The times, are they a-changin?

[EricNoah]

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

Definitely -- a person with a lot of rules questions, for example, might be a great roleplayer; and maybe he just doesn't feel the need to talk about that aspect of the game. You don't get any kind of real sense of what his games might be like. Which is another reason that passing judgement on people for their style of play is utter foolishness.

 

[Ogrork the Mighty]

Which is another reason that passing judgement on people for their style of play is utter foolishness.

True. But passing judgement on people's style of play is not.

 

[storyguide3]

True. But passing judgement on people's style of play is not.

Yes. Then it's just elitism.

 

[Sholari]

Yes. Then it's just elitism.

Not necessarilly. I think it is more a criticism that the byproduct of the current system is a focus on mechanics to the detriment of story development. If the intent is to feel superior, then it would be elitism, however, I think the intent is to lodge a complaint on an area, which is really lacking in roleplaying these days.

 

[apesamongus]

What I said here was a statement of what I've seen, nothing more, nothing less. I'm just sharing the data I've compiled, and I want to see if the data you've compiled corroborates with mine.

Bull. Everything about your post is slanted and prejudicial.

 

[MonkeyDragon]

As far as the original question goes, I think it just depends on how you define each term, which of course will vary from person to person. This is how *I* feel about these terms.

Min-maxer. Eh. Go for it. To me, this is a person who fiddles with the minutae of his character to get the most possible juice out of him. Feat chains are optimized, skill points are very carefully distributed, and races and class levels are chosen to compliment each other in an optimal way. The min-maxer, for example, will not put two skill points into Profession: baking just because his character likes to cook. He's got more important places to put those points. In my experience, a min-maxer will not put AS much effort into his character's history or personality, because the character is less of a person, and more of a carefully designed set of abilities and numbers. He will not describe his character as "so and so, fabled warrior of such and such, the beloved son of whos his head, on a path of sworn vengence against the whatevers that did something to somebody he loved!" Instead it will be "This is somebody, my race/classX/ClassY/ClassZ. He has a +36 listen check and can deal 67 damage in one attack." There are varying levels of min maxing, of course, and frankly, you need at least a little of it to survive in such a rules-heavy game as 3.5. This is not the approach I take to the game, and I find it a tiny bit befuddling, but if that's your schtick, then good for you.

Power gamer. This one wasn't in the list, but I think it's related. The power gamer wants stuff. Lots of stuff. She'll build her character to get the most power she can out of her. She might also be a min-maxer, or she might play something a little more straightforward in order to do some major excelling in one area. The power gamer is happiest when she's swimming in ubercool items and gets to level fast and get MORE power and goodies. She desire to smash things big time, but may be as interested in building an interesting character as much as anyone else. She will, however, be unhappy if not allowed to pull out all the stops on a uber statted, item wielding, templated, maxed hp character.

Rules Lawyer. I abhor rules lawyering. To me, a lawyer is someone who lets the rules get in the way of the game. Everything has to be JUST SO according to the book, and will call out anyone, from the DM to other players, if things aren't right. Lawyers will argue with you on any call you make. You can't make calls on the fly, because they'll argue those, too. And don't even think about glossing over the mechanics of something for the sake of the story. Mind you, I don't like it when DMs disallow the players from using the rules to their advantage just to further their plots, but still. There's got to be some leeway for flavor. They'll mole out the other party members. Worse, they twist the rules to get them what they want. Don't get me wrong. Knowing the rules well and pointing them out when they're not being followed isn't a bad thing. I myself am not terribly well-versed in the rules, so I like being able to ask my players about the details of something before making a ruling. In my circle, however, we refer to this knowledgable person as the rules B**ch, not a lawyer.

Finally, munchkins. I think munchkins are the most dangerous of the gamer breeds. The munchkin is the person with four templates. The munchkin will try to swim up the waterfall. The munchkin will call the king names. I define a munchkin as someone who wants it all. They want the attention. The cool but rediculous items. They want to be bigger and better and more awesomer than everyone else. They'll bend the rules as far as they can to get away with whatever they can. They metagame in a scandelous manner. And the munchkin is the most likely to do something stupid, mean, or detrimental to the party and whine "but that's what my character would do!" They have the least concern for messing up the game or the fun of the other players for the sake of having a good time themselves.

