As far as 5E is concerned, how obsessive are we talking about when referring to diving deeply into the mechanics? I'm asking because other than poring over exhaustive lists of equipment (which in many cases isn't going to be freely available, so that may well be a completely unnecessary effort) and arguably spell lists there's not a ton of mechanically optimized interactions to discover - most of that stuff is pretty obvious if you have a bit of experience with the system, and a lot of the not so obvious stuff is borderline or completely exploitative and likely to get you in hot water with your DM.
And since the Dungeon Dudes were brought up, I'd argue they're not powergamers. They're very knowledgeable certainly - comes with the territory when you play and DM a lot - and they create content about what's strong and what isn't, but to me they don't seem to obsess about optimization. Which is what in my experience the greater majority of players is like: most players will try and pick strong or at least useful options for their character, but not to the exclusion of everything else; they'll work up a concept, an idea for a character, and start from there - not from "what's the most powerful character I can create".
They have lots and lots of content that is focused on optimization, gaining advantage with the game mechanics, and ranking the power level of options. As you pointed out, they also have other content that is strictly about enhancing the playing experience (from both a player and DM standpoint).
That's kind of my point. If you want another example, Treantmonk. He even calls his audience "optimancers." You will not find another content creator who goes deeper into the game mechanics for optimization purposes, and yet anyone who follows him knows he is very much into all aspects of game play.
The Stormwind fallacy: for when you feel like you really, really need to be part of an oppressed minority
(You didn't say the example couldn't be you).
Uhhh, not really, no. Pointing out someone had cited the thing isn't the same as citing the thing
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Really? The Stormwind Fallacy cuts both ways: if you roleplay well, you optimize poorly AND if you optimize well, you roleplay poorly.
LOL. I challenge you to find an example of someone citing Stormwind other than to say, well, exactly what the title of this thread says
Why?
The Stormwind Fallacy exists primarily as a check/reminder to people that good in-character play and good mechanical decisions are by no means mutually exclusive. People cite it, as you say, in threads like this because it's relevant to such discussions. The inverse thing BoF noted - that roleplayers are assumed to optimize poorly/actively pursue bad decisions in game - is almost never called out in public discussions. Nobody posts threads titled "my players are roleplaying too much, how to I get them to make better gameplay decisions?" and sasses roleplayers.
People who like making solid mechanical decisions to go along with their stories, however, get called all matter of unflattering names and accused of Ruining D&D Forever(TM) all'a gorram time. There's an Official Name for it, even - "munchkin", as discussed earlier in the thread.
A challenge for you, Anton: give me the derisive, dismissive cheeky name the D&D playerbase has awarded to Bohemian Failure Monkey overdramatic thespians who actively sabotage their group with obscure, outre characters whose overdetailed, obnoxiously tangled backstories constantly put them in conflict with the goal of having fun adventures? What do we call those? Where's the common-language snarky nickname for people who 'roleplay' too much, instead of people who 'optimize' too much?
I'm an optimiser, I will take the stats my class needs to function efficiently. That said I prefer point buy but instead of going 15 15 15 8 8 8 I will do my utmost best to go for a 0 negative stat build. 14 10 15 10 16 10 this for a Dwarven Cleric. I am also the person at the table who will take notes, will remember the world building done by the DM because I love stuff like that. And frankly I find people who purposely mess up their character a lot more annoying than min-maxers on the same lvl as a munchkin. People who play a Wizard with a 10 in int or a barb with an 8 in con. They're a liability to the rest of the party.
I'm an optimiser, I will take the stats my class needs to function efficiently. That said I prefer point buy but instead of going 15 15 15 8 8 8 I will do my utmost best to go for a 0 negative stat build. 14 10 15 10 16 10 this for a Dwarven Cleric. I am also the person at the table who will take notes, will remember the world building done by the DM because I love stuff like that. And frankly I find people who purposely mess up their character a lot more annoying than min-maxers on the same lvl as a munchkin. People who play a Wizard with a 10 in int or a barb with an 8 in con. They're a liability to the rest of the party.
