Goblin Squad Member
|
When WoTC made the move from 3.5 to 4e, my opinion was that Paizo went in the correct direction: you guys made Pathfinder more or less what WoTC should have had the sense to make 4e.
The big thing that stands out to me is what combat looks like. As opposed to Joe-Barbarian choosing between melee attack without power attack vs melee attack with power attack, and then adding all applicable feats, they now have this abominable monstrosity of a system where Joe-Barbarian decides whether he wants to pirouette into a group, or tippity-toe frenetically down a whole line of foes. The attack "powers" have made 4e look like an exaggerated Japanese cartoon where your character stops what he's doing to crouch down and shout some gibberish while he gathers his energy to make some big fancy move that looks more like a dance number...
I bring it up because this approach seems to be disgustingly common in MMOs. Hitting several hotkeys to cycle through a set of ballerina-like moves, all waiting for your grand-finale-super-high-kicking-piroutte-combo to charge up. Gah!
Please keep combat away from that silliness.
An action oriented combat system, like elder scroll games or DDO, helps keep combat moves simplified (unless of course you're playing a wizard or someone with a bunch of spells) by making players focus their attention on the movement and placement during fights. Monsters trying to flank us, us trying to keep out of their circle, trying to slip around behind out of their attack arc every now and then, etc.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
4th edition felt like it was heavily influenced by WoW and the dynamics at play in MMOs.
As for the game play... I totally agree about the silliness in slamming my foot on the ground to send out a shockwave to stun everyone around me, and the silliness of using flashy light shows to try to "spice up" combat. I'm pretty skeptical of the alternatives I've seen proposed though. I've played DDO, and I've played Conan, two games that tried to innovate the kind of combat it sounds like some people are asking for. I didn't like either of them.
As I've said elsewhere, I would really like the option to let my character pretty much fight for itself, while I sit back and make tactical decisions. I most definitely do not want a system where I have to use the movement controls to dance around. My character has those skills, not me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally I hope there wouldn't be the need to "roll around." It was one of the thing that bothered me the most in Witcher 2, in the first game Geralt could do many other types of dodge moves (side step, somersault, etc.) rather than roll roll roll, and dodging in 1st game wasn't even necessary.
DAO had one of the real-time auto combat that I enjoyed. There are plenty of moves a plain melee character can perform, and the moves don't seem to go the over-exaggerating route (at least in the lower~mid levels).
In action combat style games, I prefer something like way of samurai. Constantly blocking with your weapons may have weapons "overheat" and break (like weapons being sundered), there are moves you can unbalance enemies, push enemies, etc. Most basic weapons don't have insane moves either. (at least that's what I remembered of the 2nd installment)
Different weapons also grant players different move styles (I think Witcher 1 also had this?), and you unlock moves once you are more proficient with the weapons you wield, unlike some action games that use the same 3~5 moves for every single weapon regardless their size/type/shape for the whole game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As already more than hammered out in the Trinity Roles thread, the other problem 4th ed has is that there are only three roles: The Tank (Mr. Clank-clank), The Healer (Mr. Sparkle-sparkle), The Damage (Mr. Stab-stab). They invented a fourth role, the Controller (Mr. Boom-boom), in order to deal with a new kind of monster they invented, the Minion, neither of which really existed in earlier editions, since you could just chuck a lower-CR monster instead of "Oh, it's totally as dangerous as a normal monster, but it has to be careful not to kill itself while shaving in the morning!".
So, yeah, three roles, not four, since if you get rid of the Minion, you don't need the Controller, which is really just the Damage, but AoE. (On this very website, a guy called Treantmonk wrote a spectacular guide on how to play a true Controller wizard. Let me try to find the link... here it is:)
http://paizo.com/forums/dmtz1rk0?Treantmonks-Guide-to-Wizards
And the direct link to his Google doc:
https://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AcNyxDTKvAmqZGRtZzhzdjZfMTFmNXdwM2ZjeA&a mp;hl=en
That's how you do controller. Not just "I do lots of damage, but to many people at once!" No. Charm Person, Wall of Ice, Summon Monster, Obscuring Mist... those are the spells that both look cool and really change the flow of battle. Those are also the hardest to code in a game, but Goblinworks, if you can get those spells into PFO, you will really give spellcasters something to do in a fight other than ranged DPS.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Arbalester That's a really good point about controllers. For hack'n'slash fans, the more monsters to fight the better. I tend to view monsters as obstacles on my path to whatever my goal is. If you can get rid of those obstacles by sending them off chasing obstacles you've created for them, then isn't that as good as defeating them? Sadly, most experience point based MMOs only give you experience for actually killing a monster. Overcoming them through distraction, stealth, or other forms of subterfuge means giving up xp.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Arbalester That's a really good point about controllers. For hack'n'slash fans, the more monsters to fight the better. I tend to view monsters as obstacles on my path to whatever my goal is. If you can get rid of those obstacles by sending them off chasing obstacles you've created for them, then isn't that as good as defeating them? Sadly, most experience point based MMOs only give you experience for actually killing a monster. Overcoming them through distraction, stealth, or other forms of subterfuge means giving up xp.
