Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6858858" data-attributes="member: 42582">There seem to be a lot of examples in this thread of people taking their own experiences and projecting them willy-nilly onto others.This would be a case in point.Again, just because one has found the happy medium for onself, doesn't mean that, for others, the happy medium will be in the same place. I mean, I know it's tempting to think that one has found just the right balance of optimisation and not-needing-to-be-carried-in-combat that everyone should strive for - but maybe others also know what is enjoyable for them.This is not my personal experience.I've tended to find that players who build mechanically ineffective characters want their characters to be mechanically effective, but they don't have enough familiarity with the rules, or with a particular GM's play environment, to know exactly how  to do that. It sounds to me like [MENTION=59096]thecasualoblivion[/MENTION] has had some similar experiences.Another sort of situation that can arise is where a player wants to build a character to a certain sort of trope or archetype - say, a melee damage-dealer or a mind-control mage or whatever - and the system doesn't make that particular archetype as viable as other archetypes that it supports. Some people think this is an issue in 3E/PF, where non-casters just aren't as mechanically viable as casters. (In my experience, Rolemaster can also have this issue. My RM group altered the mechanics - boosting non-casters and eliminating some broken spells - to help deal this.) [MENTION=6787650]Hemlock[/MENTION] has suggested that, in 5e, ranged damage dealing is a clearly superior strategy to melee - for someone wanting to play a melee damage-dealer, this could give rise to the need to choose between preferred flavour and mechanical effectiveness. Personally, I don't think that forcing such choices is a sign of system virtues - I think it tends to be a sign of system flaws. (Contrast, say, Ars Magica, where it is a deliberate feature of the game that mages are more effective than non-mages, and the game has a whole "troupe" style of play built around that design feature.)In my 4e game, there is one PC who has traded off combat effectiveness for non-combat effectiveness (language, lore skills, rituals, etc). That is not a sign of being a non-powergamer or a "good" roleplayer, though. That is just the player choosing to play a character whose expertise is one thing rather than another.To finish this post: from one of the designers of the game, on building and playing an effective character:[A]ssume that a game is scheduled tomorrow, and you are going to get ready for it well in advance so as to have as much actual playing time as possible . . . First get in touch with all those who will be included in the adventure, or if all are not available, at least talk to the better players so that you will be able to set an objective for the adventure. . . . Once the obiective has been established, consider how well the party playing will suit the needs which it has engendered. Will the characters have the means of accomplishing the goal? Is it well-balanced, so that it can cope with typical problems expected in the fullfillment of the objective? Will it be necessary to find mercenary non-player characters or hire men-at-arms in order to give the party the necessary muscle? Is any special equipment needed? When agreement regarding these and any similar questions has been reached, each participant must ready his or her character, but preparations must be made with the welfare of the whole group in mind. . . . Each character has a selection of equipment which he or she will carry on the adventure. Particulars should be given to the party if any equipment is possibly redundant, newly conceived, or of possible special use considering the established goal for the adventure. In like manner, spells must be selected in co-operation with other spell-users in general, so that attack, defense, and assistance modes will be balanced properly and compliment the strengths and weaknesses of the party as a whole. Characters must know each other's strengths and weaknesses, physical and mental, in order to meet the problem posed with the correct character or combination thereof. Does the group have sufficient equipment of the elementary sort to meet both expected and unexpected challenges (ropes, spikes, poles, torches, oil, etc.)? Are we burdening ourselves with too much because of simple duplication (too many torches, everybody has a 10' pole, and so on)?. Do we have as broad a spectrum of spells as possible so as to be able to have a good chance against the unexpected, considering the objective and what it requires in spells? Is there some magic item which one of the party members possesses that will be of special help, or general assurance of survival, in this adventure? All this should be done before play begins . . . .Obviously that's not the last word, but I think Gygax can be treated as at least setting out one legitimate mode of approaching the game. And this clearly includes optimising build (which, in AD&D, means mostly equipment, including magic items, and spell load out), and optimising party composition.There is nothing there that suggests it is a superior way to play the game to build characters with low AC and hit points who nevertheless attack NPCs at the slightest provocation.</blockquote>

Verification