Payn's Ponderings; System mastery and the concept of fair fight.

[FrogReaver]

Re: craving system mastery or fairness.

When faced with rolling a character's stats where the game's rules limited how much dice or rolls you could use, what I rolled shaped what kind of wizard etc. I would play. That is, in the process of creating a character, I never thought, oh, this is where my two lowest scores etc should go.

Dump stats as a concept, is now ubiquitous in many spaces besides ttrpgs, and very much integral in how-to-play or how-to-build guides.

We build characters now; there's something to be said about that.

Randomness does not preclude system mastery.

 

[The Sigil]

I think those who want to self-style as “system masters” are stroking their own ego. In the Bartle taxonomy, they are almost universally “killers” that exhibit focus over a single item in the system (usually damage output), not mastery over the entire system. They then attempt to bludgeon the system with that item. This is not mastery of a system, it is applying blunt force trauma to the system.

 

[payn]

I’d challenge almost all this as well. Sandy isn’t bored by even matches or at least there’s no evidence of that.

I’ll give an example. I’m pretty good at a custom game type on StarCraft 2 called Nexus Wars. It’s a tag of war auto battler where you build buildings that auto produce units and auto sends them. I have a high system mastery for that game. But I dont solely play the most OP combos I know. I like to experiment and test novel tactics and strategies and learn when certain tactics that are generally viewed as bad can work.

I do the same kind of thing with most games. Lots of analysis and then test out the hypothesis. A fair game is essential to this process.

And then there’s an even more fundamental question, What is a fair match, especially in d&d?

I'll use the chess example for the distinction. I think that you could argue a grand master against myself might as well have two less pawns and two more queens on the board. Their intelligence and experience gives them a strategic advantage. However, the fact remains we both have the same units, on the same board, and can come to the same strategies. The game is fair, our ability to strategize is not. Sandy, on the other hand, is looking to build mismatched boards. He wants two more queens than his opponent.

This became very apparent in our group games. Due to Sandy's deep knowledge of system mastery, folks assumed they wanted him on their team. What they soon discovered is that sandy is rather poor at strategy. Without a tactical advantage, he offers little to the overall team. As the group drove more and more into balanced boards, Sandy pulled further and further away from the group.

 

[payn]

I think those who want to self-style as “system masters” are stroking their own ego. In the Bartle taxonomy, they are almost universally “killers” that exhibit focus over a single item in the system (usually damage output), not mastery over the entire system. They then attempt to bludgeon the system with that item. This is not mastery of a system, it is applying blunt force trauma to the system.

I start with a place of neutrality on the term system master, but yes I think some folks can take it to the extreme and make the game not fun for myself and others.

 

[FrogReaver]

I think those who want to self-style as “system masters” are stroking their own ego. In the Bartle taxonomy, they are almost universally “killers” that exhibit focus over a single item in the system (usually damage output), not mastery over the entire system. They then attempt to bludgeon the system with that item. This is not mastery of a system, it is applying blunt force trauma to the system.

So damage system masters? Not really sure the point beyond that.

 

[FrogReaver]

I'll use the chess example for the distinction. I think that you could argue a grand master against myself might as well have two less pawns and two more queens on the board. Their intelligence and experience gives them a strategic advantage. However, the fact remains we both have the same units, on the same board, and can come to the same strategies. The game is fair, our ability to strategize is not. Sandy, on the other hand, is looking to build mismatched boards. He wants two more queens than his opponent.

I don’t think so. Building your d&d character is like the opening in chess. Everyone is equal. Everyone has the same board of options.

I mean I get you are trying to view character creation as not part of the game and thus equating it to board setup, but it need not be viewed that way.

Maybe this distinction will help.

1. Character creation is fair so long as all players have equal access to all options

2. Gameplay is fair so long as character creation was fair and the challenges are fair (whatever that means for this group).

This became very apparent in our group games. Due to Sandy's deep knowledge of system mastery, folks assumed they wanted him on their team. What they soon discovered is that sandy is rather poor at strategy. Without a tactical advantage, he offers little to the overall team. As the group drove more and more into balanced boards, Sandy pulled further and further away from the group.

You are assuming too much here.

The simplest answer is that you took away options sandy wanted to use and then drove toward removing more and more of them.

And then trying to paint that as sandy not wanting fairness. I’m a bit disgusted by that take.

Going back to the chess opening analogy. Your concept of fairness is that both sides should have equal material after the opening. That the opening should no longer be viewed as part of the game you can get an advantage in and that if it is then you’ll just make illegal any openings that give an advantage so that everything will be equal after the opening.

