|
In all the complaints about current classes haves and have-nots, I can see this mirroring the message boards of EQ2 when I used to play that. It seems like a class being good at a couple things makes them weak (bards are the prime example) and trying to change them to be a viable "solo class". This was most evident with all the fighter/mage talk back in December, when most wanted a full BAB, High HD, full casting class. The MMO effect is also evident in the DPS talk. I know back in 1st and 2nd Ed, I never heard anyone complain that their fighter wasn't doing enough damage per second on average, and we had some pretty big nerds in our group!(me being one of them) As a whole, I think Paizo did an excellent job with this game system, creating balance without leaving it flat (4th ed is an example of flat, playing like a computer game)
I guess this effect was inevitable, since many of the gamers now are the ones that grew up with MMOs. It just seems sometimes folks are getting all crazy with mechanics and forgetting to have fun and just role play. I think that is why, in all the MMORPGs I played (EQ, UO, EQ2, DAOC, AoC, WAR, CoH, LoE,Realm, WoW, GoldBox NWN, LOTRO...yes I played a lot of them), I always play the class race nobody plays(considered inferior). Gnome, Lurikeens....anything tiny! It always seems more fun to play something that isn't the best, but has a little more flavor.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I know back in 1st and 2nd Ed, I never heard anyone complain that their fighter wasn't doing enough damage per second on average, and we had some pretty big nerds in our group
I'll counter your anecdote with my AD&D anecdote about an unhappy player with a 14 Str fighter in the same group as a 19 Str cleric. :-)
That's a poor example, but I certainly heard enough complaining about munchkin classes (e.g. the Cavalier, or later the Bladesinger kit).
In 2E I found no one ever played a straight up fighter. Multiclassed fighters were common though. For single class people always went with Ranger or Paladin. The only time I ever saw a straight fighter was when a player rolled a 18 for Strength and ended up with 8-12 for all the rest of the stats. Basically fighter was all they qualified for. But this was product of rolling 4D6 kick out the lowest in order.
Your 2nd ed DM let you roll 4d6? Man were you spoiled! I had to roll 3d6 straight down the line. O.O
Your 2nd ed DM let you roll 4d6? Man were you spoiled! I had to roll 3d6 straight down the line. O.O
with you on that and if you got three 3's tough luck. Wach that one die quickly. :)
Heh, I had a character with a Dex of 3 once. I can't for the life of me remember his name but he was known as "the Clumsy".
I agree that roleplaying games are the roots of online games. Thus you can state any version of D&D is like a computer game. So eventually the popular topics for online games will come back to roleplaying games, especially when these type of players try roleplaying for the first time. This respresent the success of Pathfinder, 4E and related games.
I guess the people who enjoy roleplaying versus "rollplaying", will make the experience more enjoyable for everyone. I do find it hard not to get caught up in optimizing a character, so if you feel really strong against the online jargon, or optimization, you may have to find a different group that suits your needs. Or a good DM will know how to balance both types of players to smooth out those differences.
Heh, I had a character with a Dex of 3 once. I can't for the life of me remember his name but he was known as "the Clumsy".
The PC I was speaking of has 3STR/3Dex/3CON/9Int/11wis/16cha. I chose to play fighter. The one session he lasted for was funny. could not even hit a koblod
|
As the game gets hard and technical (and Gygax knows 3rd edition and beyond became utterly complicated) people tend be more technical than RP.
Also MMORPG is far from being RP from what I understood (most of my friends play them but I don't ;o) ). I'm talking in general ... Some people try to do pure RP. But most people are HAck n Slash, barely talking, not mentionning roleplaying ....
Things have changed in 35 odd years or so. Not better not worse, just ... different I suppose and I simply hope RPG will continue to live on.
With the help of Paizo i think it has matured a lot.
|
|
I agree the technical aspect is increasing. Though I must say, old RPGs like 1st edition D&D with its weapon tables that had different bonuses for each AC for each weapon and the Rolemaster system(which I really liked) which has a TON of tables to check to see the result of your action.
I don't know if anyone played the Stormbringer RPG (based on Elric of Melnibone), That one was crazy. you have static HP for your entire career. CON + a size modifier based on size stat. Everything was skill percent based, you just got better at skills until you were a master. If any hit did 50% damage on you, you had to roll on this awful massive damage table and lose fingers, eyes, nose, arm, foot. It was fun but SUPER high mortality rate. the fact armor gave DR helped though.
