Given that you are in a forum for people to talk about what's on my podcast...
The expectation is that I am answering questions that you have "after" you listen.
Um, good for you? Nice job dodging though.
You still have yet to demonstrate that you have the degree of ability required to get away with being a dick.
The rest of what this poster has said has been debunked but this needs covering:
Only in your dreams.
do they now. all of them? And that's how they all work?
(people hate when I do the whole Socratic thing because they don't get it. So here's the gist. these games are not like that. Fell free to research them and find out I'm telling the truth)
Faux intellectualism. Cute. But no, they are like that. Might not be as many books, but still more than 1.
Now correct me if I'm wrong. But you mean "different types of game" rather than "I don't know what the word meta means". If i am incorrect and you do want multiple games, please explain. otherwise...
That willful grasp at ignorance seems amazing to me because there are many reasons to play multiple games.
You just went full incoherent.
First playing multiple games refreshes and energizes you in different ways.
Second, you become a better gamer overall when you play multiple games.
It seems amazing that you would always want to play the same game. Why not have a variety?
Is there a reason for this? No curiosity? Don't like to think? Don't like new experiences?
No, no, takes too much time for the same or lesser benefit, and serves no productive purpose when finding one good meta, and working on that delivers the same or better results for less cost.
Meta is commonly used as shorthand for metagame. As in, things which aren't spelled out in the books which emerge from player discoveries or community preferences. An ability can be buffed or nerfed without changing, if a popular new ability counters it or is countered by it. For instance, in D&D, monsters with poison/paralysis/etc. attacks were nerfed by the introduction of undead and construct PC races.
Yes. An example of meta discoveries would be to learn that the role of the Cleric is to do anything EXCEPT heal, the role of the Fighter is just damage, the role of the Rogue is just damage, and the role of the Wizard is to do anything but damage. If you simply go by what the game tells you you should be doing you will be going about it all wrong, which is why it is necessary to read and understand everything to avoid the inevitable trap options. That's before getting into shifts that occur in actual play such as save or loses become biggest threat > everything bulks up saves > save or lose casters start dispelling or debuffing.
To BB, are you familiar with Risus? You will never need a splatbook for Risus, and a number of commerical games are basically more complex versions of the same system.
Haven't looked into it, but I don't have the time to play with new metas, and as I said before the other problem with such games is that no one plays them. Why gain information that I will not use?
I also find it interesting that he says you could have more fun playing x system, yet it does not occur to him that x system could very well be D&D. It's not WoD after all, so being objectively terrible isn't on the table.
Actually, for optimization ability, it does go up, after you get past the initial dip from going to an unfamiliar system. After your third or fourth system you start to develop more generally applicable insights across systems, to identify low-cost-high-effectiveness, and the primary resource constraints at a quick read. It wouldn't do much for particular systems you already mastered, but in general, you pick up optimization basics for every system faster.
The problem with that is that every system has its own set of assumptions. In one a given ability is amazing, and in another terrible. In one it's easy to get, in another near impossible. And then once you get it you have to figure out how good of a difference it makes.
The number of people that insist poison and precision damage are relevant in D&D are testaments to the fact that people are bad about finding the things that will stay relevant in the meta. And even when you consider those that aren't, well preconceived notions are going to work against you.
I also find it interesting that Josh claims he was in the top 5 of min maxers before doing his little thing. Out of what group? Because he has yet to demonstrate a single ounce of ability, whereas I know three people that can run circles around almost anyone here.
Even so though, there is an element of truth to his words, it's just in the entirely wrong context. All my talk of metas and getting swept and counters? That's not from D&D. It's not from any tabletop game either. Now this was purely coincidental - I worked on that meta a while, then got taught the D&D meta on a high level because I wanted to get into tabletop and other reasons. The interesting thing about it is that when people did notice my thought process and the reasons for it their responses to my using thought processes and terminology from another game were generally negative. As in even powergamers didn't like it when I broke things down as I did. I do think it helped, as taking in the right context there are similarities, but Pokemon isn't tabletop.
I think the core of the problem is that Josh is terrible at communication. Otherwise he'd have little trouble conveying both that he is an elitist prick, and that he has the skills to back that up.