Curiously enough, many of the greatest characters in DnD have very pronounced disabilities, whether they be Raistlin (ill health), Drizzt (day blind), or Elminster (old age).
Their disabilities make them distinct.
Tell me what makes your character distinctive. I’m not asking what magic items they have. I’m not asking what is on their character sheet. What makes them distinctive from thousands of other characters who have the same race, class, and feats. If the only answer you can give is something mechanical (e.g. attributes), then I question how much actual roleplaying (as opposed to roll playing) you are actually doing. Same thing if all you can mention is bits of trivia (e.g. they grew up in city X) which has no significance to how you are role playing your character).
Which is NOT to say anything about badwrongfun. Some players aren’t into role playing and that’s totally fine. They should do what they find is fun.
That's very shortsighted. All my players usually have disabilities that are purely role playing traits and not physical character related stats. I've had lots of characters that self impose negative qualities, like crippling fears or unwillingness to see something for what it really is because they just don't believe in those things. Some may have neurotic attachments or personality quirks that render them socially inept in situations regardless of their charisma.
But would you ever play a character who has a reasonably low non-dump stat to reflect any physical impediment (DEX say) the character might have or aging (CON) or illness (CON)? Would you not call it shortsighted of a player to refuse to ever do such a thing because that player cares more about how optimal their performance will be in combat?
Your character being shit at their role in the group is not an interesting personality trait, it’s a nuisance that you are loading up on your team members to overcome in addition to the normal challenges they face from the DM as effective characters. Unless of course, everyone is in and the DM tunes the game to accommodate everyone’s fun. And that’s the rub: min/maxers are not automatically problematic nor are their detractors, whoever the odd man out is, the one who wants something different from the rest of the people at the table.
"Your character is a [tank, etc.] and you absolutely must adequately occupy that role!"
That mindset is a relatively recent phenomenon. That has seen a dramatic increase since 4th. Edition.
Like I said earlier: A strong fighter but one of poor constitution or of exceptional intelligence is a fighter with a story to tell. One with a good constitution but who just doesn't hit quite so hard is a fighter who has chosen a career as a fighter for a reason other than their being strong. When every character of any given class is given near identical ability scores the player is no longer using ability scores as seeds for characterization and story like they used to be used. Every character becomes a cookie cutter skeleton of a character. To which what is really little more than fluff is added. With any physical or mental attributes nothing more than ways to get optimal performance in moments of combat. As if the game is all about combat.
I have posted in this thread about a barbarian character of mine who isn't particularly strong. STR 12. No one at the table cares. Because we gather to play with one another because we are friends and we enjoy one another's company and we care more about telling a good story than how effective our characters are going to be in combat.
It’s a short article but if you don’t want to click the link, the TLDR is that roleplaying does not preclude optimization and optimization does not preclude roleplaying despite the contingent of those rude people who feel the need to tell others they are doing it wrong.
And yet, my lived experience is that the vast majority of players I've been in campaigns with who have focused on build optimization had no time for the role-playing aspect of the campaign, and were basically only there to see how much damage they could do in a round. Their backstories were just there to provide story hooks to lead to the next combat (in which they would naturally be the main character, although I'm not making that connection)
And yet my lived experience is that the people who don't optimize role play the least, the have no investment in the character or game and are only there to play the goofball disruptive person.
That's funny. Because there are entire games that discourage the min max mindset and that inspired by what were much simpler times are wholly character and story focused. As for disruptive: One of the many reasons min maxing is disallowed at many tables is because those with the min max mindset tend to be awfully disruptive. So mired in the rules are they that have allowed them to "build" their characters they often interrupt a DM who has ruled something independent of what the rules say.
It was nice that the most obnoxious players decided to self segregate like that.
That's funny. Because the min maxers in this thread their response to simply having it explained to them why some tables don't allow it has been to obnoxiously trash any other way to play. To call this or that set of numbers "unplayable." To say this or that method of generating stats is "awful."
That's obnoxious.
What about players who wish to play visually impaired characters and who are prepared to roll at Disadvantage for any action requiring vision to reflect this?
What about those who wish to play characters who have some kind of physical impediment or chronic illness and so they are prepared to have a low DEX or CON to reflect this? To play characters who aren't in their prime and who might have low numbers in what are "non-dump stats"?
What would you call players who would never do that? Who would never play such characters? Ableist and ageist perhaps?
I'd say you're segregating yourselves from those of us care more about characterization and story by showing you see the blind or those with any physical impediment or the elderly as "unplayable."
You keep doing the im not saying min maxers can't role play but they cant role play thing this entire thread, so stop playing the victim here. and to answer your ridiculously bad question a min maxer who wanted to play a person with visual problems would have those issues but find a way to make the character not only functional but someone who can contribute to the game. and no I would not call people who didn't want to play an old character ageist, they just have different likes.
I have said it wasn't as intuitive as ascending AC. And done so more than once. The math however was so simple children could pick up the game and play. I won't be as harsh as someone else who said those who struggle to wrap their heads around THAC0 are "dum" but neither would I trust them to do my taxes.
Anyone with a grade school education should be able to do the math for THAC0, but that doesn't mean it's the same amount of mental effort as 3e attack rolls, and the goal for mechanics isn't just "can be done", it's "can be done trivially"; games may require math, but you want it to disappear into the background as much as possible.
People play Rolemaster.
Some enjoy the mental effort that goes into playing more mechanically complex games. It's good intellectual exercise. And this might be a reason as well as those of nostalgia why many older payers play older editions. Ironically many of 5th. Edition's most vocal defenders laugh at rules-light systems in spite of the fact the core mechanic of 5th. Edition is as simple as they come.
I prefer the intuitive nature of ascending AC. My system of choice when I run a game uses it. And I play in 5th, Edition games.
I do think a certain ... let's call it "esotericism" ... has been lost. I get why people still play and love earlier editions. The pride and joy of my game shelves are old AD&D books and the Expert Set from 1981. It was a real joy to recently read the OLD-SCHOOL ESSENTIALS rules tome that is built on that set and its sister set and be reminded of how much I enjoyed playing D&D when the rules was so "terrible."
It’s a short article but if you don’t want to click the link, the TLDR is that roleplaying does not preclude optimization and optimization does not preclude roleplaying despite the contingent of those rude people who feel the need to tell others they are doing it wrong.
And yet, my lived experience is that the vast majority of players I've been in campaigns with who have focused on build optimization had no time for the role-playing aspect of the campaign, and were basically only there to see how much damage they could do in a round. Their backstories were just there to provide story hooks to lead to the next combat (in which they would naturally be the main character, although I'm not making that connection)
And yet my lived experience is that the people who don't optimize role play the least, the have no investment in the character or game and are only there to play the goofball disruptive person.
