Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Tempus665 07-20-04, 01:55 AM	I hope you don't mind me quoting you, Brombur, but what you said got me thinking. :) Originally posted by brombur Two, it didnt have one single goofy or stupid pc ever. no powergames sun elf wizard with spell prodigy, no half pixie half copper dragon barbarian, no stupid drow trying to be good drizzt wanabees, nada zip zilch, too often players get caght up in these as being what defines their "character" stats and funny race/class combos don't make a memorable character, personallity and character based decisions/interactions do. the stats werent great at all, the players earned every gp, xp and magic item. sorry about the rant i just am frustrated by the turn i see modern gamers taking, apologies all A lot of people that start gaming these days are power gamers. Yes, I know there are also a lot of roleplayers born every minute, but still, I think there are too many power gamers. And although I respect everyone's opinion (what else is the use of visiting these Boards?), and I know that for most people, power-gaming is just a phase that passes, I wonder what's the cause of this. What do you think? Is it the current offer of action-loaded tv series/movies? Is it the computer games? Something entirely different?
Boz Shulun 07-20-04, 12:12 PM	I suppose that I could begin a long rant about the percentage of today’s young people unnecessarily or over medicated for psychosis in the US and that effect on attention spans but I’ll save that for another day. (But I will say that children need nurturing love and parental attention… not Ritalin) </rant> I think that the constant combat of today’s “roleplaying” video games is a major reason for the modern day powergamer. The instant gratification of leveling up in a fight and wave after wave of monsters is more appealing than a true story based RP game. (I know I am using a wide sweeping generalization. I know that there are some truly gifted exceptions to this but they are tragically fewer than the alternative.) Today’s videogames are 80% action followed by 20% numbing story that most kids just pound the spacebar or X button until they can get back to the killing. As the FR is the backdrop for a lot of these games, I think that the FR have a larger concentration of powergamers than other WOTC games. The slow, methodic development of a character seems to be a thing of the past. 3rd Ed. doesn’t help this. Although I am a fan of the system and think that it is an easier and cleaner system, I think that character advancement is too fast.
MetalGemini 07-20-04, 12:43 PM	I think new gamers just like "the cool stuff" in the game and don't understand all the role-playing aspects yet. Just think of your very first character. Did you want to be the big tough fighter, mysterious thief, or awesome wizard or the guy from town X that has a huge history and uses his natural charisma to get out every situation without every drawing a sword and has a secret love affair with the king's daughter (who is actually a half-celestial).... you get the point. D&D is a cool game that takes a while to really emerse yourself in and to understand the role-playing part of. Long story short, new gamers don't know how to role-play and until they get the hang out it, killing stuff is all they understand.
J. Grenemyer 07-20-04, 01:00 PM	Hello, Originally posted by Tempus665 What do you think? Is it the current offer of action-loaded tv series/movies? Is it the computer games? Something entirely different? IMO all these external factors are irrelevant. Regardless of whether a gamer is exposed to Super Video Games and/or action adventure sci-fi fantasy movies, or is never exposed to any of this at all, most gamers will still power game at some point –and may just stick with that style- because it’s human nature. Power gaming isn’t an aspect of modern gamers; it’s an aspect of all gamers through time. :D
Boz Shulun 07-20-04, 04:18 PM	Originally posted by MetalGemini Long story short, new gamers don't know how to role-play and until they get the hang out it, killing stuff is all they understand. I have to say that I do agree with you. In my experience, powergamers may not know the joy of true RPing because they were not exposed to it. I have met some truly outstanding roleplayers that used to be munchkins.
GothicDan 07-20-04, 04:25 PM	First of all, from an Edition point of view - I prefer 2E. Mind you, there are some things that I enjoy about 3E (saving throws and BAB, really, above all else), but there are way too many things that I dislike about it. 3E/.5 seems to promote powergaming above all else, and this in itself isn't bad - but it doesn't really give you any inspiration for roleplaying. Personally, I tend to powergame as a side-effect of my character concepts, because they are reflective of my RL personality. I never accept being anything other than the best in whatever given area I choose to study; so, yes, I'll be the one that plays that Sun Elf Wizard with Spellcasting Prodigy. My 2E Necromancer Undead Master I'm playing now is a good example of this. That's just an aspect of the character, though, not a reason for his existence. On the other hand, I love roleplaying and extended, tricky battles/conflicts. Needless to say, I have never played a non-wizard in real life. I played a Thief/Wizard Faerie Elf once, in Greyhawk, in my first campaign, and I stopped that. My favorite campaign setting is Planescape which has its share of hack and slash, but forces you to RP. Thus, why it wasn't as perhaps as popular as other D&D settings. And, at the risk of sounding pretentious, I've seen the most intelligent D&D RPers playing Planescape above pretty much any other setting.... *Cough* Moving on, I think that video game 'RPGs' (if someone refers to Final Fantasy or the like as an RPG, I go berserk) are a HUGE part of the reason why so many modern/new gamers are so into hack-and-slash. Also, the FR novels aren't really adding to the cause, either. Don't get me started on Drizzt.... In regards to this? "I suppose that I could begin a long rant about the percentage of today’s young people unnecessarily or over medicated for psychosis in the US and that effect on attention spans but I’ll save that for another day. (But I will say that children need nurturing love and parental attention… not Ritalin) </rant>" Let me just say, as a person who has suffered from severe ADHD (and yes, I mean, suffered, emotionally and academically) for his entire life, I can attest to the fact that chemical imbalances often can't be changed by 'nurturing love.' ;) I know my Adderall helped me from going from C's and D's in middle school to graduating first in class from high school. And I know it's not a placebo, because I've accidentally "placebo'd" myself before, and noticed the difference. Damn the vitamins... Anyway. That's enough from my corner, for now.
Brahzs M'ahnkei 07-20-04, 04:32 PM	Originally posted by Boz Shulun I think that the constant combat of today’s “roleplaying” video games is a major reason for the modern day powergamer. The instant gratification of leveling up in a fight and wave after wave of monsters is more appealing than a true story based RP game. (I know I am using a wide sweeping generalization. I know that there are some truly gifted exceptions to this but they are tragically fewer than the alternative.) Today’s videogames are 80% action followed by 20% numbing story that most kids just pound the spacebar or X button until they can get back to the killing. I am going to go one step farther into the psychoanalysis and say that the problem is greater than just the "young generation" and instant gratification (although I think that contributes), simply because it's not just the youngsters that are playing. Those who started young and are now growing (grown) up and are realizing that the world outside the gaming table is not nearly as exciting or as much fun as an RPG. If you spend your entire week filling out paperwork/ marketing on the phone/ meeting with clients/ etc. it feels good to "accomplish" something in game and that usually entails defeating some foe in physical combat. Yes, I understand that role-playing and plot development are exciting- I myself enjoy that more than the combat. I also admit that on Saturday, I can't wait to be the hero. I live for that moment when I can save the day; that moment when the party is down for the count, I'm the only only one left and the flesh golem is showing signs of weakness... you all know the situation I'm speaking of. It feels good. Our world today disenfranchises it's citizens. We all work hard for every dollar that we get, some of us hating the reality of having to work for a _dollar_, and then we realize that once we've earned it, it's gone. Responsiblity sags our shoulders, taxes pick our pockets and telemarketers want to sell phone service during our few precious hours of respite. "Real life" tends to be dull and monotonous when compared to our RPG alter-egos. That's why we play. Movies and television (as well as the aforementioned video games) shove images into our brains that we can't hope to be or even reach for. Paris Hilton, Justin Timberlake, Brad Pitt, Brittany Spears... this is what we are supposed to be. I know that we all rebel against these, but it's hard not to listen when it's coming at you 24/7. *ahem... :rolleyes: Sorry for the rant, but this is something that I think about a lot, actually. I agree whole-heartedly that 3rd ed., despite being a more organized and advanced system, advances PCs too quickly, but I think that is in response to the general consumer's desires. The group that I play in has tried a couple ways to change this: awarding half xp totals, doubling the advancement requirements, etc. In the end, I guess it doesn't matter to me whether or not anyone is a "power gamer" or anything else. The beauty of the game is that you get out of it what you want. If you want to work off some steam and slaughter evil despots from here 'til Tuesday: go ahead. If you would rather solve the Case of the Missing Ring: right on. Seduce a prince/ princess; conquer a neighboring city-state; study the migratory habits of European Swallows... if it's not fun, don't do it. ;) Peace and cookies.