Our gaming group actively tries to keep mmorpg effects out of the game. We all play them, and have played them for years and years (mmo's I mean), but we all played D&D before mmo's.
We don't talk about tanks and dps. No such thing in our group really. We do have characters that actively pursue the enemy and are better equipped to take damage, but we all understand that we are at the mercy of the enemy (DM) and we don't have 100% control over who they will attack and when. We just try to use tactics that turn the battle in our favor.
Still, we now use terms like buff and debuff (much to our DM's dismay) to reflect some actions in combat. So we have seen mmo's have "some" impact.
In all the complaints about current classes haves and have-nots, I can see this mirroring the message boards of EQ2 when I used to play that. It seems like a class being good at a couple things makes them weak (bards are the prime example) and trying to change them to be a viable "solo class". This was most evident with all the fighter/mage talk back in December, when most wanted a full BAB, High HD, full casting class. The MMO effect is also evident in the DPS talk. I know back in 1st and 2nd Ed, I never heard anyone complain that their fighter wasn't doing enough damage per second on average, and we had some pretty big nerds in our group!(me being one of them) As a whole, I think Paizo did an excellent job with this game system, creating balance without leaving it flat (4th ed is an example of flat, playing like a computer game)
I guess this effect was inevitable, since many of the gamers now are the ones that grew up with MMOs. It just seems sometimes folks are getting all crazy with mechanics and forgetting to have fun and just role play. I think that is why, in all the MMORPGs I played (EQ, UO, EQ2, DAOC, AoC, WAR, CoH, LoE,Realm, WoW, GoldBox NWN, LOTRO...yes I played a lot of them), I always play the class race nobody plays(considered inferior). Gnome, Lurikeens....anything tiny! It always seems more fun to play something that isn't the best, but has a little more flavor.
You should give guild wars a shot, its a darn good MMO with a story....yep you heard me MMO, with story.
I don't know if anyone played the Stormbringer RPG (based on Elric of Melnibone), That one was crazy. you have static HP for your entire career. CON + a size modifier based on size stat. Everything was skill percent based, you just got better at skills until you were a master. If any hit did 50% damage on you, you had to roll on this awful massive damage table and lose fingers, eyes, nose, arm, foot. It was fun but SUPER high mortality rate. the fact armor gave DR helped though.
That's a very good example of a game with "haves" and "have-nots". If you had demonic weapons and armor, you could basically ignore any opponents with non-magical weapons and armor. (Of course, that's perfectly in character with the Elric stories!)
D&D was my first rpg and will always be my favourite - even now it's called Pathfinder. ;)
Having been playing the game for over 30 years I have seen a LOT of changes but, like coming to accept the latest regeneration of Dr. Who, I've always come back to D&D however dubious I am of the changes made to the rules - until now.
Once I heard Pathfinder was continuing a tweaked version of the 3.5 rules I knew D&D and I were going to part company.
It's not just that you can't teach an old dog new tricks - some of the biggest converts to 4th ed. I know are older gamers looking for a little hack'n'slash - but the fact is that I have now been playing MMORPG's for a few years and while I can enjoy the contribution tabletop rpgs have made to the online games, I can't enjoy what they're giving back.
Yes it's fun to call your fighter a tank but once my tabletop experience starts to feel too much like my online experience I want it to stop.
Most MMORPGs seem light on roleplay and heavy on combat, but the beauty is that the mechanics are all hidden away in the programming and you can still enjy the awesome scenery, plot hooks and imbedded backgroundas you grind your levels. Put the mechanics out in the open as part of the rules of a tabletop rpg and you suck the fun right out of the experience. You're back to playing a game, not a roleplaying game and not the kind of D&D game I used to enjoy.
To be fair, my experience of 4th Ed. hasn't been all negative. I've loved running games for younger players and the rules are ideal for what they want out of a game. D&D 4th Ed. is a doddle to run if you stick to published scenarios. But my own playing experience is that the rules intrude too much.
BRP Stormbringer is definitely fun but it's got a complete different design aesthetic being a skill-based system rather than being a class/level system.
Getting back to the original discussion, it definitely seems that D&D did get obsessed with builds and optimization during the d20/3.x period. Not that everyone uses the terminology or engages in maximum optimization but rather that many conversations on the internet have come to focus on optimization and peak performance of PCs and there has been a development of a common language concerning optimization. For ease of use many of those concepts have been borrowed from MMORPGs.