That's funny. Because there are entire games that discourage the min max mindset and that inspired by what were much simpler times are wholly character and story focused. As for disruptive: One of the many reasons min maxing is disallowed at many tables is because those with the min max mindset tend to be awfully disruptive. So mired in the rules are they that have allowed them to "build" their characters they often interrupt a DM who has ruled something independent of what the rules say.
It was nice that the most obnoxious players decided to self segregate like that.
That's funny. Because the min maxers in this thread their response to simply having it explained to them why some tables don't allow it has been to obnoxiously trash any other way to play. To call this or that set of numbers "unplayable." To say this or that method of generating stats is "awful."
That's obnoxious.
What about players who wish to play visually impaired characters and who are prepared to roll at Disadvantage for any action requiring vision to reflect this?
What about those who wish to play characters who have some kind of physical impediment or chronic illness and so they are prepared to have a low DEX or CON to reflect this? To play characters who aren't in their prime and who might have low numbers in what are "non-dump stats"?
What would you call players who would never do that? Who would never play such characters? Ableist and ageist perhaps?
I'd say you're segregating yourselves from those of us care more about characterization and story by showing you see the blind or those with any physical impediment or the elderly as "unplayable."
You keep doing the im not saying min maxers can't role play but they cant role play thing this entire thread, so stop playing the victim here. and to answer your ridiculously bad question a min maxer who wanted to play a person with visual problems would have those issues but find a way to make the character not only functional but someone who can contribute to the game. and no I would not call people who didn't want to play an old character ageist, they just have different likes.
Can you define what precisely you mean by a min-maxer? I’m getting the feeling that we may not be referring to the same thing. And don’t say “optimizer” unless you are prepared to define what exactly is being optimized.
Can you define what precisely you mean by a min-maxer? I’m getting the feeling that we may not be referring to the same thing. And don’t say “optimizer” unless you are prepared to define what exactly is being optimized.
A player who attempts to create an optimized character by minimizing unfavorable traits and maximizing favorable ones, typically by improving a single trait or ability to the exclusion of others.
It’s a short article but if you don’t want to click the link, the TLDR is that roleplaying does not preclude optimization and optimization does not preclude roleplaying despite the contingent of those rude people who feel the need to tell others they are doing it wrong.
And yet, my lived experience is that the vast majority of players I've been in campaigns with who have focused on build optimization had no time for the role-playing aspect of the campaign, and were basically only there to see how much damage they could do in a round. Their backstories were just there to provide story hooks to lead to the next combat (in which they would naturally be the main character, although I'm not making that connection)
And yet my lived experience is that the people who don't optimize role play the least, the have no investment in the character or game and are only there to play the goofball disruptive person.
That's funny. Because there are entire games that discourage the min max mindset and that inspired by what were much simpler times are wholly character and story focused. As for disruptive: One of the many reasons min maxing is disallowed at many tables is because those with the min max mindset tend to be awfully disruptive. So mired in the rules are they that have allowed them to "build" their characters they often interrupt a DM who has ruled something independent of what the rules say.
It was nice that the most obnoxious players decided to self segregate like that.
That's funny. Because the min maxers in this thread their response to simply having it explained to them why some tables don't allow it has been to obnoxiously trash any other way to play. To call this or that set of numbers "unplayable." To say this or that method of generating stats is "awful."
That's obnoxious.
What about players who wish to play visually impaired characters and who are prepared to roll at Disadvantage for any action requiring vision to reflect this?
What about those who wish to play characters who have some kind of physical impediment or chronic illness and so they are prepared to have a low DEX or CON to reflect this? To play characters who aren't in their prime and who might have low numbers in what are "non-dump stats"?
What would you call players who would never do that? Who would never play such characters? Ableist and ageist perhaps?
I'd say you're segregating yourselves from those of us care more about characterization and story by showing you see the blind or those with any physical impediment or the elderly as "unplayable."
You keep doing the im not saying min maxers can't role play but they cant role play thing this entire thread, so stop playing the victim here. and to answer your ridiculously bad question a min maxer who wanted to play a person with visual problems would have those issues but find a way to make the character not only functional but someone who can contribute to the game. and no I would not call people who didn't want to play an old character ageist, they just have different likes.
Can you define what precisely you mean by a min-maxer? I’m getting the feeling that we may not be referring to the same thing. And don’t say “optimizer” unless you are prepared to define what exactly is being optimized.
People who come up with a concept for a character and use the rules to get the concept actualized in the most effective way possible.
It’s a short article but if you don’t want to click the link, the TLDR is that roleplaying does not preclude optimization and optimization does not preclude roleplaying despite the contingent of those rude people who feel the need to tell others they are doing it wrong.
And yet, my lived experience is that the vast majority of players I've been in campaigns with who have focused on build optimization had no time for the role-playing aspect of the campaign, and were basically only there to see how much damage they could do in a round. Their backstories were just there to provide story hooks to lead to the next combat (in which they would naturally be the main character, although I'm not making that connection)
And yet my lived experience is that the people who don't optimize role play the least, the have no investment in the character or game and are only there to play the goofball disruptive person.
That's funny. Because there are entire games that discourage the min max mindset and that inspired by what were much simpler times are wholly character and story focused. As for disruptive: One of the many reasons min maxing is disallowed at many tables is because those with the min max mindset tend to be awfully disruptive. So mired in the rules are they that have allowed them to "build" their characters they often interrupt a DM who has ruled something independent of what the rules say.
It was nice that the most obnoxious players decided to self segregate like that.
That's funny. Because the min maxers in this thread their response to simply having it explained to them why some tables don't allow it has been to obnoxiously trash any other way to play. To call this or that set of numbers "unplayable." To say this or that method of generating stats is "awful."
That's obnoxious.
What about players who wish to play visually impaired characters and who are prepared to roll at Disadvantage for any action requiring vision to reflect this?
What about those who wish to play characters who have some kind of physical impediment or chronic illness and so they are prepared to have a low DEX or CON to reflect this? To play characters who aren't in their prime and who might have low numbers in what are "non-dump stats"?
What would you call players who would never do that? Who would never play such characters? Ableist and ageist perhaps?
I'd say you're segregating yourselves from those of us care more about characterization and story by showing you see the blind or those with any physical impediment or the elderly as "unplayable."
You keep doing the im not saying min maxers can't role play but they cant role play thing this entire thread, so stop playing the victim here. and to answer your ridiculously bad question a min maxer who wanted to play a person with visual problems would have those issues but find a way to make the character not only functional but someone who can contribute to the game. and no I would not call people who didn't want to play an old character ageist, they just have different likes.
