Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 8188362" data-attributes="member: 6696971">I can understand not liking it nor liking the downstream effects on play (I don't like it nor do I like those downstream effects).&nbsp; And 4e Retraining (like many things 4e, it was a reaction to the sentiment you're espousing) is surely a response to exactly what you're talking about.But I don't understand the perspective of it being &quot;toxic&quot; and I guess the reason why is I'm looking at it is this:If that design move (introducing the same dynamics of &quot;at table D&amp;D&quot; into the PC build stage) is indeed &quot;toxic&quot;, can we not also, from first principles, claim that D&amp;D skilled play is &quot;toxic?&quot;&nbsp; I mean, its really just about a temporal adjustment to decision-making because the nature of the feedback loop is the same:Make less than skillful decision &gt; get punished &gt; deal with consequences which mean either meet Loss Condition or increase likelihood of descending toward Loss Condition &gt; overcome downstream effects of less than skillful decision or start new game if Loss Condition met.Is the difference here embedded in the autonomy angle of the agency conversation we were having?&nbsp; The &quot;but this is my PC and I should have complete autonomy over it?&quot;&nbsp; If true, then I'm left wondering what the response would be if a 3.x designer said &quot;well...you do have autonomy to make PC build decisions over your character in the same way you have autonomy to play skillfully during a delve/conflict at the table...choose wisely.&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Manbearcat, post: 8188362, member: 6696971"] I can understand not liking it nor liking the downstream effects on play (I don't like it nor do I like those downstream effects). And 4e Retraining (like many things 4e, it was a reaction to the sentiment you're espousing) is surely a response to exactly what you're talking about. But I don't understand the perspective of it being "toxic" and I guess the reason why is I'm looking at it is this: If that design move (introducing the same dynamics of "at table D&D" into the PC build stage) is indeed "toxic", can we not also, from first principles, claim that D&D skilled play is "toxic?" I mean, its really just about a temporal adjustment to decision-making because the nature of the feedback loop is the same: Make less than skillful decision > get punished > deal with consequences which mean either meet Loss Condition or increase likelihood of descending toward Loss Condition > overcome downstream effects of less than skillful decision or start new game if Loss Condition met. Is the difference here embedded in the autonomy angle of the agency conversation we were having? The "but this is my PC and I should have complete autonomy over it?" If true, then I'm left wondering what the response would be if a 3.x designer said "well...you do have autonomy to make PC build decisions over your character in the same way you have autonomy to play skillfully during a delve/conflict at the table...choose wisely." [/QUOTE]

Verification