Boz Shulun 07-20-04, 11:56 PM	Originally posted by Brahzs M'ahnkei ... Yes, I understand that role-playing and plot development are exciting- I myself enjoy that more than the combat. I also admit that on Saturday, I can't wait to be the hero. I live for that moment when I can save the day; that moment when the party is down for the count, I'm the only only one left and the flesh golem is showing signs of weakness... you all know the situation I'm speaking of. It feels good... I share your view that D&D is a great escape from the real world and my week is spent in counting down the time until I can get back at it again. Real life is ugly, brutal and unfair. I like to take out my frustrations on orcflesh just like the next guy, but I think that the majesty and wonder of the game has been compromised in favor of corporate marketing strategies (Waiter, I’ll have another crunchy sourcebook shoved down my throat please) and one-dimensional pseudo heroes. FR N’s have so many anti-heroes that I find myself rooting for the antagonists. Originally posted by GothicDan Let me just say, as a person who has suffered from severe ADHD (and yes, I mean, suffered, emotionally and academically) for his entire life, I can attest to the fact that chemical imbalances often can't be changed by 'nurturing love.' ;) Don’t get me wrong, GD, I know that there are millions of people who suffer daily from very real and debilitating mental illnesses that a mere loving environment cannot cure. I was not referring to those cases and in no way intended to minimize their plight. I was talking about the propensity of parents, teachers and even those in the medical community to quickly judge children and subject them to powerful medications when other alternatives would have been sufficient.
GothicDan 07-21-04, 12:01 AM	Boz Sholon: I understand what you're saying, and I apologize for jumping on you like that. You just have no clue how often you have people talking about things they don't know about, especially when it comes to psychology/neurology. ;) It gets rather frustrating. Ritalin (along with Prozac) are both nasty, nasty drugs that they really only use now in the most worse-case scenarios, at least.
Boz Shulun 07-21-04, 02:16 AM	*Bows conceding point* Back on the subject of Powergamers… I think that powergaming in general is not an Earth-shattering offence and a little can be fun. The problem is when you have a powergamer who exerts his “kewlness” over everyone else (especially if the others are not powergaming).
Ty Cobb 07-21-04, 04:16 AM	Originally posted by Boz Shulun I think that the constant combat of today’s “roleplaying” video games is a major reason for the modern day powergamer. The instant gratification of leveling up in a fight and wave after wave of monsters is more appealing than a true story based RP game. (I know I am using a wide sweeping generalization. I know that there are some truly gifted exceptions to this but they are tragically fewer than the alternative.) Today’s videogames are 80% action followed by 20% numbing story that most kids just pound the spacebar or X button until they can get back to the killing. As the FR is the backdrop for a lot of these games, I think that the FR have a larger concentration of powergamers than other WOTC games. Sorry, you sound like those blaming Slipknot or MM for whatever (even if its the least you want). I played a week ago the game wasteland (its my all time fav.), and its much hack n´slash. The Bards Tale or the old SSi games as well and they are 20 years old. So I don´t think the amount of combat in relation to the amount of the story is a valid point. IMO everyone has to learn and an experienced may not have the patience to help a new player to learn the game. There are surely some players who want to roleplay from the start (in my group there is such a "jewel") but in most cases the players as the DM has develop certain skills. Maybe new player don´t want to invest much time into the game like I or other players did because the possibilities of spending time have increased much (2000 TV channels, computer games,...). This seems to be imo the main problem, less time (as other said before) and the laziness or dislike to spend time beyond the gamesessions.
Another Gnome 07-21-04, 05:45 AM	I'm willing to have my generation of players labeled powergamers if you oldtimers are willing to let me label you DMs whose idea of a dungeon is a collection of monsters locked inside rooms along a big corridor and whose only purpose in the game is to kill the PCs. :P Gotta love those stereotypes, eh?
Urlithani 07-21-04, 05:59 AM	I think the playstyle of D&D directly correlates with the changing of the real world. My group isn't all powergaming, but if we don't get at least 1 fight a night, we get VERY ornery. Years ago a man could work 9-5, monday through fridays. The wife stayed at home and cooked and cleaned. Dinner was every night, and there was always time and money on the weekends to spend time doing things. D&D was more roleplay friendly when real life was easier to get by then. When you had no worries in real life, you could easily go into D&D and roleplay entire sessions in a tavern, telling stories, playing games, dancing, and whatever. Nowadays, both husband and wife work. The kids are in after school and day care programs. Both parents come home tired; nobody was home to do the laundry, help the kids with the homework, and take care of the bills. The fridge is empty, so it's time to order pizza again. Since you have less time on the weekdays, your formerly free weekends are spent doing house chores and upkeep. You didn't have much money left over to go out on the weekends, anyway. D&D is less roleplay friendly in this aspect because it tends to be hard to "phase out" of reality and leave your problems behind. I don't know too many people that can do that. To some people, roleplaying happier times just makes them reflect on the bad parts of their real life. Roleplaying the sadder parts of D&D tends to make them think it a parallel of their currently dreary real life counterpart. And so, D&D has become hard edged and gritty. Just like the many people that play it. D&D changed with the times, but only because the players have made it change. If someone wants to prove me wrong, send me $1,000,000. I can guarantee you that at my next gaming session my character will be much more convivial and eager to carouse around the town Roleplaying for hours on end. ;)
Faraer 07-21-04, 07:15 AM	From the point of view of the Realms, powergaming and munchkinism *are* bad (despite the current dogma that all playstyles are somehow equally valid), not just because the core mode of the Realms is roleplaying over rules, but because powergaming reduces the setting to a paper-thin backdrop and renders irrelevant most of its depth. It makes the Realms into, well, fluff. Talking about 'human nature' is risky, and I don't believe that powergaming is an inevitable stage that everyone goes through; yes, many children and teenagers shown the game as a variant wargame, boardgame or videogame do, but most well-adjusted adults introduced by good roleplayers don't. Ultimately, engagement with stories in a secondary world is healthy and rewarding on a basic human level, whereas numbercrunching powertrips are a thin, trivial, usually brief thrill even for those they appeal to. RPG writers and publishers are complicit in selling people the idea that they aren't really creative but can have an interesting character through the application of gimmicks (races, prestige classes, feats, superpowers, clans, templates, equipment, all that). It is just a con to sell books: people *are* creative, and those gimmicks don't make their characters any more interesting. I don't think Brahzs's general point is controversial. If your work life is exhausting, dull, demanding, and stressful your non-work life compensates by being relaxing, brightly coloured, and facile. For Urlithani's, in recent history periods of general worry have increased, not lessened, people's investment in alternate worlds.
