Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 4725847" data-attributes="member: 18280">Sure.But let us note that, in this case, you have two people with identical goals -- to hit the ball as often, and as far, as possible.&nbsp; If the goals of any two D&amp;D players were the same, then, as they are also using the same rules, they could both make characters equally optimized for the same task.Your sports analogy would apply to a role-playing game only if one player were allowed to use different rules from the other player.&nbsp; For example, if you allowed one player to use Splatbook X (the aluminum bat) but not the other player, who is stuck using the core rules (the wooden bat).If you have two players with high levels of system mastery, and each designs a high level character, one of which is &quot;more useful and/or objectively better&quot;....all this does is raise the question of whether or not players should be allowed to design suboptimal characters.&nbsp; It is not a question of fairness, because all players had equal access to all classes and all the same rules.Moreover, the idea that one character is &quot;more useful and/or objectively better&quot; relies upon the idea that both players are making their characters with the same goal(s) in mind.&nbsp; That this is not always true in the case of role-playing games is fairly obvious, I think, to most people.If a game designer wants human fighters to be the most common PC choice, then human fighters should have some mechanical advantage to make them common.&nbsp; Other races and classes should have other abilities that offset the fact that they are suboptimal.&nbsp; Clearly, in this regard, &quot;human fighter&quot; was not a race/class combo that the designers of 3e wanted to make optimal.&nbsp; It seems very clear to me that the designers of 3e believed spells were fun, and wanted to encourage spellcasting at the table.&nbsp; That doesn't mean that it is &quot;unfair&quot;.&nbsp; It might mean that it requires houseruling, or that you might prefer another game, if the goals of designers do not match your own.&nbsp; Ars Magica isn't unbalanced because players cannot play Conan, and 3e isn't unbalanced because some choices are better than others for specific goals.My answer is that it is fine either way.&nbsp; Indeed, if you want players to be able to make meaningful choices, I would argue that it is necessary.Some feat choices and some spell choices are probably suboptimal, too.&nbsp; But, I bet, in some campaigns the choices you find suboptimal are the optimal ones.BTW, I refute the idea that 3e was presented as though all choices were equally optimal.&nbsp; &quot;System mastery&quot; was built into the game right at the start, with the idea that a player with more &quot;system mastery&quot; would be able to build a better character than one with less &quot;system mastery&quot;.&nbsp; This was explicitly because WotC's market research showed that &quot;system mastery&quot; was one of those things people liked about D&amp;D.(Whether or not the type of &quot;system mastery&quot; in WotC-D&amp;D even remotely resembles that in TSR-D&amp;D is, of course, a whole 'nother question!)RC</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Raven Crowking, post: 4725847, member: 18280"] Sure. But let us note that, in this case, you have two people with identical goals -- to hit the ball as often, and as far, as possible. If the goals of any two D&D players were the same, then, as they are also using the same rules, they could both make characters equally optimized for the same task. Your sports analogy would apply to a role-playing game only if one player were allowed to use different rules from the other player. For example, if you allowed one player to use Splatbook X (the aluminum bat) but not the other player, who is stuck using the core rules (the wooden bat). If you have two players with high levels of system mastery, and each designs a high level character, one of which is "more useful and/or objectively better"....all this does is raise the question of whether or not players should be allowed to design suboptimal characters. It is not a question of fairness, because all players had equal access to all classes and all the same rules. Moreover, the idea that one character is "more useful and/or objectively better" relies upon the idea that both players are making their characters with the same goal(s) in mind. That this is not always true in the case of role-playing games is fairly obvious, I think, to most people. If a game designer wants human fighters to be the most common PC choice, then human fighters should have some mechanical advantage to make them common. Other races and classes should have other abilities that offset the fact that they are suboptimal. Clearly, in this regard, "human fighter" was not a race/class combo that the designers of 3e wanted to make optimal. It seems very clear to me that the designers of 3e believed spells were fun, and wanted to encourage spellcasting at the table. That doesn't mean that it is "unfair". It might mean that it requires houseruling, or that you might prefer another game, if the goals of designers do not match your own. Ars Magica isn't unbalanced because players cannot play Conan, and 3e isn't unbalanced because some choices are better than others for specific goals. My answer is that it is fine either way. Indeed, if you want players to be able to make meaningful choices, I would argue that it is [i][b]necessary[/b][/i][b][/b]. Some feat choices and some spell choices are probably suboptimal, too. But, I bet, in some campaigns the choices you find suboptimal are the optimal ones. BTW, I refute the idea that 3e was presented as though all choices were equally optimal. "System mastery" was built into the game right at the start, with the idea that a player with more "system mastery" would be able to build a better character than one with less "system mastery". This was explicitly because WotC's market research showed that "system mastery" was one of those things people liked about D&D. (Whether or not the type of "system mastery" in WotC-D&D even remotely resembles that in TSR-D&D is, of course, a whole 'nother question!) RC [/QUOTE]

Verification