I'd really like to hear that.
That was one of two parts of the episode where I disagreed hardly with you. Not with the idea that we need to help players scratch itches, but you said that the player was doing it "wrong." I don't think there is such a thing as wrong in an RPG. Nor do I think it is power gaming to create a characters 1-20 path. It gives the player an outline for the story he wants his character to have. He and the GM then fill in the details during play.
That btw is not why I want to hear the discussion, I just wanted to bring it up.

The other point was that a book full of combat meant combat was the point of the game. I had a whole argument lined up for this, but by the time I was done I had convinced myself you were right, at least about pathfinder. The point, that I still think might apply, is that combat is the most deserving of a large section. The main reason is that combat has the most immediate and often final consequences. If you fuck up in combat, your dead or at least badly injured. So you want a robust rules system so everyone thinks it's fair.

Something that I think might factor is that combat has discrete actions in a way social conflict might not. For example, A punch, thrust, 3 round burst, and chokehold are all actions that are easy to observe and separate. I feel like conversation has less of that, though it may simply be more obscured. We could define things like, laugh, smile, joke, disagree, shout, gesture, quote, ect as actions, but they aren't as separable as the above physical ones. As such defining their roles discretely may not make much sense.

What besides combat would you like to see fill a book?

i agree that at first it sounded like chad was planing a intervention like the player was a alcoholic, but chad's gaming philosophe is that it dos not meeter how you play, its "are you having fun" and not ruining the fun of others (chad pleas correct me if i am wrong i don't want to put words in your mouth) with that in mind and thinking about it for a wile it sounded more like he wanted to bring the players minmaxing into the game a different way and getting him more involved in the story and then perhaps he will find other things in the game to be exited about.

i played like that player for years in a d&d 3 with power gamers, minmaxers and Munchkin's the game was more about beating the DM and not any kind of story we anilised the books finding the feats and poers that let us create the dedlyest combat monsters and i had a lit of fun doing that for years and it toughed me a lot about that kind of gaming so i understand a little what motivates this player, i have moved past just filling in the boxis on the charecter sheet and looking at the persen i am making and how he effects the world around him, i am still a bit of a minmaxer but now i want to tell a story more then "beating the game".

My advise on the matter is if he isint hurting anyone with his charecter manigment then just leave him be and be thear to help him when he disides he wants somthing more out of the game, til then if it ant broke dont fix it.

as of now i have played two sessions of my new pathfinder game, playing through curse of the crimson throne. I played a lot of 3.5 it was a pretty easy jump back in as of playing nothing but 4th edition the last 2 years.

The oracle is working out pretty good. Haven't played a divine caster in a while and he is actually pretty tanking i have more hit points than the ranger. Group Make up is

Me Ancestor Shoanti Oracle.
Human ranger
Gnome alchemist.

For me i can really enjoy just about any game. If someone wants to run a Gurps game for me at fear the con I'll play it