Crust 07-21-04, 10:05 AM	As DM, I wouldn't say I have power gamers at my table. There certainly are players who exploit the rules to great benefit, like the gnomish arcane trickster who makes deadly use of admixtured ranged touch spells as sneak attacks, but that's it (he once felled a healthy fire giant with one spell). Heck, the party wizard casting shapechange is enough to clean up the battlefield rather quickly. Is that power gaming? My players are also excellent role-players, and good role-players always do the best role-playing when they're alive, so in the above case, perhaps my players aren't power gamers. I must admit that I did allow one of my players to play a drow for a time. The party didn't know that his "new character" was a drow, but as soon as that was revealed, the character was soon dead. I also allowed another player to play a malaugrym in 2E. That was interesting. As with the drow, his malaugrym was also killed once revealed, so what was accomplished? It was fun for the players and myself while the ruse lasted. In both cases, the drow and the malaugrym had a great deal to do with the campaign, so the decision made sense in that regard. It wasn't only so that they could play kewl characters. I'm toying with the possibility of allowing one of my players (the same one who played the malaugrym) to play an illithid savant in my Tomb of Horrors/Githyanki Incursion campaign. His role will be as a common enemy against the githyanki, but his true goal will be to attempt to steal spellfire from the party cleric/spellfire channaler. I haven't decided on that, yet.
Boz Shulun 07-21-04, 11:53 AM	Originally posted by Ty Cobb Sorry, you sound like those blaming Slipknot or MM for whatever (even if its the least you want). Funny. I always hated the people that did that. (In my day it was blaming Ozzy and Judas Priest though). Although, is blaming videogames for ruining roleplaying the same? Maybe it is. Maybe I should blame Eminem or Marilyn Manson for the demise of roleplay. (j/k) Originally posted by Another Gnome I'm willing to have my generation of players labeled powergamers if you oldtimers are willing to let me label you DMs whose idea of a dungeon is a collection of monsters locked inside rooms along a big corridor and whose only purpose in the game is to kill the PCs. :P Gotta love those stereotypes, eh? Good point. But, who are you calling ‘oldtimer’? *Boz says as he scratches his graying beard while wearing a Motley Crue t-shirt that’s stretched to the max.*
Another Gnome 07-21-04, 12:38 PM	An oldtimer is obviously anyone who's been into D&D longer than I have! And when it comes to who actually deserves the title, well, that's where I slip out unnoticed by virtue of my youthful strength and agility, and leave the veterans fight among themselves... :schemes:
ClobberinTime 07-21-04, 01:38 PM	When one is 13 one power games (yes, I was like you then), when one is 25 one starts to roleplay, and in ones 30s one just hopes one can find the time to game at all....
boblastears 07-21-04, 02:17 PM	Originally posted by Boz Shulun The slow, methodic development of a character seems to be a thing of the past. 3rd Ed. doesn’t help this. Although I am a fan of the system and think that it is an easier and cleaner system, I think that character advancement is too fast. And because of that I try to give experience to my party of players as they lv up only after 4 adventures, and they wine as hell because of that. I discovered RPG in the video-games (I love Final Fantasy until today) and taked a real great time to find PnP, as it was only starting in country at that momenty and wasn't aware of the few book stores that sell the RPG books. Then I started to play Word of Darkeness, Call of Cuthullu (sp), GURPS .... and other highly acting games. Then I tired of being serius and wished to play and tell epic storys and brave fights, at that time the third editions was being realised and I buyed them as the FRCS. One of the thing that I disliked must was how fast the characther gain lv (many of the adventures on the site, Dugeon or selled make the character lv up before the end of it, of course i don't follow that part). And the necessite of magical item to fight most of high lv enemys (some time not so high lv). Then I changed the character progession to the one that I told early and didn't find a way to deal with the need of magical items for fighting enemys. I know is not funny to be a weak hero that can't save the city of the dragon, but i also know that you like your characther much more if his power (lv, item, money, influence ...) is gained hard and with sacrifice.
GothicDan 07-21-04, 03:40 PM	I would say that trying to nail down powergaming vs. roleplaying to specific ages is really kind of futile. I stand by the fact that it's the environment more than the age. But then again, I've been considered sort of out-of-age for my entire life. I'm 19 and have played AD&D for 9 years. Does that technically make me an oldtimer? Or at least a middle-age-timer, by RPG standards? :)
Ty Cobb 07-21-04, 03:44 PM	[QUOTE]Originally posted by Boz Shulun [B]Funny. I always hated the people that did that. (In my day it was blaming Ozzy and Judas Priest though). Although, is blaming videogames for ruining roleplaying the same? Maybe it is. Maybe I should blame Eminem or Marilyn Manson for the demise of roleplay. (j/k) Definitly you should. I heard that if you play Stan backwards that there is a hidden message in the chorus where he gives vicious and surely evil instructions on how to be a powergamer munchkin. :uh-huh: Damn this was Dido.
Another Gnome 07-21-04, 04:41 PM	I'm 19 and have played AD&D for 9 years. Does that technically make me an oldtimer? Or at least a middle-age-timer, by RPG standards? Younger than I am with twice my gaming experience? You must be an egg-timer! :turkey: * * * Seriously, and not related to the above, I don't think there's any single reason for someone being a "powergamer" or a "roleplayer" and while environment must have an effect on it, it's more that there were less casual roleplayers back in days and none of those who were such are seen here since their interest in gaming dropped. Also, when roleplaying in general is no longer considered that geeky, and at least D&D has been made easier to approach, more young people simply try it out and get bored of it like any other hobby. Now, I personally started D&D (and with it "serious" roleplaying) only little before 3E came out, but I've always been into RPGs in general. When I got my hands on Hero Quest, after playing through all the adventures I wanted my character to be an innkeeper, kind of like having him retire from adventuring even if at that age I barely knew the meaning of "retire". My characters never had a detailed history and their names were "Barbarian" and "Elf" instead of "Harbruk" and "Letheneliol" or something, but I've always liked to think there's more to life of an adventurer than just killing things. I also played a few games of RuneQuest before taking up D&D, and I don't recall a single fight from the game sessions, but I do remember fast-talking my way out of jail by turning in a fellow party member (who, I might add, was very much guilty of murdering a few townspeople after the player of the character got frustrated with something - I only made sure I wouldn't end up hanged with him...). The relevance of that? None. The moment I started D&D as a player (I had been a DM long before that), it was hack and slash all the way, and all my high ideals of roleplaying went out of the window when I got a sturdy blade in my hand and an opportunity to get primal. Come to think of it, my NPCs when I DM tend to have more history and personality than my PCs when I'm on the other side of the DM screen. It has a lot to do with other players, I suppose. If the others don't put that much effort to roleplayng, I won't bother with it either, whereas NPCs of my own creation work behind the scenes anyway and the effort of putting personality in them is not wasted in the same manner (even if it's wasted nonetheless) whether the players take the hint or not. So... what I was supposed to say is that neither age, era, nor the game system does a roleplayer make unless the mindset is there already. Yes. And I also wanted to fix that pun. Maybe the third time around it works...
