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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Cadence" data-source="post: 9109995" data-attributes="member: 6701124">Some players will skillfully use some game mechanics to dodge the spirit of some campaigns. Maybe it is because they want to "win" or "optimize", or maybe it's because they find themselves drawn to doing things in spite of their intentions. If such players are in the group, then games with those mechanics might not unfold in the spirit others at the table would appreciate.It feels like this could happen if you have a group of 3.5/PF players who are all interested into getting into their characters heads via the role play and most find having access to all the character options helps them design exactly the character they want to investigate the thoughts, but then another player is sidetracked into min-maxing and finds themselves using the full array of options to design something that is at an entirely different power level from the rest of the party and warps the structure of the sessions.  The same could be true for a group that decided they want to be efficient at finishing the dungeon, but one player can't resist some thematic choices that are suboptimal in the dungeon itself.It feels like it could be a problem in social commander/EDH where most of the group has self modulated their decks to roughly the same power level.  Some sprinkle the otherwise powerful deck with quirky choices to modulate it down and try fun things, while others have a quirky theme that is made playable by choosing some very powerful cards that would be overkill in many other decks. But one of them takes advantage of the format having very few restrictions to construct something that generally blows everyone else off the table.It feels like mechanics people call meta-gamey (which are called that or felt to be that seem to vary a lot from player to player) are disliked by some because they are detrimental to staying in character or in the spirit of the game. ("My Barbarian jumps off the 500' cliff to escape." "But that's crazy!?!" "Nah, I've got more than enough hit points and the falling damage caps off pretty soon." - others might be not be tripped up by that's but the rules about how things don't catch fire, or encumbrance, damage coming with no penalties, or inspiration).I certainly don't think the availability of all the game books, no banned lists, and being able to jump off 500' cliffs or anything else that passes the letter of the rules (are they all things that when allowed give more options and choices for the players)- should be taken away from everyone.  But I think they might not be optimal choices for all players and desired play styles or goals.  I am much happier personally with more options in the first two and many things others find too "meta-gamey" in the third, but there are other "meta-gamey" things that get me out of character and grate against my soul. I know others who seemingly can't avoid optimizing for power no matter what and didn't mesh well with the groups.  The mystic ability to pause time to go back and prepare something that is needed in the present (even if there is a cost based in how big the change is and a chance of failure) seems way to meta-gamey for me in most genres.   I gather that there are some versions of the stochastic ogre I'm fine with that are not fine for others.  Thankfully there are many play groups and systems.</blockquote>

Verification