Wolfspider
Explorer
Exactly! They should make these rules available to those who want them. Others can safely ignore them, just as they can ignore psionics, the planes, etc.
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Epic Level: Worse than Role Master ?
- Thread starter Trainz
- Start date
- Status
Exactly! They should make these rules available to those who want them. Others can safely ignore them, just as they can ignore psionics, the planes, etc.
WanderingMonster
First Post
I don't know why this example was on the Wizards' site. Three things strike me as I read the article:
1. The author is admitting to "liberally" bending the 3e rules.
2. The author is not a designer for this product and claims not to have read the complete manuscript of the Epic Level Handbook.
3. WotC needs to remove this from their site if it is indeed, inaccurate, and may impact sales negatively.
1. The author is admitting to "liberally" bending the 3e rules.
2. The author is not a designer for this product and claims not to have read the complete manuscript of the Epic Level Handbook.
3. WotC needs to remove this from their site if it is indeed, inaccurate, and may impact sales negatively.
Sir Osis of Liver
Explorer
Whats the harm in wanting to contue playing characters, and haveing something to show for after 20th level. Hasn't everyone at one time or another had a character they had to ditch before they where ready just because thier level was too high?
The good thing about the ELH is that it should give those people the option to continue without power levels getting stupid. This the exact problem we're faceing in my groups current campaign, everyone really loves thier characters, and wants to continue, but nobody wants to play a god or superbeing.
There will always be people that take things too far, and not just in the munchkin tradition. In my experiance the other extreme is just as bad if not worse. the game is about playing adventurerers and heroes if you keep the power level suppressed too much, in fear of things being unrealistic, or out of fear of being a munchkin, them you will kill the fun just as quick as the 800th level game.
As a matter of fact i think i would rather be a munchkin, becuase at least they're probably still playing for the fun of it.
The good thing about the ELH is that it should give those people the option to continue without power levels getting stupid. This the exact problem we're faceing in my groups current campaign, everyone really loves thier characters, and wants to continue, but nobody wants to play a god or superbeing.
There will always be people that take things too far, and not just in the munchkin tradition. In my experiance the other extreme is just as bad if not worse. the game is about playing adventurerers and heroes if you keep the power level suppressed too much, in fear of things being unrealistic, or out of fear of being a munchkin, them you will kill the fun just as quick as the 800th level game.
As a matter of fact i think i would rather be a munchkin, becuase at least they're probably still playing for the fun of it.
PenguinKing
First Post
Re: The Tip of the Iceberg
- Sir Bob.
P.S. Nih!
You only think you have a point. Clue: rules-lawyers will always find something to lawyer, and twinks will always find a way to engage in twinkery. If your campaign baseline is "sickly peasant", somebody is going to find a way to play "veteran soldier" - and if your baseline is "Spiderman", somebody is going to find a way to play "Galacticus". It doesn't matter.your_mother said:
- Sir Bob.
P.S. Nih!
your_mother
Explorer
Re: Re: The Tip of the Iceberg
Well shiver me timbers and blow me down, thank you for your insightful and enlightened personal attack, Mr. LimberPants. I will take your opinion into consideration the next time I expres myself.
PenguinKing said:
Well shiver me timbers and blow me down, thank you for your insightful and enlightened personal attack, Mr. LimberPants. I will take your opinion into consideration the next time I expres myself.
Sir Osis of Liver
Explorer
Boy i can see this thread getting ugly. Maybe we should agree to disagree on whats powergaming and what isn't before things degenerate.
PenguinKing
First Post
Re: Re: Re: The Tip of the Iceberg
If you'd actually read further than the first sentence, you'd see that what I was saying was that your "point" about the promotion of munchkinism is no point at all - munchkinism doesn't need to be promoted, and in fact will arise even when actively discouraged by the system itself.
- Sir Bob.
P.S. Nih!
And here we see the standard response in this case - ignore the elaboration and respond only to the thesis statement; it's easier to attack an unsupported view, after all, even if the lack of support is manufactured by the respondant.your_mother said:
If you'd actually read further than the first sentence, you'd see that what I was saying was that your "point" about the promotion of munchkinism is no point at all - munchkinism doesn't need to be promoted, and in fact will arise even when actively discouraged by the system itself.
- Sir Bob.
P.S. Nih!
Last edited:
your_mother
Explorer
Re: Re: Re: Re: The Tip of the Iceberg
Nah. It's my standard response to someone that reacts with a personal attack to one of my posts.
If you want a more well-constructed response, perhaps you would do well to not attack someone personally while attempting to present a counter-point.
