3.5 had this as an issue as well, particularly when Tome of Battle, etc, came out. Despite the book even admitting that the classes weren't balanced for 'normal' campaigns, many demanded that it was REALLY all balanced and that just 'cause their characters had all the benefits of most the base classes at once while not having any of the weaknesses didn't mean there was an issue!
Didn't second edition AD&D have those brown Complete XXXX books? I hear there was a lot of power creep in them, too and some of them are older than I am.
|
*snipped for length* ... but he was the most fun character I have ever played!And this is what's important. Fun.
Sure, some people have fun with their 'uber-builds' but how long does it last? How many encounters can you play through at no risk before you grow bored?
That's one thing that always bugged the ever living hell out of me over at the WotC epic boards. One of their mantras was 'immunity to everything except physical damage or you suck.' Who gives a damn. Really? How can a game be fun if you are immune to everything? How?
*sighs*
Sorry for ranting. I've just had to get that off my chest for awhile.
For them, I imagine the fun is actually building the character. Different strokes for different folks, and all that...
Three years ago, on the WotC messageboards, there was a thread along the lines of "Con is vital for every character class, but especially wizards and sorcerers." That, if you played a wizard or a sorcerer with a low con, then you would have no fun at all.
In which Wizards forum was this thread posted? Was it character optimization? You have to consider the source. If you go to a Ford enthusiast website, you will see a lot of posts that say that if you drive a Chevy you will have no fun at all. In the same manner, if you go to a character optimization thread, you will see a lot of posts that say that if you do not have an optimized character you will have no fun at all.
|
Briliant! I think the WotC boards must have been hung up on that "most powerful = most fun". I hate that. If you have the upper hand, of course you're going to succeed; where's the challenge? Play the underdogs. They are always more fun. You have to think and stress over "how am I gonna turn my opponents' advantages against him" or "how can I compensate for what's missing". That's always more engaging than "I can kick everyone's butts here. hahaha I win"
The attitude and comments made by the "must win, bigger is better" people make me wonder how many of them actually sit down and play the game with other people, or if they are just sitting at the computer or with some paper making munchkin-characters and then claiming they are the best.
I had a player do that, sit around making characters. "My AC is 26, I'm a 5th level sorcerer with 42 hp, I have SR..."
That was grapple-target number 1 as soon as an enemy missed him.
"Your enemies aren't stupid. They can't see your character sheet, but they know what works and what doesn't." Oh, and he failed his Fort save against a Medusa...
|
Didn't second edition AD&D have those brown Complete XXXX books? I hear there was a lot of power creep in them, too and some of them are older than I am.
3.5 had this as an issue as well, particularly when Tome of Battle, etc, came out. Despite the book even admitting that the classes weren't balanced for 'normal' campaigns, many demanded that it was REALLY all balanced and that just 'cause their characters had all the benefits of most the base classes at once while not having any of the weaknesses didn't mean there was an issue!
the "complete" books in 2ed were heavy on fluff (kits), light on crunch, actually. they really didn't intoduce much that whacked a game out of balance like 3x splatbooks (both 3pp and WotC stuff) did.
the "complete" books in 2ed were heavy on fluff (kits), light on crunch, actually. they really didn't intoduce much that whacked a game out of balance like 3x splatbooks (both 3pp and WotC stuff) did.
Kits were notorious for balancing mechanical benefits for fluff disadvantages. Not all of them were broken, but some were definitely more equal than others.
No, if you wanted broken 2E stuff, you probably wanted to look into Specialty Priests. Oh, and the S&P, S&M, and C&T expansions that came out in later years. 2E certainly had later books that showed quite a bit of power creep.
One of the things about S&P was the fact that it was Min/Max .... that is, in order to become uber in one thing you had to sacrifice something else. You want to learn more spells per level? Fine; you must reduce your chances of learning those spells. You want to be a cleric who can specialize in an edged weapon? Fine; you must sacrifice X number of Spheres from your spell list. You want your dwarf to heal faster underground and be better with an axe? Fine; you must give up your detections and/or save bonuses. The was more give and take than in later iterations.