Really? The Stormwind Fallacy cuts both ways: if you roleplay well, you optimize poorly AND if you optimize well, you roleplay poorly.
LOL. I challenge you to find an example of someone citing Stormwind other than to say, well, exactly what the title of this thread says
I still don’t understand who is the oppressed minority. Role-players? Min-maxers? Role-players who min-max? Min-maxers who role-play?
Maybe check the post I was originally responding to then
EDIT: Actually you don't even need to, it's right in the title of the thread. Anyone who starts by saying "this is an unpopular opinion" is positioning themselves as part of a minority, regardless of how 'unpopular' the opinion actually is
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I don't see what your objection to the discussion actually is, beyond snide dismissal of it as fauxpression. Are you objecting to the idea that it's okay to make good mechanical choices? Or do you have some other objection that you're hoping somebody picks up on in your blanket dismissal of the whole thread?
Really? The Stormwind Fallacy cuts both ways: if you roleplay well, you optimize poorly AND if you optimize well, you roleplay poorly.
LOL. I challenge you to find an example of someone citing Stormwind other than to say, well, exactly what the title of this thread says
I still don’t understand who is the oppressed minority. Role-players? Min-maxers? Role-players who min-max? Min-maxers who role-play?
Maybe check the post I was originally responding to then
EDIT: Actually you don't even need to, it's right in the title of the thread. Anyone who starts by saying "this is an unpopular opinion" is positioning themselves as part of a minority, regardless of how 'unpopular' the opinion actually is
Since you decided to personalize the conversation, I'll go ahead and break out the crayons for you. You see that little question mark that follows "Unpopular Opinion"... those specify that a question is being asked. Just in case you're still confused, they look like this ?<----
The reason I included that question mark is because I was not sure if others had the same experience I have had, or if it's just me. And I know this as a fact, because I'm the one who wrote it. And I have this really cool superpower that allows me to read my own mind.
But by all means, please do continue with your puffery.
A challenge for you, Anton: give me the derisive, dismissive cheeky name the D&D playerbase has awarded to Bohemian Failure Monkey overdramatic thespians who actively sabotage their group with obscure, outre characters whose overdetailed, obnoxiously tangled backstories constantly put them in conflict with the goal of having fun adventures? What do we call those? Where's the common-language snarky nickname for people who 'roleplay' too much, instead of people who 'optimize' too much?
Edgelord is the most common, I would say, although "Bohemian Failure Monkey" sounds to me like a great term for such people. And I have, as a DM had as much trouble with such people over the years as I have those who are too mechanics bound. Arguably more trouble with such people earlier on when I was just starting out. Now it is closer to 50/50. No real MMO's yet, back in the beginning.
"The Load" and "The Scrappy" are also popular choices. "Edgelord" really refers more to someone who goes stupidly overboard on trying to prove how "mature" their character is in the worst ways possible and thereby proves themselves to be anything but mature. Though I really need to make a point of using "Bohemian Failure Monkey" now.
As far as 5E is concerned, how obsessive are we talking about when referring to diving deeply into the mechanics? I'm asking because other than poring over exhaustive lists of equipment (which in many cases isn't going to be freely available, so that may well be a completely unnecessary effort) and arguably spell lists there's not a ton of mechanically optimized interactions to discover - most of that stuff is pretty obvious if you have a bit of experience with the system, and a lot of the not so obvious stuff is borderline or completely exploitative and likely to get you in hot water with your DM.
And since the Dungeon Dudes were brought up, I'd argue they're not powergamers. They're very knowledgeable certainly - comes with the territory when you play and DM a lot - and they create content about what's strong and what isn't, but to me they don't seem to obsess about optimization. Which is what in my experience the greater majority of players is like: most players will try and pick strong or at least useful options for their character, but not to the exclusion of everything else; they'll work up a concept, an idea for a character, and start from there - not from "what's the most powerful character I can create".
They have lots and lots of content that is focused on optimization, gaining advantage with the game mechanics, and ranking the power level of options. As you pointed out, they also have other content that is strictly about enhancing the playing experience (from both a player and DM standpoint).
