Is it DnD, or MtG? (General Griping)

[fredramsey]

ANY game that uses stats and die rolls can be min/maxed, munchkined, abused, and played poorly. If you care to approach the subject logically.

[snip]

Of the various editions (3.5, 3.0, 2E + Options, 2E, 1E + UA, 1E, Basic/Expert/etc.., and the Diaglo Edition), which is easiest to Min/Max and manipulate? Which is easiest to discard actual roleplay in favor of using die rolls based on mechanics?

[snip]

 

[francisca]

I think that those that think that 3e is the ultimate munchkin's paradise that D&D has ever known have a very short memory.

Or, didn't allow the cheese then or now.

Thanks for the feedback.

 

[Psion]

That's interesting. Is that a quote from somebody on the design/devel team, message board conjecture, or something else? Seriously, I'm not trying to bust your nads.

I don't have an immediate cite, but I seem to recall being frustrated over several errata bits or changes in 3.5 that served no real purpose in a normal game but could be traced back to tournament play.

To hammer on this point again, munchkins thrive in the RPGA because the environment is different. GMs are required to "go by the book" and not close loopholes that a friday-night-game GM would slam shut in a heartbeat.

 

[diaglo]

Of the various editions (3.5, 3.0, 2E + Options, 2E, 1E + UA, 1E, Basic/Expert/etc.., and the Diaglo Edition), which is easiest to Min/Max and manipulate? Which is easiest to discard actual roleplay in favor of using die rolls based on mechanics?

balance is the key to the newer editions. there are more mechanics and more dice rolls. but.wrt min/maxing and manipulation..

my educated opinion on your question would be the Complete book of Elf fanciers series ala 2edADnD.

give the newer editions some more time. as they release many more (what should be softcovers) hardback supplements they will far surplant the 2edADnD stuff.

 

[Belen]

Honestly, I'd say 1e+UA or 2e+S&P.

Why is simple: they had lots of options that empowered you with minimal drawbacks. Free psionics. The cavalier. UA demihumans. Or in S&P, the cleric.

3e, by contrast, tries to make you pay for your abilities. I think that those that think that 3e is the ultimate munchkin's paradise that D&D has ever known have a very short memory.

I have a great memory for 2e s&p. I used it. It was no where near as effective as 3e. You can put up a 2e s&p character against a 3e character of equal level and the 2e character has their tale handed to them any day of the week.

Yes, 2e s&p and 1e UA were broken within the framework of their own systems, yet you could get away from that with a strict core rules approach.

In 3e, enough options exist within the core to seriouly min-max and have "optimal" builds. It is much more a part of the system.

Now, I love the options of 3e, but I think keeping the restrictions the will of the GM alone is bunk. Especially, when the rules, including the splats, are marketed as "balanced." Thus undercutting GMs who honestly believe that certain things are too powerful or do not fit well.

 

[francisca]

To hammer on this point again, munchkins thrive in the RPGA because the environment is different. GMs are required to "go by the book" and not close loopholes that a friday-night-game GM would slam shut in a heartbeat.

Yeah, I'm with you there. I think I pointed out in this thread the parallels between casual Magic:The Gathering play and organized, tournament play.

I am seeing (and will see tonight, I am sure) non-LG DMs not casting Hold Portal on those loopholes, however. But as I profess, if those guys are having fun, more power to them. I hope they keep buying every supplement ever printed in droves, so the RPG industry stays afloat and I can cherry pick the good stuff.

 

[francisca]

Yes, 2e s&p and 1e UA were broken within the framework of their own systems, yet you could get away from that with a strict core rules approach.

See, I quit D&D and all other RPGs in 86/87, and my groups never had much beyond the core + FF + MMII + D&DG. Completely skipped 2E. I picked up D&D again with a hard core 1E group in 1999. Having never experienced 2E, I can only compare 3E to 1E core and B/X/C, which is why I am asking.

