Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 6663163" data-attributes="member: 22779">To some degree everyone already does this though.&nbsp; You talk about limiting optimisation to ensure balance.&nbsp; Aren't you doing that to ensure everyone at the table is having fun?&nbsp; You are adding house rules in order to limit abuse in order to make sure everyone has a good time.&nbsp; That's just DMing 101.&nbsp; It's pretty basic stuff.&nbsp; The difference is simply one of scale.Now, if the group's tastes are all so different that everyone is annoyed by someone else's fun in the game, then that group is dysfunctional and headed for a break up before too long.&nbsp; Too many competing interests and, barring some outside factors (only game in town for example) it's pretty likely that this group has a half life usually reserved for small animals on a brightly moonlit night.&nbsp; And, of course, there has to be willingness to compromise.&nbsp; Everyone has to accept, to some degree, different play styles.&nbsp; Like your two players, one who is an optimiser and the other isn't but the issue isn't large enough to cause either to outright quit.&nbsp; And most tables, over time, will settle on a fairly middle of the road approach.&nbsp; The optimiser maybe tones it down a touch or the non-optimiser picks up the game a bit.&nbsp; Depends on the DM really.&nbsp; If the DM consistently builds encounters to challenge the optimiser, then the Timmy is likely going to be very frustrated and eventually leave the group.&nbsp; OTOH, if the DM's encounters are somewhere in between, then both players are probably content enough to stay.But, group building, just like any social interaction, is something of a weeding process.&nbsp; Stable groups will generally share play styles and it becomes circular.&nbsp; People with similar play styles will build stable groups, which stay together longer, which causes the group to further meld their play styles together.&nbsp; Those whose play styles are too different will simply move on.Wow, not sure where I'm going with this.&nbsp; This kinda got away from me.&nbsp; No idea what my point is here, other than, IMO, it becomes, over time, unavoidable for the group to become responsible for each other's fun because each other's fun depends on a particular play style which a given group will eventually settle on if the group is going to be long term stable.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 6663163, member: 22779"] To some degree everyone already does this though. You talk about limiting optimisation to ensure balance. Aren't you doing that to ensure everyone at the table is having fun? You are adding house rules in order to limit abuse in order to make sure everyone has a good time. That's just DMing 101. It's pretty basic stuff. The difference is simply one of scale. Now, if the group's tastes are all so different that everyone is annoyed by someone else's fun in the game, then that group is dysfunctional and headed for a break up before too long. Too many competing interests and, barring some outside factors (only game in town for example) it's pretty likely that this group has a half life usually reserved for small animals on a brightly moonlit night. And, of course, there has to be willingness to compromise. Everyone has to accept, to some degree, different play styles. Like your two players, one who is an optimiser and the other isn't but the issue isn't large enough to cause either to outright quit. And most tables, over time, will settle on a fairly middle of the road approach. The optimiser maybe tones it down a touch or the non-optimiser picks up the game a bit. Depends on the DM really. If the DM consistently builds encounters to challenge the optimiser, then the Timmy is likely going to be very frustrated and eventually leave the group. OTOH, if the DM's encounters are somewhere in between, then both players are probably content enough to stay. But, group building, just like any social interaction, is something of a weeding process. Stable groups will generally share play styles and it becomes circular. People with similar play styles will build stable groups, which stay together longer, which causes the group to further meld their play styles together. Those whose play styles are too different will simply move on. Wow, not sure where I'm going with this. This kinda got away from me. No idea what my point is here, other than, IMO, it becomes, over time, unavoidable for the group to become responsible for each other's fun because each other's fun depends on a particular play style which a given group will eventually settle on if the group is going to be long term stable. [/QUOTE]

Verification