Some concepts have definitely highlighted some of the lack of balance between character classes. To a certain degree the desire for balanced gameplay between the classes resulted in the design choices of 4e (for better or worse). Even for people that have decided to stick with 3.x there is considerable dialogue on whether certain classes have been buffed enough or whether a class has utility out of combat.
I very rarely use MMORPG terminology outside of internet discussions though, it's much more focused on character concept and execution rather than pure mechanical optimization. It's just that discussing the soft aspects of the game rarely seem to resonate on message boards.
|
Meh, it's just a couple of whiny power gamers on the message board. I don't really think a majority of the players really have too much of a problem with how most of the game works, and if they do they just change it without bothering the rest of us.
I think fighter is perfectly viable, since the game isn't like 4th edition where it's all about being in combat and having bonuses to d20 rolls. Haha! Worked a shot in, yes! :D
There was a huge thread (almost 500 posts) about classifying the classes into "tiers", where alot of folks were complaining about "lower-tier" classes (fighters, barbarians, bards) sucking because they couldn't solo every encounter.
I agree that the MMORPG generation of gamers comes to the table with the mentality of thinking that every class should be able to solo, despite the fact that the game was never meant to be a solo game (not that it can't be modified to suit a DM-and-one-player game). The idea has always been one where a TEAM of cooperating adventurers relied on each others' special talents to succeed.
Granted, the "tier 1" classes are over-powered, so a group of clerics can pretty much do without the fighters, rogues, etc., and after about 5th level, the wizards begin to dominate, but that shouldn't be the focus of a good campaign, and a good DM can create adventures where each class gets to shine. (But don't suggest this to the "tier 1"-only munchkins, as they tend to froth at the mouth at such blasphemies! ;P)
Good RPing does indeed make the game 200% more fun the pen-n-paper MMORPG too many players seem to think it should be. In fact, having played my share of MMORPGs, good RPing makes those 200% more fun, too! :)
Getting back to the original discussion, it definitely seems that D&D did get obsessed with builds and optimization during the d20/3.x period.
Personally, I think that's because 3.0 was the first version of D&D that came out during the "Internet age" (yes, yes -- the Internet predates 3.0, of course). Before that, flame wars and bragging about characters had to be done in the letters column of Dragon magazine, which was painfully slow and edited for content.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In all the complaints about current classes haves and have-nots, I can see this mirroring the message boards of EQ2 when I used to play that. It seems like a class being good at a couple things makes them weak (bards are the prime example) and trying to change them to be a viable "solo class". This was most evident with all the fighter/mage talk back in December, when most wanted a full BAB, High HD, full casting class. The MMO effect is also evident in the DPS talk. I know back in 1st and 2nd Ed, I never heard anyone complain that their fighter wasn't doing enough damage per second on average, and we had some pretty big nerds in our group!(me being one of them) As a whole, I think Paizo did an excellent job with this game system, creating balance without leaving it flat (4th ed is an example of flat, playing like a computer game)
I guess this effect was inevitable, since many of the gamers now are the ones that grew up with MMOs. It just seems sometimes folks are getting all crazy with mechanics and forgetting to have fun and just role play. I think that is why, in all the MMORPGs I played (EQ, UO, EQ2, DAOC, AoC, WAR, CoH, LoE,Realm, WoW, GoldBox NWN, LOTRO...yes I played a lot of them), I always play the class race nobody plays(considered inferior). Gnome, Lurikeens....anything tiny! It always seems more fun to play something that isn't the best, but has a little more flavor.
The one comment i would make is that in the fighter mage talk, the overwhelming majority was not asking for full caster full bab classes. In fact no one did. The highest level of power that was asked for was akin to the duskblade, full bab high hd and 6 spell levels of casting. But even then the majority wanted something along the lines of either a bard progression with medium bab and bard spell progression, or something like a paladin (see the iron mage homebrew class for the best example of that) with 4 spell levels and full bab/hd.
And while I do think video game based rpgs have had influence on dnd and its kin, i dont think it is as direct as you think. I in fact think it is a straight generational thing. Gamers have come to desire a greater sophistication in their games. I will admit my experience was brief and distant with AD&D back in junior high, and skipped straight to 3.0 in highschool. So I do not know exactly what the 'glory days' of dnd were like. But I do know that the stress of mechanics is a product of 2 things.