I have never said that min maxes can't and do not role-play.
In fact I have stated rather explicitly that min maxers can and do role-play.
They can min and max in character creation and at every level-up and still role-play their characterss.
I have never said otherwise.
They can have the most elaborate of backstories ever created and role-play things in that regard.
When you have to put words in my mouth because you refuse to understand what I am saying about how min maxers prioritize how effective their characters will be in combat and make decisions for purposes of performance even when they do not make narrative sense you are not at all building a defense of min maxing and instead are demonstrating why many tables won't allow players who do it.
It’s a short article but if you don’t want to click the link, the TLDR is that roleplaying does not preclude optimization and optimization does not preclude roleplaying despite the contingent of those rude people who feel the need to tell others they are doing it wrong.
And yet, my lived experience is that the vast majority of players I've been in campaigns with who have focused on build optimization had no time for the role-playing aspect of the campaign, and were basically only there to see how much damage they could do in a round. Their backstories were just there to provide story hooks to lead to the next combat (in which they would naturally be the main character, although I'm not making that connection)
And yet my lived experience is that the people who don't optimize role play the least, the have no investment in the character or game and are only there to play the goofball disruptive person.
That's funny. Because there are entire games that discourage the min max mindset and that inspired by what were much simpler times are wholly character and story focused. As for disruptive: One of the many reasons min maxing is disallowed at many tables is because those with the min max mindset tend to be awfully disruptive. So mired in the rules are they that have allowed them to "build" their characters they often interrupt a DM who has ruled something independent of what the rules say.
It was nice that the most obnoxious players decided to self segregate like that.
That's funny. Because the min maxers in this thread their response to simply having it explained to them why some tables don't allow it has been to obnoxiously trash any other way to play. To call this or that set of numbers "unplayable." To say this or that method of generating stats is "awful."
That's obnoxious.
What about players who wish to play visually impaired characters and who are prepared to roll at Disadvantage for any action requiring vision to reflect this?
What about those who wish to play characters who have some kind of physical impediment or chronic illness and so they are prepared to have a low DEX or CON to reflect this? To play characters who aren't in their prime and who might have low numbers in what are "non-dump stats"?
What would you call players who would never do that? Who would never play such characters? Ableist and ageist perhaps?
I'd say you're segregating yourselves from those of us care more about characterization and story by showing you see the blind or those with any physical impediment or the elderly as "unplayable."
You keep doing the im not saying min maxers can't role play but they cant role play thing this entire thread, so stop playing the victim here. and to answer your ridiculously bad question a min maxer who wanted to play a person with visual problems would have those issues but find a way to make the character not only functional but someone who can contribute to the game. and no I would not call people who didn't want to play an old character ageist, they just have different likes.
Can you define what precisely you mean by a min-maxer? I’m getting the feeling that we may not be referring to the same thing. And don’t say “optimizer” unless you are prepared to define what exactly is being optimized.
People who come up with a concept for a character and use the rules to get the concept actualized in the most effective way possible.
Go to the Wikipedia page and read how it is defined there.
It is nowhere near as flattering as your definition.
Also. That definition of yours actually goes against what you said earlier:
What if a player's concept was a fighter with a low constitution. An aged warrior. Or one who is sickly for some reason. It's not as if these don't exist in fantasy literature.
And so using the rules they "actualize" that character. Good STR. Poor CON.
Or one who is of a high constitution (17) but not particularly strong (13). Because the player wants the fighter to have come to a life of fighting for reasons other than their possessing immense strength.
Your attitude doesn't even support your own definition because you would consider these players to be "holding back" the party because their characters would not be capable of "optimal performance" in combat.
Your attitude is more in line with the actual definition. Players' prioritizing what is mechanically effective and then overwhelmingly in moments of combat over any characterization and story an individual player might want to bring to the table. You can't complain when some tables disallow it when you would go and ruin someone else's fun by complaining when they want to "actualize" their concept.
I have said it wasn't as intuitive as ascending AC. And done so more than once. The math however was so simple children could pick up the game and play. I won't be as harsh as someone else who said those who struggle to wrap their heads around THAC0 are "dum" but neither would I trust them to do my taxes.
Anyone with a grade school education should be able to do the math for THAC0, but that doesn't mean it's the same amount of mental effort as 3e attack rolls, and the goal for mechanics isn't just "can be done", it's "can be done trivially"; games may require math, but you want it to disappear into the background as much as possible.
People play Rolemaster.
Rolemaster's complexity (likely) has a purpose in design. It's been far too long since I looked at RM/MERP books to recall that much about it, so I can't speak to their goals (aside from having extremely high variance on combat results), nor how well it achieved them. My assumption is it rests in a desire to have more detailed combat than D&D's highly abstracted mechanics, but I might well be wrong.
(Nor, in fact, how complex the core mechanics actually were. Lots of tables does not necessarily mean complex.)
But lots of games add complexity for a purpose. GURPS and Champions are well known for their desire to allow a character to be anything, and thus have rather complicated character gen.
Some enjoy the mental effort that goes into playing more mechanically complex games. It's good intellectual exercise. And this might be a reason as well as those of nostalgia why many older payers play older editions. Ironically many of 5th. Edition's most vocal defenders laugh at rules-light systems
I can't say I've ever seen much of that. (And if you're talking about OSR games, you'd have to strip Basic D&D down quite a lot before it reaches rules-lite, and anything trying to evoke D&D is still gonna need to tack on the subsystems.)
in spite of the fact the core mechanic of 5th. Edition is as simple as they come.
The base mechanic is simple, but 5e has a lot of systems around it. I'm not sure one can manage rules-light and class-based -- classes need mechanics to differentiate them.
It’s a short article but if you don’t want to click the link, the TLDR is that roleplaying does not preclude optimization and optimization does not preclude roleplaying despite the contingent of those rude people who feel the need to tell others they are doing it wrong.
And yet, my lived experience is that the vast majority of players I've been in campaigns with who have focused on build optimization had no time for the role-playing aspect of the campaign, and were basically only there to see how much damage they could do in a round. Their backstories were just there to provide story hooks to lead to the next combat (in which they would naturally be the main character, although I'm not making that connection)
And yet my lived experience is that the people who don't optimize role play the least, the have no investment in the character or game and are only there to play the goofball disruptive person.
That's funny. Because there are entire games that discourage the min max mindset and that inspired by what were much simpler times are wholly character and story focused. As for disruptive: One of the many reasons min maxing is disallowed at many tables is because those with the min max mindset tend to be awfully disruptive. So mired in the rules are they that have allowed them to "build" their characters they often interrupt a DM who has ruled something independent of what the rules say.
It was nice that the most obnoxious players decided to self segregate like that.
