Why D&D is like pr0n

[Umbran]

Of course, at least in my experience, it takes more than a sub-optimal build and poor tactical skills to be a non-asset.

Well, the ones who I've see espouse this seem to think it is an issue. It isn't like, "if you aren't the best you're a failure," logic is rare in other arenas.

Gamers still occasionally astound me in terms of how many different ways they'll dice their own niche into Them and Us.

 

[Nifft]

To be a detriment to the party, you generally have to go beyond poor tactics and do things that are actively stupid and destructive.

Agree. And IMHO one can be a detriment even if one's PC is fairly optimal. There are plenty of ways to waste table-time unproductively that have nothing to do with whether you hit or miss an attack.

Gamers still occasionally astound me in terms of how many different ways they'll dice their own niche into Them and Us.

It's true. Gamers like dice.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Dausuul]

Well, the ones who I've see espouse this seem to think it is an issue. It isn't like, "if you aren't the best you're a failure," logic is rare in other arenas.

Gamers still occasionally astound me in terms of how many different ways they'll dice their own niche into Them and Us.

You know, TvTropes summarizes this whole debate quite neatly in two concepts: the Scrub and the Stop Having Fun Guys.

 

[ExploderWizard]

No, but see... thats my point.

Nobody is good at tactics (as an example) because they want to be. If they aren't good at tactics, it's usually because, well, they aren't. Nobody decides to be good at chess. You either have a penchant for it or you don't. That sounds kinda harsh, but it's reality. It would be great if we could just say "oh, I'd like to be a good trombone player" and BAM, your Christian Lindberg. Well, it doesn't work that way unfortunately.

I was probably a bit confusing before with my post. Sorry about that. I was trying to point out exactly what you mention Hobo. Folks seem to think they aren't good at those things (the basics of RPG's) because they don't like them, but it's really because they aren't very talented at them.

It's like if I said "I never really played football in school because I didn't like it." That would be me being dishonest to myself. No, I didn't play because I was terrible.

I'd actually prefer if people could realize what they are good at in an RPG and focus on their strengths and (from my perspective at least) stop telling others that what they like isn't "real" gaming.

(don't think people do that? check out some signatures for RPG smugness)

I'm so totally following you dude. I suck massively at tactics and thus don't waste my time with all that. Likewise you are are a master tactician that can make superior builds in your sleep so naturally you like those games. It's too bad you lack any creative thought outside the parameters of a complex rulebook and need hard coded data before your character is allowed to pass gas. If I had the imagination of a turnip I wouldn't want to be thrown into a rules-light game either.

That wasn't very nice was it?

 

[demetri0us]

That wasn't very nice was it?

Well, mostly, it was non sequitur.

Nowhere did I make any claims that I was good at either role playing or optimizing. But, I think I have made it pretty clear that my beef is with folks that claim one way of playing is better than another.

But I'll state it again.

Anytime anyone rolls dice and kills badies it's role playing to me, and it's all good.

And, since I have been actively trying to keep the OP's topic in mind in my posts (not ALWAYS succeeding...), admitting that you prefer to play one style of game over another shouldn't embarrass you, nor should it draw attacks from people that don't espouse your personal play style.

I should also mention my negative experiences have been a result of certain face to face games, not this board... I just happened on this topic and it resonated with me. In other words, I'm not attack anyone in particular... I'm just attacking people that, um, attack others...

 

[Voadam]

No, but see... thats my point.

Nobody is good at tactics (as an example) because they want to be. If they aren't good at tactics, it's usually because, well, they aren't. Nobody decides to be good at chess. You either have a penchant for it or you don't. That sounds kinda harsh, but it's reality.

Actually that's a myth. For most things you might have a predisposition to be a little better or worse at something but innate talent is basically a myth. Chess players have to learn, practice, and develop their games to get good. Nobody is born a good chess player.

It would be great if we could just say "oh, I'd like to be a good trombone player" and BAM, your Christian Lindberg. Well, it doesn't work that way unfortunately.

Did Christian Lindberg one day say "I wonder if I am a good trombone player" and Bam found out he was upon picking up a trombone and playing it?

Was there perhaps opportunity, circumstance, practice, and development involved?

I was probably a bit confusing before with my post. Sorry about that. I was trying to point out exactly what you mention Hobo. Folks seem to think they aren't good at those things (the basics of RPG's) because they don't like them, but it's really because they aren't very talented at them.

It's like if I said "I never really played football in school because I didn't like it." That would be me being dishonest to myself. No, I didn't play because I was terrible.

Did you like playing football but did not play because your only opportunity was on competitive teams with limited slots and you were so terrible you could not qualify for them?

If you had been playing continuously since you were six years old do you believe that no matter how much you practiced and conditioned you would always be terrible and not at any point good at it? Do you think you suffer from a physical condition or mental impairment that stopped you from ever developing past being terrible at the game?

