The times, are they a-changin?

[Dannyalcatraz]

And, for the record, the current system REWARDS "min-maxing" and "munchkin-type" behaviors with the way some of the PrCls are designed. I mean, there's a PrCl that virtually requrires the PC be a Paladin/Rogue!

 

[ThirdWizard]

Is there a system that doesn't reward min-maxing? (I'm actually curious.)

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I've encountered systems in which every decision (in character generation) is a tradeoff...usually some kind of point based system, like GURPS or HERO.

If you min-max too much, your PC won't be vaiable.

 

[SweeneyTodd]

I agree with you. I tune in to ENWorld for some great threads, but I have to dig carefully past a whole lot of rules discussions to get to things I can actually use (since I don't run my games with D20).

I think one of the reasons that rules elements are discussed so heavily here is that they're a kind of shared experience. Someone can raise a rules-related question, and there's lots of people here with experience on the topic. A lot more people have opinions about the relative power level of different classes than have opinions about something non-rules related in your game.

I do wish there was more discussion about the human factors involved in roleplaying -- especially because so many threads about dysfunctional people issues in games talk about the issue in rules terms, when I don't think that gets to the heart of the matter. But I think it's wonderful that people can get together online and geek out about rules issues -- it's very entertaining for those who enjoy it. Just not my cup of tea, is all.

I'm not sure why someone would think the question constitutes trolling, though. If you're comfortable with detailed rules, and enjoy discussing them, why would someone mentioning the fact that you do that be considered insulting?

 

[ThirdWizard]

I've encountered systems in which every decision (in character generation) is a tradeoff...usually some kind of point based system, like GURPS or HERO.

If you min-max too much, your PC won't be vaiable.

I've always found point based systems to be easy to min/max.
This is countered by a GM throwing out varied situations where the PC can't always take advantage of their maxedness, but that works in any system, and it requires a GM that knows what they're doing (I want to find a system that requires that ). I found 2E easier to min/max post Player's Options, as a D&D example.


As for why there arn't a lot of roleplaying threads... Well they usually turn into alignment debates (which further devolve into Paladin debates...). Now this isn't a jab at the alignment system, its just that in order to find common ground its easy to fall into alignment. It's much more difficult to give a detailed psychoanalysys of one's character than it is to say "he's a chaotic good ranger." And, alignment debates get old fast (at least for most people who don't carry it 10 pages!).

Besides, most of us are pretty good at roleplaying so there's not much to discuss. We all know our characters better than anyone else on these boards, so it is difficult to find input on roleplaying decisions on a message board. I find that I discuss roleplaying with my group (directions characters should take, what they think of situations, etc) far better than I could on any message board because we all know the characters. It makes it difficult to go into anything really detailed and specific. Generalities don't go nearly as far in discussion.

There have been some good threads, though. There are lots of interesting ideas brought up on these boards daily, and I've stolen more than one thing I've seen here. Many more!

 

[S'mon]

I think you're right, I think the 3.5 rules explicitly changed the emphasis of the game - look at the 3.5 PHB intro where it says D&D is a game of tactics & skill, not just "roleplaying".

 

[Dryfus]

min-max/munchkin/ruleslayers

I think the muchkin thing isn't necissarily(sp??), any better/worse than it was before. I find where the problems start are when a munchkin/min-maxer plays in a group that "role-plays" or visa-versa. I've played in games where everyone was a "role-plyer", and they were really fun. But I have had an equal amount of fun playing where everyone was a "munchkin". it's all play style and if the two are present at the same table.

Just my $.02

 

[MerricB]

I think you're right, I think the 3.5 rules explicitly changed the emphasis of the game - look at the 3.5 PHB intro where it says D&D is a game of tactics & skill, not just "roleplaying".

Yeah. "White Plume Mountain", "Against the Giants" and "Ghost Tower of Inverness" really have changed the dynamic of 3.5e... hey, wait a minute.

D&D is a game. As a game, tactics and skill have always had a large part to play in it. What makes D&D special is that it also allows role-playing, but nothing in any edition of D&D stops that; it is inherent to the type of game it is.

Consider that in the introduction to the AD&D PHB, Gary Gygax talks about his efforts to further balance the game: "The characters and races from which the players select are carefully thought out and balance to give each a distinct and different approach to the challenges posed by the game... Clerics and fighters have been strengthened in relation to magic-users, though not overly so..."

Cheers!

 

[Sholari]

Now it doesn't seem like people who post about how to trick out characters are put down like they would be in old days.

I'd agree that I have seen this as well. I think it corresponds with the Pokemon/Anime generation of roleplayers coming into their own. Even the RPG magazine covers are a lot more anime-like compared to how they used to be. If you look at computer games as well, there are very few good roleplaying games with good story arcs that aren't massively multiplayer. You have to look at people's sources of inspiration. For original RPing it was Tolkein and so a lot more story based. Now you see people talking about bosses (obvious combat computer game reference), more people are running around with animal companions (Pokemon), fast leveling up (combat computer games), etc. They don't see anything wrong with it, because that is what they grew up with.

The other reason is a reaction to the Dragonlance-generation of module design where players were railroaded to death. Modules were pretty popular up to that point. However, after that modules became very generic and linear. The result was people stopped using them because these 2nd gen modules were not popular with players and so they began to run their campaigns without them. Because there was at least 10+ years of crappy modules, I think people got the thought that module equals bad. Because many DMs couldn't put together any great story lines, they fell back on player-directed story or more combat-oriented games.

I'm hoping the next generation of roleplayers have some more balanced influences.

 

[Glyfair]

Out of the three terms you mention, I think "min-maxer" is the only one that still carries a little negative weight. Munchkinism might still ruffle some feathers but personally, rules lawyer has lost a lot of it negative connotation.

I think part of the bit about "rules lawyer" is that there are different flavors of the term. Someone who knows the rules is a "rules lawyer" in the neutral sense. Someone who knows the rules to design new and interesting rules systems is a "rules lawyer" in the positive sense. Someone who uses every loophole in the rules to squeak every advantage for his character from the DM and other players in the game is a "rules lawyer" in the bad sense.