Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="overgeeked" data-source="post: 8649996" data-attributes="member: 86653">But that's the thing. The players can't "win" D&D. So trying to is a waste of time. The characters can succeed or fail at given tasks. But the closest thing to a "win" condition D&D has is playing the game. But that's a whole other can of worms we don't need to get into.Sometimes the number crunchers are wrong. There's also a difference between what a spreadsheet spits out and how things actually work in practice. This is also the danger of D&D players simply copying & pasting someone else's build. The person who built it understands the whys and hows of it working...the person copying it...not so much.Mostly because everything that even resembled a challenge, hindrance, or inconvenience was removed or obviated. The default monster vs player set up with CR is laughable. Optimization in 5E is basically a waste of time. The default is so far below easy mode that there's no reason to bother. But they still do.To me there's no point to playing the game unless it's challenging. I push for things to be unbalanced and challenging. Which leads back into what I posted that you quoted. Things will be wildly above their pay grade, wildly below their pay grade, and everything in between. But, importantly, if some PCs are optimized and some aren't...the non-optimizing players will lose PCs at a much greater rate, forcing them to 1) optimize, 2) put up with constantly resetting PCs, or; 3) quit. It also leads to the optimized characters lasting longer, gathering lots more XP and loot and being wildly ahead of the curve in the long run. I'd rather not have that problem. The easiest solution is not not allow optimization. And to be clear, optimization to me is not about wanting a high stat in your main class ability score. Optimization is things like the coffee-lock or infinite damage builds or other nonsense. You want great weapon master and sentinel, sure. You want to be good with a bow, sure. You want infinite spells, nah.Generally when you announce you're going to run a game in a certain style, only those actually interested in that game played in that style voice interest. For some reason, the 5E players I've dealt with are more interested in getting to play something...anything...5E than whatever the specifics of the game I want to run. It's bizarre and maddening, but I see no way to avoid it. Besides not running games.Absolutely agreed. Anyone wanting to play an RPG that more emulates story and drama would be far better suited playing something like Fate. But, D&D is the RPG...so here we are.Six of one, half a dozen of the other. Apparently Tolkien's response to either was: "Shut up."I'm the same. But instead of players listening when I say "this is the style of game I'm going to run" I get dozens of players who are somehow shocked and surprised by that fact, you know, despite me being upfront about it, then they complain that I'm running that style of game.It's a numbers game. There are so many 5E players that the subset willing to put up with "5E-but-different" is still far greater than the entire player base of most other games.Why join a game as a player when the DM has said explicitly that the game is going to be run in a style you don't enjoy...only to complain about it once the game actually starts? I mean, sure. If you're desperate to play, then play...but importantly don't then complain about it.</blockquote>

Verification