character who is highly effective in combat, they won't really express it. Some might not even then, but I'd be interested to see if they kept on playing combat-ineffective characters.

You can't argue with this sort of reasoning because you made it unfalsifiable.

I strongly suspect that people who care a lot about balance strongly suspect everyone else does too.

Now I will admit I didn't have the radical imbalance issues between casters and every other class in any edition of D&D that you apparently had.

I thought wizards have been nerfed from 1e onwards. I'm not saying nerfed to the point they are bad or weak. Just weaker than their predecessor. A 20th level wizard had a 20 die fireball in 1e and lots of them. I realize also that in my conception of things the fighter's magic equipment was a necessity of the class so there is that. My fighters always had such things so it never really mattered. We've hashed this a million times. You just didn't play the same game I did is all I can say.

My take is that 1e > 3e > 5e > 4e given you clean up some of the numbers mess that was 1e which is pretty easy to do and many OSR companies have done it. Naturally I say that from my perspective given my tastes. I know it's not true for everybody. But hey 5e was an improvement over 4e. So maybe 6e will continue upward. I don't find 4e or 5e for me playable. Even with a group of friends I would turn one of those games down even as a player.

 

[Emerikol]

The way many played it, it does have a win condition: surviving the dungeon.

Is the game over when the party survives the dungeon? No there is always another dungeon. I'd call surviving the dungeon a goal but hardly a win condition.

 

[Emerikol]

Even if the players consider themselves as a group I think this is true. My experience over 30+ years is that players don't actually put a lot of weight on "beating" an adventure. Some, but not a lot. They put a lot more weight on having cool characters, doing cool and memorable stuff and so on, and that depending on the system, that often does interact with optimization. Players often set short-term win conditions of their own too, like getting their own back on a specific NPC for they feel as screwed them over or something, even if this wasn't part of your plan as DM.

I think your experiences are valid and that is one way people have played. There are many ways and many motives though and you shouldn't assume your group represents all possible groups. Neither does mine by the way. I see stuff on here that I've heard of for the very first time here. I played 30 years and never saw some of the things people on here seem to feel are dominant aspects of their games. In a variety of ways.

Now I will say where we overlap in playstyles is that in game motivates are strong in my games. I have a strong world with "living" NPCs so they are apt to motivate and often do. So a grudge against an enemy is something that is always fun to roleplay out. I also think my groups tend to engage in the campaign stuff like influencing politics and building their own fortress etc... I think it comes from my style. World engagement style if you will.

I won't say I've never seen someone who primarily just wants to do his own cool stuff. They rarely fit into my group well though. My groups are very much in character are focused on their enemy of the moment very intensely. Some of that may be that I'm a bit of a tough DM. Some of that comes from the players being really good players and me responding to keep the challenge up. So there may be some discussion of how well they did after the battle I don't see it as a primary motive. Most of our great stories are tales of narrow escapes at the hands of death.

 

[Fenris-77]

Sorry, which question?

The prevalence of combat rules in RPGs generally and what that indexes about at least some sort of win-condition.

 

[Fenris-77]

Is the game over when the party survives the dungeon? No there is always another dungeon. I'd call surviving the dungeon a goal but hardly a win condition.

I think you can quite appropriately tie win conditions to all sorts of narrative arc lengths. It's not really any different than saying "I beat the level" in a computer game.

 

[Gorgon Zee]

@Lanefan : That's the American view, a culture in which for some reason every game musthave a winner and loser.

Funny, but it's pretty much the same as the OED.

qq: do you have access to the OED, or is this just your gut feeling? I don’t have paid access, so the closest I can get is from lexico.com, which is “powered by Oxford”. That site helpfully has both US and UK definitions of words. For the word “game” we have as the primary definition:

UK: An activity that one engages in for amusement or fun.
‘the kids were playing a game with their balloons’

US: A form of play or sport, especially a competitive one played according to rules and decided by skill, strength, or luck.
‘For the most part, hockey is truly a team game in a sports world that sells individuals.’

So Lanefan looks like the ‘winner’ here and Aramis the ‘loser’
Interestingly, even the US definition says that the competitive nature of a game is not exclusive — so at least this dictionary completely supports the position that a game doe not require a winner/loser dynamic, and also indicates that in the US it is much more common that it is a part of a game.

Now awaiting correction from anyone who has access to the latest version of the OED ...

 

[Lanefan]

Is the game over when the party survives the dungeon? No there is always another dungeon. I'd call surviving the dungeon a goal but hardly a win condition.

Surviving the dungeon = winning a match. Surviving the campaign = winning the end-of-season cup.