Can anyone say Magic of the Incarnum? Complete Champion? Magic Missile at will?
In second, you could focus on a flavor for your character, gain a modicum of added ability, but sacrifice a (mostly) balanced amount of other abilities. The power creep seemed to become more of an issue for the game overall (regardless of ed) about when M:TG became the uber-rage and suddenly it's 5/5 Craw Wurm became a mere pitance. The attitude that came with that, bled over into other games as well it seemed.
One of the things about S&P was the fact that it was Min/Max .... that is, in order to become uber in one thing you had to sacrifice something else. You want to learn more spells per level? Fine; you must reduce your chances of learning those spells. You want to be a cleric who can specialize in an edged weapon? Fine; you must sacrifice X number of Spheres from your spell list. You want your dwarf to heal faster underground and be better with an axe? Fine; you must give up your detections and/or save bonuses. The was more give and take than in later iterations.
Can anyone say Magic of the Incarnum? Complete Champion? Magic Missile at will?
In second, you could focus on a flavor for your character, gain a modicum of added ability, but sacrifice a (mostly) balanced amount of other abilities. The power creep seemed to become more of an issue for the game overall (regardless of ed) about when M:TG became the uber-rage and suddenly it's 5/5 Craw Wurm became a mere pitance. The attitude that came with that, bled over into other games as well it seemed.
Or, your Fighter could forgo the use of scrolls, rods, staffs, and wands to gain a d12 HD and the ability to specialize in multiple weapons on a faster attack track. Your Wizard could be afraid of bathing, and always leave backwards footprints to gain a few extra spells a level, gain the ability to wield weapons (and heck, maybe armor, it's been a while).
Your Human could be a little ugly and get what 3E would term a natural armor bonus, that stacked with EVERYTHING. S&P was all about the power creep. If you didn't have someone back then who used it as such, you were lucky.
Second was terrible for balancing mechanical benefits against roleplaying disadvantages, something 3E thankfully ran away from at maximum possible speed.
Edit: Just last night I was talking with a friend about the old 2E Spell and Magic and he was telling me a story about one of the alternate magic systems he used to use from there. Something about being able to cast magic missiles at will with his channeler, all day long. 4E emulates 2E! :O!
Or, your Fighter could forgo the use of scrolls, rods, staffs, and wands to gain a d12 HD and the ability to specialize in multiple weapons on a faster attack track. Your Wizard could be afraid of bathing, and always leave backwards footprints to gain a few extra spells a level, gain the ability to wield weapons (and heck, maybe armor, it's been a while).
Your Human could be a little ugly and get what 3E would term a natural armor bonus, that stacked with EVERYTHING. S&P was all about the power creep. If you didn't have someone back then who used it as such, you were lucky.
Second was terrible for balancing mechanical benefits against roleplaying disadvantages, something 3E thankfully ran away from at maximum possible speed.
Here's the issue with any game: if you do not embrace the spirit and intent of the rules (give up something to gain something of equal value), you are not doing it right. If a Player and DM agreed that being afraid of bathing was worth uber power, they are not embracing the intent and spirit, they are just Monty Hauling. It doeesn't matter which game you are playing, someone is always going to rape it so they are cooler.
If that DM & Player look at the restrictions of S&P, they tell you that if it's not an actual hindrance in gameplay, it's not worth points ... much the same wway Hero System says "if it's not really a disadvantage to the player, it's not worth points." If you are unwilling to embrace the spirit of the rules and only want to rape them for your own advantage, you shouldn't be playing.
Edit: Just last night I was talking with a friend about the old 2E Spell and Magic and he was telling me a story about one of the alternate magic systems he used to use from there. Something about...
And as far as casting MM all day long in 2e ... you sacrificed the ability to cast pretty much anything else since you would be out of juice.
now, this is just an opinion (you know, i state that so people don't think i think everything i say is gospel truth), but i hear a lot of folks saying stuff like "4e cuts down on munchkinism and powergaming", whereas i look at it and say "yeah, they do, since they just built it into the rules in the first place".
