Robert Schwalb had a very interesting post over at his D&D blog. I linked to it through my Facebook and Twitter, but I think it deserves some discussion.
At some point, perceptions about Dungeons & Dragons have morphed. The game is now winnable. Mechanical selection enables players to create characters that operate well-beyond the expected boundaries and have the means to trivialize the opposition, thus forcing DMs to eliminate options and look further afield for challenges to test the player characters. For example, the first battlerage vigor rules in Martial Power turned minions into temporary hit point batteries to fuel what were, in effect, unkillable characters. Optimal character construction has almost become the equivalent to the Ur-decks of Magic, and such combinations make the game no longer fun to play or run.
I like to call this the FF7 effect because that was the first console game that most gamers of my “generation” beat the crap out of. While it ushered in a new era for video gaming, I think the effect it has had on pen-and-paper gaming has been unfortunate. Schwalb is wrong in one respect: old-school gamers believed that they could “win” D&D. Even then, the victory condition was to become so powerful that you could do anything you wanted, even to other player characters. It was just that the game was so random and unfair that people didn’t expect to survive long enough to win.
I look back at FF7’s materia system with a certain amount of nostalgia because it was a simple, intuitive system that greatly empowered the player to play the game the way they wanted to. A side effect of this was that gamers started to learn systems mastery.[1] Systems mastery takes two forms: effectiveness and degeneracy (I choose not to use the word “optimization” because people fight too much over what it means and whether it applies to them). Effectiveness simply means trying to find something that works. Degeneracy tries to break the system.
Aside from just walking away and finding a new group, the solution, as I see it, comes from both sides of the DM’s screen. The players need to understand that even though an optimized character can be an asset to the party, it can also make impotent the challenges the DM creates. After a dozen toothless encounters, the game grows stale and eventually dies. Rule 0, when it comes to character creation (and I’ve said this before), if it smells like poop, it probably is poop. If you find some mechanical nugget that eliminates a rather sizeable chunk of game play (such as death) or wipes out a category of monsters (solos, minions), think carefully before choosing that option. As well, reverse rolls with the DM (who is also a player). As a player, you wouldn’t enjoy a game where every session, you have to spend one encounter dazed and weakened from start to finish, right? Why would the DM?
As a player, I try to walk back things that start to cross the line. In Josh’s Thursday campaign, my Battlemind became a problem because Conductive Defense is too strong against solos and elites when combined with the high-damage mark of our charasmadin. The moment both defenders were able to get on the boss guy, all his choices turned to crap. I replaced it with Demon Dance, which is far more situational and definitely less optimal. Do I feel bad about having to do this? Not at all. As players, we demand that the GM place the good of the game above their personal enjoyment. We shouldn’t expect anything less from the players.
[1] Schwalb is correct in stating that much of the gaming community’s understanding of degeneracy comes from Magic: the Gathering. I tend to look to Final Fantasy because it’s a roleplaying game.
The Evil GM 
Isn’t this just an extension of the ‘care and feeding of your gm’ discussion? I think his argument would come across as stronger if he dropped the “wa” and followed a more “play the more interesting, less optimized” direction. The case is there, sure, but Shwalb sounds too much like he is crying. I’m certain that wasn’t his goal.
We usually label that guy (the optimization whore) as an unfun douchebag and then human nature and peer pressure clean things up. This seems to produce good players the same way breaking a horse yeilds positive results. Is it wrong of us to allow human nature to do the job? Is it fair to expect a player to change if we are polite instead?
Yowch, that’s a pretty harsh reply (to Schwalb, not to me). I think it’s fair to say that, yes, this is an extension of my earlier posts on how the GM is as entitled as the players to enjoy the game. What Schwalb does, however, is discuss some of the specific behaviors that make the game less fun for us. I also enjoy his use of language. “Ur-decks” tickles my fancy.
I think what you’re missing, though, is the larger context. What you describe as “breaking a horse” is anthropological programming, where we use shaming and shunning (and sometimes outright abuse) to enforce behavior. I’m not going to lie and say that doesn’t happen at my table. Doesn’t mean I have to like it, though. What Schwalb and I are getting at is that the best tables foster a sense of interdependence between the GM and the players. Both sides have responsibilities, not just the GM. There was a phrase rattling around in my head, “The moment your GM feels like a game console is the moment your game starts to suck” but it felt awkward and heavy-handed. It is very true, though, that the idea that the players somehow owe less to the game than the GM is terribly corrosive, but that’s one of the legacies of 3.5/Pathfinder.
I’m trying to be fair and giving it another read through.
Alright, I’ve reread it.
I still hear a lot of crying, but I’m seeing more reason now.
I generally agree that the optimizing douche bag is not cool. I, however, believe that in most any case where reasonable players are involved the player will burn out on the mechanic and change it on their own. More mature players change it earlier. That is how character development works.
What I disagree with is how Shwalb says for players to think twice about choosing a power. How can you list brilliant ways to overcome broken mechanics and in the same breath tell the players to make their power choices based on the feelings of others? It sounds like he is crying because the players can keep up with his clever solutions. If it comes to an arms race for broken mechanics, then say something and end the race. That is proper table communication. Do not cry that players are building characters too well.
I think the comparisons to Magic are Brilliant because it’s true. Both games feed the nerd craving to find and exploit loopholes for the entertaining value of being powerful for 5 minutes. As young nerds, I think we all go through a phase where we learn how abuse can hurt people. Like a clever deck, there is nothing wrong in demonstrating how brilliant a mechanic exploit can be. It becomes wrong when you then abuse the exploit to hurt other players.
What I think Shwalb really needs to say is “hey, be mature players and don’t abuse those loopholes.”
On a related note, did you notice the “death saves every other Sunday” thing. I read this as Shwalb is already deep in the arms race with his players. Could he have made this post because he got too deep to handle it and wants out? What do you do when the GM’s version of fun does not line up with what the players enjoy? If the players were not enjoying it, don’t you think they might have already backed down?