NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 9290964" data-attributes="member: 2067">What happens if we flip the script a bit?I feel character builds should be a fun extra. I don't want my real life character optimization skills to overshadow someone who lacks those advantages.It's like if I was using my system knowledge as a way to become the most effective in combat.There are avenues for character builds to compete, but I don't enjoy those skills replacing all other kinds of skills in RPG's.See, the point I'm getting at is that mechanics expertise - creating an effective character build - isn't any different from skill in character performance. Some folks will be better at it, some folks will be worse at it. Systems should absolutely help those who are worse at it to contribute on par with folks who have a better skill at it. But valuing one of those skill sets to the exclusion of the other is not what I'd want to see in D&D overall.Saying that build should trump character performance in the social pillar is a little like saying performance should trump build in the combat pillar - that saying "I rip off the goblin's head!" should then mean the goblin's head is ripped off without any additional mechanics. I'd argue that it's good that D&D asks you to do both. Both are part of the fun of the game!I definitely don't want to make this An Alignment Thread, but this specifically shows a misunderstanding of its use in the Social pillar of gameplay, and might help illustrate part of what I'm getting at.Characters are nuanced individuals. But performing as any character at a table - especially for someone who isn't so into the performance aspect of play, or for someone new to the game - is a big lift. "What does my character do?" isn't a question everyone has a ready answer for. You look at your character sheet for options.Having two words at the top of your sheet to guide that performance is a huge benefit. "My character acts how a good person who follows the rules would act" is a good way to guide the player in the moment to an answer to that question. We could replace alignment with the D&D character's enneagram or meyers-briggs type or astrology sign or whatever other nonsense personality test you want to put in. Normal people don't fit into those boxes, either. But all of these failures to capture human complexity do contain a set of personality traits that you can use to perform the character more effectively.Class and race provide similar support for this question, and including all of these gives you some options to select from in play. How does my lawful good dwarf cleric react to the svirfneblin's offer of a temporary truce? Well, I can answer that question as a cleric (maybe peace would be a better option?), as a dwarf (trust no one who is not a dwarf!), as a good character (okay, if it means we can prevent the drow from summoning Lolth!), or as a lawful character (alliances are good, but we better make sure they agree to our terms...). Or just as Brunalta Rockseeker, whatever that character means to me.I don't think the punitive angle Alignment had in the early days is good design, but even that flaw reveals how alignment is used in play - to guide the performance of the character. That's the kind of thing a good social mechanic does. That's what a social mechanic looks like. Not like rolling dice and adding modifiers.One of the really annoying things about online conversation is that people wind up substituting what they think your position is based on conversations they've had before without looking at what your actual position is, and it leads to conversations going around in circles talking more about strawmen than the actual point being made.Yeah, of course D&D should be accessible to different kinds of players, and this should be obvious. It's a basic assumption that I've reiterated a few times in this thread already.So listen to this: Can you accept the idea that the game would do well to be open and accessible to someone who doesn't like to roll dice and add modifiers? That not everyone is going to like rolling a d20 and adding things to it to produce a number intended to beat a DC? That folks who are not themselves mathematical, or who lack that kind of numerical skill, have the ability to successfully play characters in fantasy? If so, then mechanics can't be just about 1d20+modifiers. Get a bigger view of "mechanic," here. A view that includes alignment as a mechanic, that includes how dwarves and elves relate as a mechanic, that includes a paladin's code of conduct as a mechanic, that includes "have advantage for making good trouble" as a mechanic. Just because not everyone is good at math doesn't mean we don't expect them to do some basic math sometimes. Maybe combat and optimization isn't really their jam, but we do have 1d20+mods as a mechanic we use pretty prominently, and anyone who plays D&D will have to be at least a little OK with doing some math sometimes. We can have good design and good mechanics and good systems that help even these players participate well in the more math-heavy segments.Similarly, I think it's OK to say that anyone playing D&D will have to be at least a little OK with performing a character sometimes. Maybe deep character nuance isn't really their jam, but we do have moments where making in-character choices are used pretty prominently as a matter of play, and anyone who plays D&D will have to be at least a little OK with pretending to be a character sometimes. We can have good design and good mechanics and good systems that help even these players participate well in the more performance-heavy segments.My position is that this diversity of demands on the player is a good thing, part of the fun of D&D specifically. We should not be trying to remove math from our games entirely just to satisfy people who aren't into rolling dice and adding numbers, nor should we be trying to remove character performance from our games just to satisfy people who absolutely refuse to perform their characters. These aspects work together to work different parts of the brain and create a more dynamic and interesting play experience than would otherwise exist.I'm saying that performing your character is as key to the fun of D&D as rolling 1d20 and adding modifiers.Which isn't to say that these aren't replaceable, I guess. You can play a D&D game without rolling dice just like you can play a D&D game without performing your character. But, y'know, what makes Critical Role a success isn't system mastery or character builds or compelling point systems with a lot of tactical options. What people see in D&D there is a performance. And we can absolutely get better, in game design, at helping unskilled people deliver better performances in the D&D game. But we're not going to get there by focusing more on skill checks.</blockquote>

Verification