Brilliant houstonderek! BTW I used to live in Houston.
Here's the issue with any game: if you do not embrace the spirit and intent of the rules (give up something to gain something of equal value), you are not doing it right. If a Player and DM agreed that being afraid of bathing was worth uber power, they are not embracing the intent and spirit, they are just Monty Hauling. It doeesn't matter which game you are playing, someone is always going to rape it so they are cooler.
If that DM & Player look at the restrictions of S&P, they tell you that if it's not an actual hindrance in gameplay, it's not worth points ... much the same wway Hero System says "if it's not really a disadvantage to the player, it's not worth points." If you are unwilling to embrace the spirit of the rules and only want to rape them for your own advantage, you shouldn't be playing.
I agree, if someone approaches the game system with the intention of squeezing out every possible advantage they can get, they will do so, no matter the rules.
But my post was meant to counter the point from up thread about how 3E introduced power creep into DnD. It was there in 2E just as much. For all I know, it was there for 1E too, but never having played in that era, I couldn't say.
Cheers! :)
|
now, this is just an opinion (you know, i state that so people don't think i think everything i say is gospel truth), but i hear a lot of folks saying stuff like "4e cuts down on munchkinism and powergaming", whereas i look at it and say "yeah, they do, since they just built it into the rules in the first place".
In what ways do you see powergaming built into the 4e rules?
now, this is just an opinion (you know, i state that so people don't think i think everything i say is gospel truth), but i hear a lot of folks saying stuff like "4e cuts down on munchkinism and powergaming", whereas i look at it and say "yeah, they do, since they just built it into the rules in the first place".In what ways do you see powergaming built into the 4e rules?
From wikipedia: In role-playing games (mainly, but not exclusively), powergaming is a particular way of playing in which the emphasis lies on developing a player character that is as powerful as possible, usually to the detriment of other aspects of the game, such as character interaction.
According to this definition, I see the elimination of a lot of non-combat skills from 4e as an example of this.
But my post was meant to counter the point from up thread about how 3E introduced power creep into DnD. It was there in 2E just as much. For all I know, it was there for 1E too, but never having played in that era, I couldn't say.
Cheers! :)
I never said 3e introduced it ... it just became far more transparent in 3e. Power Creep has been in the game since 1e when the Ninja was introduced in a Dragon magazine ... if not earlier. Old people used to at least attempt to disguise their creeping better than modern games tend to.
I think the solution is to not play with powergamers and rules-rapists.
;-)
now, this is just an opinion (you know, i state that so people don't think i think everything i say is gospel truth), but i hear a lot of folks saying stuff like "4e cuts down on munchkinism and powergaming", whereas i look at it and say "yeah, they do, since they just built it into the rules in the first place".In what ways do you see powergaming built into the 4e rules?
Why does this have to become a "don't you talk about 4e like that" thread? He said it's his frakkin opinion. Believe what you want, for pete's sake. Stop pickin fights.
Old people used to at least attempt to disguise their creeping better than modern games tend to.
It's the walkers. They confuse us youngsters. :P
It's the walkers. They confuse us youngsters. :P
Old people used to at least attempt to disguise their creeping better than modern games tend to.
Why do you think we use them? Do you actually think we NEED them? That's where we hide all of the components of our UberDeathRays. Didn't you know that when you get to be a higher level gamer you learn to cast *real* spells? Just ask Jack Chick.
Why do you think we use them? Do you actually think we NEED them? That's where we hide all of the components of our UberDeathRays. Didn't you know that when you get to be a higher level gamer you learn to cast *real* spells? Just ask Jack Chick.
Lol. Not Black Leaf! Nooooooo! :P
Lol. Not Black Leaf! Nooooooo! :P
Why do you think we use them? Do you actually think we NEED them? That's where we hide all of the components of our UberDeathRays. Didn't you know that when you get to be a higher level gamer you learn to cast *real* spells? Just ask Jack Chick.
AHAHAHA!! Hilarious!!!!
It's good to know that a few of you youngsters read the classics
|
|
But my post was meant to counter the point from up thread about how 3E introduced power creep into DnD. It was there in 2E just as much. For all I know, it was there for 1E too, but never having played in that era, I couldn't say.
