| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Theorycrafting is by definition removing it from the context into "theory" of what if.
So, in your opinion theorycraftiung is as useful to gaming as theoretical physics is to the real world? Or computer modelling to the non-virtual world? To which my answer is, actually it's very useful when you get the parameters right.
It would be like me going to my boss and saying "What if children did exactly what we asked them to do, all the time."
Answer: I would have no job. But since that isn't going to happen, who cares.
I feel the same way about theorycraft.
That really depends on the "what ifs" you are working with. If you are working with realistic "what ifs" then it's useful for predicting what may happen. If you are working with unrealistic "what ifs" then garbage in, garbage out.
The problem is not with theorycrafting but with the theories you craft.
For example: "Monks are OK if you start with three 18's in your stats, let me show how this works..." is an unrealistic theorycrafting scenario. It proves nothing, save that monks need massive stats to function, and you are not going to get three 18's in the vast majority of games so what's the point in postulating it?
On the other hand, saying: "On 20 point-buy you have real difficulty getting a monk that is sufficiently strong in both offence and defence to be a viable threat to an enemy, and I'll prove it..." is a perfectly valid basis for theorycrafting because it is a very likely situation to arise - 20 point-buy is a frequently used standard, and the contention is easily confirmed or refuted.
|
1) How do you all have fun playing a game with so many problems (according to the forums)? Seriously, it's just complaining and arguing with some good stuff thrown in. If people have problems with so much of the design, why do so many people play it?
Never take anything on the internet seriously.
Most of the so-called problems are resolved by DM's simply house ruling solutions that fit their group.
|
Theorycrafting is by definition removing it from the context into "theory" of what if.So, in your opinion theorycraftiung is as useful to gaming as theoretical physics is to the real world? Or computer modelling to the non-virtual world? To which my answer is, actually it's very useful when you get the parameters right.
It would be like me going to my boss and saying "What if children did exactly what we asked them to do, all the time."
Answer: I would have no job. But since that isn't going to happen, who cares.
I feel the same way about theorycraft.
That really depends on the "what ifs" you are working with. If you are working with realistic "what ifs" then it's useful for predicting what may happen. If you are working with unrealistic "what ifs" then garbage in, garbage out.
The problem is not with theorycrafting but with the theories you craft.
For example: "Monks are OK if you start with three 18's in your stats, let me show how this works..." is an unrealistic theorycrafting scenario. It proves nothing, save that monks need massive stats to function, and you are not going to get three 18's in the vast majority of games so what's the point in postulating it?
On the other hand, saying: "On 20 point-buy you have real difficulty getting a monk that is sufficiently strong in both offence and defence to be a viable threat to an enemy, and I'll prove it..." is a perfectly valid basis for theorycrafting because it is a very likely situation to arise - 20 point-buy is a frequently used standard, and the contention is easily confirmed or refuted.
This isn't theoretical physics.
Your first example is what I would call theorycrafting and your second description is what I would call testable discussion.
I see a surplus of the former and a deficit of the later.
As a campaign solution to the whole SAD vs MAD (really a sliding scale), I switched to granting an Ability Score Point at the start of each level. Those focusing on a single high stat are not hurt, while the MAD can backfill weak spots. Since the initial points total 15 and better races cost points, most of the advancement comes from experience, not the starting line.
This is not my idea, I grabbed it off these boards.
By that, you mean it takes 4 levels of points to get from a 17 to an 18, and you can't get to a 20 at all from this?
This isn't theoretical physics.
Theoretical Physics is the attempt to define a set of rules that describe how the world works, and so create a theoretical simulation of reality.
A role playing game is an attempt to define a set of rules that enable us to simulate "reality" in a hypothetical world.
Very similar, no?
Your first example is what I would call theorycrafting and your second description is what I would call testable discussion.
I see a surplus of the former and a deficit of the later.
Ah, well then we are in agreement over everything but the definitions!
So i will say there is an Archetype for monk that is a beast and that is Zen archer and for one good reason. Wis to attack instead of Dex for a bow. So when I started I think I had a 14 dex just to get me by but when Zen Archery kicked in at level 3 things I did have trouble hitting are getting hit with regularity and with flurry of arrows things die quickly. I think if they would let you do something similar with the monk class in general it would be one less stat to focus on and really help out the class.
It isn't wis-to-hit that makes the zen archer so deadly but the fact that archery is an excelent combat form. In fact the zen archer isn't that much better, as an archer, than any other martial class focussing on archery - and most of them do a lot more besides archery.
May I interest you in my monk tests thread, though? I advocate wis-to-hit for monks as a fix for MAD, along with a few other boosts.
|
|
This isn't theoretical physics.Theoretical Physics is the attempt to define a set of rules that describe how the world works, and so create a theoretical simulation of reality.
A role playing game is an attempt to define a set of rules that enable us to simulate "reality" in a hypothetical world.
Very similar, no?
Not really.
Theoretical physics is attempting to find a solution to problems that have an answer. They are testing "theories" to see which one turns out to be correct, at which point they will cease to be theories and become laws.
You propose something and ask others to try and disprove it. It isn't "Describing". It is "Defining". Describing is how you may teach it, but that certainly isn't the goal. The goal is to find the answer, in large part by proposing a hypothesis and asking others to try and disprove it.
Theorycrafting is an attempt to manipulate "reality" to achieve an outcome, often by ignoring factors that don't lead toward the desired of the theorycrafter. Attempting to prove a hypothesis rather than attempting to disprove it, is the difference.
To respond to the original poster's concerns about being thrust into a year-long campaign using a possibly "broken" system, I suggest the following alternative:
Paizo is nice enough to make the PRD easily accessible for free online. Buy a one-shot module (or just download one of the free RPG day ones) and give it a go using the PRD. If you find the system broken you're only out the price of a single module and the time it took to run a gaming session or two. There's very little risk or long-term investment involved.
I think that if you sit down and try playing you'll find the fun outweighs any minor problems you may come across.
Theorycrafting is an attempt to manipulate "reality" to achieve an outcome, often by ignoring factors that don't lead toward the desired of the theorycrafter.
By your definition.
Attempting to prove a hypothesis rather than attempting to disprove it, is the difference.
To my point of view, you should always do BOTH - prove and falsify.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The whole purpose of a hypothesis is to try and disprove it.
Trying to prove what you believe is correct is the opposite of science.
Actually in science you do both:
First, gather evidence.
Second, formulate hypothesis to explain evidence.
Third, attempt to falsify hypothesis with available evidence.
Fourth, use hypothesis to make predictions.
Fifth, confirm predictions (or not).
Sixth, publish and get other scientists to falsify/prove.
Sometimes proof and falsification come the other way around, but that's how it works. Once your hypothesis has passed all the tests you and others can put it through, it becomes scientific theory.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1) How do you all have fun playing a game with so many problems (according to the forums)? Seriously, it's just complaining and arguing with some good stuff thrown in. If people have problems with so much of the design, why do so many people play it?
2)Developers: In looking through all the whining, it seems that Rogue, Fighter, and ESPECIALLY Monk seem to come up ALOT. I get not being able to please everyone all the time, but why have these not been updated or boosted when they seem to be pretty consistently lambasted? Any chance it's in the works?
I guess I'm just afraid to thrust my players into a year-long campaign in a game where someone could be doing next-to-nothing in 4 months compared to the other players or one person runs the group (besides the GM).
Forum complainers are generally the highly vocal MINORITY of people who play games.
I suggest trying an experiment: Play the game and don't look at the forums. If you have fun, you win.