Both have to do with the internet. First of all, there is more information about. We talk on boards like these, and have been for years, sharing ideas, sharing concepts, and it has lead to the average gamer being far more informed then he used to be. I still see it today. Some groups treat and percieve classes very differently from the general concensus because of how their group played the class and used the rules. In the days of ADnD this was almost completely isolated. Sure you might talk a little bit about it at your local retailer, but chances are the overwhelming source of ideas, uses of rules, and creation of characters was within group. So if Joe Shmoe in your group found class A to be strong or weak, it stayed in your group. If joe shmoe always played that class a certain way, it always appeared that way to your group.
Today on the other hand, there are forums etirely dedicated to 'optimization'. Take that as good or bad, it changes perceptions, and it changes information available to groups. Where once a group's mage's may have played a way that did not emphasize their strengths (and perhaps keeping things in balance) now those players have instant access to well written thought out encyclopedias of how to kick ass with class x. It amps everyhing up.
This changes what we need from game designers. Where as once there might be a few cracks in the rules that dms could easily plug up. We now have damn breaches filled with loopholes and powerful combinations, and weak combinations, that require additional (and sometimes too much) effort to manage. Where once a dm might have had to reign in a single munchkin, or the reverse, raise up a player who intentionally chose 'poor' options, now the whole group might present such a challenge at every turn. This changes what we need from game designers, and it changes how we talk about the games. Does it shift it somewhat towards EQ or WoW? I would say yes, but not far enough where I see it as detrimental.
The second issue is a little more straight forward. Its easier to talk about mechanics, particulary in online forums. Roleplay is personal, its selective to the group. I have gamed in many groups and seen it at all levels. It is hard to relate to the roleplay experiences of a group you have not played with. That is also why most of the 'rules' dont pertain to it. It is left to groups to sort out as they find the most fun. The mechanics on the other hand, are a shared experience. After all we all have them in our hands (or computers). And we can discuss them with alot more familiarity. The conversations are more interesting because we all will likely be able to relate.
When talking about new classes, we can talk about flavor, but half the time, people will simply change it to fit their game world. This is after all the rpg forums and not the setting section of the forums. So there is little to no common ground to discuss how one would roleplay the witch without knowledge of the setting you are playing it in. The shared experience is not neccesarily there past some basics, and so the conversation is less interesting, and less likely to be started. The mechanics on the other hand, are again shared by all. They are there in the pdfs. We can analyze and discect, play test and theorize. And we can discuss it from common ground (whether or not we agree ofcourse).
I am for instance without question an optimizer. The mechanics are important to me. I enjoy them, i enjoy analyzing them. And how i roleplay a character stems from the mechancial side of the class/race/features of my character. It does not make roleplaying unimportant. It is quite so to me, but given HOW i roleplay, and how my group does, i find it more complicated to discuss it among the boards and still get my point accross.
There is one more element to the equation that i think is interesting beyond the first 2. I do believe that people take mechanical suggestions far more stringently then they do flavor and roleplay. Obviously we all believe rules can be changed by the dm, but few take the time and effort to make major changes, or even alot of small ones. It's alot of work, and usually involves some explaining to your players for significant changes. The rules are held a little more sacred then the flavor, because those are constant through settings (most of the time) and also harder to change without causing issues.
Flavor on the other hand people are less concerned about. Dont like the roleplay implications of the cavliers flavor text? No problem the dm is accustomed to making alterations to such things to fit his vision of the class and the world. And rarely does anyone challenge this. After all, the story is the dm's domain, unquestioned, unchallenged. If pathfinder society is actually an assasins guild in your dms world so be it.
For that reason people are more concerned with the mechanics side of what is coming from the developers then the flavor.
So basically overall, i think there are 3 reasons you see alot more discussion and concerns about mechanics then about roleplay concerns when talking about new or upcomming stuff.
1. Changing availabilty of information means its harder to keep an 'unbalanced' game under control and therefore there is a greater need for 'balance'
2. It is easier to talk about the mechanical side of things among people you have not gamed with then it is to discuss roleplay due to shared experience.
3. People are far more willing to change flavor then rules, and so people are more concerned with how the rules are shaping up, then the flavor/rp elements of new material.
There was a huge thread (almost 500 posts) about classifying the classes into "tiers", where alot of folks were complaining about "lower-tier" classes (fighters, barbarians, bards) sucking because they couldn't solo every encounter.
That's...not how the tiers worked. The tiers are a measure of how much you could change the world, not about encounters. In fact, they were about how easily a class could break OUT of an encounter. Tier 1's altered the universe at whim. Tier 2's were more specialized, but still had awesome amounts of power that could alter the campaign. Tier 3's were either generally good at a few thing. 4's were good at only one thing. 5's were terrible at everything.