Cheers! :)
I never said 3e introduced it ... it just became far more transparent in 3e. Power Creep has been in the game since 1e when the Ninja was introduced in a Dragon magazine ... if not earlier. Old people used to at least attempt to disguise their creeping better than modern games tend to.
I think the solution is to not play with powergamers and rules-rapists.
;-)
Now you've gone and introduced Ninjas to the debate. Isn't that some kind of auto-lose? ;)
|
|
Why does this have to become a "don't you talk about 4e like that" thread? He said it's his frakkin opinion. Believe what you want, for pete's sake. Stop pickin fights.now, this is just an opinion (you know, i state that so people don't think i think everything i say is gospel truth), but i hear a lot of folks saying stuff like "4e cuts down on munchkinism and powergaming", whereas i look at it and say "yeah, they do, since they just built it into the rules in the first place".In what ways do you see powergaming built into the 4e rules?
There is no fight. I simply asked for a little more detail so I can understand his perspective.
|
|
now, this is just an opinion (you know, i state that so people don't think i think everything i say is gospel truth), but i hear a lot of folks saying stuff like "4e cuts down on munchkinism and powergaming", whereas i look at it and say "yeah, they do, since they just built it into the rules in the first place".In what ways do you see powergaming built into the 4e rules?From wikipedia: In role-playing games (mainly, but not exclusively), powergaming is a particular way of playing in which the emphasis lies on developing a player character that is as powerful as possible, usually to the detriment of other aspects of the game, such as character interaction.
According to this definition, I see the elimination of a lot of non-combat skills from 4e as an example of this.
Hmmm. Some thoughts ... There have been a number of games throughout the history of the industry that lack non-combat skills. Heck - some have lacked skills altogether. Would they be considered "power games"? The absence of non-combat skills does not prevent roleplaying, nor does their presence promote it. In addition the presence of non-combat skills does not prevent power gaming.
Why does this have to become a "don't you talk about 4e like that" thread? He said it's his frakkin opinion. Believe what you want, for pete's sake. Stop pickin fights.There is no fight. I simply asked for a little more detail so I can understand his perspective.
Based on what I've seen from you in every other thread I've noticed you in, you're pressin for an argument. I'm just workin of observation and may be jumping the gun. But we've managed to keep the pro/anti 4e debate to a relative minimum on this thread, and I for one would like to keep it like that.
Power Creep has been in the game since 1e when the Ninja was introduced in a Dragon magazine ... ;-)Now you've gone and introduced Ninjas to the debate. Isn't that some kind of auto-lose? ;)
Well, the rest of the bait was getting stale. Thought I'd try something new for me.
;-)
|
|
Based on what I've seen from you in every other thread I've noticed you in, you're pressin for an argument. I'm just workin of observation and may be jumping the gun. But we've managed to keep the pro/anti 4e debate to a relative minimum on this thread, and I for one would like to keep it like that.Why does this have to become a "don't you talk about 4e like that" thread? He said it's his frakkin opinion. Believe what you want, for pete's sake. Stop pickin fights.There is no fight. I simply asked for a little more detail so I can understand his perspective.
I agree that the discussion should be civil. The best way to have a civil discussion is to engage in constructive dialogue. In that vein I am trying to understand the perspective that power gaming is endemic to 4e since i do not share that perspective. I am not belittling those that hold that opinion but I would like to know what they see that i do not.
Based on what I've seen from you in every other thread I've noticed you in, you're pressin for an argument. I'm just workin of observation and may be jumping the gun. But we've managed to keep the pro/anti 4e debate to a relative minimum on this thread, and I for one would like to keep it like that.
Wasn't there something from earlier up thread about not reading more into a post than what is there? I can't seem to recall now ...
As for ninjas, it is well known they like to flip out and kill everything. That's a fact! ;)
Hmmm. Some thoughts ... There have been a number of games throughout the history of the industry that lack non-combat skills. Heck - some have lacked skills altogether. Would they be considered "power games"? The absence of non-combat skills does not prevent roleplaying, nor does their presence promote it. In addition the presence of non-combat skills does not prevent power gaming.