So, in my book, min maxers and power gamers are ok. Not my speed, but nothing wrong with them. Lawyer and munchkin behavoir, though, is ungood and unfun to have around. Obviously, the definitions are pretty subjective, so some may disagree, but that's what goes through my head.

 

[Sanguinemetaldawn]

A new trend...?

I know this is a dangerous area to get into. Despite my post count I've been around RPG message boards (longer than some of you may imagine) and I know how easily a flamewar on this very topic can start.

Not sure if this should be a different topic...

The questions you ask here raise an issue I saw in-game yesterday...

Our party was in a combat that included an enemy warrior/rogue type and a mage. The DM states the mage is moving to a position such that 2 characters are in a straight line for the lightning bolt she is about to fire. Now there are no obstructions/cover/concealment or anthing like that along the 80' line that would be drawn from caster, through first target, and through second target.

One of the players argued that because of the position of the 2 targets and the layout of the grid, the caster could not occupy a square that put the 2 targets along in a straight casting line.

Now you can criticize the player as much as you like, but he isn't rules lawyering, he saw it as "following the rules".


My opinion that is beginning to form is that 3E D&D is great for people played previous versions of D&D and want more rules specificity/clarity. The thing is, such players and DMs incorporate unwritten conventions and understandings.

The second part of this opinion is that 3E is very very Bad for people learning D&D for the first time. Its not just the flood of complexity as a barrier to entry. Its also "rules thinking", as in: rules trump common sense.

Unless I am gravely mistaken, this was never the way of earlier editions. The rules were attempting to emulate reality. This meant (and everyone understood) common sense overrides the rules. Make a common sense argument to the DM and it would be accepted, and he would rule on the situation based on the argument.

This wasn't just for conflict questions either. This applied to character creation. If you had interesting character concept that didn't fit the rules, you talked to your DM about it and worked up something new.



What I saw yesterday is true, classical "rules lawyering", that is: rules trump reality and common sense, i.e. "The rules say *blank*, so even if in this situation it makes no sense whatsoever and everyone thinks its BS, you have to do it this way. Because of the rules."

This of course returns to the question posed by the OP.

When I was discussing the issue with my fellow player my statement was simple:

"Two points give you a line. The caster moves onto that line, and casts the spell...its that simple."

His argument was:

"If I have to follow the rules, so do they. They don't get to break the rules just because he is DM controlled. The caster has to occupy a square. She can't be partly in one and partly in another, just so she can hit both targets."

The tone of his argument indicated he considered that cheating. Leaving aside the ridiculousness of it...I think there is a kind of unspoken resentment of the rules...along the lines of: "I have to follow the rules (and if I have to, so do you)."



I think a core ruleset is necessary, simply because people need some kind of shared baseline to work from. Without that, what you get is total chaos, as people invent all kinds of different rules, and you end up with each participant having totally different "rules" for even the simplest task resolution....Player 1: "I think *this* is how we should do this" Player 2: "No, we should do it *this* way"

But even understanding the rules so that you can play a single session of the game requires an investment of time and energy. After being essentially forced to conform to rules (a LOT of complex and interconnected rules) in order to play, some players likely resent being told other characters *don't* have to conform to the rules..."That's cheating".

Then it gets ugly when "My rules fu is the best!" pops up, and the game is subverted into a male dominance contest for, as Ab3 called it in Achy Breaky Mythos, "establishment of the alpha geek".


Yes, I know rules-alpha-geek-ism (rules lawyering) is a problem with the player, but the tons of complex rules give them more ammunition and encourage them.

And complex rules that try (and inevitably fail) to cover reality can end up turning people into "rules-adherents" who otherwise wouldn't be.

I think this is the real change between 3E and previous editions. In previous editions, everyone understood that the rules simply could not perfectly simulate reality, and overrule by common sense was expected.

This is no longer true.
There is an implied sense (at least with new players) that 3E D&D does simulate reality (because there is a rule for everything), and to not follow the rules is cheating. This creates the new class of rules guys I mentioned above "rules adherents". People who think you have to follow the rules because not doing so would be cheating, or disrupt game balance, or whatever.

