Quote from: Steerpike;744038It suggests that you're not actually convinced that complex systems inevitably hinder organic character development through actual play.

I went back through all my posts in this thread, and from my reading, nowhere did I suggest or imply "that complex systems inevitably hinder organic character development through actual play." I said there's an opportunity cost if you want both organic character development and the benefits of optmisation with complex character creation and advancement rules.

Could you pick out a specific post where I argued that optimisation is 'inevitable?' Or is this simply another example of you picking apart an argument that I didn't make because you feel the need to 'defend' your favorite game-style?

Quote from: Steerpike;744038Do you now disagree with this sentiment in your original post?

My "original post" consists of a quote from another gamer about playing a unique character in OD&D and a link to the essay you quoted in which I specifically said that optimisation isn't 'inevitable.'

In the future, please reply to what I write rather than the voices in your head if you want to carry on a conversation with me.

Quote from: Benoist;744102It's all in the way you play the character. If you play a lightly armored fighter like a tank with plate and that your most brilliant tactic is to rush in melee to let the dice decide your fate, you are going to die, sure.

Worth repeating.

Quote from: Bill;744437Rules as physics of the world seems reasonable to me, as a base to work with.

I think that's a useful distinction.

My pit fighter - I can't remember his name anymore, but it was something faux-Latinate - didn't have any special abilities which set him apart; the choices I made for weapons and armor reflected the shared physics of the setting as embodied by the rules.

Quote from: Benoist;744494Yeah yeah, I know you're just as fucking subjective as everyone here and love to role play the referee of arguments from the side lines.

Quote from: Benoist;744499Now stop pretending you are this objective viewer passing judgment on the unwashed masses of the RPG Site. Please. Stop the charade. You're just as much of a prick as I am. Maybe more, since you love to hide your snipes under a thin coat of "I was just passing by."

Hey, passing judgement on others while pretending not to be judgmental isn't easy, y'know.

Maybe that's why Emperor Norton sucks at it so badly.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;744672If you and another player are both playing fighters, you probably don't want them to play the same role in the party.

Why do you assume that to be true?

Khazm started off as a bog-standard dwarf fighter - chainmail, shield, axe and hammer type fighter. If there was another dwarf fighter in the party with the same load-out, it wouldn't make the slightest difference to me, because what makes my characters fun to play isn't being different on their character sheets from other characters as much as it is being different in how they react to the events of the game.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;744296I can understand your dislike of the [Gaming Den].

I am finding it quite enlightening, and am relieved to have found somewhere that people have discussions regarding mechanics on a level that I can relate to.

Perhaps, but it may also be contributing to you becoming an asshole.

Let me give you a little hint: 'magic tea party' is an unsubtle code for calling other gamers immature. Now, if that's the route you want to go, be my guest, but be absolutely clear on what it is you're saying and drop the doe-eyed naif act.

Oh, and this?

Quote from: robiswrong;744292I'm saying that your statement belies a particular set of assumptions about gaming and optimization - namely, that someone playing an official class from the book is an act that is potentially worthy of ridicule.  Think about how that sounds.  It'd be like clapping yourself on the back for not making fun of somebody for buying the purple properties in Monopoly.

Spot on.

Quote from: CRKrueger;745068She can beat me whenever she likes.

Indeed.

I'll be her rented mule any day.

Quote from: Black VulmeaI went back through all my posts in this thread, and from my reading, nowhere did I suggest or imply "that complex systems inevitably hinder organic character development through actual play." I said there's an opportunity cost if you want both organic character development and the benefits of optmisation with complex character creation and advancement rules.

From your blog:

Quote from: Black VulmeaPlanning for who my character will be in nineteen levels is just as inconsequential as trying to determine who he is before the campaign begins, and burgeoning rules complexity which leads to a lack of flexibility works directly against my style of play.... the more fiddly bits a character needs, the more difficult it can be to make changes on the fly. Simpler rules, without mastery traps, work best for this.

Bold for emphasis on the part I was paraphrasing as you claiming that complex systems hinder emergent character development.  If I'm understanding what you're saying here, you're claiming that the more rules there are, the more "fiddly bits" a character needs, the less flexible the system is and consequently the harder it is to develop a character through play: ergo, rules-complex systems act as a hindrance to emergent character development and are intrinsically inferior to a broad-archetypes approach.  I disagree.  I don't think an opportunity cost, as you later put it, is inevitable.  I think it's possible for players to have their cake and eat it too, to enjoy the benefits of a rules-heavy system without it affecting their ability to develop characters in play (especially if retraining is an option).  In other words, I don't think that "burgeoning rules complexity" necessarily leads to "a lack of flexibility."  It might for some - it seems to have for you in your experience - but I don't think it always does.

