Quote from: J ArcaneAs I understand it, the ECL and CR systems are explicitly written to assume that the players are, in fact, running suboptimal characters.  So a shitty Sorceror with a bunch of melee feats and a very bizarre assortment of spells, will still have some chance of surviving the encounter regardless.

Bingo.

Furthermore, addressing imbalance in the party in either direction is one of the responsibilities of the Dungeon Master, and that's why there's a whole section of the DMG devoted to handling such matters.

As a DM it's relatively easy to address suboptimal character builds by giving supra-optimal gear to compensate.  A halfling axe chucker with an above-standard magical throwing axe can easily be the equal of a sword-and-board fighter of equal level with standard kit.

A munchkinnized power-build is slightly harder to address, in comparison.

It's the responsibility of the player to be a good participant and a good sport.  Any further expectations (such as optimizing tactics and character builds) vary by group.

Obviously it's not an issue in my games, whereas Pseudo will call you a bad player if you don't "game the system" in his.

Mileage does indeed vary.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineI'm actually trying to break down the dichotomy of "roleplaying" vs. "rollplaying" that's underlying the idea that you can prioritise mechanics or roleplaying. I think both are important, and that it's important to have a good grip on how both work, and to constantly strive to improve both, rather than just one or the other.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineI think people who are uninterested in complex mechanical systems should not play games with complex mechanical systems, or else they should become interested in these systems.

I seriously don't see what's wrong with this position. One of the very reasons I don't play D&D is that I can see the amount of work necessary to become proficient in using the system. Not my cup of tea, thanks.

Why shouldn't somebody pay close attention to their chr's mechanical development? Why is that person automatically a 'munchkin' ('powergamer', whatever)? Why shouldn't he play the game?

Isn't this, as P. says, the roll vs role dichotomy?

QuoteIn the second instance, the player is just fucking up. An analogy would be trying to ski down a hill and then realising that you forgot to do up the bindings on your skis. To get to the end of the hill in that state doesn't mean you've overcome some great challenge and accomplished something really great, it just means you avoided suffering severely for your screw-up.

This analogy would be more like:
Getting to the bottom of the hill = finishing the adventure
Best possible skiing performance through the best equipment you can buy + extensive training = optimization

So it would be like an olympic gold medalist skiier looked at the masses on the slopes and saying "they are just fucking up".

Quote from: droogI seriously don't see what's wrong with this position. One of the very reasons I don't play D&D is that I can see the amount of work necessary to become proficient in using the system. Not my cup of tea, thanks.

d20/D&D 3.x isn't the only D&D.  If you can find a group playing original Basic/Expert D&D you might find the experience very different!  I've also heard very good things about Castles & Crusades.

Quote from: Stuartd20/D&D 3.x isn't the only D&D.  If you can find a group playing original Basic/Expert D&D you might find the experience very different!  I've also heard very good things about Castles & Crusades.

You're trying to sell me, aren't you? I said one of the reasons....

Quote from: droogWhy shouldn't somebody pay close attention to their chr's mechanical development? Why is that person automatically a 'munchkin' ('powergamer', whatever)? Why shouldn't he play the game?

And I agree that it's an element of the game that can be enjoyed by players interested in that sort of thing.  But it's not essential.

The (somewhat ludicrous) comparison to chess has come up before.  Why bother playing chess if you aren't going to investigate and pursue every strategy available to you?  My responses are: A) The rules of chess are delimited in such a manner that all players come to the board with an understanding of the game; B) An expanded body of rules is optional -- and there are definitely chess variants out there -- and knowledge of optional rules is not a reflection upon a player's competence; C) Chess is played and enjoyed at all levels of competence, from casual enthusiast to dedicated master -- individuals pursue mastery of the game as suits their talents and ambition.

Really, is there even an argument here?  Should player characters meet a standard of competence?  Players should create characters they want to play, play them how they want to play them, and the GM presents appropriate challenges to them.  Some things are too easy, some are too difficult.  There is a back-and-forth, ebbing and flowing interplay between mechanics and personality.  If that involves optimisation of the mechanics and the GM allows it, so be it.  If not, so be it.  That's how the game is played.

!i!