That's kind of my point. If you want another example, Treantmonk. He even calls his audience "optimancers." You will not find another content creator who goes deeper into the game mechanics for optimization purposes, and yet anyone who follows him knows he is very much into all aspects of game play.
Anybody who creates content about mechanics is going to cover how it stacks up in terms of power. It's what viewers want from that content. Doesn't make those creators powergamers. Nor does being into all aspects of the game make anyone more into roleplay than people who are into roleplay.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
It got me thinking that a lot of play may fit with three broad approaches: - characterisation led; - options / world led and - mechanics led.
A characterisation led player starts with their idea of the Harry or Hermoine, Katness or Conan (or something else from reference of just from their imagination) that they want to build and they go from there. An options / world led player may look through the options of classes and decide something like, "I'll try a bard this time". A mechanics led player looks for the extra advantages that they might get and restrict options on to the ones that develop the strongest builds.
In all cases, players may choose some roles in preference to others but it's the mechanics led player that is most likely to be dismissive of character options.
The characterisation led player, depending on the character concept chosen, may also run into problems as some characters don't comfortably fit in 5e. You might like the idea of that highly mobile spartan warrior with their large shield but spartan armour but 5e, with ideals that are more medieval than Mediterranean, rewards wearing things like chain mail. You might not find a mechanic for, I'm spitballing, your Green Lantern concept. In such cases, efforts in trying to make your characterisation mechanically work may be so distracting that you lack spare effort for the actual characterisation.
At the other extreme, a mechanics led player might select a character option that compromises what they might naturally choose for mechanical advantage. I'd love to play a savvy Aragorn style fighter with great proficiency in nature but need int as a dump stat. I'd love a pet, but gloomstalker looks so good. Trickery domain looks fun, but you'd have to be some kind of clown not to go with Twilight.
I also disagree that min-maxing is necessarily optimal. On point buy, to get any ability increase above 13 costs 2 points and, for a character with a race (or feat) that gives a plus 1 bonus, 13+1 may offer an efficient route to generally (though, perhaps, less than spectacularly) high scores. In some situations, your character, stumbling around in the Tomb of Horrors, may need every saving throw bonus they can get. In some situations that dumped charisma might lose you that ability to avoid or negate that costly fight/problem with the checkpoint guard.
However, min-maxing can also facilitate some fantastic roleplay potentials for players when placed in capable and willing(ham) hands. Yes, I'm talking about you Grog. :D
I also never experienced Min-Maxers at a real table (in the sense that they only cared about their numbers and made decisions purely based on numbers and "against" the character concept). Btw, I actually think that purely chosing based on "RP" often doesn't deliver on the fantasy behind it (as corresponding feats, spells, etc. are sometimes just bad and/or too narrow mechanically). In such cases, I think it is often better to reflavor a better option so that it actually feels like you are doing the thing you want to do ingame. In that sense, I think, players are more invested and do more RP if their character is doing well/cool and is delivering on the fantasy they had in mind ruleswise.
... Min-Maxers ... in the sense that they only cared about their numbers and made decisions purely based on numbers and "against" the character concept...
I don't think people have proposed anything resembling that strawman.
... Min-Maxers ... in the sense that they only cared about their numbers and made decisions purely based on numbers and "against" the character concept...
I don't think people have proposed anything resembling that strawman.
Let's talk to each other.
Maybe I should have quoted but here someone wrote:
"I'm not sure anyone claims that if you're a minmaxxer then you're not passionate about the game or that they don't get into the story at all. It's that some people, who I'd call minmaxxers, who, when given a choice between optimising their build and following their story's logical progression, they'll choose to optimise their character at every opportunity." (highlight by me)
----
Apart from that I wanted to give an argument of why optimizing/min-maxing can lead to more involvement/more rp (to give an additional perspective on the issue)
I also never experienced Min-Maxers at a real table (in the sense that they only cared about their numbers and made decisions purely based on numbers and "against" the character concept). Btw, I actually think that purely chosing based on "RP" often doesn't deliver on the fantasy behind it (as corresponding feats, spells, etc. are sometimes just bad and/or too narrow mechanically). In such cases, I think it is often better to reflavor a better option so that it actually feels like you are doing the thing you want to do ingame. In that sense, I think, players are more invested and do more RP if their character is doing well/cool and is delivering on the fantasy they had in mind ruleswise.
