The times, are they a-changin?

[Imperialus]

And thank God that crap is over with.

/doesn't miss being told that I'm having 'badwrongfun'.
// and "roll-playing"? Is it 1992 again?

Well back in 1984 I was told that I was having "double plus un-fun" with my character.

 

[Psion]

// and "roll-playing"? Is it 1992 again?

Indeed. I used to have my feelings about this particular turn of a phrase in my sig. I took it out, feeling I had made my point, but it still bears repeating, obviously. Using the term "roll-playing" is not funny or clever anymore (if it ever was). In fact, I find it quite the opposite.


On to the topic in general, and to expound on my prior post.

Munchkin is a derogatory term, and it has meaning to me. But I think all too many people invoke it casually. To me, munchkinistic behavior is when a player makes a character that exploits the rules in a singleminded search for power without regard to impact to the game, to include the enjoyment of others, credibility of the rulings involved, feeling of consistency or creativity of the character in the context of the setting.

But merely playing tactically or making a competant character is not only tolerable, it is an expected and enjoyable aspect of the game, IMO.

 

[Thotas]

I'm glad to see the rejection of the "roll-playing vs. role-playing" joke. Because, though not everyone seems to have gotten the world yet, it's a false dichotomy whose time is up. It's an x-axis and a y-axis, not a zero-sum quantity.

One thing every player character has in common is that for some reason, they go into dangerous places on a regular basis. It's assumed that the vast majority of them do this with the desire to come back alive and in tact. It's reasonable to therefore create them with the assumption that they went out of their way to learn skills and gain powers that will help toward this end. A degree of min-maxing is just roleplaying your character's will to live.

 

[Ogrork the Mighty]

Over the years, I think D&D has become more rules-oriented vs. role-playing oriented simply b/c the vacuum of rules has steadily been filled. In the early days there weren't a lot of rules to bog down heroic, imaginative styles of play. Now there is. That doesn't mean you can't still have heroic, imaginative styles of play but it does mean there's a lot more steps involved now than ever before. Whether that's good or bad, I dunno. There is some benefit to just winging it for lack of rules, but it's also nice to have rules for specific situations.

One thing I will say is that D&D has been much better at developing rules than it has been at developing role-playing. Increasingly I meet gamers who think D&D is nothing more than Diablo/Warcraft/whatever on paper. Ask them to tell you about their character's motivation or background and they'll look at you like it's a trick question.

I think the problem with teaching role-playing is that it doesn't lend itself to rulebooks as well as mechanical rules do. You really need someone dramatic and imaginative to teach others how to role-play well (often simply by seeing RP in action).

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

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.

The 3E rules embraced everyones inner desire for the purely tactical, purely mechanical. Since the mechanics aspect of the game is part and parcel to it (and even disregarding the roleplaying aspects of it can be a viable way to approach the game) they endeavored to put an end to lingering arguments directly pitting the roll vs. role sides of the debate about which is BETTER. With the "Rules Mastery" idea they acknowledged that since "working the rules" could never be outlawed as such they'd do better to adopt the practice wholeheartedly as part of the game itself. It had the advantage (along with the rules changes themselves) of being able to provide a definitive answer to virtually every purely mechanical question.

IMO WotC has now gone too far and have come to effectively promote the "roll" over the "role" part of the game. I can understand why, of course - it's the dark side. It's quicker, easier, and more seductive to concern yourself with the purely mechanical side of the game, whereas the actual roleplaying part of the game cannot be narrowly defined, categorized, analyzed, boxed up and presented in unarguable, definitive answers as purely rules questions can. If someone asks, "Explain how/why rule X works with rule Y," (a rules question) the answer is really pretty easy to logically derive. If someone asks, "Explain why this character would want to do X or Y," (a roleplaying question)the answer becomes vastly more subjective and quickly delves into areas that are not reduceable to logical, mechanical dictates.

Roleplaying can make use of rules options but that's not what it's about. It delves into motivation, personality, plot, character, story, etc. - things which rules do not decide for you. Such things can be discussed and debated but they can't provide THE ANSWER.