I would definitely disagree that the presence of non-combat skills fails to promote power gaming. In a sense, the game designers are putting in game mechanics that let you define your character completely. In 2nd edition I felt this was lacking to a great deal unless you used the optional skill system. By putting these into the rules, they are definitely encouraging players to think about the world the characters live in and what other skills a person living in that world would normally have.
However, your point is valid that powergaming definitely existed pre-4th edition.
I will give you another example instead. If you look at the list of abilities for each class in the SRD, few of the abilities are "named" the same way powers are named in 4th. I don't have the 4th book in front of me, but every power in 4th is given a name much along the lines of Magic: The Gathering card names. This, for me, encourages the leveling mentality because it encourages thinking in terms of power vs level.
I personally feel that this flavors the game to a degree that encourages powergaming.
Wasn't there something from earlier up thread about not reading more into a post than what is there? I can't seem to recall now ...
Damn!! You caught that? I was hoping everyone still had their 30 second attention span goin. lol
As for ninjas, it is well known they like to flip out and kill everything. That's a fact! ;)
Hey, it could have been worse. I could have mentioned pirates too.
I agree that the discussion should be civil. The best way to have a civil discussion is to engage in constructive dialogue. In that vein I am trying to understand the perspective that power gaming is endemic to 4e since i do not share that perspective. I am not belittling those that hold that opinion but I would like to know what they see that i do not.
BTW, I'm also not saying that powergaming isn't always useful. In MMORPGs it's very difficult to have fun with friends who level their characters at different rates because one guy knows how to level faster and get a better build of his character than others. Once friends have vastly different levels, it's very hard, and many times impossible to play those characters together.
I would definitely disagree that the presence of non-combat skills fails to promote power gaming. In a sense, the game designers are putting in game mechanics that let you define your character completely. In 2nd edition I felt this was lacking to a great deal unless you used the optional skill system. By putting these into the rules, they are definitely encouraging players to think about the world the characters live in and what other skills a person living in that world would normally have.
However, your point is valid that powergaming definitely existed pre-4th edition.
I will give you another example instead. If you look at the list of abilities for each class in the SRD, few of the abilities are "named" the same way powers are named in 4th. I don't have the 4th book in front of me, but every power in 4th is given a name much along the lines of Magic: The Gathering card names. This, for me, encourages the leveling mentality because it encourages thinking in terms of power vs level.
I personally feel that this flavors the game to a degree that encourages powergaming.
FWIW, I think non-combat skills are some of the worst spots in 3E in terms of powergaming. Anyone ever seen a character designed to crank Diplomacy? Or Bluff? Even with heavy circumstance penalties, it is easy to get characters who can still roll 20 or 30s without breaking a sweat, at really low levels. Amp the levels up a bit and you have guys able to out-bargain Balors LONG before they could actually fight them.
|
|
Hmmm. Some thoughts ... There have been a number of games throughout the history of the industry that lack non-combat skills. Heck - some have lacked skills altogether. Would they be considered "power games"? The absence of non-combat skills does not prevent roleplaying, nor does their presence promote it. In addition the presence of non-combat skills does not prevent power gaming.I would definitely disagree that the presence of non-combat skills fails to promote power gaming. In a sense, the game designers are putting in game mechanics that let you define your character completely. In 2nd edition I felt this was lacking to a great deal unless you used the optional skill system. By putting these into the rules, they are definitely encouraging players to think about the world the characters live in and what other skills a person living in that world would normally have.
Certainly there have been good RPGs without non-combat skills, but I think what Veector was getting at was that if non-combat skills are a major way for the system to support roleplaying mechanically, if you remove those you lose some of the roleplaying.
I also agree with Veector that 2nd Edition felt somewhat lacking (even with non-weapon proficiencies) and the skill system was a step in the right direction for roleplayers. 4th Edition has simplified that system in a way that disappoints some people who had enjoyed it.
