D&D General Has the meaning of Roleplaying changed? my own thought.

[Ovinomancer]

IMHO, this CCG started with 3e and continued with 4e, whereas 5e strongly backed down from this in particular with the natural english rather than the jargon and the severely controlled power drift. Despite this, some people insist to play it as per the previous editions, still claiming that it's poorly written and deploring the lack of crunchy extensions with myriads of feats that could be exploited. For me, it's a bit of a paradox, but I don't lose a lot of sleep over it as I'm playing in a completely different style.

Sure, no one ever, ever min-maxed before 3e. I mean, min-maxing was a term I first learned during the 1e-2e changeover. But, sure, it's because of 3e and 4e and 5e saved it with natural language except for all those badwrongfunners.

 

[Oofta]

...
A side note: I think the current DnD, the 5th edition, is favoring too much what I call the "videogame approach". I feel like, compared to the old versions, now DnD is pushing more to satisfy players who min-max and want long dungeons, hitting monsters as they watch the numbers go up.

Funny how different people have different perspectives on things. I view 5E as being far less of a "videogame approach" than the previous two editions. If you think 5E is for min/maxers, I've got to wonder if you ever played 3.x. The difference between an optimal PC and an average PC was monumental. The numbers going up was one of the things they tried to avoid (not that it can be avoided altogether) in 5E with bounded accuracy. In 4E, getting +X weapons and magic items by level Y was explicit and built into the math of the game.

In any case, I think the game is what you make of it. My current home campaign is 14th level and no one has anything better than a +1 weapon, no magic armor although everybody does have a handful of uncommon items. The game works just fine with no more adjustments to the expected encounter threat than I have to apply for every group I've DMed for. Outside of a few monsters that they're hitting that are immune to non-magical weapons, I think they'd be doing just fine with no magic whatsoever.

In any case, that's off topic. Just noting that your perspective on it is completely different and that that's fine. Just like different people can have different perspectives on styles of role playing and what role playing means.

 

[Eyes of Nine]

I think DMing may have changed more than roleplaying, not the definition, but how people run games feels different these days compared to when I started in 2nd edition. Probably a discussion for a different thread though.

Start that thread.

 

[Lyxen]

Sure, no one ever, ever min-maxed before 3e. I mean, min-maxing was a term I first learned during the 1e-2e changeover.

There was a lot of powergaming, and sure AD&D also when munchkinism was defined. I actually played with the French archetype of Munchkinism, Gros Bill, for example. But that was mainly from items and abilities, and I would not have called it min-maxing, there were so few features to optimise, honestly. 3e brought in feats, and skills, and level dipping for features, ECL races, all the real features of min-maxing that did not exist before and really started it up.

But it's interesting that you started min-maxing for 2e...

But, sure, it's because of 3e and 4e and 5e saved it with natural language except for all those badwrongfunners.

You are the one saying it, not me. But please go on, explain to me how, as a minmaxer, you enjoy the clarity of the 5e rules, their lack of ambiguity and all the marvelous builds that you can create with all the incredible options coming out of all these technical sourcebooks.

 

[Older Beholder]

Start that thread.

I tried writing up a draft but it was a bit of a ramble and even I wasn't too sure what I was trying to say. Might try again when I get more time.

 

[Ovinomancer]

There was a lot of powergaming, and sure AD&D also when munchkinism was defined. I actually played with the French archetype of Munchkinism, Gros Bill, for example. But that was mainly from items and abilities, and I would not have called it min-maxing, there were so few features to optimise, honestly. 3e brought in feats, and skills, and level dipping for features, ECL races, all the real features of min-maxing that did not exist before and really started it up.

But it's interesting that you started min-maxing for 2e...

I learned the term, then. The table I played at was hot (meaning out of character speaking had to be called out -- everything else as assumed to be in character and tightly policed for metagming infractions via XP penalties applied instantly) and min/maxing was considered gauche. But you keep on with your assumptions, mate.

You are the one saying it, not me. But please go on, explain to me how, as a minmaxer, you enjoy the clarity of the 5e rules, their lack of ambiguity and all the marvelous builds that you can create with all the incredible options coming out of all these technical sourcebooks.

Dude, you're a peach! If you want min/maxing, just read the boards -- there are constant complaints over class combos that are broken or overpowered. Just because the game got rid of most of the trap options so the lows aren't useless doesn't mean that there's not plenty of room left to optimize. Currently, though, I'm playing a warlock hexblade, which most certainly isn't close to overpowered in any way but is rather functional as a gish at lower levels and has a higher intelligence than their dexterity.

But, even if I did enjoy minmaxing, it's part of the game landscape and has been so you shouldn't bin it as badwrongfun just because you prefer a different approach. I prefer a different approach, but don't think there's a single thing wrong with optimization, if that's your bag. I don't need to feel superior to other ways of play, I just need to find the way that I enjoy most and that doesn't involve dismissing others as lesser.