So, while the non hard-rules aspects of the game are not by any means gone they have become MUCH less what the game is about from an official standpoint because it's so much easier and more productive to focus on just the crunch instead of the fluff. I just think it's a mistake to do so, as much as it's a mistake to deny that the purely tactical is ALSO an important part of the game. It's BOTH. People may prefer one aspect of the game over the other which is all well and good, but I'm of the opinion that the two need to be stressed EQUALLY and at all times, even though one of them can't be quantified like the other. For every hard-rules related question they answer they need to make it understood that ROLEplaying can, and even sometimes SHOULD make the hard-rules answer irrelevant. You can make up your OWN rules, draw your OWN conclusions, and emphasize or discourage any part of the game you want. Officially though it should be neither just a tactical exercise, nor a mere free-form improvisational exercise. It's both, equally.

 

[Sholari]

I'm glad to see the rejection of the "roll-playing vs. role-playing" joke. Because, though not everyone seems to have gotten the world yet, it's a false dichotomy whose time is up. It's an x-axis and a y-axis, not a zero-sum quantity.

I don't think anyone disagrees with you on this. I think the point that is being made is it is extrememly high on one axis and extremely low on the other. The ruleset and tactics are great, however, the roleplaying is lacking in most cases.

 

[scourger]

Over the editions, I see more min/maxing (munchkinism, roll-playing or whatever you want to call it) with more rules inflation. I stick to pretty much a core game to keep it at a minimum. I don't think it's necessarily a negative to min/max. I think the 2e DMG said a little of it is a good thing since it shows the player has an interest in the character.

What bothers me are the min/maxers in roleplayers clothing. I've seen more and more players who claim to be roleplayers but who are really min/maxers. For example, they see which combination of abilities/race/class(es)/etc. work to the most (perceived) tactical advantage and then build a character concept around it in story terms and call it roleplaying. And then, they want their player knowledge to equate to character knowledge--without pesky little things like "wasting" skill points in knowledge skills.

I also think the d20 system gets too complicated too fast. It is manageable at low levels, but the complexity is too much at higher levels; especially with prevalent magic. To me, the game becomes too much an arms race in a war of attrition. I guess it always was, but the increased options in the current version make it more so (and more like a computer RPG). These factors probably contribute to the rise of more min/maxing at the expense of roleplay.

 

[Templeton580]

*

 

[Ourph]

The more defined a game system becomes mechanically, the less likely a semantic solution to an obstacle will be broadly acceptable.

Quoted for truth!

Most of the gaming I enjoy and that the groups I play with engage in would probably fall clearly on the Gamist/"rollplaying"/tactical side of things. However, our approach to challenge confrontation is focused strongly on maximizing in-milieu advantages, rather than maximizing metagame advantages (i.e. - in character scouting and strategy, rather than creating a really powerful character "build"). We still have a problem with rules-lawyers, munchkins, min/maxers, powergamers (whatever label you want to slap on them) because for the most part those terms are just pseudonyms for "people who don't fit with our playstyle".

A perfect example occured a few months ago when a new player joined a game I played in at the FLGS. Character creation called for 3d6 in order with 2 points switchable between Str, Dex, Int or Wis and your PR. We were playing B/X D&D, so we rolled for HP at 1st level. The group ranged in level from 3-5, but all new players started at level 1. The new guy was very uncomfortable playing this way. The character he brought to the table hoping to play was a monster 5th level Elf with max HPs (I computed his ability scores according to the 3e point buy system and he had a 55 point character! The character with the best ability score range in the group at that point had the equivalent of a 28 point character). He was really upset when he was told he'd have to create a new character on the spot that fit in more with the power-level of the group.

Now, I don't pass judgement on the way this guy approaches the game, but it was obvious that (in a group that specifically limited the power level of PCs in order to increase the challenge level) he felt out of place and wasn't really into approaching the challenge of the game from the same perspective as the rest of the people playing. So, to me that guy is a "munchkin", but again, that's just shorthand for 'his approach to the game is significantly different than mine'. If he could find a group that played the game in a similar manner, I'd be happy to see them having fun in whatever manner suited them. I just don't want some sort of gamer culture of "political correctness" to force me to accept his play style as valid within my own game (where his play style would be extremely disruptive). YMMV.

 

[Abstraction]

Eh. I just remind myself that the people online are those that specifically go to the internet on their spare time to talk about D&D. In other words, hardcore geeks. Like any geeks, we love to argue the finicky points. In D&D the finicky points are rules.

What I see in actual gameplay bears little resemblance to what I talk about on the boards. YMMV.