Which is the beauty of PFO's XP or lack of XP system altogether. Skills are trained with real time. So whether you are a stone cold killer, or adopt the moral code of vash the stampede from the anime trigun, that will have little overall bearing on your leveling speed (though certain merit badges may mandate you to kill I think)
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
As already more than hammered out in the Trinity Roles thread, the other problem 4th ed has is that there are only three roles: The Tank (Mr. Clank-clank), The Healer (Mr. Sparkle-sparkle), The Damage (Mr. Stab-stab). They invented a fourth role, the Controller (Mr. Boom-boom), in order to deal with a new kind of monster they invented, the Minion, neither of which really existed in earlier editions, since you could just chuck a lower-CR monster instead of "Oh, it's totally as dangerous as a normal monster, but it has to be careful not to kill itself while shaving in the morning!".
So, yeah, three roles, not four, since if you get rid of the Minion, you don't need the Controller, which is really just the Damage, but AoE. (On this very website, a guy called Treantmonk wrote a spectacular guide on how to play a true Controller wizard. Let me try to find the link... here it is:)
http://paizo.com/forums/dmtz1rk0?Treantmonks-Guide-to-Wizards
And the direct link to his Google doc:
https://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AcNyxDTKvAmqZGRtZzhzdjZfMTFmNXdwM2ZjeA&a mp;hl=en
That's how you do controller. Not just "I do lots of damage, but to many people at once!" No. Charm Person, Wall of Ice, Summon Monster, Obscuring Mist... those are the spells that both look cool and really change the flow of battle. Those are also the hardest to code in a game, but Goblinworks, if you can get those spells into PFO, you will reallyhttp://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/11/steve-jobs-to-developer-name-c hange-not-that-big-of-a-deal/ give spellcasters something to do in a fight other than ranged DPS.
My ardent doesn't fit any of those roles. His go-to power lets an ally make an attack, and applies a short-term damage vulnerability if that attack hits. His most powerful power basically gives EVERY ally in range a basic attack against the target, as the target staggers around under psychic assault. I play him as a sadist with psionic powers based on inflicting pain, who travels with people who inflict a lot of pain on others.
Then there's the orb wizard, who specializes in status effect powers like sleep, color spray, glitterdust, faces of death... Where the hit point damage is less significant than the dazing, slowing, immobilizing, unconsiousness, helplessness, or inability to become concealed temporarily inflicted.
Or the intimidator, who can be many classes, who ends the fight before either sides' HP runs out.
And I wouldn't say that doing 1d8+4 to each of three or four enemies (wizard) requires minions to be useful, as compared to doing 3d6+4 (rogue) to one. More total damage distributed between the enemies has a different use, not a better or worse one.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Daniel... you raise some nice points, and I will agree that the later 4e books, especially Divine Power and Player's Handbook 3, do make buffing/debuffing roles possible in 4e. Two problems, though: 1) Most of the buffs and debuffs just give bonuses/penalties, instead of actually allowing you to control the battlefield itself (Forced movement effects are too rare, in my opinion), and 2) You can still only use these spells in combat, and they still only do combat things. Any Pathfinder spellcaster can find a lot of uses for their spells out of combat, especially the 0-level ones. In 4e, the Wizard does get a few of those cantrips, but they're such a niche role in 4e as to be almost useless.
|
I love dnd, but I do not like 4ed. 4ed is a tactics game with flavor, not a real roleplaying game. If I can take and make a group of chars against someone elses chars with no story just combat then ill play it, but if I want to rp then I go to 3.5 or pf. particularly with 4ed using powers atwill or encounter or daily and surges and such.