That's funny. Because the min maxers in this thread their response to simply having it explained to them why some tables don't allow it has been to obnoxiously trash any other way to play. To call this or that set of numbers "unplayable." To say this or that method of generating stats is "awful."
That's obnoxious.
What about players who wish to play visually impaired characters and who are prepared to roll at Disadvantage for any action requiring vision to reflect this?
What about those who wish to play characters who have some kind of physical impediment or chronic illness and so they are prepared to have a low DEX or CON to reflect this? To play characters who aren't in their prime and who might have low numbers in what are "non-dump stats"?
What would you call players who would never do that? Who would never play such characters? Ableist and ageist perhaps?
I'd say you're segregating yourselves from those of us care more about characterization and story by showing you see the blind or those with any physical impediment or the elderly as "unplayable."
You keep doing the im not saying min maxers can't role play but they cant role play thing this entire thread, so stop playing the victim here. and to answer your ridiculously bad question a min maxer who wanted to play a person with visual problems would have those issues but find a way to make the character not only functional but someone who can contribute to the game. and no I would not call people who didn't want to play an old character ageist, they just have different likes.
An adventure that sees the players' older versions of their characters from a campaign that has come to end come out of retirement sounds epic to me.
As I said: so many stories just not getting told because of people's biases and their desire to only play characters who are "perfect" as far as the numbers go.
Now take what you just said in response to my "ridiculously bad" question and ask yourself how it sounds for someone to say the same thing about those who are blind but in the real world. If we can't find a way to make them "functional" what use are they? Sounds like something the Nazis would have said.
Once again you are demonstrating how the mix max mindset is mired in the notion the game is overwhelmingly about combat and that every character must be effective in combat.
There was a time when that was not the case. You might pack up your things and go home if one your characters has to hide or flee or do something else as others fight those trolls but we played for years not caring when the party's wizard was forced to hide or that thief with such meagre HP just snuck ahead and made itself useful further down the tunnel because what mattered was having fun and telling a story.
It’s a short article but if you don’t want to click the link, the TLDR is that roleplaying does not preclude optimization and optimization does not preclude roleplaying despite the contingent of those rude people who feel the need to tell others they are doing it wrong.
And yet, my lived experience is that the vast majority of players I've been in campaigns with who have focused on build optimization had no time for the role-playing aspect of the campaign, and were basically only there to see how much damage they could do in a round. Their backstories were just there to provide story hooks to lead to the next combat (in which they would naturally be the main character, although I'm not making that connection)
And yet my lived experience is that the people who don't optimize role play the least, the have no investment in the character or game and are only there to play the goofball disruptive person.
That's funny. Because there are entire games that discourage the min max mindset and that inspired by what were much simpler times are wholly character and story focused. As for disruptive: One of the many reasons min maxing is disallowed at many tables is because those with the min max mindset tend to be awfully disruptive. So mired in the rules are they that have allowed them to "build" their characters they often interrupt a DM who has ruled something independent of what the rules say.
It was nice that the most obnoxious players decided to self segregate like that.
That's funny. Because the min maxers in this thread their response to simply having it explained to them why some tables don't allow it has been to obnoxiously trash any other way to play. To call this or that set of numbers "unplayable." To say this or that method of generating stats is "awful."
That's obnoxious.
What about players who wish to play visually impaired characters and who are prepared to roll at Disadvantage for any action requiring vision to reflect this?
What about those who wish to play characters who have some kind of physical impediment or chronic illness and so they are prepared to have a low DEX or CON to reflect this? To play characters who aren't in their prime and who might have low numbers in what are "non-dump stats"?
What would you call players who would never do that? Who would never play such characters? Ableist and ageist perhaps?
I'd say you're segregating yourselves from those of us care more about characterization and story by showing you see the blind or those with any physical impediment or the elderly as "unplayable."
You keep doing the im not saying min maxers can't role play but they cant role play thing this entire thread, so stop playing the victim here. and to answer your ridiculously bad question a min maxer who wanted to play a person with visual problems would have those issues but find a way to make the character not only functional but someone who can contribute to the game. and no I would not call people who didn't want to play an old character ageist, they just have different likes.
Can you define what precisely you mean by a min-maxer? I’m getting the feeling that we may not be referring to the same thing. And don’t say “optimizer” unless you are prepared to define what exactly is being optimized.
People who come up with a concept for a character and use the rules to get the concept actualized in the most effective way possible.
In that case, we _deginitely_ aren’t using the same definition of “min-max,” unless you’re using some very different definition of “concept.”
A character concept includes a.) what a character needs most of all b.) what a character believes they want most of all c.) an untruth the character believes to be true d.) a wound (typically a psychological wound) the character gained in the past which led them to believe the lie.
I have absolutely no idea what “the concept actualized in the most effective way possible” even means in this context. I’m wondering if you are confusing a gimmick with a character concept.
I have said it wasn't as intuitive as ascending AC. And done so more than once. The math however was so simple children could pick up the game and play. I won't be as harsh as someone else who said those who struggle to wrap their heads around THAC0 are "dum" but neither would I trust them to do my taxes.
Anyone with a grade school education should be able to do the math for THAC0, but that doesn't mean it's the same amount of mental effort as 3e attack rolls, and the goal for mechanics isn't just "can be done", it's "can be done trivially"; games may require math, but you want it to disappear into the background as much as possible.
People play Rolemaster.
Rolemaster's complexity (likely) has a purpose in design. It's been far too long since I looked at RM/MERP books to recall that much about it, so I can't speak to their goals (aside from having extremely high variance on combat results), nor how well it achieved them. My assumption is it rests in a desire to have more detailed combat than D&D's highly abstracted mechanics, but I might well be wrong.
(Nor, in fact, how complex the core mechanics actually were. Lots of tables does not necessarily mean complex.)
But lots of games add complexity for a purpose. GURPS and Champions are well known for their desire to allow a character to be anything, and thus have rather complicated character gen.
Some enjoy the mental effort that goes into playing more mechanically complex games. It's good intellectual exercise. And this might be a reason as well as those of nostalgia why many older payers play older editions. Ironically many of 5th. Edition's most vocal defenders laugh at rules-light systems
I can't say I've ever seen much of that. (And if you're talking about OSR games, you'd have to strip Basic D&D down quite a lot before it reaches rules-lite, and anything trying to evoke D&D is still gonna need to tack on the subsystems.)
in spite of the fact the core mechanic of 5th. Edition is as simple as they come.
The base mechanic is simple, but 5e has a lot of systems around it. I'm not sure one can manage rules-light and class-based -- classes need mechanics to differentiate them.
