Sometimes I feel like I'm the only one who doesn't care about numbers...

[Reynard]

Now that the PHB is out, watching the threads makes me think this: play the game. Stop thinking about the classes and feats and spells in the abstract and make some characters and play the game. I am sure tree are some broken elements and some underpowered things, but I bet there aren't half as many of them as people think based on their first blush readings of the book. Play the game. Fight some monsters. Delve some dungeons and disarm some traps. Come back Ina couple weeks or months and tell us how things worked at he table, with the dice rolling and actual people on either side of the screen.

/rant

 

[Agamon]

/rant

Must spread XP around and stuff.

 

[doghead]

Sometimes I feel like I'm the only one who doesn't care about numbers ...

You're not.

I think that there are plenty who don't.

I suspect that the impression that everyone does has a lot to do with the fact that while those who do happily fill pages and pages on the discussion of numbers, and those who don't just go Meh! and move on.

thotd

 

[Haffrung]

Often when I read discussions online about D&D -- whether it is stuff about the newly revealed tidbit for 5E, or about the Good Old Days of OD&D -- it seems to be dominated by issues of numbers. When folks discuss the relative value of playing a fighter versus a mage, or about monsters or spells, or even about trying to bribe a guard or seduce an NPC, the only thing that matters is what the numbers involved are.And i have to say, I just don't care. Maybe it is because I started with BECMI and my brothers and I just played it the way we played it, and then I moved on to 2E where the fluff outweighed the crunch 100:1. I never did get into the concepts of builds or balancing encounters or any of that mess in the 3.x/PF era.

Obviously, right now the focus is on 5E discussion. It's hard to get into a thread on, say, the subclass reveals because inevitably the discussion turns to numbers and builds and quantitative comparisons. What I really want to know it, is there enough variety in there to allow players to get into the game and their characters so I can run fun adventures that may result in those characters ending up kings or corpses, depending on some choices and some die rolls. The question of whether the round-by-round damage output of the warlock is greater or less than that of the fighter not only leaves me cold, but actively goes against the whole point of the thing.

Maybe it is because I spend most of my time on the DM side of the screen, and therefore PC class comparisons are not especially relevant to me. Even so, CR balancing and treasure counting are only marginally more interesting, and then only in the context of "is this a fun thing?"

You need to understand that discussing numbers is an RPG forum thing, and the fixations of RPG forums are not representative of the concerns of the much larger population of people who play the game and don't hang out on forums. Of the 30 of so people I've played D&D with over the years, only two or three expressed any interest in numbers the way you read about on these forums. Basically, analyzing the numbers are a way to participate in D&D discussion without actually playing. And a lot of people who are really keen on the numbers admit that they aren't actively playing the game.

 

[Starfox]

YYou need to understand that discussing numbers is an RPG forum thing, and the fixations of RPG forums are not representative of the concerns of the much larger population of people who play the game and don't hang out on forums.

While this is true, I believe number-cruniching is even less central; I for one like to talk numbers here, but they are by no means a central part of my game. I think there are many like me who like to talk numbers but don't really use the results much in games.

 

[Nellisir]

Must spread XP around and stuff.

Got it for ya.