Fun vs. Efficiency

[Sunic_Flames]

Yes, having actual options certainly helps.

For some people, the bookkeeping aspect of having options is not worth it.  Any class that can actually do something either requires a ton of paperwork, or just gives one a headache(Factorum).

This is why my group is full of melees.  However, I wouldn't be caught dead not playing a caster at this point because I can do the bookkeeping, and enjoy the options it gives me.

Factorum gives headaches for a different reason. But just because the simple minded can't handle it doesn't make it bad, quite the opposite.

And in response to your other question: Me and some others.

[Unbeliever]

Endarire, why are you continuously posting these threads in the Min/Max forum?
Shouldn't they be in the D&D Deliberations forum?

+1, Endrarie, you have posted a number of these metaphysical questions here already.  For a game that's been out as long as this one has, I find it hard to imagine that you and your group have not given these sufficient thought.

Onto the actual question:  what do we mean by "efficiency" here?  Based on reading through the thread, it seems you mean "build efficiency," i.e., having all your feats match up and synergize, picking the "right" spells, stuff like that.  I wonder if that's what the chaos-loving friend really has in mind.  If so, then this is kind of a silly question b/c one has nothing to do w/ the other other, really.  Once you get to the table, you can play your god wizard chaotically or you can play your BSF chaotically, within their relative lifespans or what have you.

I think the trade-off the mysterious friend might have in mind is efficiency at the level of gameplay.  Meaning, how much should we expect one to deliberate about their choices for every round, what spell they are going to cast, etc.  Ideally, I like to not have to worry all that much about that sort of thing, or to worry just as much as I feel like it w/ that particular characters (some of my characters are more tactically-minded than others, some more impulsive).  To that end, I put a lot of effort into making my character sheets easy to read, putting everything I need on them, that sort of thing. 

I've currently been on a kick to reduce the amount of bookkeeping needed at the table, since D&D characters seem to require an awful lot of it.  Some of this has been a shift to "per encounter" abilities, or just paying for them to be at will and other considerations.  It's still a work in progress.  Another thing to do is tone down the power of games so that one needs to pay less attention to having the "right" counter to every ability and that sort of thing, but that requires a commitment on the part of everyone involved. 

[Lycanthromancer]

It is, however, quite easy to go too far in the other direction.  I've definitely hit that point before, where you're so optimized it's not fun at all anymore.  When every problem can be solved by a spell, there's no creativity left... nothing can challenge you.  The fun is in getting around the restrictions... if there are none from the outset, then who cares?  Playing in god mode is only fun for a short while.  Eventually you want to be challenged again.

There's a good reason I stopped playing Archivist/Binder/Anima Mages and Shadowcraft Mages, and moved back down towards Factotums and Swordsages.  When you have enough abilities to be creative it's fun... but when you have enough abilities to completely shatter the campaign instantly, it's boring.

JaronK, you would LOVE playing a shaper psion/constructor character. This is the kind of stuff I eat up, and optimizing on-the-fly using your excessively flexible powers is amazingly refreshing.

When I optimize a character I aim for both flexibility and stamina (which is remarkably easy, so I branch out to other sources for even more). Then I use my creativity in-game to solve whatever problem I can. Like illusionists, shapers become incredible when you're good at thinking outside the box.

Who knew living in an amber hamster ball could be so much fun?

After all, Lord of the Rings would have been a really stupid series if Gandalf had just said "so, this ring could destroy us all.  I'm just gonna fly over on this eagle and destroy it.  After that, who wants lunch?"

JaronK

I'm sure Frodo and Sam in particular would've appreciated it.

[Anarchy_Kanya]

How compatible are fun and efficiency in tabletop games?  What are your experiences?  What can GMs and game makers do to merge these more?

I always play for fun. I always encourage my players to play for fun. As long as they don't go full-out loony, it's fine by me. After all, as a DM my job is to make a balanced but challenging adventure for the players, and if they're having fun while doing it then I get to have fun too. If I have to stat up sixteen White Slaads for one random encounter just to put up some resistance, it's not fun.

This. +1

[Tshern]

After all, Lord of the Rings would have been a really stupid series if Gandalf had just said "so, this ring could destroy us all.  I'm just gonna fly over on this eagle and destroy it.  After that, who wants lunch?"

JaronK

Not to mention the books and the movies were mediocre at best.