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaThe (somewhat ludicrous) comparison to chess has come up before.  Why bother playing chess if you aren't going to investigate and pursue every strategy available to you?  My responses are: A) The rules of chess are delimited in such a manner that all players come to the board with an understanding of the game; B) An expanded body of rules is optional -- and there are definitely chess variants out there -- and knowledge of optional rules is not a reflection upon a player's competence; C) Chess is played and enjoyed at all levels of competence, from casual enthusiast to dedicated master -- individuals pursue mastery of the game as suits their talents and ambition.

The problem seems to be this: when a casual chess player goes up against somebody who knows what they're doing, the casual guy will get trounced. Things get even more complicated when you're dealing with a multi-player game.

I think P. is arguing that it's not about 'playing a character' vs 'knowing the rules', but that both are important in a game like 3.x. Ultimately it's a System Matters debate.

Quote from: droogThe problem seems to be this: when a casual chess player goes up against somebody who knows what they're doing, the casual guy will get trounced.

Which isn't necessarily a problem.  The question here is, are both players enjoying playing one another?  I'm a fair-to-middling chess player and I enjoy the challenge of playing against someone better than I am, as frustrating as it may be at times.  I also enjoy playing people who are not as accomplished as I am, though I have to admit that the gulf needs to be smaller in this case.

QuoteI think P. is arguing that it's not about 'playing a character' vs 'knowing the rules', but that both are important in a game like 3.x. Ultimately it's a System Matters debate.

With which I have no argument, honestly.  Our throw-down ocurred over what constituted the rules set and the degree to which the experience and advancement mechanics are essential to the success of the game.  At this point, I contend that it is primarily an issue to be decided by the GM when he lays out the ground rules for his campaign, and thereafter a matter of personal preference and ambition on the part of the player.

!i!

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaReally, is there even an argument here?  Should player characters meet a standard of competence?  Players should create characters they want to play, play them how they want to play them, and the GM presents appropriate challenges to them.  Some things are too easy, some are too difficult.  There is a back-and-forth, ebbing and flowing interplay between mechanics and personality.  If that involves optimisation of the mechanics and the GM allows it, so be it.  If not, so be it.  That's how the game is played.

!i!

I think this is obviously true.

Obviously, pseudo gets his kicks from a different kind of play than you (and I, and everyone I've ever gamed with) do.  He can get his kicks however he wants, but to be honest his attitude pisses me off.

I think an over-competitive attitude and extreme amounts of worry about the rules and character builds is exactly what will keep new players from joining a table.

-O

Quote from: StuartThis analogy would be more like:
Getting to the bottom of the hill = finishing the adventure
Best possible skiing performance through the best equipment you can buy + extensive training = optimization

So it would be like an olympic gold medalist skiier looked at the masses on the slopes and saying "they are just fucking up".

Your comparisons are too extreme. It's like two skiers, one of whom chooses to not use poles because he wants to challenge himself, and one who forgets his poles at the bottom of the hill. One is challenging himself, the other is just screwing up. It's not that one must be the best, and always the best, etc. but that one must do one's best, and strive constantly to improve on it.

Quoted20/D&D 3.x isn't the only D&D.  If you can find a group playing original Basic/Expert D&D you might find the experience very different!  I've also heard very good things about Castles & Crusades.

Yes indeed. FATE is also very good for people who don't like the complexity of 3.5.

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaReally, is there even an argument here?  Should player characters meet a standard of competence?  Players should create characters they want to play, play them how they want to play them, and the GM presents appropriate challenges to them.  Some things are too easy, some are too difficult.  There is a back-and-forth, ebbing and flowing interplay between mechanics and personality.  If that involves optimisation of the mechanics and the GM allows it, so be it.  If not, so be it.  That's how the game is played.

!i!

Quite. Everyone seems to have their own 'one true way'. Some are more bothered with selling it to everyone else than others.

It's a piss-poor DM that doesn't adjust his challenges to the characters in a party, sub-optimal build or not.

Quote from: obrynI think this is obviously true.

Obviously, pseudo gets his kicks from a different kind of play than you (and I, and everyone I've ever gamed with) do.  He can get his kicks however he wants, but to be honest his attitude pisses me off.

Wah, wah, wah. Pseudo's a big meanie!

QuoteI think an over-competitive attitude and extreme amounts of worry about the rules and character builds is exactly what will keep new players from joining a table.