From my standpoint, I think I'm glad I missed 2E.

 

[Belen]

I don't have an immediate cite, but I seem to recall being frustrated over several errata bits or changes in 3.5 that served no real purpose in a normal game but could be traced back to tournament play.

To hammer on this point again, munchkins thrive in the RPGA because the environment is different. GMs are required to "go by the book" and not close loopholes that a friday-night-game GM would slam shut in a heartbeat.

I did have a discussion on the old WOTC boards way back with some of the designers about the 3.5 changes and it is acceptable by RPGA people regarding the changes.

To the second part, I agree with Psion here (I know, wonder of wonders). However, I know a LOT of normal gamers that now insist on the "by the book" approach to avoid "bad calls" by the GM. They use the old arguments about earlier editions about GM whim yada yada to keep to a stricter approach to 3e that really hamstrings the GM.

Now, I no longer play with people like this, but they do exist, and in large numbers.

Heck, the "by the book" approach to gaming is why I will not touch the RPGA with a 10-foot reinforced steel pole with built-in lysol dispensers and nifty rubber gloves.

 

[Umbran]

But this is the same as saying "just because a calculator is available for calculus, doesn't mean you have to use it."

No, it isn't, because the analogy between the rules and a calculator is particularly weak.b A calculator is an instrument designed with one and only one purpopse in mind - calculation. The rules are designed with a great many different (and often competing and contradictory) purposes in mind.

If you want to play with any real chance of survivablility or use any new products(barring DM intervention), you'll need to follow the system, and not the concept or storyline you want (power attack chains vs Improved Critical is a good example).

If by "follow the system" you mean "must powergame and min-max", I must disagree.

Whether or not you survive depends upon what the fights are like. The DM chooses the encounters. So, if the other players are like you, choosing a bit of style over maximum effect, and the DM is with you, and chooses encounters fit for the characters, you'll survive if you aren't min-maxed, and everyone will have a good time.

If you try to play a sub-optimal character in a game where the DM and other players don't want to play that way, you have a problem. But that's a problem no system will ever be able to fix, because it's a mismatch of play-styles between people.

What I'm worried about is the situation that MtG has, mainy how quickly mechanics change with each set or edition, especially with 'if this new product comes out, how will it effect the base rules. The answer: change the rules'.

I don't see any evidence to support that worry. The mechanics of the game have been largely stable since the release of 3e. What changes were implemented with 3.5 generally made things more even, so that you had to worry less about min-maxing than before. And the changes in 3.5e were not motivated by what appeared in supplements, as far as I can tell.

 

[Psion]

I have a great memory for 2e s&p. I used it. It was no where near as effective as 3e. You can put up a 2e s&p character against a 3e character of equal level and the 2e character has their tale handed to them any day of the week.

I consider such a comparison meaningless, since 2e characters don't face 3e Orcs etc.

In 3e, enough options exist within the core to seriouly min-max and have "optimal" builds. It is much more a part of the system.

That's because it can (generally) afford to be. That options were massively overpowered in 2e was obvious. They were all done by freelances with little or no quality control and books tended to vary wildly from one to the next in approach, compatability, and power.

That said, I think all options (even supposedly approved ones) should be approached with caution. The level of compatability is higher and ECL and similar standards prevent some of the more obvious abuses. Now you just have to worry about more subtle abuses.

And more importantly, regardless of whether it was blessed off by WotC R&D, it won't necessarily match the playstyle of you and your group.

Now, I love the options of 3e, but I think keeping the restrictions the will of the GM alone is bunk. Especially, when the rules, including the splats, are marketed as "balanced."

I would hope most GMs would know better than to implicitly trust that something is going to fit into their game without scrutiny. That said, I trust people crying "unbalanced" at every turn (I won't name names...) with a bigger lick of salt than I do a publisher who is at least making an attempt to be balanced. (And hopefully if they don't, the reviews section will identify it.)