Many systems are roll under. In case you need another reminder why your suggestion higher numbers just make more sense to be representative of better numbers—not to mention again how rankings number things—suggests to me you are not in possession of the expertise or experience you claim to possess. You won't provide particulars because you don't want to "appeal to authority" but make the claim you are an award-winning game designer anyway for just that reason. To put forward the illusion you "know better." THAC0 ain't at all as intuitive as ascending AC. But the reasons you provided for why it is "bad game design" are not at all convincing.
Well... sure, Rolemaster players exist, but I wouldn't say there are a lot of them. That said, it's not necessary that rules avoid all complexity, they should just avoid unnecessary complexity (which sorts of complexity are necessary depends on the intent of the game, but if two rolling mechanisms have identical results but one is easier to use, using the more difficult option is just bad design).
Your character being shit at their role in the group is not an interesting personality trait, it’s a nuisance that you are loading up on your team members to overcome in addition to the normal challenges they face from the DM as effective characters. Unless of course, everyone is in and the DM tunes the game to accommodate everyone’s fun. And that’s the rub: min/maxers are not automatically problematic nor are their detractors, whoever the odd man out is, the one who wants something different from the rest of the people at the table.
"Your character is a [tank, etc.] and you absolutely must adequately occupy that role!"
That mindset is a relatively recent phenomenon. That has seen a dramatic increase since 4th. Edition.
Like I said earlier: A strong fighter but one of poor constitution or of exceptional intelligence is a fighter with a story to tell. One with a good constitution but who just doesn't hit quite so hard is a fighter who has chosen a career as a fighter for a reason other than their being strong. When every character of any given class is given near identical ability scores the player is no longer using ability scores as seeds for characterization and story like they used to be used. Every character becomes a cookie cutter skeleton of a character. To which what is really little more than fluff is added. With any physical or mental attributes nothing more than ways to get optimal performance in moments of combat. As if the game is all about combat.
I have posted in this thread about a barbarian character of mine who isn't particularly strong. STR 12. No one at the table cares. Because we gather to play with one another because we are friends and we enjoy one another's company and we care more about telling a good story than how effective our characters are going to be in combat.
It’s not a problem because you are all on the same page. Min/maxing is only a problem when you’re the only one who wants to play that way at a table full of people who don’t and vice versa. Like I clearly stated at the end of the passage you quoted.
FWIW, “role in the party” does not necessarily mean combat capabilities. Talking to people is not combat. Sneaking is not combat. Having the answers to the party’s knowledge related questions is not combat. Finding and disabling traps is not combat. Opening locks is not combat. Tracking people or monsters is not combat. There’s all kinds of things a character can be expected to do that have nothing to with combat but are a part of telling a good story.
Insisting that min/maxers are obsessed with combat is nothing but a strawman. I’m not sure what you even think role play is when all you do is keep referring to stats. Stats don’t define who your character is as a person. What kind of childhood they had does, how they deal with conflict, their relationship preferences, how educated they are, what their favourite foods are, whether they are a cat or dog person and other such things do actually define a personality and make people individuals. I have no idea what my stats are. You have no idea what your stats are. No person on the planet knows what their stats are yet we all have personalities—how can stats possibly define personalities??
Gary produced work for Troll Lord Games and said on a number of occasions that their Castles & Crusades is what later editions of D&D might have looked like had he remained at TSR.
C&C uses ascending AC. Classes remain however.
Curiously ability scores are generated using 3d6. Only the player gets to assign the results however he or she wishes.
That is accurate, but with Castles and Crusade he was able to say that in hindsight, meaning, someone designed a game and his comment on that game were basically "This is probably what I would have done".
His comments about removing classes, eliminating THAC0 and removing descending armor class and even potentially adding a skill system, and a slew of other ideas well outside of the realm of what D&D looks like today were made before 1st edition AD&D was released, long before C&C was conceived. He of course never got the chance to do that with D&D, but he did do it as mentioned in Legendary Adventures and there is probably more in that game about "what he might have been". Then again, Legendary Adventures was never very popular or successful, so it's probably good that this never happened. The game did however show that Gygax's range as a game designer was far broader than the limits of D&D.
Gygax never actually played 1st edition AD&D either, which is kind of a quirky piece of history, not even in his house games, he continued to run OD&D even as far as 2005. He considered AD&D to be a "tournament rules" set and even the OD&D game he ran at home was a very heavily house-ruled version of OD&D. This variant of OD&D is known in OSR circles as Gygaxian OD&D which was a cross between OD&D and Basic/Expert set. The changes were subtle, they weren't major redesigns but interestingly one of the things he did was 4d6 drop lowest for creating ability scores, he started players off at 3rd level, Dex didn't alter armor class.. stuff like that.
It is worth noting too that Gygax did kind of go back and forth on certain things, in particular after AD&D was released on what his views about the game were. At the time he was getting sued, it became important for the message to be that AD&D and OD&D were completely different games, he even went so far as to write an article about how these two games were completely incompatible and about how AD&D was meant to be played RAW and if you didn't do that, you weren't playing REAL AD&D. This message of course was a response to the lawsuits presumably.
By most accounts, Gygax did in fact play Castles and Crusades and thought very highly of it. By the time Castles & Crusades was out we had a lot of RPG's on the market that showed the wide range of ways a game can be designed and I think (my opinion now) by then he probably realized as many gamers have that while the Class/Level system isn't perfect, it is much simpler and being simple and streamlined is one of the reasons D&D is popular with fans. Castles and Crusades is probably the most definitive version of old-school D&D in my opinion, it represents the most fundamental core of the original game as it evolved before D&D's influences started to come from other parts of the gaming sphere like video games. Its the last game in which Archetypes are still a thing, most variants of D&D after this (short of the old school OSR stuff) were driven more by concepts of abstracted roles, rather than archetypes. Instead of "The find and disable trap guy" for example as the Thief was, The Rogue was a utilitarian skill monkey, or instead of being the only class capable of healing (The Cleric), this class became the Utility Buffer. Many of these concepts strangely enough where video games, which themselves where initially influenced by classic D&D. A weird circle of influences.
In any case, as far as this evolving topic goes, mechanics like Backgrounds are just an evolution of the game and I think the reason they are simplified in the Players Handbook is that Wizards of the Coasts knows that there always has to be a baseline for the game in which the instructions are clear and easy to use. With the version of Backgrounds in the Players Handbook all you have to do is pick one. The far more complex variant of building your own I'm sure will show up in the DMG, but this would have been too complex for the baseline game and that is what the Players Handbook has to represent. In essence character creation needs to be as simple as "pick stuff from this list of options clearly defined". This is why the rules for race, class, sub-class creation or spell creation.. all those things go into the DMG. Its not that they are not meant to be options, its that they aren't simple enough to be in the base game.