Quote from: Black VulmeaCould you pick out a specific post where I argued that optimisation is 'inevitable?' Or is this simply another example of you picking apart an argument that I didn't make because you feel the need to 'defend' your favorite game-style?

OK, fair enough!  If you agree that optimization isn't in fact inevitable, you can also recognize that the mastery traps and pre-plotted, inflexible character builds you talk about above aren't inevitabiltiies either, because they arise out of the urge to optimize.  So long as a player isn't worried about optimization - and thus ignores mastery traps and doesn't have a  pre-planned character build, but chooses new abilities as they please - emergent character development is just as viable as it would be in a broad archetypes system, even if it isn't your cup of tea.

Quote from: Black VulmeaMy "original post" consists of a quote from another gamer about playing a unique character in OD&D and a link to the essay you quoted in which I specifically said that optimisation isn't 'inevitable.'

I'd actually pointed that out, when I asked you if you still believed what you wrote in the blog post when you said that " I don't mean to suggest that the rules required this, and I don't believe it's true of all players everywhere, but I saw enough of it as both a player and a dungeon master to find it off-putting."  I was very interested in this bit, because it left open the possibility that some players might very well enjoy rich, emergent character development in a rules-heavy system, even if you personally don't.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;745823I said there's an opportunity cost if you want both organic character development and the benefits of optmisation with complex character creation and advancement rules.

Yep. As has been pointed out earlier in the thread, I don't think there's a lot of disagreement on this point: in a system like 3.5, you wind up with people plotting out their whole 20 levels in advance, and don't allow for organic growth of the character. Your arabic-themed dwarf would never happen for someone whose got their character's whole advancement planned out (unless they planned on it, but that's not organic), which is very unfortunate.

That said, though, I think there's room for a system with a mechanical depth on-par with WotC D&D that would also encourage your kind of organic growth. I'm not sure if any such system exists at this moment, but it doesn't seem impossible to me.

QuoteWhy do you assume that to be true?

My personal experience is generally that players try to fill different roles in the party, even when playing the same class, so as to avoid stepping on each others' toes.

I guess I'd assumed that was a general sentiment, that if you have multiple characters of the same class that you try to differentiate just so that you're covering different roles in the group - not even speaking mechanically, necessarily.

It is entirely possible that isn't the case. I can see it not being so in larger groups - you'd want multiple front-line fighters in a larger group, etc.

QuotePerhaps, but it may also be contributing to you becoming an asshole.

No, pretty sure I'm just an asshole in general.

I hang out on multiple boards because I like to try to see things from multiple angles. Folks here have their points, and probably useful things to say; likewise, folks at the gaming den have their points, and useful things to say.

QuoteLet me give you a little hint: 'magic tea party' is an unsubtle code for calling other gamers immature. Now, if that's the route you want to go, be my guest, but be absolutely clear on what it is you're saying and drop the doe-eyed naif act.

Right, because "slavish adherence to the mechanics" has such positive connotations. :rolleyes:

Everybody here slings shit. It's part of the discourse and general attitude.

Quote from: GnomeWorksYep. As has been pointed out earlier in the thread, I don't think there's a lot of disagreement on this point: in a system like 3.5, you wind up with people plotting out their whole 20 levels in advance, and don't allow for organic growth of the character. Your arabic-themed dwarf would never happen for someone whose got their character's whole advancement planned out (unless they planned on it, but that's not organic), which is very unfortunate.

Curiously I disagree with both you and Black Vulmea on this.

You don't always end up with people plotting out their whole 20 levels in advance.  Nowhere does this system necessitate this or imply it's required or expected.  The rules do not demand it or compel it.  It is not the default assumption of the system or the game, even if it's a common practice in gaming communities.  It may be how you like to play, but it's not an intrinsic quality of the system, even if this system enables this type of play to a greater extent than others.

@GnomeWorks, the rules heavy emergent systems exist just not by WotC. But in games like Rolemaster, Gurps, WoD, Shadowrun, FantasyCraft etc. Most are skill based except for FantasyCraft and similar less known games. (Chivalry and Sorcery to name one).