i want to play pfo if it is a roleplaying game. If it is just combat then Ill stick to halo and lotr conquest.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Daniel... you raise some nice points, and I will agree that the later 4e books, especially Divine Power and Player's Handbook 3, do make buffing/debuffing roles possible in 4e. Two problems, though: 1) Most of the buffs and debuffs just give bonuses/penalties, instead of actually allowing you to control the battlefield itself (Forced movement effects are too rare, in my opinion), and 2) You can still only use these spells in combat, and they still only do combat things. Any Pathfinder spellcaster can find a lot of uses for their spells out of combat, especially the 0-level ones. In 4e, the Wizard does get a few of those cantrips, but they're such a niche role in 4e as to be almost useless.
I haven't actually rolled up a maneuvering character that focused on forced movement, mostly because it would be redundant with the mobility abilities. There are plenty of opportunities to move or teleport allies to strategic locations.
What noncombat spells do you not think have a ritual equivalent? Is there a reason for 'Make Whole' to be next to 'Magic Missile', and use substantially the same resources?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What noncombat spells do you not think have a ritual equivalent?
Ah, rituals. I had actually forgotten about those, since they were used so rarely in the couple 4e campaigns I've played. My major problem with 4e rituals is that, true, they do not use the same resources as combat spells. No, they use way, way more.
Not only does every single ritual have a material component cost (which is one of my major annoyances with spellcasting), they have another major cost: Time. There isn't a single ritual in the 4e book that takes less than 10 minutes to cast. That's 100 rounds, which renders them all but useless in combat!Once again, 4e has a huge gap between "stuff you are allowed to do in combat" and "stuff that you aren't allowed to do in combat". Why not use Make Whole during combat? Or Silence, or Floating Disk, or any of those "noncombat" spells? In some of my 3.5 campaigns, where Make Whole is just a standard action, I've never gone a day without preparing it. (Then again, that GM was rather sunder-happy with his creatures...) Fixing the fighter's greatsword in combat helps him out a lot, and it's even more useful when it's not "Oh, no, your sword got broken! Hold on while I burn up 400 gp in reagents and take 100 rounds fixing it!"
Mind you, in 4e, you're supposed to use nothing but Powers during combat, and nothing but Rituals out of combat, but that goes back to the "combat mode vs. non-combat mode" problem that plagues 4e and most MMO's. Heck, the reason the Summon Monster spells are so much fun is that they're as useful out-of-combat as they are in-combat, since there's no mechanical difference between the two. "Oh, no, we can't throw a grappling hook up a castle wall that high!" "Hang on, I'll just summon a bat who can carry the rope up for us!"
EDIT: Broke groups of ideas up to make this less of a wall of text.
|
|
OMG silence is not a combat spell! what kind of idiot came up with the idea that silencing a spellcaster was not not worthy of being a combat spell.
then there is prestidigitation, sure it cant hurt someone but filling a square with marbles is always a good way to slow down persuers
yeah the text says [in3.5] that you cant use it to ditract or inhibit another character but it is impossible to make anything and be unable to ditract someone with it, take a matchbox car and see how many ways you can irritate your friends with it, then throw it at them.
I once stopped a charge by dropping a handfull of d4s in front of the enemy fighter, he then had to walk through on his next turn.
Any real creative player can prep prest. and wait for the enemy to do something and stop or inhibit or annoy even without doing any actual dmg or status effects.
|
|
that is what I like about pnp, the ability to be creative. in 4ed and mmos(mmos have an excuse, but not 4ed) the ability to be creative is reduced by clarifying absolutly what can and cannot be done. computers have a certain difficulty with this but good programming design can help alleviate this a little. mostly by makeing things that create stuff use building blocks instead of finished items and providing lots of blocks and maybe even allow custom made blocks, etc. can also allow shapable areas of certain spells and such as well.
I once used major creation to make a block of lead with steel spikes on bottom about 20 feet in the air above a few badguys, well they quicky discovered what it meant to be "holey" badguys
|
Yes, Paizo.
Please don't make a game that is relatively simple and balanced compared to other systems (relatively being the key word).
Please don't make a game with mechanics that are easily understood by new players.