 

[Bill Zebub]

But, even if I did enjoy minmaxing, it's part of the game landscape and has been so you shouldn't bin it as badwrongfun just because you prefer a different approach. I prefer a different approach, but don't think there's a single thing wrong with optimization, if that's your bag. I don't need to feel superior to other ways of play, I just need to find the way that I enjoy most and that doesn't involve dismissing others as lesser.

Then what are you doing on the Internet? I'm confused.

 

[Lyxen]

I learned the term, then. The table I played at was hot (meaning out of character speaking had to be called out -- everything else as assumed to be in character and tightly policed for metagming infractions via XP penalties applied instantly) and min/maxing was considered gauche. But you keep on with your assumptions, mate.

Then be a bit more precise, and/or stop taking offense at everything I wrote. I explained to you why I think that powergaming was a thing during AD&D, whereas min-maxing was extremely limited back then and found interesting that you told me about it happening for 2e (because once again I don't see what there is to minmax in AD&D, with only six stats, no feats, no class powers, etc.), expecting that you would be providing details.

But instead you go on a rant. But if you want to discuss, please bring in arguments, it's a bit more constructive that unjustified rants.

Dude, you're a peach! If you want min/maxing, just read the boards -- there are constant complaints over class combos that are broken or overpowered. Just because the game got rid of most of the trap options so the lows aren't useless doesn't mean that there's not plenty of room left to optimize. Currently, though, I'm playing a warlock hexblade, which most certainly isn't close to overpowered in any way but is rather functional as a gish at lower levels and has a higher intelligence than their dexterity.

Oh, as per my first post, I don't deny that it still exists, I was merely asking how minmaxers reconciliate their constant complaints about the lack of clarity and options with the fact that they insist on doing it on an edition that is, IMHO, far less suited to it than some previous ones, or than other games out there. But since you don't seem to be one, just don't answer the question.

But, even if I did enjoy minmaxing, it's part of the game landscape and has been so you shouldn't bin it as badwrongfun just because you prefer a different approach. I prefer a different approach, but don't think there's a single thing wrong with optimization, if that's your bag. I don't need to feel superior to other ways of play, I just need to find the way that I enjoy most and that doesn't involve dismissing others as lesser.

And again, it's your opinion that it's badwrongfun, not mine, so it's good that you explain your position this clearly.

My opinion is that I don't do it in 5e (I grew tired of it with 3e), that it's a bit bizarre to insist doing it on a game/edition that is not suited for it while at the same time complaining that it's not suited to it, but that if people enjoy it, good for them.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Then be a bit more precise, and/or stop taking offense at everything I wrote. I explained to you why I think that powergaming was a thing during AD&D, whereas min-maxing was extremely limited back then and found interesting that you told me about it happening for 2e (because once again I don't see what there is to minmax in AD&D, with only six stats, no feats, no class powers, etc.), expecting that you would be providing details.

But instead you go on a rant. But if you want to discuss, please bring in arguments, it's a bit more constructive that unjustified rants.



Oh, as per my first post, I don't deny that it still exists, I was merely asking how minmaxers reconciliate their constant complaints about the lack of clarity and options with the fact that they insist on doing it on an edition that is, IMHO, far less suited to it than some previous ones, or than other games out there. But since you don't seem to be one, just don't answer the question.



And again, it's your opinion that it's badwrongfun, not mine, so it's good that you explain your position this clearly.

My opinion is that I don't do it in 5e (I grew tired of it with 3e), that it's a bit bizarre to insist doing it on a game/edition that is not suited for it while at the same time complaining that it's not suited to it, but that if people enjoy it, good for them.

Oh, good! I'm glad we can clear this up! I don't think optimization, or minmaxing, or powergaming, or munchkinism is at all badwrongfun, and in fact cheerfully support it as a great way to enjoy the game -- if that's your bag. Are you willing to make the same claim? That you fully support and encourage others to engage in powergaming to the maximum extent if they so desire, and that there is nothing at all wrong or poor about such wants or play? We can bury this hatchet right now if you endorse powergaming as a valid and fun way to play.

 

[Lyxen]

Oh, good! I'm glad we can clear this up! I don't think optimization, or minmaxing, or powergaming, or munchkinism is at all badwrongfun, and in fact cheerfully support it as a great way to enjoy the game -- if that's your bag. Are you willing to make the same claim? That you fully support and encourage others to engage in powergaming to the maximum extent if they so desire, and that there is nothing at all wrong or poor about such wants or play? We can bury this hatchet right now if you endorse powergaming as a valid and fun way to play.

Did I ever say anything to the contrary, in and of itself ? It's just that, as with any way to play (extreme "roleplaying" is another one for example), it's not something that you should impose on others, that's all. If you are open about your preferences and what you are doing, and people at your table agree that it's OK, then it's OK. But if they tell you that it's not OK, then it's not OK. Too many people around forums take it as an assumption that if it's allowed by the rules, then it's bad to forbid it. But extreme "roleplaying" is certainly not covered by the rules either, but you would still be a wangrod at most tables for imposing it.

As long as you are conscious that it's a playstyle, and as long as you don't want to enforce it on a community, whether online or at a table, then it's fine. Never said anything different.