Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="kenada" data-source="post: 8646017" data-attributes="member: 70468">I feel like that as the engine-building has increased, D&D actually got less gamist, culminating in Pathfinder 1e. In PF1, it’s possible to build characters that just win. I’ve played those characters and played with those characters. If I can succeed at skill DCs in the mid-20s (or higher) when taking 10, there’s no challenge. I “won” the game before we even got started. It would be like using one’s financial advantage to build the best car possible to win every auto race effectively uncontested. Is that really competition? Not really, and that’s why restrictions are needed to restore competition (and gamism to D&D).Those restrictions take wildly divergent forms in D&D. On one hand, you have B/X with very little actual system structure. If you want to do well in B/X, you have to play well as a player. If you don’t, your character will die fast. After all, there’s not really much on your sheet (that’s the competitive constraint in B/X). This “playing smart” is usually referred to as “skilled play”, which I can’t see meaning anything other than gamist. That shouldn’t be taken as a pejorative either. I think it’s a shame gamist gets an unfair wrap, though it usually comes from those who prefer a certain other style of play.Anyway, on the other hand, you have games like 4e and Pathfinder 2e. These are games that “solve” the build-to-win problem that 3e had by enforcing parity. Unlike B/X’s approach to constraints (minimal system), these are much heavier systems, but they’re designed to surface competitive play during the game instead of when building characters. If you want to do well in those games, you have to play smart and use good tactics. If you don’t, the game will hammer you. If you do, you’ll be able to swing above your weight compared to what the baseline says. Again, “smart play” = “skilled play” = gamism</blockquote>

Verification