Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Sunseeker" data-source="post: 6858607">To be fair, there is a key difference here:PvP is naturally confrontational.&nbsp; In order to exist, I have to fight another player at the table.&nbsp; I have to force another person to do what I want to do, PVP.&nbsp; If you don't fight me, I can't PvP.&nbsp; But min/maxing, powergaming, optmizing is not.&nbsp; In order to be optimized I don't need you to do anything for, or against me.&nbsp; I just need to be allowed to use the rules to the best of my ability.There's nothing wrong with non-op.&nbsp; Don't have a problem with it.&nbsp; So long as non-oppers are okay with their own choices.&nbsp; And at the end of the day, that's all that matters, is that you're OK with your own choices.&nbsp; IME, people are okay with their own choices aren't very concerned with the choices of others.&nbsp; That in turn again IME, makes for good tables since everyone is happy with what they have, and what they're doing with what they have.&nbsp; Part of my complaint stems from the fact that I don't have the luxury to choose the 5 people who all want to play 90% the same way, out of hundreds of gamers.&nbsp; Everywhere I've lived there has always been only a handful of players.&nbsp; So when I start running into DMs who say &quot;you're not allowed to play the way that's fun for you, everyone must play the way that's fun for me and these other guys&quot;.&nbsp; I start questioning the whole rationale of it being the optimizer who is actually causing dysfunction and &quot;un-fun&quot; at the table.Lets hypothetical here: I build a well-optimized barbarian, geared towards combat and not much else.&nbsp; Per your PVP comparison where others are being forced to engage in the style of play I prefer, how am I, by optimizing, forcing you to engage in optimization?&nbsp; Maybe if you could explain that to me a little more I might &quot;get it&quot; from your side.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Sunseeker, post: 6858607"] To be fair, there is a key difference here: PvP is naturally confrontational. In order to exist, I have to fight another player at the table. I have to force another person to do what I want to do, PVP. If you don't fight me, I can't PvP. But min/maxing, powergaming, optmizing is not. In order to be optimized I don't need you to do anything for, or against me. I just need to be allowed to use the rules to the best of my ability. There's nothing wrong with non-op. Don't have a problem with it. So long as non-oppers are okay with their own choices. And at the end of the day, that's all that matters, is that you're OK with your own choices. IME, people are okay with their own choices aren't very concerned with the choices of others. That in turn again IME, makes for good tables since everyone is happy with what they have, and what they're doing with what they have. Part of my complaint stems from the fact that I don't have the luxury to choose the 5 people who all want to play 90% the same way, out of hundreds of gamers. Everywhere I've lived there has always been only a handful of players. So when I start running into DMs who say "you're not allowed to play the way that's fun for you, everyone must play the way that's fun for me and these other guys". I start questioning the whole rationale of it being the optimizer who is actually causing dysfunction and "un-fun" at the table. Lets hypothetical here: I build a well-optimized barbarian, geared towards combat and not much else. Per your PVP comparison where others are being forced to engage in the style of play I prefer, how am I, by optimizing, forcing you to engage in optimization? Maybe if you could explain that to me a little more I might "get it" from your side. [/QUOTE]

Verification