PenguinKing said:
Nah. It's my standard response to someone that reacts with a personal attack to one of my posts.
If you want a more well-constructed response, perhaps you would do well to not attack someone personally while attempting to present a counter-point.
PenguinKing
First Post
Sensitive, aren't we?
Fine. You want it spelled out in a totally impersonal, logical fashion? We can do that.
Here we go...
Proposition: Some roleplayers are not rules-lawyers or munchkins.
Proposition: Some of the aforementioned roleplayers have been exposed to roleplaying systems that could be said to promote rules-lawyering and/or munchkinism.
Proposition: This exposure did not cause all of aforesaid roleplayers to instantly transform into munchkins and rules laywers.
Conclusion: A roleplaying system alone cannot create a munchkin or rules laywer.
Conclusion: Munchkinism and rules lawyerism are pre-existing tendencies.
Is any part of that disputed?
Step two...
Proposition: No roleplaying system is sufficiently comprehensive to exclude the possibility of abuse.
Proposition: Munchkins and rules lawyers thrive on abusing rules.
Conclusion: All roleplaying systems will find themselves prey to munchkins and rules lawyers.
Is any part of that disputed?
Step three...
Proposition: The "power level" of settings and systems vary.
Proposition: The goal of the munchkin or rules lawyer is to exceed aforesaid "power level".
Conclusion: Munchkinism and rules lawyerism are relative to both the system and the setting.
Is any part of that disputed?
Finally, we bring this all together, with...
Proposition: Munchkins and rules lawyers exist independant of the game, system, or setting in question, as established in part 1.
Proposition: Munchkins and rules lawyers will find a way to thrive in any system, as established in part 2.
Proposition: A munchkin or rules lawyer seeks merely to exceed the baseline - i.e. playing a "veteran soldier" in a system where the baseline player character is a "sickly peasant", or playing "Superman" in a system where the basline player character is "Spider-Man" - as established in part 3.
Proposition: Roleplaying groups have a choice as to which individuals will join them (we'll assume, anyway).
Conclusion: As the construction of the system or the basline level of power to which it conforms is irrelevant to the success of the munchkin or rules lawyer, the logical way to prevent munchkinism and rules lawyerism is not to elimanate game systems that superficially appear to "promote" the aforesaid, but to simply not play with munchkins and rules lawyers.
Is any part of that disputed?
- Sir Bob.
P.S. Nih!
Fine. You want it spelled out in a totally impersonal, logical fashion? We can do that.
Here we go...
Proposition: Some roleplayers are not rules-lawyers or munchkins.
Proposition: Some of the aforementioned roleplayers have been exposed to roleplaying systems that could be said to promote rules-lawyering and/or munchkinism.
Proposition: This exposure did not cause all of aforesaid roleplayers to instantly transform into munchkins and rules laywers.
Conclusion: A roleplaying system alone cannot create a munchkin or rules laywer.
Conclusion: Munchkinism and rules lawyerism are pre-existing tendencies.
Is any part of that disputed?
Step two...
Proposition: No roleplaying system is sufficiently comprehensive to exclude the possibility of abuse.
Proposition: Munchkins and rules lawyers thrive on abusing rules.
Conclusion: All roleplaying systems will find themselves prey to munchkins and rules lawyers.
Is any part of that disputed?
Step three...
Proposition: The "power level" of settings and systems vary.
Proposition: The goal of the munchkin or rules lawyer is to exceed aforesaid "power level".
Conclusion: Munchkinism and rules lawyerism are relative to both the system and the setting.
Is any part of that disputed?
Finally, we bring this all together, with...
Proposition: Munchkins and rules lawyers exist independant of the game, system, or setting in question, as established in part 1.
Proposition: Munchkins and rules lawyers will find a way to thrive in any system, as established in part 2.
Proposition: A munchkin or rules lawyer seeks merely to exceed the baseline - i.e. playing a "veteran soldier" in a system where the baseline player character is a "sickly peasant", or playing "Superman" in a system where the basline player character is "Spider-Man" - as established in part 3.
Proposition: Roleplaying groups have a choice as to which individuals will join them (we'll assume, anyway).
Conclusion: As the construction of the system or the basline level of power to which it conforms is irrelevant to the success of the munchkin or rules lawyer, the logical way to prevent munchkinism and rules lawyerism is not to elimanate game systems that superficially appear to "promote" the aforesaid, but to simply not play with munchkins and rules lawyers.
Is any part of that disputed?
- Sir Bob.
P.S. Nih!
- Status
Similar Threads
