Have gamers ever been tolerant?

[Painfully]

I usually just growl in place of my rants, but I think this might actually count more as an explanation for my viewpoint. It's kinda long and probably boring, so for my short answer just skip to the bottom.

Here goes:

A game where the characters possess a certain psychological depth appeals to role-players because of the complexity and variability it offers. Social interaction between PCs and NPCs offer much more richness to the perception of the world the PCs live in. Role-players want to explore the how's and why's behind NPCs and behind their current adventure. They want to understand the mission of various factions and organizations in their world. They think with a broader view upon the campaign world and all its connections.

Power gamers are focused much more narrowly on the rules, with an eye towards ways of squeezing that last ounce of advantage for their PCs. They could care less who their PCs mother was, unless she gave them a going away magic item to their young adventurous PC.

A good gamer should look to broaden their minds and try to include a little of both styles at the same time. It's when a gamer ignores one aspect completely that they handicapp themselves and are probably missing some of the fun.

Try it both ways, and then find your own happy middle ground.
----------------------------------------

A munchkin, to me, is someone who ignores most of the social role-play aspects of their PC. They are in effect, playing in a video game by always talking with the rulebooks and are ALWAYS in a power gamer mode of play. Does that make them a less mature RPG player? Personally, I think it does. If you want to power game all the time, go play Diablo II and get your next power weapon, so you can kill the next boss, so you can get more loot, so you can buy the next weapon, ad naseum.
At the other end of the spectrum you have actors and actresses. It certainly would be an interesting game, and I think I would object less so than with munchkins, but it wouldn't quite be D&D, now would it? If anybody knows a group of actors getting together for a D&D game, I'd sure like to watch though.

---------------------------------

Am I tolerant? If a munchkin is behind the DM shield and it isn't a one-shot adventure or convention game, probably not. I need to know the DM has at least a reasonable motivation for his NPC villains. Less experienced DMs (read immature) might not even think that far into their NPCs.

The DM really carries the tone of the game, whether role-play or power-game. Most find their middle ground and can please most players most of the time. When it comes to extremes, there will always be more conflict. Thus, munchkins invariably suck away what I like about D&D

Which isn't to say I didn't spend some time playing Diablo II, or enjoying an occassional "brawl" session for some mindless fun. But, for a D&D campaign, I expect a more sophisticated level of fun.

------------------------------------

The short answer:
I can still have munchkin friends, I just won't play D&D with them. It's sort of like having a gay friend, but not having sex with them.

 

[jgbrowning]

well

personally i only dislike one kind of gamer..

the one that makes it not-fun for the others.


doesn't matter, power-gamer, role-gamer..... what people really bitch about is the one that makes it un-fun.


joe b.

 

[Sammael99]

And all of this is nowhere near as bad as the "Dice are dead!" White Wolf zealots in the early 'nineties.

All the more ironic considering I never met as many power gamers as I did playing and GMing Vampire... Nothing to do with dice !

(Please guys, I love WW games too, don't flame !)

 

[Zappo]

I used to love being called a 'dungeon-crawling ROLL player' by folks with the words 'celerity' and '8th generation' written on their sheets.

That's nothing, I got called that by someone who played an Embraced mage (who somehow retained his magical powers, of course), and by someone else who played a vampire made cybernetic by the technocracy.

 

[Tsyr]

Like others have tried to say. This exists in everything.

In Anime you have the "Subtitles are the One True Path" crowd, the "Anime are never as good as the Manga" crowd, those who only watch what they deem "artistic" (Which tends to mean things like Perfect Blue while scorning people who dare to enjoy Ranma or Gundam Wing), and the crowd I belong to... live and let live unless you dare to like Dragonball Z.

The same goes for people who LARP, people who are involved in the SCA, people who read books of any nature, computer geeks, you name it.

The only way in in which gaming is unusualy untollerant is in the views outsiders express towards us... Sure, everyone might think the kid in highschool who sketches out C++ code on his napkins is "geeky", but normaly not "Devil worshiping potential-mass murderer seducter of children blah blah blah".

 

[Celtavian]

Re

If you were to see the characters I allow in my campaigns and my rolling system, you would think I was into power gaming. I am not.

I like to run story campaigns with alot of role-playing both during and after the gaming sections. I like to see the PC's fully develop characters with detailed backgrounds and actual lives. This is what playing an RPG is all about.

I don't like min-maxers, those are the worse people to play with to me. Why? I feel they create characters to maximize their power with thread bare reasons why they have chosen classes or feats. They ruin stories and make the game not fun for me to run.

I do like my players to have high stats and good magic items. They are the heroes of the campaign to me and supposed to be some of the most extraordinary people to walk within the world that I run. They should not have stats barely above commoners or even stats that a somewhat good person would have. They should have heroic stats that allow them to defeat unbelievably strong monsters that kill people who near their level.

It is not often that a PC in my campaign has less than two 18's and a stat lower than 12. I dont' want it unless someone is playing a concept where an exceptionally low stat is appropriate. I want to run Conan and Launcelot type heroes who rival the legendary characters of the world when they were young.

Some might look at what I do as Power gaming, but if they played in one of my campaigns, they would realize how strongly I emphasize role playing. For I believe that a Launcelot or Conan type hero must carry themselves in a Launcelot or Conan type manner. I expect them to live up to their superior abilities and join the ranks of legendary heroes.

Though I don't deride pure power gamers, I don't like those kinds of campaigns. I could probably enjoy a good role playing campaign, as long as the NPC heroes don't have stats and abilities far superior to my own. I want to be the hero not only by my deeds, but also because of my abilities. Other than that, I tend to run high-powered epic fantasy campaigns with epic type PC's with great stats and magic that involve alot of role playing and PC interaction with each other and the NPC's. That is what I enjoy best.

 

[Ashtal]

Teifling, I edited your post.

Don't do that again - and grow some sense. What you compared was uncomparable.

 

[Garmorn]

The only thing I have seen change in my 20 years of gaming are the terms and difinations used. At first there were two major deroagtory terms used. Munckins and Montyhaulers.

Munckins where ones one were disruptive of the game and broke the rules for their own selfish reason, or other wise where disruptive of the game. Montyhauleres where ones that had way to much gold.

While Munckins by using the orginal difinition could be called inmature, that difination was quickly losse and now has no precise difination.

Montyhauler was any one who got more treasure then you taught was the correct amount. Since there were little or no guidance to the approrate amount of treasure to hand out compare to 3rd Edition this led to a large variance between groups.

Powergamer is a relative new term. I first heard it after 3E came out.

A lot of the orginal arguments did not use lables like we do now, but they were no less meanspirited or out right rude as what we see today.

 

[Buttercup]

Most of the argumenativeness that you see has less to do with gaming than it does with internet culture. Have you ever spent any time on Usenet, Tiefling? People argue for the sheer joy of it. Newcomers are frequently savaged, and admiration is given to the poster who can flame with the most eloquence. I think the division you see springs from that history. RPers who frequent this or other internet forums want to have something to bang heads about, and the role-player vs powergamer is easy to hand. Still, ENWorld is a walk in the park compared to many internet fora.

 

[Furn_Darkside]

People argue for the sheer joy of it.

Yeah, it is a lot of fun to argue- but I agree with what you say on the Usenet. And argument for the sake of an argument is pretty sad.

As for the original question- there has always been who place a bit too much pride in their preferences. From races, classes, rp-style, dm-style, and even down to what rpg you play is up for scorn.

That is why I am never concerned about outside organizations targetting rpg's- until we treat each other with civility, we are our own worse enemy.

FD