times they are a changen....

[BlackMoria]

I will answer your question directly.

I have played for 26 years and through all editions of D&D and observed powergaming and min/maxing by individuals, regardless of the edition.

So the edition is irrelevant. Whether the player comes from a CRPG or CCG background is irrelevant. Age is irrelevant.

My personal experience is that min/maxers and powergamers gravitate to those experiences which gratify them. The powergamer lusts for personal power and it does whatever it takes to gratify that experience.

Min/Maxers are into the numbers, because at its lowest common denominator, D&D is a game about numbers and the min/max crowd desire to maximize the number to their character advantage.

3E just makes the numbers cognitively more obvious and the power level more obvious (faster level advancement over previous editions and the ELH...enuf said)

 

[ergeheilalt]

its okies, I didn't take any offense. But, I figured I should concent that I was a power monger when I first played... the DM said make a character. I made a 15th level elven Air Elemental

I've kinda toned down now...

 

[Desdichado]

Re: Re: Re: munchkin

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.

No? Then what in the world is the quote below supposed to mean, if you're not saying that the CRPG mentality produces munchkins? Maybe you're just being really obtuse and not agreeing with me word for word, but the post below seems to say exactly what I said it err... said.

do you think the prevelance of new players growing up on CRPG's and Magic style card games (cant remember that abbreviateion) has created a pardigmn shift in the style of DnD? Or do you think the deliberate shift towards, uhem.. munchkinism, represented by the 3e rules has had a greater impact.

 

[jgbrowning]

Re: Re: Re: Re: munchkin

No? Then what in the world is the quote below supposed to mean, if you're not saying that the CRPG mentality produces munchkins? Maybe you're just being really obtuse and not agreeing with me word for word, but the post below seems to say exactly what I said it err... said.

I said "do you think the prevelance of new players growing up on CRPG's and Magic style card games (cant remember that abbreviateion) has created a pardigmn shift in the style of DnD? Or do you think the deliberate shift towards, uhem.. munchkinism, represented by the 3e rules has had a greater impact."

This simply means... according to a persons perception do the people who played these games before they played DnD tend to have more of a munchkin bent than those that didnt. It does not mean that these games create munckins.

joe b.

 

[Ristamar]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: munchkin

This simply means... according to a persons perception do the people who played these games before they played DnD tend to have more of a munchkin bent than those that didnt. It does not mean that these games create munckins.

joe b.

Hmm. Perhaps you didn't mean to infer a correlation between Magic/CRPG players and munchkins, though it certainly looks like you did.

I think Mr. Dyal has a point. The difference between 'people that play X and Y usually have more of a munchkin bent' and 'X and Y creates munchkins' is mostly a matter of semantics, assuming you are claiming players exhibit said munchkinism due to playing X and Y. Yeah, 'creates' might be a bit extreme. You could say 'encouraged' or 'promotes', but in the end, you're still pretty much saying the same thing.

However, if you're trying to saying people of a munchkin mentality play X and Y, then move on to D&D with their munchkinesque qualities, I concur that it is wholly different than stating 'X and Y creates munchkins.' Of course, the fact that they played X and Y beforehand is basically irrelevant since they were munchkins long before touching D&D.

That being said, I don't ever want to speak or type the word 'munchkin' again. It's a worthless label. Bleah.

 

[jgbrowning]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: munchkin

However, if you're trying to saying people of a munchkin mentality play X and Y, then move on to D&D with their munchkinesque qualities, I concur that it is wholly different than stating 'X and Y creates munchkins.' Of course, the fact that they played X and Y beforehand is basically irrelevant since they were munchkins long before touching D&D.

That being said, I don't ever want to speak or type the word 'munchkin' again. It's a worthless label. Bleah.

to put it in terms similiar to yours. I think that someone may have only slight tendancies to min/max in various aspects of their life, but when they find a game they enjoy playing that is completely designed around min/maxing (most two player games with a winner and a loser are designed as such), their tendancy to min/max in relationship to that particular game is increased. Once these tendancies are supported (by being a winner) they tend to be implemented quicker when encountering new games (DnD). I also believe that the 3e rules (which by the way i think are much better than the other editions) are designed to facilitate the min/max aspect.

ie. to get back to what i said. i think the honing of a group of individuals tendancies to min/max through the exposure to games which are solely based upon min/maxing (magic etc.) leads to a greater number of new gamers min/maxing. It may just be the numbers haven't changed, as many people have said, but that the EFFECTIVENESS of their min/maxing has improved and that the system is more facile to such manipulations than it used to be.

so, i dont think they create what im talking about, but i do believe they support such behavior. which is what i at least hoped to say...

joe b.

Grog needs more words!

 

[barsoomcore]

As another oldtimer, I want to add my voice to the "there's always been powergamers, there's always been min/maxing" chorus.

In a way, 3E makes min/maxing so obvious that it helps in both directions. If you want to restrict "in-game" knowledge of feats and abilities and so on, it's pretty easy to pick them out and say to your players "Okay, you don't know this or this or this." And likewise, if you're looking for easier ways to determine mathematical advantages and disadvantages, whip out your calculator and get to work!

But these types of players have always been around. I was one myself, once. Most people go through such a phase. Some hate it, some love it, and that's okay. I don't think CRPGs or CCGs have anything to do with it.

 

[Desdichado]

I don't believe 3e was designed to facilitate min/max, I believe that is a side effect of them being designed to be flexible.

I also don't see a meaningful difference between what you said and what I said earlier, but my opinion earlier posted still stands: I don't think environment (what games they've played before) is a significant factor in how they game, rather I'd blame personality and possibly age for the difference. If you wanna call it blame.

 

[nyrfherdr]

I'm normally a lurker, but I want to chime in here too.

I think both card and computer games influenced both the graphical and mechanical design of D&D3e. I think that's a good thing, because all 3 game experiences can feed each other.

I also agree that the influence of both has little to do with powergaming or number crunching players. People enjoy the game for different reasons and enjoy different styles.

In fact, I would venture to say that many of us enjoy more than one style ourselves. I'll happily play in a game focused on combat heavy adventures or intrigue heavy adventures where I focus on character. And in the former, I POWERGAME!

I say: "If everyone's having fun... GAME ON!"

 

[Nightfall]

Uhm nah. Maybe because I have setting thanks to d20 that I can appreciate and love a lot more than any I did in 2nd...well besides Ravenloft. But it never felt like a setting until 3rd.