Trading bioessentialism for Training Montage(tm) is the ethical & PR-friendly move, but it suffers mechanics and literary-wise.
All that is likely needed is a small free digital product saying "You can make improvements based on background float".
Certainly and I would be shocked if these expanded options do not appear in the DMG in the future, it's quite literally the purpose of the book... a user manual on how to alter the game using various optional rules for the DM.
And I know people will say "well if it's not in the players handbook, it's not in the game", but frankly I find this position to be a rather presumptuous attitude because the reality is that everything in the Players Handbook is also not in the game unless the DM says so.
The assumption that the Players Handbook is the official rulebook and all tables and all DM's must abide by it is a complete farse, the DM is god, the DM decides what rules are in effect, what rules are altered and what options are and are not available, the players handbook has no say in that.
To which the typical response is yeah but what about organized play... to which I say, the point of organize play is to be a simple, "sit down and play" experience, the last thing you want there is more options. If anything the reason the Backgrounds are as they are is very specifically to make sure that people can't create backgrounds for organized play. Its a very conscious design choice.
Can you define what precisely you mean by a min-maxer? I’m getting the feeling that we may not be referring to the same thing. And don’t say “optimizer” unless you are prepared to define what exactly is being optimized.
A player who attempts to create an optimized character by minimizing unfavorable traits and maximizing favorable ones, typically by improving a single trait or ability to the exclusion of others.
It’s a short article but if you don’t want to click the link, the TLDR is that roleplaying does not preclude optimization and optimization does not preclude roleplaying despite the contingent of those rude people who feel the need to tell others they are doing it wrong.
And yet, my lived experience is that the vast majority of players I've been in campaigns with who have focused on build optimization had no time for the role-playing aspect of the campaign, and were basically only there to see how much damage they could do in a round. Their backstories were just there to provide story hooks to lead to the next combat (in which they would naturally be the main character, although I'm not making that connection)
And yet my lived experience is that the people who don't optimize role play the least, the have no investment in the character or game and are only there to play the goofball disruptive person.
That's funny. Because there are entire games that discourage the min max mindset and that inspired by what were much simpler times are wholly character and story focused. As for disruptive: One of the many reasons min maxing is disallowed at many tables is because those with the min max mindset tend to be awfully disruptive. So mired in the rules are they that have allowed them to "build" their characters they often interrupt a DM who has ruled something independent of what the rules say.
It was nice that the most obnoxious players decided to self segregate like that.
That's funny. Because the min maxers in this thread their response to simply having it explained to them why some tables don't allow it has been to obnoxiously trash any other way to play. To call this or that set of numbers "unplayable." To say this or that method of generating stats is "awful."
That's obnoxious.
What about players who wish to play visually impaired characters and who are prepared to roll at Disadvantage for any action requiring vision to reflect this?
What about those who wish to play characters who have some kind of physical impediment or chronic illness and so they are prepared to have a low DEX or CON to reflect this? To play characters who aren't in their prime and who might have low numbers in what are "non-dump stats"?
What would you call players who would never do that? Who would never play such characters? Ableist and ageist perhaps?
I'd say you're segregating yourselves from those of us care more about characterization and story by showing you see the blind or those with any physical impediment or the elderly as "unplayable."
You keep doing the im not saying min maxers can't role play but they cant role play thing this entire thread, so stop playing the victim here. and to answer your ridiculously bad question a min maxer who wanted to play a person with visual problems would have those issues but find a way to make the character not only functional but someone who can contribute to the game. and no I would not call people who didn't want to play an old character ageist, they just have different likes.
Can you define what precisely you mean by a min-maxer? I’m getting the feeling that we may not be referring to the same thing. And don’t say “optimizer” unless you are prepared to define what exactly is being optimized.
People who come up with a concept for a character and use the rules to get the concept actualized in the most effective way possible.
And I would take this definition to be more accurate for an Optimizer. The concept comes first, typically, and even with flaws (like the low con aged fighter idea above) choices are made to fit the concept of the character to be effective yet may not all positive. (D&D Deep Dive YouTuber had a touch spell only spellcaster build, as an example). And this type of player, imo, tends to be less problematic at the table compared to a min/maxer
at least in my opinion
Treantmonk has a video that has fairly good definitions that I mostly agree with
Trading bioessentialism for Training Montage(tm) is the ethical & PR-friendly move, but it suffers mechanics and literary-wise.
All that is likely needed is a small free digital product saying "You can make improvements based on background float".
Certainly and I would be shocked if these expanded options do not appear in the DMG in the future, it's quite literally the purpose of the book... a user manual on how to alter the game using various optional rules for the DM.
And I know people will say "well if it's not in the players handbook, it's not in the game", but frankly I find this position to be a rather presumptuous attitude because the reality is that everything in the Players Handbook is also not in the game unless the DM says so.
The assumption that the Players Handbook is the official rulebook and all tables and all DM's must abide by it is a complete farse, the DM is god, the DM decides what rules are in effect, what rules are altered and what options are and are not available, the players handbook has no say in that.
To which the typical response is yeah but what about organized play... to which I say, the point of organize play is to be a simple, "sit down and play" experience, the last thing you want there is more options. If anything the reason the Backgrounds are as they are is very specifically to make sure that people can't create backgrounds for organized play. Its a very conscious design choice.
I am the one who has brought up organized play. It’s been brought up not as an attack on DM autonomy but to point out that “just homebrew it” is not the answer to crummy content. It’s pretty silly to insinuate that DDAL players do not understand and respect the DM’s role as well as any other player because their hands are tied by a published rulebook. You are assigning people you don’t know at all motivations regarding, reactions to and opinions of a book that hasn’t even been printed yet. Not only that, apparently these people you don’t know at all and who are reacting to unpublished material are incorrect about the content of that material as well as in their reactions to it. You, OTOH, are correct on both accounts? Good lord, the hubris.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
But would you ever play a character who has a reasonably low non-dump stat to reflect any physical impediment (DEX say) the character might have or aging (CON) or illness (CON)? Would you not call it shortsighted of a player to refuse to ever do such a thing because that player cares more about how optimal their performance will be in combat?
"Your character is a [tank, etc.] and you absolutely must adequately occupy that role!"
That mindset is a relatively recent phenomenon. That has seen a dramatic increase since 4th. Edition.
Like I said earlier: A strong fighter but one of poor constitution or of exceptional intelligence is a fighter with a story to tell. One with a good constitution but who just doesn't hit quite so hard is a fighter who has chosen a career as a fighter for a reason other than their being strong. When every character of any given class is given near identical ability scores the player is no longer using ability scores as seeds for characterization and story like they used to be used. Every character becomes a cookie cutter skeleton of a character. To which what is really little more than fluff is added. With any physical or mental attributes nothing more than ways to get optimal performance in moments of combat. As if the game is all about combat.