WizO_BigSister 07-21-04, 06:27 PM	The use of medication to treat behavioural and mood problems or mental illness is a fascinating topic. However it is also a highly controversial and emotionally charged topic that has absolutely nothing to do with the Forgotten Realms. Off topic posts like this are against the Code of Conduct (http://www.wizards.com/coc) ... pretty please stop them. Thanks :angel: Also remember there are a lot of people out there .. they all have different ways of playing with different emphasis on different aspects of the game. No two RPG groups are the same even if they are made up of the same people! I can confirm that from many years of experience with a pool of around 12 players/DMs and a large number of actual games/campaigns. It isn't a good idea to start shoving this huge number of playing styles into a small number of pigeon holes, and then claiming that all those in one particular pigeon hole are "bad" or "wrong". Of course you are entitled to your own preference, but you aren't entitled to be judgmental about other members of this board based on their playing style.
Cunning Linguist 07-21-04, 06:30 PM	The oldest gamers are the worst powergamers out there.. Like Gygax. I remember back in the day, when it was: If you can't hack it, it ain't worth is kind of attitude. In the old days, roleplaying was just that small notch above Wargaming. First when Vampire came along, then came the more general idea of playing a roll.
WizO_BigSister 07-21-04, 06:37 PM	Originally posted by Cunning Linguist The oldest gamers are the worst powergamers out there.. Like Gygax. I remember back in the day, when it was: If you can't hack it, it ain't worth is kind of attitude. In the old days, roleplaying was just that small notch above Wargaming. First when Vampire came along, then came the more general idea of playing a roll. I am a real oldtimer at the ripe old age of 46 I've been roleplaying off and on for well over three decades ... I've hack and slashed, and I've played games where there were no rule books at all, and a load of other styles as well. And what's wrong with wargaming :weep: :weep: :weep: ... yep I am an exwargamer which proves all wargamers are not hack and slashers :P
Autosponge 07-21-04, 08:17 PM	It's probably related more toward culture than common experiences. However, similar cultures produce many similar experiences, so I can see how you'd link the two. America has always had a very competitive culture. As the 'new kid on the block' and only a couple hundred years old, we've constantly strived to be the best at anything we set out to do. Our influence in the global economy in the 20th century and the breaking down of international borders for trade and travel have only spread this competitive nature to other areas where we have a hefty influence: Korea, Japan, Taiwan, etc. There may be some european countries or the aussies that are in the same boat, but I don't know as much about them. Now, this is seen even more so when Americans are allowed to compete on a level playing field with Koreans, Japanese, etc. In these cases (like some of the MMORPG's that have crossed the Pacific, the Olympics, international sports with a good following: soccer, racing, etc.), competition is at a fever pitch because beating the regional rivals is just as desireable as besting the Americans (especially if it's their game or sport). All that being said, since there is no international cross-over for D&D you might expect that those playing D&D aren't doing so in a competitive manner. However, for most gamers these days, their introduction to gaming and gaming culture doesn't happen at the game table but at the computer console. So we're back to square one. They learn their gaming culture from a reflection of America's competitive nature through the vehicle of computer games. You must realize, that only in the last 1-2 generations have children been introduced to computers before they were in high school or college. They are introduced to computer games very early as well. Their parents are all but absent from these games and the normal value coaching seen on the sideline of the little league games has disappeared. These children are on their own to learn the culture of gaming. Only in the last decade have there been MMO games to drive the competition to new heights. The players (children) learn to respect characters of power and skill over those who play for enjoyment or to socialize. My suggestion, if you don't want this type of gaming ethos to become the way your children learn gaming and competition, is to introduce them to games that are played purely for the entertainment value (or structure their sports and game activities as such). Once they have a firm foundation in gaming for entertainment, then they can experiment with competitive gaming for emotional profit.
Cunning Linguist 07-21-04, 08:51 PM	As the 'new kid on the block' and only a couple hundred years old, we've constantly strived to be the best at anything we set out to do. I belive J.S. Mill said something along those lines about the British Empire when it was at it's hight. Talking about one's own culture and then generalizing about other cultures and then doing a compare is almost never a good idea. First off we should ask ourselves: What is Best? Gygax saw the town as a place where you should refill your bags before going out to the dungon again. NPC's where people you got stuff from, not people you roleplayed to talk to. And Gygax is by far one of the "best" known roleplayers out there. Then there is Greenwood, who loves to roleplay all the time. Much less hacking, much more talking and discovering. Is he a better roleplayer then Gygax? If people are min/maxing could it be that they are following a diffrent school of roleplaying then alot of Forgotten Realms players. (whom most of follow the Greenwood school of roleplaying) Could it be that they are following the basic D&D school of roleplaying? Just look at the D&D Forum (Wizards.com board that is), they are so full of min/max people, that I find it strange that there are so many fluff posts on this part of the boards. D&D is after all a game heavy with combat compared to games like Vampire, KULT and CoC (atleast the old CoC). Would it not be to say that a min maxer is trying to best his character in what the game is most influenced by? If the character was playing Vampire, perhaps he would try to roleplay the heck out of his character, since you often gain more xp on that in that game?
Urlithani 07-21-04, 10:40 PM	I would say the line between gaming stereotypes is far too thin to divide them. My personal preference is wargaming. To me, combat is a lethal puzzle, and victory is the solution. :D Everyone's opinion on the definition of the stereotypes is different, also. I remember joining a 2nd edition game when I was 15. I had a 16, a 15, two 14's, an 11 and a 10(both 14's were in Dex and Con, and if you played 2nd ed, you'd know this amounts to Jack and Squat for modifiers) for stats, and one of the guys said, "You like to powergame a little, huh?" Needless to say I found that a little silly. Maybe I would have turned into a roleplayer instead of a wargamer if that guy didn't initially insult me, and instead showed me the ropes. Who knows? It really depends. Kind of reminds me of the PC Gaming forums I go on. Once a week there is a new thread that says, "Is PC gaming dead?" Self prophesizing doom, maybe? :eek:
Auburn 07-21-04, 11:26 PM	I don't play, but if I did I'd almost certainly power game. 1. I want to have a character who can affect the world. So I need a powerful character. 2. From much of what I've read it seems most DMs are out simply to kill the players as soon as possible. Now this is the opposite of what I'd see a good game as being. I figure a good game would feature the players and DM working together to create a cool story, but since that doesn't seem to be most DMs idea of a good game I need a strong character to survive. Those are my reasons. Of course I don't think that that means there can be no powergaming though.