1's and 5's couldn't be challenged. 1's couldn't be challenged because, without openly turning all your attention to shutting them down, they could breeze through everything with ease. 5's can't be challenged because they can't do anything.
The MMORPG effect is simple: Some people really hate MMORPGs, so every behavior they dislike is labeled with it. Ta daaaah!
It's the same thing when people complain about a game being "anime." That's code for "I dislike it."
Honestly, I see far more people complaining about the tier system ruining everything forever for them then I do see complaining from the people who made it. And those complaints, as seen here, typically come from people who haven't even read it.
But I totally, agree, things in 3e, 3.5, Pathfinder, and 4e are way overpowered and geared to players, not like 2e where you had the Complete Book of Elves and tons of kits that gave huge benefits with no disadvantages!*
*Sarcasm. I put this here because I do not doubt for a second that someone won't catch it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There was a huge thread (almost 500 posts) about classifying the classes into "tiers", where alot of folks were complaining about "lower-tier" classes (fighters, barbarians, bards) sucking because they couldn't solo every encounter.
No, actually, there weren't any folks complaining about anything like that. Blatantly and intentionally misrepresenting an argument like that is at best being obstructionist and does you no favors when you attempt to sound like you know what you're talking about.
a good DM can create adventures where each class gets to shine. (But don't suggest this to the "tier 1"-only munchkins, as they tend to froth at the mouth at such blasphemies! ;P)
I'd prefer a system where an average DM, or even a poor DM, or a DM with a less-than-complete understanding of the system, can still create adventures where each class gets to shine. It's nice that the really excellent DMs can bend a certain system to their will, but most DMs don't fall into this category. Those DMs should still find enough support within the system to be able to create enjoyable games where everyone gets a chance to be awesome.
No, actually, there weren't any folks complaining about anything like that. Blatantly and intentionally misrepresenting an argument like that is at best being obstructionist and does you no favors when you attempt to sound like you know what you're talking about.While the language choice was unfortunate and soemwhat misleading, I DO seem to remember you and others (VV, MiB) arguing that the "Tier 5" classes can solo encounters after a certain level. Since that was mostly the basis for measuring a high-tier character, it DID seem like the major failure of the lower tiers was the inability to do so.
That was not the major thrust of your argument, but you should recognize how others percieve the stance...
I disagree with the philosophy of perceptions altering reality ;p
If how they percieve it is factually incorrect - just as someone claiming that fish are mammals can be factually incorrect - then the argument doesn't hold weight.
The issue comes down to people wanting to make a divide. "Look at those people, those rollplayers, they're just like those MMORPG players, am I right? Hah hah, not like us, the people who do it properly!"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The issue comes down to people wanting to make a divide. "Look at those people, those rollplayers, they're just like those MMORPG players, am I right? Hah hah, not like us, the people who do it properly!"
Agreed. There are, like, eight things wrong with that sort of reasoning, no matter who it's aimed at.
There was a huge thread (almost 500 posts) about classifying the classes into "tiers", where alot of folks were complaining about "lower-tier" classes (fighters, barbarians, bards) sucking because they couldn't solo every encounter.No, actually, there weren't any folks complaining about anything like that. Blatantly and intentionally misrepresenting an argument like that is at best being obstructionist and does you no favors when you attempt to sound like you know what you're talking about.
I did not intentionally misrepresent. I calls 'em as I saws 'em. If you don't like the fact that I perceived a bit of whining ... [shrugs]
|
|
The MMORPG effect is simple: Some people really hate MMORPGs, so every behavior they dislike is labeled with it. Ta daaaah!
Having played MMORPGs since 1995 to 2006, I am hardly classified as someone who hates them. I am simply making an observation about what I see happening, at least on the message board discussions. It is drawing parallels to Car Wars and Battletech, stratagy board games. That's all. ( I loved Car Wars. We played that at lunch in high school in our nerd group)
The best thing to do to deconstruct the situation is to state why imbalanced mechanics are a problem in the game. NOT from a mechanical standpoint, you never hear anyone arguing that Park Place is imbalanced because it has a weird money return ratio, but from a rationale of what they do at the table. It may give insight as to why so many people have so much fun beating on the min/maxers.