Personally, in one of my current campaigns, I'm literally playing the halfling barbarian mentioned. Mau Glee is less than optimal but, in some of his failings, this is down to my lack of forward planning rather than due to choices for flavourful options. In much of my character decision making, I look at what may work optimally and then look for ways in which I can justify those potentially concept stretching/changing decisions for my character. The lead factor becomes that I adjust my character concept to my character build rather than my character build to my character concept. I don't read minds but I imagine that there are many players that prioritise this approach frequently.
But this isn't roleplay. An optimised character that is built as an optimised character and that has a character concept fitted to that optimisation can still, to the parameters that have been set for it, be roleplayed extremely well. The player is just choosing to roleplay a Twilight Domain Cleric rather than one from another domain.
As far as 5E is concerned, how obsessive are we talking about when referring to diving deeply into the mechanics? I'm asking because other than poring over exhaustive lists of equipment (which in many cases isn't going to be freely available, so that may well be a completely unnecessary effort) and arguably spell lists there's not a ton of mechanically optimized interactions to discover - most of that stuff is pretty obvious if you have a bit of experience with the system, and a lot of the not so obvious stuff is borderline or completely exploitative and likely to get you in hot water with your DM.
And since the Dungeon Dudes were brought up, I'd argue they're not powergamers. They're very knowledgeable certainly - comes with the territory when you play and DM a lot - and they create content about what's strong and what isn't, but to me they don't seem to obsess about optimization. Which is what in my experience the greater majority of players is like: most players will try and pick strong or at least useful options for their character, but not to the exclusion of everything else; they'll work up a concept, an idea for a character, and start from there - not from "what's the most powerful character I can create".
They have lots and lots of content that is focused on optimization, gaining advantage with the game mechanics, and ranking the power level of options. As you pointed out, they also have other content that is strictly about enhancing the playing experience (from both a player and DM standpoint).
That's kind of my point. If you want another example, Treantmonk. He even calls his audience "optimancers." You will not find another content creator who goes deeper into the game mechanics for optimization purposes, and yet anyone who follows him knows he is very much into all aspects of game play.
Anybody who creates content about mechanics is going to cover how it stacks up in terms of power. It's what viewers want from that content. Doesn't make those creators powergamers. Nor does being into all aspects of the game make anyone more into roleplay than people who are into roleplay.
How are you defining “power gamer” in this case?
The fact is that is the content they choose to to create.In the case of Treantmonk, he dives deep into every little detail of the game mechanics, and he even created a baseline damage output chart based on Eldritch Blast with Agonizing Blast so he can compare options and builds against the baseline.
Contrast that with a content creator like Ginny Di. She produces little to no content related to combat effectiveness.
My thesis is that someone who likes to go deep into the weeds of game mechanics to become affective in combat, tends to also get into the story and role play. It’s not an absolute, it’s a trend I observed.
My thesis is that someone who likes to go deep into the weeds of game mechanics to become affective in combat, tends to also get into the story and role play.
Your stated thesis in the thread title includes a "more". I think the presence of that "more" is the only reason there's even a discussion going.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
They have lots and lots of content that is focused on optimization, gaining advantage with the game mechanics, and ranking the power level of options. As you pointed out, they also have other content that is strictly about enhancing the playing experience (from both a player and DM standpoint).
That's kind of my point. If you want another example, Treantmonk. He even calls his audience "optimancers." You will not find another content creator who goes deeper into the game mechanics for optimization purposes, and yet anyone who follows him knows he is very much into all aspects of game play.
No. The premise of the fallacy
My thread title says that (in my experience), min-maxers tend to be more into role play, not less. The storm wind fallacy does not say that at all.
lol Yeah that was kind of a burn.
Uhhh, not really, no. Pointing out someone had cited the thing isn't the same as citing the thing
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Why?