ClobberinTime 07-21-04, 11:32 PM	I'm waffling on whether or not to believe the Gygax as power gamer thing... When it was a miniatures game it was pretty clear but then there was the city of greyhawk complete with its Mad god mayor/arch mage zagyg, and another world was born. It was my impression more so that his game was tough and if you made a mistake you bought it. Sometimes multiple DMs who are playing in the same campaign works out this way... And of course there was eracs cousin who GG had to get the famous duel vorpals from, but alas this is not about Greyhawk
Board_Rider 07-21-04, 11:53 PM	It is just my opinion that I think that all of you are correct on your own terms and ideas and that is what makes D&D great. At all times, I think, a good group needs to be mixed of "wargamers" and "roleplayers" because guess what you're doing? Roleplaying. Just as you may do everyday in this world, you interact with all types of people and some you agree with and some you don't. Such is life and such is roleplaying. Think about it. If you all played with the same types of players all of the time you just may be suprised at how boring that group may get. Variety can be good. However, having said that I think that powergaming became a problem when the addition of all things D&D came around. I remember playing in 2E and having relatively little choice in certain things about buiding my character. Nowadays? You can do just about anything. And while that is a good thing as far as fleshing out a character it doesn't always come out that way. Too many times I have seen ( and in earlier times guilty myself ) of trying to build a certain character that does combat way to well. Is that what is meant as a powergamer here? If so that is the problems with choice. People always tend to use all choices available to benefit themselves. I mean there is a Character Optimization board located here. It's too bad that people try to take 4-5 levels in like 3 classes with two PrC's just so their AC is like 50 and get like 30 attacks per round. But that is the game we play today. Inherently, everyone wants to succeed and the good thing about D&D is that it can accomplished by either smashing everything or roleplaying that epic adventure to find something. It is too bad that building the character progressively and developing the story of he/she has been taken by the need to only fufil PrC requirements and calling that a character concept. Additionally though, sometimes the story a DM tells brings the characters to boredom and makes the PC's just want to kill something. But that is another forum. Just have fun and good gaming.
GothicDan 07-22-04, 01:07 AM	I'd also like to bring up two more possible points. And another apology in regards to the medication statement. I'm a bad person. Bad me! Ahem. 1) I think a lot of it has to do with your first gaming experience, as others have pointed out, but this even goes so far as to extend to your first DM in particular. If you're playing with an old-school DM who likes roleplaying over hack-and-slash, chances are, he'll rub off on you. Example. My first -real- campaign was in Greyhawk, 2E, of course. My DM was a Shakespearean Drama major - so little more needs to be said. Playing from 0 level to 6th, I believe I got a wand that functioned for one charge, and then at 6th, a Libram of Silver Magic! Hot dog!... And then the game had to stop. In any event, a lot of it comes from who introduces you into the gaming society so to speak. 2) Literature. Oh god, literature is a huge thing. People who love to read and write tend to be more into the roleplaying aspect, as do people who are into drama arts (my entire Vampire group). They know how fun character interactions can be, how fun certain fantastic situations can be. Coming from the 'modern generation,' I have no qualms with saying that my own generation sickens me in the fact that they put so little time into reading novels, and so much into playing computer games/reading manga/watching X or Y cartoon, or what have you. One of the things that made me a roleplayer over a powergamer (not that, as I stated before, I mind having characters that are -good- at something), I think, is that at 9-10 years old, I picked up some Dragonlance books, on accident, and read them - the first two trilogies by Weis and Hickman. That was probably a huge factor in molding what kind of view I had on AD&D and what I liked about it. Not to mention the fact that it's virtually impossible to 'power game' a low level wizard in 2E...
Ty Cobb 07-22-04, 03:31 AM	Originally posted by GothicDan One of the things that made me a roleplayer over a powergamer (not that, as I stated before, I mind having characters that are -good- at something), I think, is that at 9-10 years old, I picked up some Dragonlance books, on accident, and read them - the first two trilogies by Weis and Hickman. That was probably a huge factor in molding what kind of view I had on AD&D and what I liked about it. And I think every "roleplayer" should read them. They are maybe the best "roleplay" books ever published. I agree with the above written from GothicDan. Reading helps you develop your ability to imagine something. One main aspect of a good roleplay game is, that you virtually "see" what the DM descibes. The more the picture in the head of the DM matches with the picture in the head of the player the better the "role"-playing game. Maybe powergamer sometimes lack this capability to imagine, because most times they see numbers. I don´t know if the conclusion from you is right (less reading=more comp. games and TV-more=more powergaming) but its one best I read. :)
Faraer 07-22-04, 07:01 AM	Yes, the mechanics-fixation and facile power-fantasies are a product of our culture failing to train and nurture imagination in children. It's no accident that the Realms was created by an extraordinarily well-read librarian. Gary Gygax is extremely well-read too, and I think Cunning Linguist's characterization of him as a powergamer is quite wrong. He likes structured gameist game balance, in which the game shouldn't be biased overmuch towards the PCs, and acknowledges the appeal of having a powerful character while not letting that aspect dominate play, and having no time for min-maxing. If his attitude towards the FRPG town was as you said, he never would have developed Hommlet, the City of Greyhawk, Stoink, etc. in the detail he did; and no powergamer (meaning someone for whom game-mechanical character 'power' is paramount) writes fantasy novels. But it's right to contrast Ed's and Gary's styles. They actually have a lot in common -- a related sensibility rooted in 20th-century fantasy, and a willingness to waive the rules to make play go better -- and neither is much like the D&D published by Wizards.
Crust 07-22-04, 08:34 AM	I agree 100% with the ideas concerning roleplaying and reading. There is no doubt that the window to a rich, lively, accurate style of FR roleplaying can come from reading. Not strictly FR alone, but any reading will do. I've always fought for the idea that literature in general can make not only a wonderful roleplayer, but an even better DM.
Brahzs M'ahnkei 07-22-04, 11:30 AM	Originally posted by ClobberinTime When one is 13 one power games (yes, I was like you then), when one is 25 one starts to roleplay, and in ones 30s one just hopes one can find the time to game at all.... This is the truth, if there ever was any. ;) Besides this, remember that this is not neccessarily a discussion of the pros and cons of roleplaying vs. hack-n-slash. It's more about the proliferation of "powergaming" in modern D&D. I don't think that any of us would disagree that the practice exists- whether we like/practice it or not is another issue and actually was, earlier this spring on these boards. In any case, the question is: Where does it come from? I think a lot of it is societal. Whether it's a combination of a desire to have our entertainment delivered in short, exciting, naughty bits re: a sitcome or other TV show (BTW- recent research has indicated that television is actually changing the way ours and our children's brains function, by encouraging short attention spans, soundbytes, etc. Interesting.), frustration at our earn-a-day hum-drum lives, or what era we started role-playing in, I think that in this case "nurture" has more influence than "nature." I would also submit that D&D is not the root cause of this issue. While I started out RPGing 15 yrs ago with the Red Box D&D Basic Set, I spent several years playing other games like Vampire: The Masquerade, HeroQuest, Rifts, etc. and there were just as many powergamers in those groups. I firmly believe that the focus of D&D is combat, while the focus of Vampire: The Masquerade (for example) is on role-playing but that that doesn't mean that there were players whose goal was to max out their stats, disciplines, generation, etc. The fact that most tabletop RPGs rely on dice means that they can be reduced to a game of numbers, and that means, to some, that there is something to "win" or "beat." It's just a way of looking at the game. And lets all remember folks, it is a game. I've said it before and I'll say now: however you play, have fun. Otherwise, why do it? ;) Peace and cookies.