There was a huge thread (almost 500 posts) about classifying the classes into "tiers", where alot of folks were complaining about "lower-tier" classes (fighters, barbarians, bards) sucking because they couldn't solo every encounter.That's...not how the tiers worked. The tiers are a measure of how much you could change the world, not about encounters. In fact, they were about how easily a class could break OUT of an encounter. Tier 1's altered the universe at whim. Tier 2's were more specialized, but still had awesome amounts of power that could alter the campaign. Tier 3's were either generally good at a few thing. 4's were good at only one thing. 5's were terrible at everything.
1's and 5's couldn't be challenged. 1's couldn't be challenged because, without openly turning all your attention to shutting them down, they could breeze through everything with ease. 5's can't be challenged because they can't do anything.
That's pretty much what I'm saying.
Honestly, I see far more people complaining about the tier system ruining everything forever for them then I do see complaining from the people who made it. And those complaints, as seen here, typically come from people who haven't even read it.
Maybe you aren't referring to me, but in case you are, I have no problem with the tier system, and I even agree with it. All I'm saying was that there was alot of rage on the particular thread I was referring to, and it seemed to be coming from people who didn't want to hear any suggestions that low-tier characters could, in fact, be useful. I agree that they are not as useful in as many situations as high-tier characters. Anywayt, let's not let that dead horse jack this thread, shall we? The tiers are A-Okay! I'm not messin' with the tiers ... okay? ;)
The best thing to do to deconstruct the situation is to state why imbalanced mechanics are a problem in the game. NOT from a mechanical standpoint, you never hear anyone arguing that Park Place is imbalanced because it has a weird money return ratio, but from a rationale of what they do at the table. It may give insight as to why so many people have so much fun beating on the min/maxers.
I think people have fun beating on min/maxers comes down to two things.
1) They're "different" from us (they aren't, but it's so much easier to find differences then to find similarities)
2) Someone got burned by a jerk player.
The thing about Park Place is, everyone has a chance of getting it. Not everyone has a chance of altering the entire setting - fighters certainly can't, for example. There, it all comes down to the roll of the die.
The "issue" with min/maxers comes from three points. I already listed the first two - it's fun to find someone to beat on, and it's easy to get burned by a jerk player. But the third reason is when you have a group of people who don't really understand the rules, and one or two that do. I hit this myself recently in a SWSE game, where I and another player knew the rules, and the rest of the group never bothered to read them. It lead to one player making, mechanically speaking, a really bad character who couldn't do much.
He, however, blamed me and the other player that read the rules. In his eyes, we were horrible evil munchkins that ruined the game for him, because we could do things he couldn't. He didn't see himself being terrible - he saw us being good. Or rather, he didn't see his disadvantage, but instead focused on us having an advantage, and labeled it "unfair"
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the whole problem with optimization vs non-optimized PCs is kinda smokescreen. The real problem is that some people like to spotlight hog and some of those spotlight hogs are optimizers. A hardcore optimizer doesn't have to make it where he dominates every aspect of the game and there are plenty of people who are "real roleplayers" who choose suboptimal builds but somehow manage to make the game all about them.
Knowing where the game breaks and how to break it doesn't mean that you automatically take that build and make the game, the DM, and the other players bow to your will unless you are a jerk. By a similar token the guy who always takes a flavorful and intentionally suboptimal build is also acting as a disruptive element. His build might increase his personal enjoyment of the game but it often comes at the cost of effectiveness for the rest of the group.
I think most groups tend to enforce a social contract of a sort. If a gaming group is composed of a bunch of beer & pretzel players and doesn't care about optimized play then someone always takes a optimized wizard who completely outclasses all the other PCs in all aspects of the game there is a problem. By a similar token if the group is extremely focused on the tactical wargame aspect of the game and someone comes in with an intentional weak build that person is placing a burden on the other players to cover up for his mechanical weaknesses.
Fortunately most gaming groups tend to have a mix of beer & pretzels players, "real roleplayers" and the hardcore optimizers who scour over every splat looking for optimized builds. As long as one or two members of the group don't utterly dominate gameplay either by dominating combat completely or by making the experience entirely about the witty sayings of their bard you can have a pretty fun game. Hell there is even a chance that the different types of players will rub off on each other.
Unfortunately, there are and always have been, a bunch of socially maladjusted individuals haunting the hobby and I daresay we've all been burned by someone who's playstyle is completely grating to ours. Whether they are a munchkin or "real roleplayer" or someone with less than adequate personal hygiene, we've all experienced someone who made roleplaying less fun, hell I think tons of people have been chased off the hobby by these people over the years.