FWIW, I think non-combat skills are some of the worst spots in 3E in terms of powergaming. Anyone ever seen a character designed to crank Diplomacy? Or Bluff? Even with heavy circumstance penalties, it is easy to get characters who can still roll 20 or 30s without breaking a sweat, at really low levels. Amp the levels up a bit and you have guys able to out-bargain Balors LONG before they could actually fight them.
Ok, I give, how about a little love for Craft, Profession, or Perform then?
BTW, I'm also not saying that powergaming isn't always useful. In MMORPGs it's very difficult to have fun with friends who level their characters at different rates because one guy knows how to level faster and get a better build of his character than others. Once friends have vastly different levels, it's very hard, and many times impossible to play those characters together.
A feature from EQII (which may or may not be there in WoW) is the ability to mentor a lower level character. The mentor's level is reduced to the level of the student, allowing him to gain XP from the lower level challenges faced by the student, but the mentor takes a massive XP penalty. Meanwhile, the student gains a small-ish XP bonus, and gets to hunt with his friend who has outleveled him.
It's more often used to let people who outleveled some content experience it, but my friends used to use it to help a new friend catch up with us so he could play with us more often.
Of course this is all completely off-topic, and I don't think even has anything to do with power gaming ...
Ok, I give, how about a little love for Craft, Profession, or Perform then?
Those three were likely pretty hotly debated for 4E. The new skill system doesn't fit any of them very well. But my take on Craft/Profession is that either people never used those skills at all, or they used those skills to flesh out their character's background. If you didn't use them, no loss in their removal, and if you used them to flesh out your character, you can do so just as easily by writing it into your backstory/roleplaying.
To look at it from another angle, consider the difference between Attack powers and Utility powers in 4E. At one point, a developer said they wanted to move away from forcing characters to choose between roleplaying flavor and mechanical benefits. I never liked having to weaken my character as an adventurer in order to depict that he had a life outisde of adventuring, and I'm glad 4E removes that aspect of things.
Perform, of course, is a different kettle of fish. I'd like to see Perform come back in some fashion, although obviously it won't as a skill does now, unless maybe it has no untrained uses. (Hmm ... no untrained uses could probably work for Craft and Profession too ...)
But back to the point, I do want Perform back, and hope to see it when the Bard finally rolls out next March.
Cheers! :)
|
|
I would definitely disagree that the presence of non-combat skills fails to promote power gaming. In a sense, the game designers are putting in game mechanics that let you define your character completely. In 2nd edition I felt this was lacking to a great deal unless you used the optional skill system. By putting these into the rules, they are definitely encouraging players to think about the world the characters live in and what other skills a person living in that world would normally have.
I would definitely agree with you if the non-combat background skills and abilities were mandatory to take and actually came up in play on a regular basis. Simply allowing a PC the option of a having non-combat skills and abilities will not promote roleplaying, nor will it prevent it. If the non-combat options were mandatory and played an essential role in the course of a campaign then powergaming would be discouraged. But no roleplaying game (beyond those dedicated to pure imagination and a complete lack of mechanics) is immune from character optimization and power gaming.
That being said, I do agree with you that the presence of non-combat skills and abilities does spark thoughts for the creation of PC background and definitely can enhance roleplaying. In fact I prefer games that provide robust non-combat skills and abilities because it does provide a vehicle to envision the depth of a given PC.
Understand that I started roleplaying when the game had absolutely no mechanics beyond combat resolution. In fact those days provided some of the richest roleplaying experiences because they did not rely on mechanics. Of course that led to games running of into the ditch from time to time. So having non-combat mechanics can save a game from turning into one glorified game of Calvin Ball but you do not need them to create rich roleplaying experiences.
However, your point is valid that powergaming definitely existed pre-4th edition.
I will give you another example instead. If you look at the list of abilities for each class in the SRD, few of the abilities are "named" the same way powers are named in 4th. I don't have the 4th book in front of me, but every power in 4th is given a name much along the lines of Magic: The Gathering card names. This, for me, encourages the leveling mentality because it encourages thinking in terms of power vs level.
I personally feel that this flavors the game to a degree that encourages powergaming.