Boz Shulun 07-22-04, 12:55 PM	To turn the discussion more towards the Realms, I pose this. Does the modern day FR encourage powergaming? The Realms have plenty of history and the products have changed drastically over the years. With the focus now on feats, spells, etc. in every new book that is released at the expense of the more campaign information, does that encourage players to make characters with every new tweak that comes out? IMO I think it does. I think that it also encourages what I like to call Retroactive Construction. This is a process where an established character is changed, sometimes from the ground up, with rules that come out in a new sourcebook. It usually benefits the character and sometimes unbalances established and projected plotlines. How many campaigns were drastically effected when the Magic of Faerun, Races of Faerun and Players Guide to Faerun (not to mention the core rule Unearthed Arcana) came out?
GothicDan 07-22-04, 01:19 PM	First of all, as to Dragonlance: Mmm. Let's talk about theme and feel. It has it. I also think that a lot of reading makes one a better person in general, too, but that's besides the point, and biased, because my tiny room is cramped with RPing books, history books, tons of fantasy paraphanalia... And stacks of other books. As to Gary Gygax being a powergamer? I'd say that at first, he was, but fairly quickly as he proceeded from wargaming he got a handle of a different way of looking at things. I've talked with him in email before, and he doesn't seem very powergamery. My current DM has also actually gamed with him before, and he never seemed to support this, either. As to the modern Realms supporting powergaming? I think it does, to a point, but that's more a result of 3E than Ed's style. Sure, Ed loves having his uber-powerful iconic characters (Elminster and Larloch), but he also doesn't espouse throwing them around onto every street corner. But the rules books are chop-full of numbers. And let's talk about feats! It's basically saying, "powergame with me!" My favorite setting is Planescape, as I've stated before. I think it's the ultimate RPing setting. In 2E, Dragonlance and FR used to be tied for second favorite, but now Dragonlance 2E is above FR 3E. I'll say this again: 3E/D20 did some wonderful things for streamlining an RP system. It just didn't do it very well for AD&D.
Another Gnome 07-22-04, 02:16 PM	3E did not introduce powergaming to D&D, what it did was give the PCs the same tools NPCs have been using since the beginning of time. No more stupid "I'm an NPC, I do what I want" attitude for me. And on the flip side of the coin, 3E also removed the equally stupid "Oooh, a goblin, let's walk over it because we're already 3rd level" issue with monsters. In other words, instead of the old "anyone can be anything - as long as it's an NPC" now "anything can be someone - even if it's just a lowly goblin or a PC". Maybe it's powergaming, but if that's the price to pay for finally recognizing players (and monsters!) as people and not just mindless puppets subject to DM whim and, even worse, the anti-PC rules found in every damn sourcebook, I'm all for paying that price. 3E equals powergaming? Suuuure...
ClobberinTime 07-22-04, 02:39 PM	You know what the easiest way to reduce power gaming and I think its actually fair- almost is to make prestige classes just like any other class and give the char an expt penalty if the levels don't match up. Maybe something small like 5 to 10%. This will avoid the rampant multiclassing that is characteristic of the genre. And lets face it in general the prestige classes are much better. Why any fighter wouldn't want to be a divine champion of someone at some point I would never know.
Cunning Linguist 07-22-04, 02:50 PM	Originally posted by ClobberinTime You know what the easiest way to reduce power gaming and I think its actually fair- almost is to make prestige classes just like any other class and give the char an expt penalty if the levels don't match up. Maybe something small like 5 to 10%. This will avoid the rampant multiclassing that is characteristic of the genre. And lets face it in general the prestige classes are much better. Why any fighter wouldn't want to be a divine champion of someone at some point I would never know. But then they just want to play powerclasses like Monk, or Druid, both of whom are classes that make great strait 1-20 level characters. PrC seldom give to much power, it first comes along when you combine several PrC to form some sort of supercombo..
GothicDan 07-22-04, 03:34 PM	Another Gnome-- First of all, I think that we all agree here that 3E did not -introduce- powergaming to AD&D; no one here has specifically said that. A lot of us, including me obviously, simply believe that it promotes it. The more numbers and special abilities you throw at someone, the more likely a person is to try to combine them into the most advantageous ways - which really isn't a bad thing, except for the fact that many modern RPers get TOO wrapped up in that, and don't bother to form a character concept beyond class, race, and fighting style. Second of all, in regards to NPCs being able to do things that PCs couldn't in 2E? I assume that you're talking about NPC Classes, as that's pretty much the only specific example of this that I can think of. And even then, I can really count on one hand the number of NPC specific classes that I can name off the top of my head, from my dozens (probably over 100) of various 2E products. Now, in regards to monsters? Well, let's just say that in 3E, they made PCs MUCH more powerful in general, which means that they can just as easily 'run over' a goblin as 2E characters could. I'll go for a sense of style and theme over ultimate variability any day, because without it, you have a soup of crap that has no charater whatsoever. As a challenge, if you think that 2E was just as easy to power game with - Show me a setup for a 5th level human wizard of any type.
Brahzs M'ahnkei 07-22-04, 03:46 PM	Originally posted by Cunning Linguist ...it first comes along when you combine several PrC to form some sort of supercombo.. Any class or PrC can be broken if you put enough thought into it. There are now so many ways to customize PCs that I almost feel badly for anyone trying to publish original material for D&D via Wizards, if for no other reason, that so much has been done already it's nearly impossible not to duplicate or replicate something. IMO, most of the PrC out there can be completely replicated via magical items, spells, and feats that any given PC can get anyway. But I digress... :rolleyes: It all depends on your reasons for coming to the game table. Originally posted by Boz Shulun Does the modern day FR encourage powergaming? I don't think that FR specifically does. It, moreso than other settings, encourages role-play and story telling rather than hack-n-slash. I think that D&D 3.5 as a whole encourages powergaming, not the FR by itself. Originally posted by Boz Shulun I think that it also encourages what I like to call Retroactive Construction. This is a process where an established character is changed, sometimes from the ground up, with rules that come out in a new sourcebook. It usually benefits the character and sometimes unbalances established and projected plotlines. This is quite true. Whether it's because your home-brewed PC has finally (and miraculously ;) ) been published w/out your prompting or b/c you want to squeeze in a little more power into your pump, it can be difficult not reconstruct characters after a new/appliable sourceboook comes out. To cut down on this, however, the group I play with has instituted a -1 lvl penalty every time a PC is Retroactively Constructed (I like the term, BTW :D ) ; every time someone wants to retro-fit or drastically change classes and/or PrC, they lose a level unless voted upon by the group. It cut the frivolous Reconstructions drastically. ;) Peace and cookies
ClobberinTime 07-22-04, 04:33 PM	PrC seldom give to much power, it first comes along when you combine several PrC to form some sort of supercombo..[/B] Yes and then they get docked another 5% exp for each one. And additionally I guess I never thought of a party full of Druids and Monks that one would be fascinating.