The Stormwind Fallacy exists primarily as a check/reminder to people that good in-character play and good mechanical decisions are by no means mutually exclusive. People cite it, as you say, in threads like this because it's relevant to such discussions. The inverse thing BoF noted - that roleplayers are assumed to optimize poorly/actively pursue bad decisions in game - is almost never called out in public discussions. Nobody posts threads titled "my players are roleplaying too much, how to I get them to make better gameplay decisions?" and sasses roleplayers.
People who like making solid mechanical decisions to go along with their stories, however, get called all matter of unflattering names and accused of Ruining D&D Forever(TM) all'a gorram time. There's an Official Name for it, even - "munchkin", as discussed earlier in the thread.
A challenge for you, Anton: give me the derisive, dismissive cheeky name the D&D playerbase has awarded to Bohemian Failure Monkey overdramatic thespians who actively sabotage their group with obscure, outre characters whose overdetailed, obnoxiously tangled backstories constantly put them in conflict with the goal of having fun adventures? What do we call those? Where's the common-language snarky nickname for people who 'roleplay' too much, instead of people who 'optimize' too much?
Please do not contact or message me.
I'm an optimiser, I will take the stats my class needs to function efficiently. That said I prefer point buy but instead of going 15 15 15 8 8 8 I will do my utmost best to go for a 0 negative stat build. 14 10 15 10 16 10 this for a Dwarven Cleric. I am also the person at the table who will take notes, will remember the world building done by the DM because I love stuff like that. And frankly I find people who purposely mess up their character a lot more annoying than min-maxers on the same lvl as a munchkin. People who play a Wizard with a 10 in int or a barb with an 8 in con. They're a liability to the rest of the party.
The premise of the stormwind fallacy is that min-maxing and immersive role play are not mutually exclusive.
The title of the thread posits that min-maxers tend to also be more into role play. The stormwind fallacy makes no such claim.
I still don’t understand who is the oppressed minority. Role-players? Min-maxers? Role-players who min-max? Min-maxers who role-play?
Maybe check the post I was originally responding to then
EDIT: Actually you don't even need to, it's right in the title of the thread. Anyone who starts by saying "this is an unpopular opinion" is positioning themselves as part of a minority, regardless of how 'unpopular' the opinion actually is
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Why does that matter?
I don't see what your objection to the discussion actually is, beyond snide dismissal of it as fauxpression. Are you objecting to the idea that it's okay to make good mechanical choices? Or do you have some other objection that you're hoping somebody picks up on in your blanket dismissal of the whole thread?
Please do not contact or message me.
Since you decided to personalize the conversation, I'll go ahead and break out the crayons for you. You see that little question mark that follows "Unpopular Opinion"... those specify that a question is being asked. Just in case you're still confused, they look like this ? <----
The reason I included that question mark is because I was not sure if others had the same experience I have had, or if it's just me. And I know this as a fact, because I'm the one who wrote it. And I have this really cool superpower that allows me to read my own mind.
But by all means, please do continue with your puffery.
"The Load" and "The Scrappy" are also popular choices. "Edgelord" really refers more to someone who goes stupidly overboard on trying to prove how "mature" their character is in the worst ways possible and thereby proves themselves to be anything but mature. Though I really need to make a point of using "Bohemian Failure Monkey" now.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Anybody who creates content about mechanics is going to cover how it stacks up in terms of power. It's what viewers want from that content. Doesn't make those creators powergamers. Nor does being into all aspects of the game make anyone more into roleplay than people who are into roleplay.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
What a generally great discussion!
It got me thinking that a lot of play may fit with three broad approaches:
- characterisation led;
- options / world led and
- mechanics led.
A characterisation led player starts with their idea of the Harry or Hermoine, Katness or Conan (or something else from reference of just from their imagination) that they want to build and they go from there.
An options / world led player may look through the options of classes and decide something like, "I'll try a bard this time".
A mechanics led player looks for the extra advantages that they might get and restrict options on to the ones that develop the strongest builds.