I can see that, and i dislke many power names for that very reason. However it does not seem to translate into actual powergaming at the table. I can call a new at-will power the Super Golden Monkey Whirling Bananas of Death Strike but if all it does is 1d10+CHA bonus at range 10 then it really isn't powergaming.
|
|
I agree that the discussion should be civil. The best way to have a civil discussion is to engage in constructive dialogue. In that vein I am trying to understand the perspective that power gaming is endemic to 4e since i do not share that perspective. I am not belittling those that hold that opinion but I would like to know what they see that i do not.BTW, I'm also not saying that powergaming isn't always useful. In MMORPGs it's very difficult to have fun with friends who level their characters at different rates because one guy knows how to level faster and get a better build of his character than others. Once friends have vastly different levels, it's very hard, and many times impossible to play those characters together.
Totally. My 70 Hunter simply cannot be in the same group with my cousin and his friends. They are all decked out in epics and I am not. Every time I try to raid with them I die horiibly and contribute very very little to the fight.
My other friends are down in the 40s and when I go out with them I kill mobs way to quickly and they get very very bored.
|
|
Now, reading the thread, and going from experience presented all over, I'll sum up the 'generational difference' for you, as a general trend...
Old > I tell stories of what my characters do and have done.
New > I talk about how powerful my characters are.
Yeah; that 'Waldorf' who clogged up the letters pages of Dragon Magazines of yesteryear, was a real well-rounded individual.
Dig your old issues out of the loft (or fire up your 250-issue CD-ROM), and I'm sure we can find letters, Forum essays, and DM advice articles that show munchkinism was rampant all the way back to the beginnings of the game, before polyhedral dice were invented, and fatbeards pulled numbered chits out of a cup.
Yours,
'Not a fatbeard-just big-boned and stubbly'
|
|
I will give you another example instead. If you look at the list of abilities for each class in the SRD, few of the abilities are "named" the same way powers are named in 4th. I don't have the 4th book in front of me, but every power in 4th is given a name much along the lines of Magic: The Gathering card names. This, for me, encourages the leveling mentality because it encourages thinking in terms of power vs level.
Is it not simply a case of having so many powers, and running out of names?
If class A has a shield bash attack, and an improved shield bash, and a greater shield bash,...etc, and class B has their own shield bash attack, and an improved shield bash, and a greater shield bash,...etc, and class C has....etc, and they all have slightly different mechanics, then it's not long before you realise somebody's got to be doing the Drunken Waltz of the Nonchalant Tortoise.
... that show munchkinism was rampant all the way back to the beginnings of the game ...
Why does "it was present" have to equal "it was rampant"? If you have to search for the letters, is it really "rampant"? Wouldn't it only really be "rampant" if it was spelled out in the books themselves rather than in the musings of some guy overcompensating?
At least in terms of marketing, are you SERIOUSLY going to argue that the bullet points for most new games, including 4E, are much more about 'how powerful your deck/character/figure' is than how much you're going to role-play?
Are you SERIOUSLY going to argue that the bullet points for older versions of D&D were not much more about 'how powerful your deck/character/figure' is than how much you're going to role-play?
Why does 'it is present' in the Pokemon Generation, or the WoW Generation, have to mean 'it is rampant'?
Wow; twenty-eight minutes! Your reactions are slowing down, old man!
At least in terms of marketing, are you SERIOUSLY going to argue that the bullet points for most new games, including 4E, are much more about 'how powerful your deck/character/figure' is than how much you're going to role-play?
What does marketing have to do with the nature of the game itself?
Also, what does roleplaying have to do with CC/MGs?
Why does 'it is present' in the Pokemon Generation, or the WoW Generation, have to mean 'it is rampant'?
Wow; twenty-eight minutes! Your reactions are slowing down, old man!
I'm so sorry that planning for my classes in the Fall had delayed me from hovering and waiting for your response.
And great job in the misquoting there. It's like you didn't even read what I wrote. I guess that comes from you kids being unable to actually read ... or at least being unable to sustain your attention long enough to read accurately.