times they are a changen....

[Forrester]

This is the RPG environment that your players grew up in. Yep, it's powergaming. They probably can't even understand the concept that optimization of assets is not mandatory . . .

Absolutely. I've been playing since 1E, and while there always used to be munchkinny Monty Haul players, there have been some notable changes.

1) 3E, as opposed to the earlier editions, seems to place even more imporance On Ye Olde Magic Shoppe. I think that Everquest/Baldur's Gate/etc. had a lot to do with this -- some players just can't imagine a world where they can't go to some town, dump all of their magic loot, buy whatever magic loot they want instead, and leave. Making sure that they have the Best Magic Items In Each Slot, of course.

2) Rules-Lawyering is far, far worse than it used to be. Maybe it's just because there are better, more specific rules in 3E, I dunno. I suspect it's CCGs, where what the Official Rules Are is paramount.

And not only is the rules-lawyering worse, but I get the sense that many players strongly resent Rule 0, especially if every single Rule 0 of any importance isn't spelled out to them beforehand. IMO, Dungeons and Dragons isn't a freaking CCG where you are supposed to manipulate the rules In Order To Create The Game-Breaking Combo.

And the rules are there to be changed. I've read the hissy fits of Monte and others about how a GM should not just change what he doesn't like -- essentially "don't ban/change Scrying, or Polymorph Other, or Heal/Harm, or Whirlwind/Cleave/Bag o' Snails, or Commune, JUST because you don't like the effects! Work AROUND them!" And I have to say, it pisses me off.

This isn't Magic: The Tapping, people. There should be no stigma for breaking the sillier rules of 3E. You are under NO obligation to try to make your campaign work around scryers that can scry anyone in the world, regardless of whether they've met them. Or fighters who fights better if there are a bunch of blind kobolds standing next to his opponent.

In sum . . . there's a chicken-and-egg thing going on here. In my opinion, the powergaming and the rules-lawyering and the expectations of players have changed (and gotten worse) since 1E. Some of it is due to the more definitive rules in 3E, and its reliance on miniatures and 5'x5' squares. And some of it is due to the players' experiences with CRPGs and CCGs. I have no doubt that the latter impacted the creation of the former, but how much, I dunno.

And if I hear ONE MORE PLAYER respond to the in-game comment "You didn't see the guy behind you" with "There's no facing in 3E" I'm going to punch him in the face.

 

[jaerdaph]

As a point of reference, from someone who has been playing D&D/AD&D in one form or another since 1979, the terms "munchkin" and "min/maxing" predate CCGs and D&D 3e.

In short, it's always been this way. As you get older, you mature, your perspectives change, and you notice things like munchkinism and min/maxing more. Have faith that the same will happen to the new generation.

EDIT: One more thought - its only been over the last 5-8 years that we gamers as a community have had access to one another in unprecedented numbers via the Internet. Again, you notice things like munchkinism and min/maxing more.

All one has to do is look at some of the earlier editions of DRAGON Magazine and read the forum columns - some of these same issues came up then back in the day.

Anyhow, IMHO.

 

[Hecatol]

Personally I play with a lot of old and new players alike, and I'd be hard pressed to see any significant differences in attitudes today as opposed to 1979. There have always been and always will be those who enjoy the game more from a "powergaming" perspective, and that's fine with me.

I don't really buy into the "old vs. young" argument either - I know plenty of young roleplayers and just as many old powergamers.

 

[jaerdaph]

[I don't really buy into the "old vs. young" argument either - I know plenty of young roleplayers and just as many old powergamers. [/B]

Good point - that's certainly true.

 

[Cedric]

Well...

As I see it, more diversity and depth has been added to D&D along with more opportunities to increase the power or capability of your character.

This is a good thing, in that those combinations or features you have always wanted to use and roleplay are now available (my campaign that I run has a Dwarven Ranger/Sorcerer in it).

But as that extra depth is added, so is more opportunity to munchkinize, power game or otherwise abuse the rules.

Some logical progression of power is to be assumed. Just like Unearthed Arcana added more power available to 1st ed and Skills and Powers broadened 2nd ed. So do the extra volumes today add more to 3rd ed.

I don't think there are more munchkins. The game is just being taken to new levels along it's logical line of progression that has been in motion since day one.

Cedric

 

[WizarDru]

I've been playing since 1980 (yikes), and I can vouch for the fact that I had problems with gamers who some would call "munchkins" or "rules lawyers" then, and I've seen them now. There hasn't been some fundemental shift in the gamer mindset...some players gravitate to different playstyles.

In point of fact, the "min/maxer" style of gaming is what D&D originated from, as far as I can tell. Read Gygax's commentary about his games as DM in Castle Greyhawk, or as a player with Rob Kuntz. They were primarily concerned with Phat Lewt, XP and advancement.

Compared to earlier editions, 3e doesn't lend itself more or less to such behaviors. Under 1e, you needed magic items just as much as 3e. The difference was that under 1e, fighters with magic items still got outclassed, whereas in 3e, non-spellcasters have their moments to shine, too.

 

[tjasamcarl]

So let me get this straight...

3e encourages 'munchinisim' because the mechanics are actually solid enough to create a balanced campaign. It seems the key to rp is to have poor rules, ala prior editions...hah

 

[jgbrowning]

Re: So let me get this straight...

3e encourages 'munchinisim' because the mechanics are actually solid enough to create a balanced campaign. It seems the key to rp is to have poor rules, ala prior editions...hah

personally, a DM creates game balance. hah

joe b.

 

[WizarDru]

Re: Re: So let me get this straight...

personally, a DM creates game balance. hah

joe b.

I think you're having trouble accepting what folks are telling you. You said:

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.

What does this mean, and how exactly can you prove this theory? This sounds like you've got an idea, and when we present you with evidence to the contrary, you're trying to find a way to hold onto it.

If I understand what you're saying, you believe that 3E is more prone to min/maxing (which I think is a legitimate playstyle, btw, just not for me) and that, while improved, the system is now more vulnerable to the influcence such players thrust upon the game. I respectfully disagree.

Every edition of the game has been vulnerable to manipulations, both subtle and unsubtle. You think I didn't see 5th level characters carrying +5 Holy Avengers in the Hand of Vecna in 1982? You think I haven't met "munchkins" in their 30s, or dramatic roleplayers in their mid-teens? Trust me, I did and I have.

And for the record: those videogames I grew up? They apparently failed to turn me into a violent zombie, put hair on my palms, stunt my growth or shorten my attention span. Hell, you try sitting through 'Ran' after drinking a Super Big Gulp.

 

[jgbrowning]

well...

what the subject of the thread was about was not people having eq that was not supposed to be available at their level, it was about people min/maxing what is supposed to be available at their level to basically increase the, to use anothers term, "phatnes" of their characters.

first of all its my opinion gathered from only my set of experiences... thats why i asked other people what their experiences are so that i can, de facto, broaden my experience so that i can make another opinion. theorys aren't provable by the way you know....

secondly, how many times must it be said, that just because one person is a powergamer and is 30 and another is a "role" gamer and is 17, doesnt have much bearing on wheather or not, in general, there can be decernable and measureable differences between the gaming styles of differtly aged persons as a whole. Can i prove this? no. i dont have the money nor the time.

thirdly, if you think people are not influenced by the environment they are in, well.. i can't really help you there. i guess one word sums it up. Culture. Also just because you're part of particular culture does not mean you share all traits with everyone else and i guess you can see how this ties in to my second point.

All this entire thread is about peoples opinions. I wanted to hear what others thought, and i have, including those who disagree with me. I listen and pick and choose to modify, or not, my opinions based upon theirs, but thats another post.

joe b.