In all cases, players may choose some roles in preference to others but it's the mechanics led player that is most likely to be dismissive of character options.
The characterisation led player, depending on the character concept chosen, may also run into problems as some characters don't comfortably fit in 5e. You might like the idea of that highly mobile spartan warrior with their large shield but spartan armour but 5e, with ideals that are more medieval than Mediterranean, rewards wearing things like chain mail. You might not find a mechanic for, I'm spitballing, your Green Lantern concept. In such cases, efforts in trying to make your characterisation mechanically work may be so distracting that you lack spare effort for the actual characterisation.
At the other extreme, a mechanics led player might select a character option that compromises what they might naturally choose for mechanical advantage. I'd love to play a savvy Aragorn style fighter with great proficiency in nature but need int as a dump stat. I'd love a pet, but gloomstalker looks so good. Trickery domain looks fun, but you'd have to be some kind of clown not to go with Twilight.
I also disagree that min-maxing is necessarily optimal. On point buy, to get any ability increase above 13 costs 2 points and, for a character with a race (or feat) that gives a plus 1 bonus, 13+1 may offer an efficient route to generally (though, perhaps, less than spectacularly) high scores. In some situations, your character, stumbling around in the Tomb of Horrors, may need every saving throw bonus they can get. In some situations that dumped charisma might lose you that ability to avoid or negate that costly fight/problem with the checkpoint guard.
However, min-maxing can also facilitate some fantastic roleplay potentials for players when placed in capable and willing(ham) hands. Yes, I'm talking about you Grog. :D
I also never experienced Min-Maxers at a real table (in the sense that they only cared about their numbers and made decisions purely based on numbers and "against" the character concept). Btw, I actually think that purely chosing based on "RP" often doesn't deliver on the fantasy behind it (as corresponding feats, spells, etc. are sometimes just bad and/or too narrow mechanically). In such cases, I think it is often better to reflavor a better option so that it actually feels like you are doing the thing you want to do ingame. In that sense, I think, players are more invested and do more RP if their character is doing well/cool and is delivering on the fantasy they had in mind ruleswise.
We're talking about the opinion that Min-Maxers Tend To be More Into Role Play.
You're talking about,
I don't think people have proposed anything resembling that strawman.
Let's talk to each other.
Maybe I should have quoted but here someone wrote:
"I'm not sure anyone claims that if you're a minmaxxer then you're not passionate about the game or that they don't get into the story at all. It's that some people, who I'd call minmaxxers, who, when given a choice between optimising their build and following their story's logical progression, they'll choose to optimise their character at every opportunity." (highlight by me)
----
Apart from that I wanted to give an argument of why optimizing/min-maxing can lead to more involvement/more rp (to give an additional perspective on the issue)
Personally, in one of my current campaigns, I'm literally playing the halfling barbarian mentioned. Mau Glee is less than optimal but, in some of his failings, this is down to my lack of forward planning rather than due to choices for flavourful options. In much of my character decision making, I look at what may work optimally and then look for ways in which I can justify those potentially concept stretching/changing decisions for my character. The lead factor becomes that I adjust my character concept to my character build rather than my character build to my character concept. I don't read minds but I imagine that there are many players that prioritise this approach frequently.
But this isn't roleplay. An optimised character that is built as an optimised character and that has a character concept fitted to that optimisation can still, to the parameters that have been set for it, be roleplayed extremely well. The player is just choosing to roleplay a Twilight Domain Cleric rather than one from another domain.
How are you defining “power gamer” in this case?
The fact is that is the content they choose to to create.In the case of Treantmonk, he dives deep into every little detail of the game mechanics, and he even created a baseline damage output chart based on Eldritch Blast with Agonizing Blast so he can compare options and builds against the baseline.
Contrast that with a content creator like Ginny Di. She produces little to no content related to combat effectiveness.
My thesis is that someone who likes to go deep into the weeds of game mechanics to become affective in combat, tends to also get into the story and role play. It’s not an absolute, it’s a trend I observed.
Your stated thesis in the thread title includes a "more". I think the presence of that "more" is the only reason there's even a discussion going.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].