Scapegoating one type of roleplayer for the negative aspects of the game is not cool. As long as there are mechanics, particularly unbalanced mechanics, people are going to min/max to choose the optimum mix of effectiveness and fun. By a similar token as long as it's still called a roleplaying game and not a miniature based wargame then people who value style over substance should have a place at the table.
So, where do you place a player that knows the rules and wants to encourage people to play more interesting, but less mechanically optimized, builds? Who takes the harder road in order to NOT be constrained to standard archetypes? This person MUST understand the optimized path in order to plan into/around it, is not really concerned with a jerk player, and understands the rules perfectly fine.
You see, this person has a philosophical difference with the min/max ideal, and so is opposed to it. You should include this as a fourth option.
Of course, with the fourth option, the min/maxers can't claim to be victims and scranble for the moral high ground, but instead admit that there are probably more than 2 ways to seek enjoyment from the game...
BTW, this does NOT describe myself. I am very much a min/maxer, to the extent that I sign my character sheets "Cheesemaster" and "Munchkin King". However my wife IS a member of the fourth option.
I'd say they don't have a place in my comment.
My comment was on why people hate "minmaxing" as a concept and how it translates to them hating people. You're saying "Well, what about these people who do know the game but purposefully make a less powerful build?"
I suppose my answer would be "Well, that's cool. I've done the same from time to time. But that's not really relevant."
Honestly, yeah, there's problematic power gamers. I won't deny that. But equally disruptive are people who engage in jerkish and antisocial behavior in game then go "Well, it's what my character would've done!
The funny thing about optimizing vs. non-optimizing is that everyone sees the O-word and immediately thinks "munchkin." It doesn't have to be that way at all, and usually isn't, in my experience.
Yes, you will see builds that are optimized for combat, because the vast majority of the mechanics players are handed are for just that: combat.
Most of the practical optimization I see in play is used more for rounding out a character concept, finding a way to take the idea of who or what a character is and fleshing that idea out via mechanics. For example "I want this character to be a really great horseman who is more at ease with his horses than he is with people, a very devout follower of [Deity X] and also possesses qualities X,Y, and Z." and then optimizing the set of mechanics that best suits these desired character aspects.
If you've ever fleshed out a character concept by using the rules of the game to accent the mechanics that best fit your vision of who your character is, congratulations, you're an optimizer, even if that's not what you call it.!
some options are built as munchkin traps. most of which, i like to follow. such as the various multiclass hybrid progression PRCs of 3.5, the TWF chain, the archer concept, rogues, rangers and shields. i do not follow all of these traps.
|
|
As usual, the post is unsuitable for polite conversation and filled with troll bait, BUT the last point is a good one.
Remember the Guidebooks? Especially the "kits"? Those were always points of contention in our D&D games, and those talks followed many of the points being discussed here. They were either completly worthless or completly OP with almost no middle ground. I think of the old fighter "swashbuckler" kit and wonder "Can I sneak THAT into D20?"
The current rule set (D20) is not the first to have easily exploited power boosts and broken combos. It's just the first where we can complain to much larger groups than the local messageboards.
What's kind of funny is a lot of the kits from 2nd edition became prestige classes in 3rd edition! :D
You nailed it on the head there with the messageboard thing. Anyone whose got old Dragon magazines can go back in them and read there people complaining that the old 1st edition AD&D Unearthed Arcana was completely over powered and broken. These complains have been around I'm sure somehow longer then the game itself if that were possible.
I think the whole problem with optimization vs non-optimized PCs is kinda smokescreen. The real problem is that some people like to spotlight hog and some of those spotlight hogs are optimizers. A hardcore optimizer doesn't have to make it where he dominates every aspect of the game and there are plenty of people who are "real roleplayers" who choose suboptimal builds but somehow manage to make the game all about them.
+1!
And to boot, I think why we see a lot of the hate heaped on the min/maxers is they are by far the easier to pick on in these situations. A "role player" can make most any concept work, regardless of mechanical impact, and can run the gamut with a optimized powerhouse or a suboptimal weakling, so long as they can insert themselves. Short of being duct-taped to a chair and gagged, there's not a lot of way to prevent this. They influence the game with force of personality. The hardcore optimizers, however, need the system to validate their characters; without mechanical support, their spotlight-stealing cannot be done. Thus, they speak up the loudest about mechanical changes to the system one way or the other.So many other systems exist that utilize the social contract DIRECTLY (there is a lot of discussion about this on "The Forge", an indie game-designer website) wherein it doesn't matter much what the crunch says, does the table agree with it or not? So its not the system, it IS the players involved.