-O

So will sucking while everyone else is kicking ass. The idea that simply requiring that someone not be incredibly bad at the mechanical side of a game with complex mechanics that importantly influence play is an "over-competitive" attitude is ridiculous. If you think knowing how to avoid bad decisions is an "extreme amount of worry" about something then you are probably careless and imprudent. The mechanics are part of D&D. Part of "playing your character" in D&D is using the rules to have them accomplish various tasks. To do this carelessly is just as clumsy and ill-done as forgetting your character's accent, or having him act in a disruptive manner.

Quote from: One Horse TownQuite. Everyone seems to have their own 'one true way'. Some are more bothered with selling it to everyone else than others.

The accusation of "Onetruwayism" is the most hollow rhetoric possible in game discussions.

QuoteIt's a piss-poor DM that doesn't adjust his challenges to the characters in a party, sub-optimal build or not.

It's a piss-poor player whose unwillingness to learn how to play the game forces everyone else to cater to him. If I'm playing Bob the shitkicker, and you're Tom, master blaster wizard, and Ian is playing Fucknob the useless guy, and we're in a game where character death has to be approved by PC and DM together, then so long as we have Fucknob in the group, the DM has to constantly account for Fucknob's absolute lack of effectiveness in his encounters. He can't just plan for the PCs to fight a dragon, he has to plan for the PCs to fight a dragon and find a way for the dragon not to accidentally kill Fucknob that isn't just some lame deus ex machina.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineThe accusation of "Onetruwayism" is the most hollow rhetoric possible in game discussions.

and telling other people how to enjoy themselves is fine, yes?

Quote from: PseudoephedrineWah, wah, wah. Pseudo's a big meanie!

*snip*

To do this carelessly is just as clumsy and ill-done as forgetting your character's accent

:tears:

Oh yeah, you're a complete and utter loony.  At least you're entertaining.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineWah, wah, wah. Pseudo's a big meanie!

Well, if the martyr thing is your bag - feel free.  Enjoy yourself.  I do think you're a dick, but that's hardly the root of my disagreement.

QuoteSo will sucking while everyone else is kicking ass. The idea that simply requiring that someone not be incredibly bad at the mechanical side of a game with complex mechanics that importantly influence play is an "over-competitive" attitude is ridiculous. If you think knowing how to avoid bad decisions is an "extreme amount of worry" about something then you are probably careless and imprudent. The mechanics are part of D&D. Part of "playing your character" in D&D is using the rules to have them accomplish various tasks. To do this carelessly is just as clumsy and ill-done as forgetting your character's accent, or having him act in a disruptive manner.

Thanks, man!  I've been playing the wrong way all along!  I'm now set straight!

I'll now go tell my novice players to sit down, buy all the manuals, and better learn how to optimize their characters because showing up just to have fun is plainly unacceptable.

I'll also tell them to keep better track of those accents.  I'll start docking XP or something.

-O

Goddamn it, Psuedo, stop being such a monumental prick. What the fuck is your problem that you can't make your point without using such rhetorical bullshit?

I used D&D as an example of a game that enforces a degree of at least minimum character competancy while still possessing, at the same time, an amazing allowance for optimization and suboptimization. You're only response seems to be a pissy 'go large or go home' attitude, which is great, because if you showed up at my game with it, I know which one you'd be doing.

Let's be fucking clear, ok? I've spent a decent enough time with 3.5 D&D rules so that I know which end of the Two-Handed Weapon is sharp, and my players arn't retards either. But I have players that hit both extremes of wanting to put effort into rules mastery, and I'd be a giant dick if I showed up and fucking belittled either section for wanting to show up and play.

Why does sitting down with your friends have to be such a contest? There's no prize. The only incentive that you seem to have, Psuedo, is that it makes you feel like the big prick at the table. Wanna be the best? I don't give a shit.

Some of it, no matter your game, comes down to good GMing so that my Psuedophedrine-level players arn't a lot more potent then my, I dunno, my not as mastery-level players. It's not that they don't get something for their knowledge, because they do, but nobodies being held back.

D&D a-fucking-side, for the time being, I think it's good game design to have a fairly high minimum ability in a class based game. Old school D&D was a little too strict for my tastes, because while every Fighter was as good as any other (sans rolls, sans equipment), there wasn't a lot of room for customization. I think a lot of the value of customization is lost when much of a players options are detrimental, purposefully or accidentally.