Hey folks! I wanted to make sure I included this point, because I didn't do it justice in the video. I come from a background of playing Tabletop RPG's by almost completely ignoring all official rules, and more or less just including core stats, rolling mechanisms, and world design. Other than that, I ditch everything else. Perhaps a better summary of this video is to let content function as inspiration. Because if you play the sort of game where you use content exactly as-is, every added bit of content just makes for more unnecessary reading for introducing players to the game. And that goes doubly among the group in the specific game. Because every time an element is introduced, you better be sure both the GM and the player who picked the content are in collaboration on that element.

The problem isn't options, the problem is lack of meaningful options. Ever since 4th DnD has been trying to be WoW raiding. It's easy to "design" a game where a throwing star is just a dagger with +2 to range. It's hard to actually design, to create meaningful choices. Pick between an average spell and an OP underwater spell. The latter is better, but highly situational. That makes for a meaningful choice. Why pick a worse sword at the blacksmith? Because the worse sword was your grandfather's heirloom. And the better sword isn't even in the shop. The blacksmith is a man named Bob. He has 4 swords available. He's not the auctioneer in Stormwind.

a few restrictions are like anchors to pull yourself up with lots of restrictions is just a cage. That's how I've always thought of it anyways.

@9:52 One thing my friend and I have done to solve this sorta problem with Magic: The Gathering, is to play a format called 'Cube', basically we take all our cards (we only have about 700) shuffle them up into booster boxes, and then take turns drafting from a randomly select booster or 4. This removes the incentive to just shell out money for a card that basically just says "You win", because you might get it, but you might not. Instead, we end up looking for cards that are more interesting, rather than just being super powerful, because regardless of who gets a "You Win" card, it's just boring, nobody wants to play that. This even gives some potential value to worse cards, simply because up to that point in our "season" of games (we don't draft all 700 cards in one night), maybe a simple 2/1 Savannah Lions could be a good addition, especially if you're already low on white creatures to make a worthwhile white deck with. I mean, it's still Savannah Lions, its not great, but it's not nothing; it gives you a nice simple 1 mana creature to play to help fit out the mana curve of your deck.

I don't think this argument against more content works for a TTRPG since it is cooperative and managed by the DM. There is a 'better' argument against "more content" in that it can restrict what your character by explicitly providing something that was previously flavour. It is also most often something you need to pay for to add, so there is no point in paying the company for more options when you should have enough variety with the options currently available (or can make your own). I enjoy your style, but simply think you are wrong on this point. Newly Subscribed, I look forward to your future stuff.

I don't disagree with you - but power creep in a PVP game like Magic the Gathering vs. a cooperative game like D&D are different beasts. It's an asymmetrical game with a player dedicated to balancing the difficulty of the game. If a player makes a suboptimal decision it will rarely affect the entire effectiveness of the party, and even if it does, the DM can alter encounters. Picking a suboptimal option in MTG means that you will be losing more frequently (and if your fun comes from winning, you will have much less fun). Picking a suboptimal option in D&D rarely means you are losing more often. D&D is also a very horizontally expansive game, there are many settings you can play in. So, yes, Mastermind Rogue may seem suboptimal on the surface, but in subterfuge-focused campaigns it is arguably overpowered. D&D isn't designed to be as specific as a turn-based card game in which the goal is to deplete your opponent's health, it is designed as a toolbox that players can pick from to interact with the campaign. Weighing something like Hold Person vs Fireball is nearly impossible because it can't be compared directly. Damage Per Round calculations and other metrics are fine for people who enjoy optimizing their character's effectiveness, but it isn't a great lens to view the design of the game. There are few things in the game that are objectively bad in all scenarios. Maybe in the campaigns you play in, they aren't very effective - but the game is designed for many different styles. Old Gygaxian-style players might not roleplay at all and only look for more damage to grind through dungeons quicker. Cinematic campaigns might have combat once every three sessions and it's more for narrative purposes. There are many things I dislike about 5th edition (lackluster rules for things like grappling and flying, for example), but the breadth of content simply allows for more ideas and character builds. Sure, fire bolt is significantly more common than the other cantrips, but that doesn't mean the other cantrips shouldn't exist (see interesting ways they can be used in Baldur's Gate). If the game was much tighter and more heavily balanced, I actually think the game would be worse off and less fun to play. Even if a player makes a series of suboptimal decisions that makes their character unplayable, they can just sunset the character and create a new one. That's part of being new to anything and learning. I think an issue is that asymmetrical TTRPGs are designed very differently from most other games. There is no "meta," because no one is playing in the same scenario or versus the same series of things. Imagine if MTG players faced an opponent with cards they had never seen before and didn't get to choose from. It would be difficult to settle on a meta-game strategy. It's asymmetrical. If a DM wants to challenge the players, she will make encounters more difficult if they are all optimized anyway.

@samthered4862

4 ай бұрын

Optimal depends on the game that is being run. As long as the game is communicated properly there should be few issues. Even a "weaker" sword could be beneficial in the Roll playing area allowing a character to appear as a traveler with something for self defense instead of a blood thirsty warrior. The game relies on the person managing everything. If you have a "good" DM bad or suboptimal mechanics matter less than if you have the "best" mechanics and a bad/competitive DM. If your DM is able to the environment to bring out your character's strengths it doesn't matter if you pick the "wrong" options. If people say that your choices are objectively "bad" they are probably on the internet (so they don't matter).

Thw case against optional class features excellently summarised! Love the format.

For MtG my solution would be to limit the game to about 2000 cards, then revise those cards based on feedback over the years until the game is basically balanced.