Maybe it's just me, but it feels like D&D only has two choices
>play optimally based on mathematically tested builds for max damage like it was a WoW raid
or
>madlibs creation for a cinematic game that may as well be a point and click adventure
 Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
 |
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
Why are both of those examples vidya?
The Dark Souls of questions right there. I hope we get a Gears of War 3 of an answer.
The ideal D&D experience is DM, 3 beginners who have no idea how to minmax, and 1 veteran who optimizes his build not for DPR whiterooming but to be a jack of all trades type to fill in the gaps in the rest of the group.
You are correct, it's just you, being moronic and starting pointless threads.
D&D is shit, anyone with even half of a functioning brain realized this back in 2020 or earlier. There's a reason "Have you tried not playing D&D?" is the only answer worth giving to morons who continue to b***h about D&D.
>WoW
>point and click adventure
Would you kindly frick off to Ganker?
That's literally every system, the difference comes down on how hard or how long it takes for the system to be mathematically solved if it even has a way to be solved like that and not "whatever the GM feels like this time around", or rather, how long will the game end like that.
At the end of the day, a system is just a set of rules. They can be better or worse, more or less crunchy, but just a neutral set of guidelines. Following on the vidya analogy, most games don't have that great of a gameplay either, the game would getboring really fast if not for the dressing around it and the few subversions here and there. That's both aesthetics, plot or "juicy" elements like the Style! system in DMC V. Take Zelda for example. Most people agrees it's one of the best Adventure franchises, yet I doubt anyone with 2 brain cells will claim it has the best gameplay, setting or anything. It's just good all around and at conveying the feel of an adventure through juggling exploration, combat and puzzle. Here we could see combat as "the math" and exploration or puzzles as the other, more subjective part, not everything is solved by swinging a sword or being the best. One asks you to git gud, the other to think about the approach. In zelda, neither is too challenging, but that's not important, what matters is that the game is juggling between the two, keeping it fresh and engaging in the player's mind.
TTRPGs were inteded like that. You have a system, rules, math, but also a world. They excel at the middle ground, alternating between logic and math and thinking outside the box to overcome any obstacle, but in my experience, most GMs are too basic and will gravitate towards either, rewarding math and combat above everything else or having no combat at all.
They approach the game as players and not as GMs. They want to win, not to create. It is not exclusive of DnD at all, but it's more prominent on simple systems.
"Meta" really is a blight on games as a whole. There isn't much that can be done about its existence, because there will always be an optimal path to achieve a result, especially in the frame of a set of rules that determine what that result should be. As dumb as it may sound I wish games were played like in anime, where every characters gets to do their gimmicky bullshit with sub-optimal additions just because they fit the theme and it still somehow ends up balanced against the great threats they face (looking TCGs like Yu-Gi-Oh for example or those MMORPG anime).
"meta" or "Math" is still one solution, altho how dominant it is does rely on how math focused the sytem is. But I also think that's fine because getting good at the rules is part of the journey and can help showcase that character growth. I do want my players to understand and make good characters.
But I also think pure math doesn't have to be the solution all the time. You can always draw your sword and cut the enemy in half, but maybe you can talk, persuade or even exchange items without rolls and solve the issue.
At the end of the day, math and metagame are gonna be the final solution if the GM forces it to be that way.
>because there will always be an optimal path to achieve a result,
the solution is in the pudding. Optimal Path should be circumstantial, not a go-to ability that class gets at a certain level.
>I attack the mage by casting fireball!
>Okay, roll Astrology to see if you pass his magical star wards
>No I want to roll an attack to-
>Roll Astrology
>... 12
>The spell fizzles, and you lose the memorised fireball
Solve that, you fricking math-dweeb.
D&D only has a single ultimatum:
>be subjected to the whims of the DM's personal bias, regardless of how "optimal" you build or how much of a "roleplayer" you are
or
>go play an actual game
This is literally every system ever really. the difference is that the crunchier or more complex the system is, the discussion stops being about what the GM feels like today and more what his take on the rules is. Crunch might mean more ground to argue that you're right but all the GM needs to do is change the ruling for next session, if not right now.
A problematic DnD GM will be problematic in any system, and one that doesn't have this problem when not playing DnD won't have it either when doing so.
>This is literally every system ever really.
Then D&D shouldn't be treated like it's better than any other system.
>the difference is that the crunchier or more complex the system is, the discussion stops being about what the GM feels like today and more what his take on the rules is
Yes, the difference between whims and structured rules is one isn't a game and the other is.
>all the GM needs to do is change the ruling for next session, if not right now
Yeah, and aside from violating structure, doing that also creates narrative inconsistencies, so you can't even make an argument in favor for roleplaying or storytelling when doing that.
Run the campaign/one shot with the rules agreed upon at the start until its end, or end it early and then make changes.
>A problematic [DM] will be problematic in any system, and one that doesn't have this problem when not playing [D&D] won't have it either when doing so.
Yup.
And since this is the case, D&D shouldn't get credit for the good things good DMs do for their good groups, especially when those good things aren't even written in the system.
D&D is either responsible for its DM's behavior or it isn't; it can't be treated as a saint savior of roleplay when it's good and then have all the ways it's abused just pushed to the wayside.
>Then D&D shouldn't be treated like it's better than any other system.
Was anyone in this thread implying this in any way?
No?
I didn't think so.
I appreciate that you've been hurt, anon, but we're not all your enemies.
Think about how these things apply objectively instead of based on how you feel, then you'll see how it's relevant.
It's time for people to stick to a standard instead of flip-flopping and deflecting when it's convenient.
well, it is a game after all. you either try to overcome difficult scenarios, or you experience world building leisurely.
>>play optimally based on mathematically tested builds for max damage like it was a WoW raid
make a character and do not obsess about builds and mechanics
>madlibs creation for a cinematic game that may as well be a point and click adventure
enjoy the story, speak as your character and not in 3rd person and have fun
it does not have two choices, the first you described is a mechanized, computerized moron that worships his record sheet numbers and the other might as well not be playing a tabletop rpg but been read a story (which is 10,,000 times superior to the computer moron but it is not the game).
Enjoy the story, enjoy the tinkering of your character as the improves with obsessions about numbers and powers. And relax.
>the improves with
as he improves but without
Why don't you just make a character and play the game.
Fate is maybe the most barebones narrative system out there and even that has a combat meta game