Yes it's fun to call your fighter a tank but once my tabletop experience starts to feel too much like my online experience I want it to stop.
The term "Tank" comes from MMOs? I didn't know that. We've been calling them tanks for years and none of us play MMOs. Wonder how that happened.
I know back in 1st and 2nd Ed, I never heard anyone complain that their fighter wasn't doing enough damage per second on average, and we had some pretty big nerds in our group
I think the other reason you didn't hear much about this with AD&D is because there weren't many choices involved making a (non-spellcasting) character. The more choices you have, the more debates you can get into about what's underpowered and what's overpowered.
For instance, I certainly remember examining and talking about cheesy overpowered combos in Champions, and to a lesser extent Car Wars. I'm sure if I had access to internet message boards in 1986, I could've found plenty of debates about "Affects Limited Defenses is too good!!!" or "machine guns suck!!!"
I thought we met the quota for January already.
Good thing it's February (:
The term "Tank" comes from MMOs? I didn't know that. We've been calling them tanks for years and none of us play MMOs. Wonder how that happened.
I think the term "tanking" is more MMO-based -- that is, holding threat on a target or targets so they hit you instead of an enemy.
There was a huge thread (almost 500 posts) about classifying the classes into "tiers", where alot of folks were complaining about "lower-tier" classes (fighters, barbarians, bards) sucking because they couldn't solo every encounter.Also, fairy unicorns came and gave everyone who posted in the thread a pony.
As for the rest, do we need another passive-aggressive thread where any analysis or criticism of THE HOLY RULESET HANDED DOWN TO US BY GOD is conflated with wanting to make the game more like MMOs/4e/video games? I thought we met the quota for January already.
You're right, MIB. I retract my statements, shoot myself in the face, and put band-aids on your feelings.
BTW, I didn't get my pony. Is it too late?
A specific instance I've witnessed, that could be at least loosely influenced by MMO's, would be the "Optimize or die" sort of campaigns some DM's run. But, here's the kicker: said DM's I gamed with didn't even play MMOs. Weird, huh? In a few MMOs I played(Ultima Online, PSO, Final Fantasy XI) you either min/max or you're dirt. Players in certain groups will kick you out if you don't have the most optimal gear and abilities. I saw similarities in both the video games and the gaming table; if you didn't have an exact combo of feats and gear with certain classes, the DM scoffed at you and you were as good as dead next encounter. Said DM didn't play MMOs, but did have regular access to message boards such as this...
IMO, as stated in above posts, it has more to do with the abundance of communication gamers have had since about the time 3.0 was in regular circulation. Things like gaming blogs, message boards, etc, have given gamers a chance to compare notes much easier, and the loopholes were discovered much sooner than if a gaming groups were closed off to only communicating with each other.
you either min/max or you're dirt. Players in certain groups will kick you out if you don't have the most optimal gear and abilities.
this happens a lot in Guild Wars, people know something works so if you do something other than that than you are an idiot who stumbled on to the computer, ugh...
Tank as big dumb fighter in heavy armor, shield and big weapon has been in informal usage in Tabletop play for ages (1e-2e at least). The newer usage of forcing aggro creatures to target the tank, or the ability to punish opponents that choose to ignore the fighter and attack the squishy types is more recent in origin but has been around at least as long as 3.0 (AoOs provide at least a small degree of stickiness to fighters). To call tank MMORPG terminology is probably a bit anachronistic.
Tank as big dumb fighter in heavy armor, shield and big weapon has been in informal usage in Tabletop play for ages (1e-2e at least). The newer usage of forcing aggro creatures to target the tank, or the ability to punish opponents that choose to ignore the fighter and attack the squishy types is more recent in origin but has been around at least as long as 3.0 (AoOs provide at least a small degree of stickiness to fighters). To call tank MMORPG terminology is probably a bit anachronistic.
How about meat-shield? :P
Tank as big dumb fighter in heavy armor, shield and big weapon has been in informal usage in Tabletop play for ages (1e-2e at least). The newer usage of forcing aggro creatures to target the tank, or the ability to punish opponents that choose to ignore the fighter and attack the squishy types is more recent in origin but has been around at least as long as 3.0 (AoOs provide at least a small degree of stickiness to fighters). To call tank MMORPG terminology is probably a bit anachronistic.How about meat-shield? :P
Back in 1e that's what we called the hirelings and warhounds ;) That or fodder.
But yes meatshield is typically what the full casters call the fighter types behind their back. They call them tanks to their face because it makes them feel better about themselves.