 

[Silverleaf]

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

Yeah, CoC. You're all going to die anyway, how strong/smart/fast you are is just an illusion to make you feel better. It won't help you though. Running away might, but by the time you think to do that you've already seen too much.

Anyway, I think AD&D 1e started the min-maxing trend, because it veered away from the standard 3d6 chargen, and altered the stat bonus/penalty brackets so that one needed much better stats to get any kind of benefit, or in some cases simply to avoid getting a penalty (frex, clerics with only average WIS suffered a chance of spell failure). And then there were classes like paladin, ranger, illusionist, etc. that had some hefty prerequisites. The UA book went even further in that direction, and even proposed more "heroic" chargen methods, and some folks probably got accustomed to PCs with averages scores of 16.

And that's all really bad news in my book, and it's one of the reasons I don't play AD&D anymore. At least in Basic D&D a PC with ability scores of 9/9/9/9/9/9 can be any of the four main classes and not incur any penalties (9-12 scores gave no adjustment). There is less incentive to min-max because you can have a competent character without doing so. People will still generally run a fighter if they rolled highest in STR, or a cleric if they rolled highest in WIS, but that's pretty much the extent of min-maxing that takes place, and it's not all that bad really. If some guy fights all day he's going to become strong. If he meditates/prays all day, he's going to become wise, etc. The reverse works too: he became a fighter because he was strong, or a cleric because he was wise.

But although that works fine in broad strokes, it feels pretty artificial and contrived when you start tweaking your stats, feats, skills and everything else to obtain the most "powerful" character you can. Some might say that it's your duty to make the PC as powerful as possible or he will be a "liability" to the group. Frankly, those people don't belong at the same table as me as we have completely different ideas of what D&D is about...

 

[I'm A Banana]

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.

I'm pretty neutral on the whole thespain/gearhead axis of D&D, but this seems really WRONG to me.

It's a lot harder to derive answers to rules questions because the rules are only an interpretation of the way this fantastic world works. It's harder for a DM to freehand judge the effect of a given bonus or die roll. Which is why the rules exist in the first place -- the work has been done for you, and you don't need to worry about it.

The character motive is an EASY question. I mean, perhaps it's just because I'm an actor, but I can pull any kind of archetypal or complex motive from my rear just by thinking about it for 30 seconds. Human desire and reason are pretty transparent things, or at least they should be in a game where you're playing an elf who shoots fire from his fingers. I don't need people on a message board telling me why Gwyfayri the Fair is somehow a unique and special snowflake because he adventures to show his Father (who wanted him to be a Fighter and not a Wizard) that he's still a worthy successor to his family name.

How well he hits a charging troll at 20 paces is, however, a MUCH harder question to get an answer to. And IMHO, the good game systems will focus on what is hard to answer.

D&D's philosophy seems to be that those who get enjoyment from heavy character involvement don't NEED the rules as much. So the rules exist for those who get enjoyment out of knowing how good at hitting a charging troll at 20 paces Gwyfayri is. I don't need any sort of manual to tell me motive, and I would, in fact, be slightly irked at one which would (I'm looking at a lot of 2e for forced rules that were there just because). I need a guide, a handbook, a manual to tell me how to work the nuts and bolts.

'cuz character personalities are transparent, cliche, archetypal, and simplistic. And they should be. Because it's a game, not interactive fiction or a therapy session for an imaginary gnome druid. And if it WAS interactive fiction or a thereapy session or something like that, it wouldn't be nearly as fun to play for me, because it would try to put rules on what should just be left up to individual whims and creative juices.

No one in Monopoly wonders why the little hat is buying Baltic Ave....and if you create an interesting character for the hat ("He's been put down his entire life by the elite silk tophats of his home city that rule with an iron fist, and he has come to Monopoly to escape their ire. If he manages to rule this city, he will show them that non-silk hats can still make a difference!") it may add to the game, but no one needs to give you rules for it.

 

[Poster Bard]

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.

Yup. Can't sacrifice your own fun to accomodate another. Sometimes, it's better to wait for a more suitable stable of players than to take just whatever comes along.