Because we all know that descriptions of abilities severely limit roleplaying ability. I've seen the most hardened roleplayers crippled by text descriptions. In fact, nobody actually roleplays in 4th edition. Whoever called it a roleplaying game was way off base! The game only discourages roleplaying. Actually, I can't think of a single book that doesn't contain the phrase "Roleplaying is evil and for wusses, so don't do it," repeated several times, followed by 1337speak.
/sarcasm
Seriously. I don't care how you make your combat system. I just want there to be more combat options for melee characters than "I swing my sword," and "I swing my sword hard."
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
This discussion reminded me of an old video.
In this video, one of the combatants is using 3.5 rules and one is using 4e. Can you guess which is which?
Clearly, the one using perform:gladiator and tumble to impress the crowd was using 3.5 rules, but he provoked an AoO from the pit fighter/monk who critted using 4e rules and a good ki focus.
Unless that was a 4e monk who beat up a slew of ninja before finally getting knocked out...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This discussion reminded me of an old video.
In this video, one of the combatants is using 3.5 rules and one is using 4e. Can you guess which is which?
Clearly, the one using perform:gladiator and tumble to impress the crowd was using 3.5 rules, but he provoked an AoO from the pit fighter/monk who critted using 4e rules and a good ki focus.
Unless that was a 4e monk who beat up a slew of ninja before finally getting knocked out...
/facepalm
3.5 melee attack vs 4e dance number attack, and you say...sir, I think you are toying with me.
|
|
hehe.
The point is, how you roleplay your character and the mechanics behind your character are two fundamentally different things.
You could make the exact same character in Pathfinder and 4th edition, roleplay him exactly the same way, and have different combat experiences that fit within character.
The big thing that stands out to me is what combat looks like. As opposed to Joe-Barbarian choosing between melee attack without power attack vs melee attack with power attack, and then adding all applicable feats, they now have this abominable monstrosity of a system where Joe-Barbarian decides whether he wants to pirouette into a group, or tippity-toe frenetically down a whole line of foes. The attack "powers" have made 4e look like an exaggerated Japanese cartoon where your character stops what he's doing to crouch down and shout some gibberish while he gathers his energy to make some big fancy move that looks more like a dance number...
While I understand this is an overstatement, it seems like you're forgetting the variety of options characters have in Pathfinder.
Question: Which of these is more ridiculous?
Whirlwind Attack (feat): You attack every enemy adjacent to you.
or
Dire Wolverine Strike (power): You attack every enemy adjacent to you.
How about:
Spring Attack (feat): You move up to your speed, make a single attack, and move up to your speed again without provoking AoO's from your target.
or
Hit and Run (power): You shift 2 squares, make an attack, then shift 2 squares.
The only reason these abilities could seem ridiculous is if you play very single-minded, one-trick pony characters in Pathfinder, or you are forcing ridiculousness into a system that gives no indication of Anime-esque gameplay.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
hehe.
The point is, how you roleplay your character and the mechanics behind your character are two fundamentally different things.
You could make the exact same character in Pathfinder and 4th edition, roleplay him exactly the same way, and have different combat experiences that fit within character.
The big thing that stands out to me is what combat looks like. As opposed to Joe-Barbarian choosing between melee attack without power attack vs melee attack with power attack, and then adding all applicable feats, they now have this abominable monstrosity of a system where Joe-Barbarian decides whether he wants to pirouette into a group, or tippity-toe frenetically down a whole line of foes. The attack "powers" have made 4e look like an exaggerated Japanese cartoon where your character stops what he's doing to crouch down and shout some gibberish while he gathers his energy to make some big fancy move that looks more like a dance number...While I understand this is an overstatement, it seems like you're forgetting the variety of options characters have in Pathfinder.
Question: Which of these is more ridiculous?
Whirlwind Attack (feat): You attack every enemy adjacent to you.
or
Dire Wolverine Strike (power): You attack every enemy adjacent to you.How about:
Spring Attack (feat): You move up to your speed, make a single attack, and move up to your speed again without provoking AoO's from your target.
or
Hit and Run (power): You shift 2 squares, make an attack, then shift 2 squares.The only reason these abilities could seem ridiculous is if you play very single-minded, one-trick pony characters in Pathfinder, or you are forcing ridiculousness into a system that gives no indication of Anime-esque gameplay.
