D&D 5E D&D compared to Bespoke Genre TTRPGs

[Ovinomancer]

I didn't read past this, just a quick glance, because, IMO, this is not accurate. It is a sliding scale not one or the other.

Well, that's a shame. You stopped reading because you formed an incorrect opinion about what I was saying, and have run with a response based on that. Of course there's a spectrum, I was commenting on the two different points on that spectrum you mentioned: somewhat harder combat and can't win combat. Thise were the point you said ypu used, I wasn't anywhere near claiming those as the only two points.

 

[Lanefan]

I think it's a pretty neutral term but to be fair, I've never met anyone remotely as indecisive as you're apparently portraying the vast majority of people you game with are, or who would even think that sort of behaviour was acceptable in themselves, so I accept there may be some pretty huge cultural differences here. I mean, honestly, what you're describing appals me - two hours to pick dinner?

I kid you not, I've seen people argue for a whole evening over what toppings to put on a pizza. (and in one case, then realize they'd argued for so long the place they were going to call had closed for the night).

Two weeks to pick a feat?

The way to solve this is hard-tie nearly all abilities to class (as in, if you're not playing that class then sorry, you can't have that ability) and lose nearly all chooseable feats.

If someone described me that way I'd feel pretty burned. Whereas someone calls me a power gamer? Who cares. I know if I am better than them, and I wouldn't consider it an insult anyway. Call me a munchkin, which I have never in my life been, and then we're talking insults. But you're saying for people you know, it's flipped, and like power gamer is extremely insulting, and yet "takes two weeks to pick a feat" is totally cool. I am I admit unable to even picture someone who would take even a few days to pick a feat who wouldn't meet my definition of "power gamer" (which is to say someone who invests significant effort in ensuring their character is mechanically effective, not just cool or fun-seeming or whatever).

To me munchkin and power-gamer mean pretty much the same thing. I'd rather not play with either, given the choice.

That said, if those players are having trouble choosing feats because they can't decide what best suits their character concepts, I have a lot more sympathy.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

That's one use of it, but I'd take a look at the second listing under Merriam-Webster before you assume its the only one.

That's a rather unconventional or archaic usage when used without an adjective, I'd suggest. If someone says "racial epithet", you know it'll be hateful, but you using epithet as a negative word without anything else is maybe the first time I've seen that in the last two decades.

As to the negative use of power-gamer--that goes all the way back to Glenn Blacow who originally popularized it; while he avowedly wanted to just use it to contrast with the other three styles he was presenting, it was abundantly clear he considered it a negative and that propagated outward. It was usually treated as a near synonym with "munchkin" (though the latter had connotations of lack of skill and/or cheating that the former didn't).

Glenn Blacow's 1980 definitions didn't survive contact with the enemy, though, and it was certainly dead as a doornail by the time I got into discussing it on the internet in 1992. Indeed if you read the full definitions, you can see, for example, what he calls "storytelling" is absolutely nothing like what people meant by the term later. Instead it's something closer to being "railroaded in a sandbox", with a weird melding of living world and metaplot concepts, as bizarre as that idea might seem. By the time I was around in 1992 you had a different set of four (now mostly gone from the internet) - usually the roleplayer, the power-gamer, real man, and the loonie. Sometimes one was replaced - often but not always the power-gamer by the munchkin, but where that happened the description was changed - "the munchkin" clearly had somewhat different habits and desires to "the power-gamer". By the mid-late 1990s "power-gamer" no longer even arguably met Blacow's "acquisition of power" definition, because games had moved on, and since the late '80s and early '90s games, including your HERO/Champions, were no longer about gaining power by finding stuff or taking stuff, but had much more potential in building powerful characters. Arguably this "de-fanged" the Blacow-style power-gamer and replaced him with a builder. In points-based games it was rare to have a situation where much power could be seized (and when it was true, like Diablerie in VtM, it was typically very risky), so the concerns he espoused basically evanesced.

To me munchkin and power-gamer mean pretty much the same thing. I'd rather not play with either, given the choice.