 

[payn]

I don’t think so. Building your d&d character is like the opening in chess. Everyone is equal. Everyone has the same board of options.

I mean I get you are trying to view character creation as not part of the game and thus equating it to board setup, but it need not be viewed that way.

Maybe this distinction will help.

1. Character creation is fair so long as all players have equal access to all options

2. Gameplay is fair so long as character creation was fair and the challenges are fair (whatever that means for this group).

You are assuming too much here.

The simplest answer is that you took away options sandy wanted to use and then drove toward removing more and more of them.

And then trying to paint that as sandy not wanting fairness. I’m a bit disgusted by that take.

Going back to the chess opening analogy. Your concept of fairness is that both sides should have equal material after the opening. That the opening should no longer be viewed as part of the game you can get an advantage in and that if it is then you’ll just make illegal any openings that give an advantage so that everything will be equal after the opening.

You seemed to have missed the entire point of Sandy wanting an unfair advantage in 3 queens while his opponent only has one. Opening moves in chess is strategy, im absolutely fine with that.

 

[FrogReaver]

You seemed to have missed the entire point of Sandy wanting an unfair advantage in 3 queens while his opponent only has one. Opening moves in chess is strategy, im absolutely fine with that.

And yet I specifically discussed it…

I don’t think so. Building your d&d character is like the opening in chess. Everyone is equal. Everyone has the same board of options.

I mean I get you are trying to view character creation as not part of the game and thus equating it to board setup, but it need not be viewed that way.

Maybe this distinction will help.

1. Character creation is fair so long as all players have equal access to all options

2. Gameplay is fair so long as character creation was fair and the challenges are fair (whatever that means for this group).

I even bolded the most direct portion of the comment.

 

[Emerikol]

I think there is the idea of what a fighter and wizard should be that informs the norms. Why cant a fighter have a 8 str and a high dex? Maybe they are a swashbuckler or a ranged specialist? Why must Wizards be intelligent? I know the sorc being the "its in ma blood ; not ma readin" element reinforces the idea, but I dont see why all wizards must be smart? If you want to rid of dump stats and cookie cutter chargen, I think you need to tackle the idea of what a class is conceptually in relation to stats. At some point, stats went from being a character's physical and mental make up, to being their ability to be good at stuff based on class alone.

I'm not 100% sure of 5e but in most D&D editions if you didn't have high intelligence you were not casting the high level spells. You were also more limited in your spellbook. A cleric would get bonus spells based on wisdom and that was a significant power boost.

On the need for an 18 being a myth, thats largely dependent on the system. 5E is fairly forgiving of a spread out stat array, but PF2 would be down right punishing. The system math is so tight in PF2, if you fail to maximize, your PC will be completely ineffective. That was a design choice. Interesting enough, PF2 doesnt use rolling for stats, but a system that determines make up based on ancestry, background, and class. However, the choices seem to matter at face value, but all usually come out the same int he end. There really is only 2-3 functional arrays in PF2.


I think 3E/PF1 had the concept correct, it was the math that was a total mess.

I haven't played PF though I've read and used some modules. I think the DM drives the challenge. My players in 3e were highly skilled in all aspects of the game and if I put standard challenges up against them the game would have been boring. They all joked that I was a hard DM but amazingly they all survived and prospered. So the DM to a large degree sets the difficulty level of the game. I've had less experienced groups as well at times and I've not been as hard. I tend to build a world (difficulty wise) that will suit the players playing in it.

 

[payn]

I'm not 100% sure of 5e but in most D&D editions if you didn't have high intelligence you were not casting the high level spells. You were also more limited in your spellbook. A cleric would get bonus spells based on wisdom and that was a significant power boost.


I haven't played PF though I've read and used some modules. I think the DM drives the challenge. My players in 3e were highly skilled in all aspects of the game and if I put standard challenges up against them the game would have been boring. They all joked that I was a hard DM but amazingly they all survived and prospered. So the DM to a large degree sets the difficulty level of the game. I've had less experienced groups as well at times and I've not been as hard. I tend to build a world (difficulty wise) that will suit the players playing in it.

True, but PF1 and PF2 are very different. PF2 is designed where level is the most important factor. 10 over the DC is a crit and 10 under is a crit failure. A +1 bonus is a very big deal. If the players were to roll stats, and had 14s in their primaries, a GM running the game on any but the simplest level would be a TPK machine. Its that inflexible.