[Rejakor]

When you always win without particularly caring or trying, that's boring.

When you always lose no matter how hard you try, that's boring.

If you lose even 75% of the time you won't survive a campaign.

Roy is still wrong, though.

Most games don't run at the difficulty level his games run at.  Highly optimized top-of-their-CR mooks are not the norm.

[Sunic_Flames]

When you always win without particularly caring or trying, that's boring.

When you always lose no matter how hard you try, that's boring.

If you lose even 75% of the time you won't survive a campaign.

Roy is still wrong, though.

Most games don't run at the difficulty level his games run at.  Highly optimized top-of-their-CR mooks are not the norm.

Hi Welcome

Despite your randomly dragging me into this, you still fail, and are still wrong in every count. Especially the mook bit. Who said they were mooks?

[Kajhera]

When you always win without particularly caring or trying, that's boring.

When you always lose no matter how hard you try, that's boring.

If you lose even 75% of the time you won't survive a campaign.

Roy is still wrong, though.

Most games don't run at the difficulty level his games run at.  Highly optimized top-of-their-CR mooks are not the norm.

When you play smart and creatively and consistently triumph over difficult situations as a reward, that's fun.

Just IMHO.

[Anarchy_Kanya]

Who the hell is Roy? O_o

When you always win without particularly caring or trying, that's boring.

When you always lose no matter how hard you try, that's boring.

If you lose even 75% of the time you won't survive a campaign.

Roy is still wrong, though.

Most games don't run at the difficulty level his games run at.  Highly optimized top-of-their-CR mooks are not the norm.

When you play smart and creatively and consistently triumph over difficult situations as a reward, that's fun.

Just IMHO.

Exactly. But the difficult situations must firstly be possible to overcome.

[Rejakor]

I meant Sunic.

When you state an opinion enough times, it becomes a standard by which other things can be measured.

Also, i'm eternally confused as to whether Roy and Sunic are the same person or not.  I swear to god once Roy said he wasn't Sunic, but they are the same person.

[Sunic_Flames]

I meant Sunic.

When you state an opinion enough times, it becomes a standard by which other things can be measured.

Also, i'm eternally confused as to whether Roy and Sunic are the same person or not.  I swear to god once Roy said he wasn't Sunic, but they are the same person.

Paizil Fallacy. Also, don't feed the trolls.

[Anarchy_Kanya]

I meant Sunic.

When you state an opinion enough times, it becomes a standard by which other things can be measured.

Also, i'm eternally confused as to whether Roy and Sunic are the same person or not.  I swear to god once Roy said he wasn't Sunic, but they are the same person.

Paizil Fallacy. Also, don't feed the trolls.

But then you will starve to death and I won't have anyone to laugh at.

[Sunic_Flames]

I meant Sunic.

When you state an opinion enough times, it becomes a standard by which other things can be measured.

Also, i'm eternally confused as to whether Roy and Sunic are the same person or not.  I swear to god once Roy said he wasn't Sunic, but they are the same person.

Paizil Fallacy. Also, don't feed the trolls.

But then you will starve to death and I won't have anyone to laugh at.

No, bad Jarona. No stealing my lines.

[Kajhera]

I meant Sunic.

When you state an opinion enough times, it becomes a standard by which other things can be measured.

Also, i'm eternally confused as to whether Roy and Sunic are the same person or not.  I swear to god once Roy said he wasn't Sunic, but they are the same person.

Paizil Fallacy. Also, don't feed the trolls.

But then you will starve to death and I won't have anyone to laugh at.

No, bad Jarona. No stealing my lines.

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

[veekie]

Hate is so like love. Its a force of attraction.

[Solo]

Endarire, why are you continuously posting these threads in the Min/Max forum?
Shouldn't they be in the D&D Deliberations forum?

+1, Endrarie, you have posted a number of these metaphysical questions here already.  For a game that's been out as long as this one has, I find it hard to imagine that you and your group have not given these sufficient thought.

But what is sufficient thought?

[dark_samuari]

You folks talking about fun in here?

I like fun.

You like fun?

[RobbyPants]

I like fun.



Some people here seem to think that you can only have fun one way, though.

[Lycanthromancer]

I like fun.

Some people here seem to think that you can only have fun one way, though.

There are at least two.

In and Out.

[Anarchy_Kanya]

Who, who?