Another Gnome 07-22-04, 04:55 PM	First of all, I think that we all agree here that 3E did not -introduce- powergaming to AD&D; no one here has specifically said that. A lot of us, including me obviously, simply believe that it promotes it. Fine then, no arguments here. The more numbers and special abilities you throw at someone, the more likely a person is to try to combine them into the most advantageous ways - which really isn't a bad thing, except for the fact that many modern RPers get TOO wrapped up in that, and don't bother to form a character concept beyond class, race, and fighting style. Agreed. However, giving no real choice at all (AD&D fighters being the prime example) is any better. People can't be forced to roleplaying no matter what's under the hood. Second of all, in regards to NPCs being able to do things that PCs couldn't in 2E? I assume that you're talking about NPC Classes, as that's pretty much the only specific example of this that I can think of. And even then, I can really count on one hand the number of NPC specific classes that I can name off the top of my head, from my dozens (probably over 100) of various 2E products. It's the ideology for the most part. A Dragon Magazine with an article of henchmen comes to mind where special abilities of those NPCs were explained by nothing else than them being NPCs. Also, have a look at Complete Book of Elves, regarding drow and their abilities; PC drow get watered down because the full drow is reserved for NPC use (the reasons for this aren't actually different from the 3E ECL concept, but again it's the ideology I resent). Now, in regards to monsters? Well, let's just say that in 3E, they made PCs MUCH more powerful in general, which means that they can just as easily 'run over' a goblin as 2E characters could. No, they can't. A 3rd-level human fighter can't just walk over a goblin because he has no way of telling that goblin is not a 3rd-level fighter himself - or something more powerful for that matter. Same rules for everyone; even the most min/maxed PC is in serious trouble when facing a mirror image of himself. I'll go for a sense of style and theme over ultimate variability any day, because without it, you have a soup of crap that has no charater whatsoever. The problem is that style and theme didn't exist mechanically before 3E. You could describe your fighter in any way you wanted (and you still can) but the mechanics of the character were 90% equal to every other fighter on the planet. Does style without substance have any more character than the other way around? As a challenge, if you think that 2E was just as easy to power game with - Show me a setup for a 5th level human wizard of any type. As soon as you show me a 5th level 2E human wizard with more style than his 3E counterpart. :)
Tempus665 07-22-04, 05:27 PM	Originally posted by ClobberinTime Why any fighter wouldn't want to be a divine champion of someone at some point I would never know. Because prestige classes aren't just there to power up your character. If you want to be a Divine Champion, fine, as long as you are also a champion in upholding the deity's dogma, and living the pious life. You want to be an assassin? Fine, but first prove your worth to the local assassin's guild, and then remain loyal to them in order to keep them from sending any assassins after you! You want to be an archmage? Go find yourself a tutor and start doing the annoying chores you had to do when you were a lowly apprentice, again. As DM, I require players to give me lots of good in-game reasons for them to be able to take that class. I do this because I too feel that prestige classes are slightly more powerful than core classes, and not in the least to promote roleplaying.
GothicDan 07-22-04, 05:53 PM	"It's the ideology for the most part. A Dragon Magazine with an article of henchmen comes to mind where special abilities of those NPCs were explained by nothing else than them being NPCs. Also, have a look at Complete Book of Elves, regarding drow and their abilities; PC drow get watered down because the full drow is reserved for NPC use (the reasons for this aren't actually different from the 3E ECL concept, but again it's the ideology I resent)." First of all, I don't consider Dragon articles to really be a good measure of an Edition, because it wasn't put out by WoTC itself. But to tackle this aspect anyway: NPCs in general were supposed to be mysterious. In 2E, things weren't cut and dry in the rules, because the ability to gain said powers was up for the DM to decide how it was done, not for players to just choose randomly. Yes, DMs in 2E had more power - and that's the way it should be, so you don't have players going all willy-nilly and powergaming (the point of this discussion). If you want to have a special power outside the bounds of your class/race, you should talk to your DM. You shouldn't find some obscure feat in whatever sourcebook. If your DM doesn't want you to have a power in either edition, you won't have it; he can tell you 'No, there's no way to get that power' (2E) or 'No, you can't use that feat.' So, ultimately in either edition, this point is the same: it's up to the DM. "No, they can't. A 3rd-level human fighter can't just walk over a goblin because he has no way of telling that goblin is not a 3rd-level fighter himself - or something more powerful for that matter. Same rules for everyone; even the most min/maxed PC is in serious trouble when facing a mirror image of himself." Think of it like this. Take your average, every day commoner - hell, take your average, every day person right here, in the real world. Are they going to be able to put up much of a fight against a trained adventurer of 3rd level? Hell no. Adventurers are supposed to be RARE - I'd say 5% of the population, at most - at least, this is the way it was in 2E, which is good, because it makes being an adventurer more special. You feel like you're actually something above the rest. Now, take your typical 2E goblin - it's effectively A COMMONER. In 2E, they had a little part of the monstrous entries called 'Habitat/Society', which mentioned more specific, often more powerful variants of your typical 'common' (read: Commoner) goblin - the elite warriors and shamans (adventurers!) which were given class levels, with a general guide for approximate level. It's as simple as providing your typical ECL encounter for any group/organization in the Realms. "The problem is that style and theme didn't exist mechanically before 3E. You could describe your fighter in any way you wanted (and you still can) but the mechanics of the character were 90% equal to every other fighter on the planet. Does style without substance have any more character than the other way around?" First of all, I'll just say: kits and Player's Options. Both give a fighter a bit more options. So style and theme did exist. And since you're asking my personal opinion, I think that style IS substance. The mechanics of a game should in no way define a character's background, history, personality, quirks, goals - the things that make it a ROLEPLAYING game, and not a fighting game. Rules should be used to enforce style/roleplaying, not the other way around. "As soon as you show me a 5th level 2E human wizard with more style than his 3E counterpart." First of all, this discussion is about powergaming, and whether or not 3E/modern society supports it. You were effectively saying it didn't, so I was asking for you to support that opinion by giving you a specific example. Second of all, when you say 'style', do you mean in combat, or in character? Because I can spew off dozens of character concepts without a regard for either set of rules. The point is that when people are so worried about numbers and maximization, they lose focus of characterization. But, I'll give you an example of a 2E 5th level wizard character concept (style) that is just as good, if not better, than a 3E one, if you can show me a 2E 5th level wizard who is powergamed to be of equal level with a 3E one. Deal? :)
Faraer 07-22-04, 05:58 PM	Agreed. However, giving no real choice at all (AD&D fighters being the prime example) is any better. ... You could describe your fighter in any way you wanted (and you still can) but the mechanics of the character were 90% equal to every other fighter on the planet. Does style without substance have any more character than the other way around?I don't think the 3E combat feats are any real choice; they don't allow any character options that didn't exist before the feat system was introduced. You say the mechanics are the real substance, I think the way the character is played and the way action is narrated is the substance, and the rules are just a quick resolution mechanism subservient to the narration. Look, it's an edition debate! But my point is both approaches to the rules can work. It also happens the Realms was created by someone with a rules-approach similar to mine. Similarly with rule-breaking NPCs; I think demanding that NPCs follow the rules is ridiculous. The DM can decide at any time that character X is 5 levels higher than she thought, or is some other character in disguise, or has 10 fewer hit points, or a hitherto undocumented special ability; and this freedom can increase the enjoyment of players as long as they don't see themselves in a competition or a zero-sum simulation.
Tempus665 07-23-04, 02:59 AM	Yet, WotC promotes their Worldwide D&D Game Day (http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dnd/20040722x) with slogans such as Experience Counts, and by telling us about how monster-stocked their dungeons are going to be. I get the feeling this is not a good move on WotC's behalf, not if they want to promote a roleplaying game.