Also Steerspike is correct Dnd 3x doesn't require Charop whankery weak ass DM's just allow it.

Quote from: Marleycat;745896@GnomeWorks, the rules heavy emergent systems exist just not by WotC. But in games like Rolemaster, Gurps, WoD, Shadowrun, FantasyCraft etc. Most are skill based except for FantasyCraft and similar less known games. (Chivalry and Sorcery to name one).

Also Steerspike is correct Dnd 3x doesn't require Charop whankery weak ass DM's just allow it.

I was having a look through the Pathfinder rulebook earlier this evening and was pleasantly surprised to see that 3d6-in-order was one of the methods mentioned for rolling abilities. Granted, it wasn't exactly encouraged, but neither was it discouraged, and the mere fact that it's there as an option is at least a hint that power-gaming doesn't have to be the only way to play.

Quote from: Marleycat;745896@GnomeWorks, the rules heavy emergent systems exist just not by WotC. But in games like Rolemaster, Gurps, WoD, Shadowrun, FantasyCraft etc. Most are skill based except for FantasyCraft and similar less known games. (Chivalry and Sorcery to name one).

Given that I'm less familiar with those systems, I'm not comfortable talking about them to the degree that I am with WotC D&D.

Quote from: Steerpike;745831Bold for emphasis on the part I was paraphrasing as you claiming that complex systems hinder emergent character development.

Really? That's what I wrote?

Let's look at that same passage with a change in the emphasis text.

Quote from: Me, on my blogPlanning for who my character will be in nineteen levels is just as inconsequential as trying to determine who he is before the campaign begins, and burgeoning rules complexity which leads to a lack of flexibility works directly against my style of play.... the more fiddly bits a character needs, the more difficult it can be to make changes on the fly. Simpler rules, without mastery traps, work best for this. (emphasis added - BV)

For me, complex character creation and advancement rules work against what I want out of a game.

I didn't say dick about anyone else's preference. I wrote about my experience and my preference. You're taking something that I wrote completely out of context and attributing a position to me that I never stated or suggested, a position I specifically refuted, in fact, as you yourself quoted in this very thread.

Quote from: Me, on my blog, againI don't mean to suggest that the rules required this, and I don't believe it's true of all players everywhere . . .

It's a real fucking shame that you can't hear me over the voices in your own head, but it's also not my problem. I'm thisfuckingclose to making you the third poster on my Ignore list here - I'm enjoy disagreement and I don't give a shit about insults but I can't stand posters who waste my fucking time with nonsense.

Quote from: aspiringlich;745904I was having a look through the Pathfinder rulebook earlier this evening and was pleasantly surprised to see that 3d6-in-order was one of the methods mentioned for rolling abilities. Granted, it wasn't exactly encouraged, but neither was it discouraged, and the mere fact that it's there as an option is at least a hint that power-gaming doesn't have to be the only way to play.

One could hope.  However, I have yet to see a pathfinder player make a character that had a lower 'prime' stat than another 'less important' stat.

Other than myself.

Tell the 'average' pathfinder player to roll 3d6 in order and watch the seizure begin.


Disclaimer: I am not singling out Pathfinder players as any different than players of whatever system. Just referencing my pathfinder experience.

Every time I make a pathfinder character (since my brother runs it a lot), I just pick a class/archetype and run with it. Barring something in play changing my mind, I'll probably just go 20 levels in that class/archetype.

He uses point buy, and while I do tend to have my highest stat in the "primary" attribute of the class, I'm always the person who builds with the most well rounded set of scores.

My highest is usually a 16, with some 14s and such. I just like a character who is more rounded and it seems like a completely foreign idea.

Quote from: Black VulmeaI didn't say dick about anyone else's preference. I wrote about my experience and my preference. You're taking something that I wrote completely out of context and attributing a position to me that I never stated or suggested, a position I specifically refuted, in fact, as you yourself quoted in this very thread.

Well, that wasn't my intent.  I wasn't trying to take anything out of context.  Thank you for correcting my misinterpretation, which certainly wasn't deliberate.  From the way you were writing you seemed, at times, to be suggesting that your preference for a broad-archetypes approach wasn't just a subjective one; you seemed to actually be critiquing rules-heavy systems themselves, and/or the players who like such systems, and using your experiences as evidence for that critique, or suggesting that certain systems always provided certain experiences.  Hence my confusion; at various times I wasn't always sure what your position exactly was, it seemed to be shifting.  Apologies.

