times they are a changen....

[TiQuinn]

Re: Re: times they are a changen....

Oh boy, I can imagine the fun of dm'ng a group of inept characters.

Heh, us DMs sure want our cake and eat it too.

We don't want players who are doing everything they can to survive, and we don't want characters who fall into every trap and get whupped in every encounter either.

If only they would just play their characters, THE WAY I WANT THEM PLAYED, DAMMIT!

 

[jgbrowning]

Re: Re: times they are a changen....

I work hard in my real life to do the same thing, and I don't have to deal with goblins, necromancers, and dragons. Their heroes do- and would work hard to maximize their stengths and minimize their weaknesses.
FD

yep i agree. but do you think the characters would know every possible way a PC can do such?

What im trying to say is that the Character would not and could not ever know as much as the Player about how to min/max. Certain situations would provide a "in-game" reason for a PC to want to "be like Mike" but most PC dont have any knowledge of their profession beyond their teacher and the interactions they had with them.

joe b.

 

[Psion]

Has anyone else noticed the general change in tone in D&D. I'm referring to the munchkinesque.. (i know dont want to start that debate, but most of you know what im talking about) style of most 3E players?

No. Quite the contrary, actually. I know a few people around here that are die hards and won't touch 3e with a 10' pole, and they strike me as in every way more munchkinistic that most of the 3e players I have played with.

Of course, I am not aware of any 3e players personally that were introduced via CCGs. I do know a few women who were introduced via CRPGs. 1 of them strikes me as munchkin.

Another was introduced by CRPGs and had a boyfriend who was an old time D&D. He was in every way more munchkin than she was.

 

[jgbrowning]

Re: Re: munchkin

I have played at least 4 editions/variations of the game and I have encountered this mentality in all 4 editions (probably displayed it myself at times) and doubt it has a lot to do with the prevalence today of computer games. It is a natural style of play for younger or less experienced players in any edition of DnD.

Yah, this is the kind of opions i hoped my intial qustions would generate. I tend to think being young is mostly the cause of it. But when i went through my "munckin phase" i was 13 or so, so i expect more out of 18 year olds. I think its more than just an age question though how to determine such is beyond me.

thanks for yer response.

joe b.

 

[ergeheilalt]

I speak for the *other* teens

Yes, I'm only 17. Yes, I played CRPGs long before going to D&D. Yes, I played magic. These appear to be what many older gamers accociate with munchkins. However, this seems extreamly one-sided.

I've also read the classics: Dumas & Tolkin. And those newer classics: Eddings, Brooks, Anthony, Feist, Jordon, Drake, etc. I play in heavy Role-Play games. I even played in a game last week that was so heavily role-played that the party was only able to buy stuff in town. We got no XP, was I angry, no, did I like it, yes. If I loose my spellbook/sword/holy symbol do I throw a fit? No.

Do I see a lead toword D&D going from RP to Stat-Crunching Hack-Fest? No. Skills are roleplaying aids, as are some feats and spells. When the wizard spell list gets to being: Magic Missle, Burning Hands, Shocking Grasp, Sleep, and True Strike; then we should worry. I think the major change was with the layout and the artwork. Many of the young people today are much more visual than their progenitors. Would D&D have appealed to teens with the B&W sketches from the 1e books? Maybe, but not to the massive number that have decided to play solely because "The at short dude looks pretty kick ass in that armor". I think that Pen & Paper RPGs are going to become more and more graphically/computer based, but they will stay the same in both RP and content.

 

[Furn_Darkside]

Re: Re: Re: times they are a changen....

What im trying to say is that the Character would not and could not ever know as much as the Player about how to min/max. Certain situations would provide a "in-game" reason for a PC to want to "be like Mike" but most PC dont have any knowledge of their profession beyond their teacher and the interactions they had with them.

Ok, I see what you are saying.

The answer is mixed-

1) I keep a sharp line in the sand between player/character knowledge, and my players respect it. If they face a troll for the first time, then they will ask me ooc if their characters know anything about trolls.

2) Do they plan their characters for feat chains and access to approved prestige classes?

Yes.

Why? Well, because it is a game and not a life simulator.

The player is using their game knowledge to plan the route of their character, but if they didn't- feat chains and prestige classes would be a bit useless.