Nitpick: Whirlwind attack feat: "one melee attack at your highest base attack bonus against each opponent within reach
Various powers: [One attack each against enemies adjacent to you.]The difference between 'enemies in reach' and 'adjacent enemies' can be pretty significant; there are zero 4e powers which target 'all creatures [or all enemies] within melee reach' even though there are many which target all adjacent creatures or all adjacent enemies (a 'close burst 1'), and a fair number of ways to target up to three enemies within melee weapon range with one action.
Going with the descriptions:
Whirlwind Attack (Combat): You can strike out at every foe within reach.
Five Storms (Monk attack power)
You move like a whirlwind, spinning as you unleash an array of kicks and punches, which slam into your foes like a storm crashing onto the shore.
Discounting the cheese (like a human rogue with potions of Enlarge Person and Greater Invisibility (Summoner 3) wielding any of the weapons which are both reach and close with whirlwind attack, possible at level 9) the two have similar effects.
And there are PF feats which are best described as anime-like
Dimensional Savant
You flash into and out of reality so quickly it is impossible to tell exactly where you are at any given time.
There are plenty of valid reasons to dislike 4e, including the business plan behind it, but the fact that it offers more types of options for people with swords isn't a good one.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Hmm.. options...
I'm trying to get at the core of why I don't like 4e, besides that there's next-to-nothing to do out of combat.
Here's one: Even in combat, your options are very restricted.
In Pathfinder, your combat options are based on: What the terrain is like (maybe I could climb into a tree to get away from this orc?), what skills you have (wait, how strong is this pillar, anyway? Knowledge (engineering)!), what spells you have prepared/known, what weapons you have, what weapons the enemy has, what feats you have... and there's probably a few I've forgotten. Yes, most munchkin builds do look like 4th ed combat, what with spamming Spring Attack every round or spamming some spell every round, but I'm not talking about munchkins; they'll break the game no matter what system it is.
In 4th ed, your combat options are almost exclusively based on which 10-odd powers you know, and what abilities the enemy has. Skills? Depends on the DM, but usually not very useful. Feats? Just give bonuses to numbers, for the most part. Equipment? Whatever will work with your power, it doesn't really matter.
My two biggest problems with 4th ed are: Having monsters use different rules than players, and tying specific fluff text a little too tightly to powers. Both inhibit roleplaying and break immersion, and result in a less-fun game overall. At least when a Pathfinder fighter is spamming Spring Attack, he can do different things with that attack...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think one thing many of y'all may be hating about 4e is the way that the combat felt like WoW combat, in that you had similar trinity-inspired roles, and spammable attacks and special attacks with long cooldowns. There was something intrinsically different about 4e, and I believe it was heavily influenced by typical MMOs.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The "trinity" of roles is something that I've seen in every incarnation of AD&D since I first played in 1980. The terms used may be different, but the roles have always been the same. Big tanky fighter guy, dashing around backstabbing rouge guy, nuking mage guy, and healing cleric guy. Considering that two of the classic four have had the same striking role for most of the game's history, the Trinity that people keep bringing up originated in THIS game.
There's a bit of semantics here that I think you're using to dodge the real issue.
As I've said before, there has indeed always been the idea of a Tank in D&D. But that Tank is significantly different from the Tank in WoW. As an exercise, can you find me any feats or abilities before 4e that allowed the Tank to control who the enemy attacked? I'm talking feats and abilities, not tactics like standing in the way.
|
|
stuff
But here's the problem with your analysis:
A tactically minded person can still do all of the things you mentioned. A fighter could climb a tree (Athletics) and fire at an orc with his bow (you DID bring a ranged weapon to use against flying combatants, right?). A dwarf rogue could look at a pillar and use his Engineering skill to see how difficult to be to take down. I've seen fighters bring reach weapons and high crit weapons for different scenarios, wizards can bring damaging spells or crowd control spells (or a mixture of both), and feat selection essentially defines how your character is going to be played.
4th edition combat is deceptively simple if you only use the powers on your character sheet and ignore all other factors, much in the same way that Pathfinder combat is deceptively simple if the Fighter just stands in one spot and power attacks all day.
...tying specific fluff text a little too tightly to powers. Both inhibit roleplaying and break immersion, and result in a less-fun game overall.