I have posted in this thread about a barbarian character of mine who isn't particularly strong. STR 12. No one at the table cares. Because we gather to play with one another because we are friends and we enjoy one another's company and we care more about telling a good story than how effective our characters are going to be in combat.
You keep doing the im not saying min maxers can't role play but they cant role play thing this entire thread, so stop playing the victim here. and to answer your ridiculously bad question a min maxer who wanted to play a person with visual problems would have those issues but find a way to make the character not only functional but someone who can contribute to the game. and no I would not call people who didn't want to play an old character ageist, they just have different likes.
People play Rolemaster.
Some enjoy the mental effort that goes into playing more mechanically complex games. It's good intellectual exercise. And this might be a reason as well as those of nostalgia why many older payers play older editions. Ironically many of 5th. Edition's most vocal defenders laugh at rules-light systems in spite of the fact the core mechanic of 5th. Edition is as simple as they come.
I prefer the intuitive nature of ascending AC. My system of choice when I run a game uses it. And I play in 5th, Edition games.
I do think a certain ... let's call it "esotericism" ... has been lost. I get why people still play and love earlier editions. The pride and joy of my game shelves are old AD&D books and the Expert Set from 1981. It was a real joy to recently read the OLD-SCHOOL ESSENTIALS rules tome that is built on that set and its sister set and be reminded of how much I enjoyed playing D&D when the rules was so "terrible."
Can you define what precisely you mean by a min-maxer? I’m getting the feeling that we may not be referring to the same thing. And don’t say “optimizer” unless you are prepared to define what exactly is being optimized.
A player who attempts to create an optimized character by minimizing unfavorable traits and maximizing favorable ones, typically by improving a single trait or ability to the exclusion of others.
People who come up with a concept for a character and use the rules to get the concept actualized in the most effective way possible.
I have never said that min maxes can't and do not role-play.
In fact I have stated rather explicitly that min maxers can and do role-play.
They can min and max in character creation and at every level-up and still role-play their characterss.
I have never said otherwise.
They can have the most elaborate of backstories ever created and role-play things in that regard.
When you have to put words in my mouth because you refuse to understand what I am saying about how min maxers prioritize how effective their characters will be in combat and make decisions for purposes of performance even when they do not make narrative sense you are not at all building a defense of min maxing and instead are demonstrating why many tables won't allow players who do it.
Go to the Wikipedia page and read how it is defined there.
It is nowhere near as flattering as your definition.
Also. That definition of yours actually goes against what you said earlier:
What if a player's concept was a fighter with a low constitution. An aged warrior. Or one who is sickly for some reason. It's not as if these don't exist in fantasy literature.
And so using the rules they "actualize" that character. Good STR. Poor CON.
Or one who is of a high constitution (17) but not particularly strong (13). Because the player wants the fighter to have come to a life of fighting for reasons other than their possessing immense strength.
Your attitude doesn't even support your own definition because you would consider these players to be "holding back" the party because their characters would not be capable of "optimal performance" in combat.
Your attitude is more in line with the actual definition. Players' prioritizing what is mechanically effective and then overwhelmingly in moments of combat over any characterization and story an individual player might want to bring to the table. You can't complain when some tables disallow it when you would go and ruin someone else's fun by complaining when they want to "actualize" their concept.
Rolemaster's complexity (likely) has a purpose in design. It's been far too long since I looked at RM/MERP books to recall that much about it, so I can't speak to their goals (aside from having extremely high variance on combat results), nor how well it achieved them. My assumption is it rests in a desire to have more detailed combat than D&D's highly abstracted mechanics, but I might well be wrong.
(Nor, in fact, how complex the core mechanics actually were. Lots of tables does not necessarily mean complex.)
But lots of games add complexity for a purpose. GURPS and Champions are well known for their desire to allow a character to be anything, and thus have rather complicated character gen.
I can't say I've ever seen much of that. (And if you're talking about OSR games, you'd have to strip Basic D&D down quite a lot before it reaches rules-lite, and anything trying to evoke D&D is still gonna need to tack on the subsystems.)
The base mechanic is simple, but 5e has a lot of systems around it. I'm not sure one can manage rules-light and class-based -- classes need mechanics to differentiate them.
An adventure that sees the players' older versions of their characters from a campaign that has come to end come out of retirement sounds epic to me.
As I said: so many stories just not getting told because of people's biases and their desire to only play characters who are "perfect" as far as the numbers go.
Now take what you just said in response to my "ridiculously bad" question and ask yourself how it sounds for someone to say the same thing about those who are blind but in the real world. If we can't find a way to make them "functional" what use are they? Sounds like something the Nazis would have said.
Once again you are demonstrating how the mix max mindset is mired in the notion the game is overwhelmingly about combat and that every character must be effective in combat.
There was a time when that was not the case. You might pack up your things and go home if one your characters has to hide or flee or do something else as others fight those trolls but we played for years not caring when the party's wizard was forced to hide or that thief with such meagre HP just snuck ahead and made itself useful further down the tunnel because what mattered was having fun and telling a story.
In that case, we _deginitely_ aren’t using the same definition of “min-max,” unless you’re using some very different definition of “concept.”
A character concept includes a.) what a character needs most of all b.) what a character believes they want most of all c.) an untruth the character believes to be true d.) a wound (typically a psychological wound) the character gained in the past which led them to believe the lie.
I have absolutely no idea what “the concept actualized in the most effective way possible” even means in this context. I’m wondering if you are confusing a gimmick with a character concept.
Many systems are roll under. In case you need another reminder why your suggestion higher numbers just make more sense to be representative of better numbers—not to mention again how rankings number things—suggests to me you are not in possession of the expertise or experience you claim to possess. You won't provide particulars because you don't want to "appeal to authority" but make the claim you are an award-winning game designer anyway for just that reason. To put forward the illusion you "know better." THAC0 ain't at all as intuitive as ascending AC. But the reasons you provided for why it is "bad game design" are not at all convincing.
Well... sure, Rolemaster players exist, but I wouldn't say there are a lot of them. That said, it's not necessary that rules avoid all complexity, they should just avoid unnecessary complexity (which sorts of complexity are necessary depends on the intent of the game, but if two rolling mechanisms have identical results but one is easier to use, using the more difficult option is just bad design).
THAC0 isn't, so I'm not sure how that's relevant. There are some very efficient roll-under systems possible.
It’s not a problem because you are all on the same page. Min/maxing is only a problem when you’re the only one who wants to play that way at a table full of people who don’t and vice versa. Like I clearly stated at the end of the passage you quoted.
