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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 6858882" data-attributes="member: 2067">You're doing some funky things with word definitions here. I haven't been using the term "power gaming" as meaning "building a mechanically effective character." It's closer in meaning to "someone who has fun optimizing their choices within the game." To clarify, people who aren't playing the game primarily for the rush of power gaming can still want mechanically effective characters, it's just that these mechanically effective characters are often in the service of some other play goal (something like, "Well, I don't want to die, because then I'll never get resolution on if Frankie the Half-Elf finds her long-lost father!" for instance points to character effectiveness as a prerequisite for someone focused on the narrative element). Optimal mechanical effectiveness isn't a goal in and of itself. Additionally, like with any genre definitions, these play goals are only mutually exclusive at their extremes - someone could want to tell the story of a character's search for her long-lost father and still make fairly optimized choices about what that character looks like and does in combat in the same way as someone likes a bit of blues in their rock-n-roll. Preferences are often revealed in the few instances where the two become mutually exclusive - say, someone who must choose between taking a feat that reflects her character's journey (it's a feat that lets you cast locate person, say) but is perhaps less effective than a different feat (I dunno, crossbow expert). If you're in a situation where you CAN'T have both, which one you take says a LOT about what kind of goal you have for your play experience. Most of the time, D&D 5e contains a mix that suits a LOT of people, it seems. But if part of the fun for you is building and then unleashing that ultimate kick-ass mechanical behemoth, 5e contains LESS of that than 4e and 3e did. In some cases, it might be enough less that it's not a great time for you (especially if you've got other options).Again, this reveals a difference in play goals. [MENTION=6787650]Hemlock[/MENTION] 's pursuing the play goal that powergaming can provide within 5e (if my understanding is correct). That's not the same as making an "effective" character. There is a HUGE range of "effective" that isn't "perfectly optimal," though someone chasing the powergaming dragon probably wouldn't have fun with most of that range. Someone with a different play goal cares about that optimization less - they only want to be as effective as they need to be to see if their character finds her long-lost father, which is the real reason they want to play. Those people can play melee bruisers with an AC of 14 and a STR of 15 and cruise along quite well if they want, because being optimized isn't a goal and they're effective enough to contribute and survive. The player just doesn't have fun in milking the options for all they're worth. There's nothing that MAKES them do that. It's nothing like a heirarchy, but it IS a difference in play goals. 1e, with its Dungeon Crawl focus, had a design that rewarded optimization, so it's not surprising that Gygax would value it highly. The 2e DMG which was the first time I encountered this concept of "winning" the game with mechanics, meanwhile, was suspicious of "too powerful characters" who would be "missing out on a lot of fun" if all they focused on was optimizing (in the process, completely missing the point that optimizing IS ITSELF part of the fun for some players!).</blockquote>

Verification