I can see this being an issue, and for many people it is. My wife dislikes playing 4th edition for this very reason, despite the fact that the complaint hasn't come up in her current 4th edition game she's DM'ing >_>
Edit: @Nihimon: Can you find any feats or abilities in 4th edition that allow the tank to directly control who the enemy attacks?
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
The "trinity" of roles is something that I've seen in every incarnation of AD&D since I first played in 1980. The terms used may be different, but the roles have always been the same. Big tanky fighter guy, dashing around backstabbing rouge guy, nuking mage guy, and healing cleric guy. Considering that two of the classic four have had the same striking role for most of the game's history, the Trinity that people keep bringing up originated in THIS game.There's a bit of semantics here that I think you're using to dodge the real issue.
As I've said before, there has indeed always been the idea of a Tank in D&D. But that Tank is significantly different from the Tank in WoW. As an exercise, can you find me any feats or abilities before 4e that allowed the Tank to control who the enemy attacked? I'm talking feats and abilities, not tactics like standing in the way.
Trip. Bull rush. Disarm. Attacks of opprutinity. Readied actions to charge someone engaging the mage. Taunt.
Did you ever play with, or as, a wizard or sorcerer that cast spells other than defensive ones?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My wife dislikes playing 4th edition for this very reason, despite the fact that the complaint hasn't come up in her current 4th edition game she's DM'ing
You lucky, lucky man.
I consider myself exceptionally lucky that my wife plays MMOs, in fact we met in EverQuest. And she's open to playing D&D, in fact we played 4e briefly when it first came out.
Congratulations, sir. :)
|
|
@Daniel, are you saying Taunt is an ability in PF tabletop?
It was the early 90's when I was actually playing D&D, and I haven't kept up with it.
Actually, one of the most hotly debated feat inclusions was a feat that allowed you to FORCE an enemy to attack you in melee combat. Can't remember the name at the moment, but it caused quite a stir, and most DM's don't allow it (at least, that I know of).
However, there still is no taunt mechanic in 4th Edition, either. Remember, incentive /= requirement. Just like a fighter in Pathfinder can incentive attacking him with high damage, a fighter in 4e can incentive attacking him with the threat of high damage. The mechanics are handled differently, but without an actual aggro mechanic, enemies are still forced to think for themselves.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Sorry... There is a taunt feat, but it doesn't do what I thought it did. For some reason I thought it was "Target gets +2 to hit you, but if it attacks anyone except you, you get +2/+2 versus it.
It does, however, do basically the same thing as the 4e tank: -2 to attacks.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It sounds like 3.5 and 4e both were somewhat inspired by MMOs and started incorporating Taunt, although not as an absolute effect. I would also imagine there's no such thing as an AoE Taunt, and further that it would be very unlikely for a 3.5 Tank to survive very long with 5 or 6 powerful enemies hitting him at once.
As I said, there's a significant difference between the MMO Tank and the classic D&D Tank.
Frankly, I really hope there is some kind of Rescue ability where my Paladin can Rescue my wife if she's getting beat on too badly. And I'm quite comfortable with the 3.5 and 4e Taunt as long as it's a single target that I'm actively engaging.
What I don't want to see, and what I think Ryan will be trying to avoid, is requiring the Tank to "tank" everything in the encounter.
|
|
there are two kinds of players in rpgs whether an mmon or pnp. type 1, creative players, these players create complete characters and generally try to fit the game system to their concept(which is probably what led to the creation of class varients in unearthed arcana), type 2 are less creative, these players want lego blocks to build a character focused on something specific, they generally use the game system to build their concepts. rules lawyers and minmaxers are generally type 2.
4ed and wow cater to type 2 players and make it hard for type 1 players. dnd and pf on the other hand are good for either type of player(and those players that fall somewhere in between)
I am all type 1 and thats why i hate 4ed and wow. I am the guy that uses major creation as my main offense and defense spell.
There are more than two. There has been quite a bit of research into player types.
http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/theory/models/robinslaws.html
Read that. It explains a lot about posters in this forum and where they are coming from. I will add that there can be munchkin versions of every single one of those types, although the power gamer munchkin is really a super munchkin, or munchkins' munchkin if you will. Actually had a guy in a group I was in that wanted to have his magic user learn every spell in the game, thought it made perfect sense, and in no way unbalanced anything. THAT is a munchkin.