Interesting. I think this must be a generational or cultural thing. They were highly distinct by the time I was a teenager on the internet, but maybe that was because I was hanging out with Shadowrun fans.

 

[Thomas Shey]

The way to solve this is hard-tie nearly all abilities to class (as in, if you're not playing that class then sorry, you can't have that ability) and lose nearly all chooseable feats.

A cure immensely worse than the disease; the reason I left D&D for many years.

 

[Thomas Shey]

That's a rather unconventional or archaic usage when used without an adjective, I'd suggest. If someone says "racial epithet", you know it'll be hateful, but you using epithet as a negative word without anything else is maybe the first time I've seen that in the last two decades.

Its the usage I've seen more often than not.

Glenn Blacow's 1980 definitions didn't survive contact with the enemy, though, and it was certainly dead as a doornail by the time I got into discussing it on the internet in 1992.

I don't think they were as dead as you suggest; they were just primarily the pejorative usage, and such not usually applied by people to themselves. And, of course, the specifics of the Blacow version became obsolete when D&D wasn't the only game in town as you note. That's why you started seeing "minimaxer" as an alternative, since there were better ways to get the result even in games with gear.

Interesting. I think this must be a generational or cultural thing. They were highly distinct by the time I was a teenager on the internet, but maybe that was because I was hanging out with Shadowrun fans.

Well, that's entirely possible, but at least the use of power gamer as a derogatory was far from dead in the 90's.

 

[Thomas Shey]

[Really dumb double post.]

 

[dave2008]

Well, that's a shame. You stopped reading because you formed an incorrect opinion about what I was saying, and have run with a response based on that. Of course there's a spectrum, I was commenting on the two different points on that spectrum you mentioned: somewhat harder combat and can't win combat. Thise were the point you said ypu used, I wasn't anywhere near claiming those as the only two points.

I think we are confused, I never said anything about can't win. This is what I said:

IMO, the best way to decenter combat is to make it dangerous. We do that in a our standard campaign to some extent, but I turned the dials to 11 when I ran a Cthulhu adventure in 5e. That made combat really unattractive!

I said make combat more dangerous, that is it. I made it a lot more dangerous in my Cthulhu campaign, not can't win. So those two points where your invention, not mine.

 

[Lanefan]

A cure immensely worse than the disease; the reason I left D&D for many years.

If the problem is ongoing choice paralysis, best to get it out of the way once at the beginning when the players choose what class their characters are going to be. After that, clear sailing.

That, and I'm not all that big on 3e-5e-style mechanical fine-tune-customizaton of characters. Give me a basic class where locked-in abilities are gained as the levels go by and from there I can role-play the rest. Trying to have those role-played quirks and traits represented mechanically - and different for every character - just needlessly complicates things far too much.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I think we are confused, I never said anything about can't win. This is what I said:

I said make combat more dangerous, that is it. I made it a lot more dangerous in my Cthulhu campaign, not can't win. So those two points where your invention, not mine.

Turning the dial to 11 must have some different meaning for you than for me -- this is absolute maximum volume*. If "no win" is higher than what you're calling dial to 11, then you aren't at 11 yet.

But, interesting. You're saying that in your Cthulhu game the party had a chance to defeat Cthulhu in combat?

 

[Thomas Shey]

If the problem is ongoing choice paralysis, best to get it out of the way once at the beginning when the players choose what class their characters are going to be. After that, clear sailing.

I repeat; a cure worse than the disease. Decision paralysis is a problem, but that's not a good reason to largely eliminate any options other than the large blunt object of a fixed character class.

That, and I'm not all that big on 3e-5e-style mechanical fine-tune-customizaton of characters. Give me a basic class where locked-in abilities are gained as the levels go by and from there I can role-play the rest. Trying to have those role-played quirks and traits represented mechanically - and different for every character - just needlessly complicates things far too much.

That's you. OD&D amd AD*D c;asses were a straight jacket as far as I'm concerned. They were the biggest part of the reasons I had nothing to do with the system again until the 3e era, where, despite its problems, you actually could at least make an approximation of the character you wanted to play rather than the rigid set of abilities the class had.