FWIW, “role in the party” does not necessarily mean combat capabilities. Talking to people is not combat. Sneaking is not combat. Having the answers to the party’s knowledge related questions is not combat. Finding and disabling traps is not combat. Opening locks is not combat. Tracking people or monsters is not combat. There’s all kinds of things a character can be expected to do that have nothing to with combat but are a part of telling a good story.
Insisting that min/maxers are obsessed with combat is nothing but a strawman. I’m not sure what you even think role play is when all you do is keep referring to stats. Stats don’t define who your character is as a person. What kind of childhood they had does, how they deal with conflict, their relationship preferences, how educated they are, what their favourite foods are, whether they are a cat or dog person and other such things do actually define a personality and make people individuals. I have no idea what my stats are. You have no idea what your stats are. No person on the planet knows what their stats are yet we all have personalities—how can stats possibly define personalities??
That is accurate, but with Castles and Crusade he was able to say that in hindsight, meaning, someone designed a game and his comment on that game were basically "This is probably what I would have done".
His comments about removing classes, eliminating THAC0 and removing descending armor class and even potentially adding a skill system, and a slew of other ideas well outside of the realm of what D&D looks like today were made before 1st edition AD&D was released, long before C&C was conceived. He of course never got the chance to do that with D&D, but he did do it as mentioned in Legendary Adventures and there is probably more in that game about "what he might have been". Then again, Legendary Adventures was never very popular or successful, so it's probably good that this never happened. The game did however show that Gygax's range as a game designer was far broader than the limits of D&D.
Gygax never actually played 1st edition AD&D either, which is kind of a quirky piece of history, not even in his house games, he continued to run OD&D even as far as 2005. He considered AD&D to be a "tournament rules" set and even the OD&D game he ran at home was a very heavily house-ruled version of OD&D. This variant of OD&D is known in OSR circles as Gygaxian OD&D which was a cross between OD&D and Basic/Expert set. The changes were subtle, they weren't major redesigns but interestingly one of the things he did was 4d6 drop lowest for creating ability scores, he started players off at 3rd level, Dex didn't alter armor class.. stuff like that.
It is worth noting too that Gygax did kind of go back and forth on certain things, in particular after AD&D was released on what his views about the game were. At the time he was getting sued, it became important for the message to be that AD&D and OD&D were completely different games, he even went so far as to write an article about how these two games were completely incompatible and about how AD&D was meant to be played RAW and if you didn't do that, you weren't playing REAL AD&D. This message of course was a response to the lawsuits presumably.
By most accounts, Gygax did in fact play Castles and Crusades and thought very highly of it. By the time Castles & Crusades was out we had a lot of RPG's on the market that showed the wide range of ways a game can be designed and I think (my opinion now) by then he probably realized as many gamers have that while the Class/Level system isn't perfect, it is much simpler and being simple and streamlined is one of the reasons D&D is popular with fans. Castles and Crusades is probably the most definitive version of old-school D&D in my opinion, it represents the most fundamental core of the original game as it evolved before D&D's influences started to come from other parts of the gaming sphere like video games. Its the last game in which Archetypes are still a thing, most variants of D&D after this (short of the old school OSR stuff) were driven more by concepts of abstracted roles, rather than archetypes. Instead of "The find and disable trap guy" for example as the Thief was, The Rogue was a utilitarian skill monkey, or instead of being the only class capable of healing (The Cleric), this class became the Utility Buffer. Many of these concepts strangely enough where video games, which themselves where initially influenced by classic D&D. A weird circle of influences.
In any case, as far as this evolving topic goes, mechanics like Backgrounds are just an evolution of the game and I think the reason they are simplified in the Players Handbook is that Wizards of the Coasts knows that there always has to be a baseline for the game in which the instructions are clear and easy to use. With the version of Backgrounds in the Players Handbook all you have to do is pick one. The far more complex variant of building your own I'm sure will show up in the DMG, but this would have been too complex for the baseline game and that is what the Players Handbook has to represent. In essence character creation needs to be as simple as "pick stuff from this list of options clearly defined". This is why the rules for race, class, sub-class creation or spell creation.. all those things go into the DMG. Its not that they are not meant to be options, its that they aren't simple enough to be in the base game.
There is no perfect system.
This discussion isn't about that.
It's about the lack of CHOICES.
Trading bioessentialism for Training Montage(tm) is the ethical & PR-friendly move, but it suffers mechanics and literary-wise.
All that is likely needed is a small free digital product saying "You can make improvements based on background float".
DM, player & homebrewer(Current homebrew project is an unofficial conversion of SBURB/SGRUB from Homestuck into DND 5e)
Once made Maxwell's Silver Hammer come down upon Strahd's head to make sure he was dead.
Always study & sharpen philosophical razors. They save a lot of trouble.
Certainly and I would be shocked if these expanded options do not appear in the DMG in the future, it's quite literally the purpose of the book... a user manual on how to alter the game using various optional rules for the DM.
And I know people will say "well if it's not in the players handbook, it's not in the game", but frankly I find this position to be a rather presumptuous attitude because the reality is that everything in the Players Handbook is also not in the game unless the DM says so.
The assumption that the Players Handbook is the official rulebook and all tables and all DM's must abide by it is a complete farse, the DM is god, the DM decides what rules are in effect, what rules are altered and what options are and are not available, the players handbook has no say in that.
To which the typical response is yeah but what about organized play... to which I say, the point of organize play is to be a simple, "sit down and play" experience, the last thing you want there is more options. If anything the reason the Backgrounds are as they are is very specifically to make sure that people can't create backgrounds for organized play. Its a very conscious design choice.
This^ A pretty good definition of a Min/Maxer imo
And I would take this definition to be more accurate for an Optimizer. The concept comes first, typically, and even with flaws (like the low con aged fighter idea above) choices are made to fit the concept of the character to be effective yet may not all positive. (D&D Deep Dive YouTuber had a touch spell only spellcaster build, as an example). And this type of player, imo, tends to be less problematic at the table compared to a min/maxer
at least in my opinion
Treantmonk has a video that has fairly good definitions that I mostly agree with
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
I am the one who has brought up organized play. It’s been brought up not as an attack on DM autonomy but to point out that “just homebrew it” is not the answer to crummy content. It’s pretty silly to insinuate that DDAL players do not understand and respect the DM’s role as well as any other player because their hands are tied by a published rulebook. You are assigning people you don’t know at all motivations regarding, reactions to and opinions of a book that hasn’t even been printed yet. Not only that, apparently these people you don’t know at all and who are reacting to unpublished material are incorrect about the content of that material as well as in their reactions to it. You, OTOH, are correct on both accounts? Good lord, the hubris.