But- this is balanced by me, as the dm.

I have a rule that no 1st level of most classes (including most PrC's) can be taken without a trainer.

Feats picked have to be approved by me- and I consider where they are and what they want to learn. If they are stuck on a desert island, then an item creation feat is not going to spring to a wizard's mind.

However- in that last example. I would allow the wizard to save that feat until they were able to learn that item creation feat.

I balance them using their player knowledge by working what they want to do with their characters into my adventures. I think that works best for everyone.

FD

 

[ForceUser]

Re: I speak for the *other* teens

Yes, I'm only 17. Yes, I played CRPGs long before going to D&D. Yes, I played magic. These appear to be what many older gamers accociate with munchkins. However, this seems extreamly one-sided.

I've also read the classics: Dumas & Tolkin. And those newer classics: Eddings, Brooks, Anthony, Feist, Jordon, Drake, etc. I play in heavy Role-Play games. I even played in a game last week that was so heavily role-played that the party was only able to buy stuff in town. We got no XP, was I angry, no, did I like it, yes. If I loose my spellbook/sword/holy symbol do I throw a fit? No.

Do I see a lead toword D&D going from RP to Stat-Crunching Hack-Fest? No. Skills are roleplaying aids, as are some feats and spells. When the wizard spell list gets to being: Magic Missle, Burning Hands, Shocking Grasp, Sleep, and True Strike; then we should worry. I think the major change was with the layout and the artwork. Many of the young people today are much more visual than their progenitors. Would D&D have appealed to teens with the B&W sketches from the 1e books? Maybe, but not to the massive number that have decided to play solely because "The at short dude looks pretty kick ass in that armor". I think that Pen & Paper RPGs are going to become more and more graphically/computer based, but they will stay the same in both RP and content.

Profundity from one so young! Thanks for your insight, ergeheilalt. It's nice to know that there are still literate youths in southern CA

 

[jgbrowning]

Re: I speak for the *other* teens

Yes, I'm only 17. Yes, I played CRPGs long before going to D&D. Yes, I played magic. These appear to be what many older gamers accociate with munchkins. However, this seems extreamly one-sided.

I've also read the classics: Dumas & Tolkin. And those newer classics: Eddings, Brooks, Anthony, Feist, Jordon, Drake, etc. I play in heavy Role-Play games. I even played in a game last week that was so heavily role-played that the party was only able to buy stuff in town. We got no XP, was I angry, no, did I like it, yes. If I loose my spellbook/sword/holy symbol do I throw a fit? No.
RP and content.

sorry if it sounded like i was saying ALL teens and people introduced the other other stuff before playing DnD were that way. I was really just trying to see if people had noticed a shift in tone from the various other Dnd editions to 3e, in general.

I, like you, once i reached about 17 was more interested in the role aspects of the game. I just felt like i had to get a group opionion here because ALL of my 6 guys were the same. usually there are exceptions and since there wern't i found that odd.

thanks for your response and no offense intended,

joe b.

 

[Desdichado]

Re: munchkin

i dont care about munchkins and their prevelance or lack of in your games. i was trying to see if people thought the difference between players who have never played 1st or 2nd edition and those who have, makes a difference upon the min/maxing effect.

It's interesting that you ask that, since in the RPG world outside of D&D, 2e and 1e in particular are viewed as the munchkin-power-gamer-what-have-you paradise. Now you're saying that no, good roleplayers are generated by those systems, it's EverQuest and Magic that produce the munchkins.

I think the fact of the matter is, some players are just munchkins. Whether it's their age, their personality or their environment (the peer pressure thing mentioned above) that's just what some folks do. I don't think their experience with 1e or EverQuest or Magic has anything to do with it either way.

 

[jgbrowning]

Re: Re: munchkin

It's interesting that you ask that, since in the RPG world outside of D&D, 2e and 1e in particular are viewed as the munchkin-power-gamer-what-have-you paradise. Now you're saying that no, good roleplayers are generated by those systems, it's EverQuest and Magic that produce the munchkins.

actually, looking over my posts, i dont seem to have actually said that. in fact i dont even remember saying everquest and magic produce munchkins, though i can see how you can infer that a little bit better from what i did say.

thanks for your reply

joe b.