Or was it that you didn't want to play because it meant starting out terrible and you didn't like playing football as a terrible football player? That you perhaps thought you had better things to do than develop from being a terrible football player?

 

[Neonchameleon]

You know, TvTropes summarizes this whole debate quite neatly in two concepts: the Scrub and the Stop Having Fun Guys.

Oh, indeed. And I know which I'd much rather play alongside. Stop Having Fun normally looks at me weirdly for making in character decisions. But IC I can treat them as "They might be slightly obnoxious. And bathe once a week" (I'm assuming charisma as dump stat - it normally goes with this group) "But there's no one I'd rather have on my side when the fighting starts." And they normally don't mind me at all; I might come up with an odd build, but I'm a damn good tactical player. If we agree on table ettiquette then although their play style isn't my favourite, it's something I can work with.

Scrubs, on the other hand, try to prevent me role playing. To clarify, I'm not talking about off-build heroes like Halfling Barbarians or Lazy Warlords. I'm not talking about "unlikely heroes" like the village barmaid who is part of the adventuring party because she's one of the few people not struck down by the plague and is a lot more competent than she looks*. Or even a specialist who brings a skill (like trapfinding or healing - or even diplomacy) to the party and then runs and hides from combat. On the other hand a genuine scrub is more like being forced into taking an escort mission with an annoying escortee. They object OOC when my character responds to danger by trying to get as good equipment and spells as possible in order to keep themselves alive. And IC my characters find things harder with them around than they would without - so if they like the scrub they want them to stay home and if they dislike the scrub they are rooting for dragon fodder.

So OOC scrubs object to my character's IC attempts to survive. And IC my characters don't want to adventure with the scrub whether they like them or not. Give me a cardboard cutout character from a power gamer any day if we're an adventuring party**. At least they don't actively prohibit my roleplaying. And I enjoy tactical combat almost as much as most of them do.

* I've played that character - a 3.5 rogue who didn't find dealing with Kobold tripwires and traps any harder than crossing a crowded and jostling floor while avoiding grabby hands, errant walking sticks, and spilled drinks and not spilling a drop. Also whose method in fights was to hide - and then hit anyone especially rowdy over the back of the head with a club or sap (or occasionally to use the chef's third best knife that she'd "borrowed"). She also had two character sheets, one saying "Level 1 commoner", and probably the most fun moment was when we found a group of kobolds playing dice and she managed surprise, so she walked up to them to try to take their order - confusing them for a round on a bluff check to give everyone else initiative.

** If we're playing a game where we don't rely on each other to stay alive on a regular basis or one where we aren't at some level a self-selected adventuring party (e.g. Paranoia or Dread) this changes.

 

[Umbran]

It's true. Gamers like dice.

See? There you go! All those folks who don't like dice - the larpers, the folks who play Dread, or Amber Diceless, or card-based mechanics, they aren't gamers to you!?! And those folks who prefer their iPhone apps, are they somehow less a gamer for preferring an electronic alternative?

You... you... DICE-IST! Always pushing your plastic polyhedral agendas. Don't you realize you're just buying in to Chessex's corporate schemes to leech yet more money from gamers?!?! GRRRRR!!!!!1!




(Okay, in retrospect, that was so easy that it's kind of depressing.)

 

[Nifft]

See? There you go! All those folks who don't like dice - the larpers, the folks who play Dread, or Amber Diceless, or card-based mechanics, they aren't gamers to you!?!

I suddenly realize I'm not a card-carrying gamer... no wait, I played Savage Worlds last week, and that uses cards.

I feel confident that if I were to dismiss Jenga out of hand without having any experience using it, I'd have plenty of company.

And those folks who prefer their iPhone apps, are they somehow less a gamer for preferring an electronic alternative?

Pseudo-random numbers are for pseudo-real gamers.

"Psayonara", -- N

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

And thus we come to the, "not all metagaming is evil," argument.

When you play D&D, you're in a real-life social situation. Real people, real friendships, real feelings. If those don't trump the fiction, you've got a major problem. Only sociopaths don't take other people's needs into account.

Any social situation implies some compromises, preferably on both sides.

I agree, and there are right ways and wrong ways to handle this situation. When readng Neochameleon's post, I made an assumption that they had already had an out-of-game conversation about the PC that was doing little other than put the rest of the party into dire situations, but it went nowhere because the player was unwilling to compromise his character concept and actually make the PC useful, or at a minimum not a danger to others. I've played with somebody like this. The social situation was already bad and it resulted in the group breeaking up. I now wonder if maybe I had tried an in-character rant like Neochameleon suggested, it might have gotten through to the player, sparking a roleplaying way to efect change on his character, rather than him just putting up his wall of stubbornness at "roll-players" trying to tell him how to make his PC.