Quote from: Black VulmeaIt's a real fucking shame that you can't hear me over the voices in your own head, but it's also not my problem.

I'm going on what you're writing.   Really, I'm just trying to get to the bottom of what you're trying to say.  I'm not willfully trying to attribute positions to you that you don't have.  It sounds like you have much less of a beef with certain things than I thought you did.

I'm going to stop talking now, because it's not my intent to piss people off - I enjoy argument but it feels like I'm stressing you out, here.  I think our positions are pretty clear.  You have a preference for a system without a lot of rules for character creation and development because you find that such a system helps you in creating characters through play, but (if I'm understanding you correctly) you're not trying to say that emergent character development is impossible or inherently problematic or even more difficult in rules-heavy systems, at least not for certain players.  To each their own.

Quote from: Steerpike;746028From the way you were writing you seemed, at times, to be suggesting that your preference for a broad-archetypes approach wasn't just a subjective one; you seemed to actually be critiquing rules-heavy systems themselves, and/or the players who like such systems, and using your experiences as evidence for that critique, or suggesting that certain systems always provided certain experiences.

And again I ask, in which posts did I actually make that argument?

The fact is, that's what you expected to read. You have a chip on your shoulder, and you're ready to throw down at the slightest provocation, real or imagined.

I have very specific tastes in roleplaying games, and from experience and predisposition, I know what I like and what I don't. I don't for a moment presume my tastes are universal, however.

Quote from: Black VulmeaThe fact is, that's what you expected to read. You have a chip on your shoulder, and you're ready to throw down at the slightest provocation, real or imagined.

Could be.  I thought your opening post was very disdainful in tone, which might have been what gave me that chip; but perhaps I was just spoiling for a fight.

On the other hand, you've been arguing with me tooth and nail when it appears that, apparently, we actually believe exactly the same thing: that neither a rules-light nor a rules-heavy approach is intrinsically superior at allowing for emergent character development, that there is no inherent opportunity cost built-in to either sort of system in terms of organic character development, and that preferences for one over the other are entirely subjective and dependent on the players at the table, not on the system they're using.

So, for example, when on page twelve you say that:

Quote from: Black VulmeaAnd how many levels of Fighter and Rogue must the player take before finally being able to multi-class into Duellist... Any other choice the player makes before that - say, not taking one of the requisite feats with an available feat slot in those first six levels in Fighter - means that reaching Duellist is pushed back even further. What happens to the Fighter who, say, decided to emphasize mounted combat from first level, and took completely different feats and skills, and then decides to become a Duellist? That's more levels one needs to gain before the 'concept is realised.'

Now, let's be clear, I'm not suggesting that there's anything bad or wrong or inherently unfun here, but there is a very clear opportunity cost attached to this approach, one that I don't care to pay. Personally, I would characterise choosing eight levels out what class my character will pursue as anything-but 'organic' character development, but there's certainly no shared definition of 'organic' in this context to which we could reasonably assert most gamers subscribe.

It seemed to me - and I'm willing to admit that I was mistaken! - that you were asserting that built into the system there is an opportunity cost: that no matter who is playing and how they are playing, organic character development is going to be easier in a rules-light system than a rules-heavy one.  You seemed to be saying that while you had no problem with the optimization-driven gameplay that detailed character creation rules provided (even if it wasn't your cup of tea), gameplay in rules-heavy systems had some objective weaknesses, that there was a tradeoff players were compelled to make, a cost that one had to pay if one chose to use such a system.

I'm willing to grant that I misinterpreted you here, and that actually you don't believe that such systems have intrinsic weaknesses with regard to organic character development, they just don't work for you in particular, and/or the people you usually play with; your dislike of those systems is simply a result of your "very specific tastes."  Is that an accurate summation of your views?

Quote from: Steerpike;746197Is that an accurate summation of your views?

Quote from: Black Vulmea;743911Repeating the same arguments is enormously tiresome, and when I'm on my third post saying the same things as I did in my first, without much in the way of additional heat or light being produced, then it's time to move on in the discussion.

Unless you have something new to bring to the conversation, I'm done here.

Quote from: Black VulmeaUnless you have something new to bring to the conversation, I'm done here.

Okay, cool by me.  I am just responding to your questions, at this point (and apologizing for what I'm happy to recognize as my mistakes in interpretation).  Like I said above, I think our positions are pretty clear, now.