Ty Cobb 07-23-04, 04:11 AM	The problem is that style and theme didn't exist mechanically before 3E. You could describe your fighter in any way you wanted (and you still can) but the mechanics of the character were 90% equal to every other fighter on the planet. Does style without substance have any more character than the other way around? I agree. The possibily of creating a character (concerning the stats) that corresponded to his backgroung was limited in 2E. Now one can try to build the stats around the background, history,....and maybe a player even can have a new background idea because of a feat, which is great. So the diversity of character creation is increased (a dwarfen fighter can be a good weapon-smith because of his craft skill in 3E). But the danger of "losing" the character concept in his feats and skills has increased has well. Though I agree that concerning the feats most fighter builds resemble each other. I think that style IS substance No, but I would agree to "no substance without style". It seems to me that most other posters have no problem with "mixing" power- and roleplayers. But this is a hugh problem for me. A player, who is a powergamer, wants to "be the best" or "shape/change the world". He will strive to use his abilities as much as he can, because thats what he is good in. That means (generalisation) a powergamer is more into combat, he will try to get rid of his weaknesses (a slow Pc (dwarf) will maybe try to create or find "boots of striding and springing") and he will be a good strategist (some powergamers seem to be wargamers) etc. A roleplayer wants to roleplay, he may have no special interest in combat or only for entertainment reasons. But a roleplayer wants to have a good share in a fight too. In my experience roleplayer get sometimes frustrated with combat because they don´t do as much damage, have more weaknesses, are no real strategists,... Maybe powergamers will be frustrated when there is no possibilty for combat or skill-checks, but that is, I would say, rare. I think that the FR can be more encouraging for powergamers. There are some really powerful NPC which some players want to challenge (the "I have killed Elm and did´t even get a scratch" threads are an indicator for this). The country is wide and gets bigger every day because of Zakhara and other newly discovered land. The possibilties are vast. Possibilities mean choices and choices (same with feats) may encourage powergaming. On the other hand it all depends on the DM (how I hate this sentence).
Another Gnome 07-23-04, 06:07 AM	NPCs in general were supposed to be mysterious. In 2E, things weren't cut and dry in the rules, because the ability to gain said powers was up for the DM to decide how it was done, not for players to just choose randomly. ... If you want to have a special power outside the bounds of your class/race, you should talk to your DM. You shouldn't find some obscure feat in whatever sourcebook. If your DM doesn't want you to have a power in either edition, you won't have it; he can tell you 'No, there's no way to get that power' (2E) or 'No, you can't use that feat.' So, ultimately in either edition, this point is the same: it's up to the DM. So then, what is there in 3E that makes it easier to powergame if the DM still has the final say? Think of it like this. Take your average, every day commoner - hell, take your average, every day person right here, in the real world. Are they going to be able to put up much of a fight against a trained adventurer of 3rd level? Hell no. Adventurers are supposed to be RARE - I'd say 5% of the population, at most - at least, this is the way it was in 2E, which is good, because it makes being an adventurer more special. You feel like you're actually something above the rest. But when it's exactly the same thing in 3E, it's bad? Now, take your typical 2E goblin - it's effectively A COMMONER. In 2E, they had a little part of the monstrous entries called 'Habitat/Society', which mentioned more specific, often more powerful variants of your typical 'common' (read: Commoner) goblin - the elite warriors and shamans (adventurers!) which were given class levels, with a general guide for approximate level. It's as simple as providing your typical ECL encounter for any group/organization in the Realms. Saying a goblin shaman is a 2nd-level cleric is easy in AD&D. Guides or even basic suggestions on how to actually make one are all but nonexistent; even such basics as ability scores given for most monsters comprised of a range of Intelligence and the occasional mention of Strength. It was simple and effective that the DM could merely assign an attack bonus... ah... THAC0 for a monster out of thin air, yet at the same time PCs - who were supposed to be "special" and "elite" - were subject to rules rigid enough to make modrons feel uneasy. First of all, I'll just say: kits and Player's Options. Both give a fighter a bit more options. So style and theme did exist. "You shouldn't find some obscure feat in whatever sourcebook." Player's Option stuff was a min-maxers wet dream... And since you're asking my personal opinion, I think that style IS substance. The mechanics of a game should in no way define a character's background, history, personality, quirks, goals - the things that make it a ROLEPLAYING game, and not a fighting game. I agree. However, I see no problem in that a character who the player describes as being the best archer in the region can actually have the skills to back up that claim - and without an arbitary DM call that the character kills everything he shoots at with a single shot, as long as the DM is in a good mood and that no DM-protected NPCs are shot at (who of course have mysterious psychic powers and force fields conveniently ready just in case someone is foolish enough to try). First of all, this discussion is about powergaming, and whether or not 3E/modern society supports it. My point is that 3E doesn't make the idea of powergaming or supporting it a new thing. You can powergame any system just like you can roleplay regardless of system. Second of all, when you say 'style', do you mean in combat, or in character? Because I can spew off dozens of character concepts without a regard for either set of rules. The point is that when people are so worried about numbers and maximization, they lose focus of characterization. I mean a character with style and the means to back up his or her words. If the character is all talk, 3E hasn't changed anything. If the style needs to be actually proven, 2E is left hanging in the air with it or it comes down to a "my dad could beat up your dad" argument. I am no powergamer myself, and I will rule with an iron fist when it comes to use of optional sources in my game. I've banned every 3rd-party product without even reading them as a matter of principle, and the new core classes from the Complete X series will not get anywhere near me, for example. Regardless, if I didn't want any rules in my game or didn't want to use those rules even when I didn't like them, I would play house, not D&D. Figuratively speaking. :) But, I'll give you an example of a 2E 5th level wizard character concept (style) that is just as good, if not better, than a 3E one, if you can show me a 2E 5th level wizard who is powergamed to be of equal level with a 3E one. Deal? Really, I couldn't powergame my way out of a box, but I'll gladly whip up a "casual" combat machine using kits and player's options I have around, and I'm willing to bet it doesn't even look like a wizard after I'm done. And that's not referring to style. ;)
Another Gnome 07-23-04, 06:31 AM	You say the mechanics are the real substance, I think the way the character is played and the way action is narrated is the substance, and the rules are just a quick resolution mechanism subservient to the narration. ... Similarly with rule-breaking NPCs; I think demanding that NPCs follow the rules is ridiculous. The DM can decide at any time that character X is 5 levels higher than she thought, or is some other character in disguise, or has 10 fewer hit points, or a hitherto undocumented special ability; and this freedom can increase the enjoyment of players as long as they don't see themselves in a competition or a zero-sum simulation. I get what you're saying, and I disagree with your philosophy. I do not, and can not, enjoy a game where situations are resolved with a "because I say so" by the DM. It is the DM's job to work as a referee, but a referee is supposed to judge things based on what the rules already say, and that's the only kind of judgement I expect my players to accept from myself. Look, it's an edition debate! But my point is both approaches to the rules can work. It also happens the Realms was created by someone with a rules-approach similar to mine. What, now you're trying to shut me up with an Ed Greenwood card? :D Nah. I don't mind people having different opinions, and I don't mind people calling 3E a powergamer edition. Just don't expect me to believe for a moment that any other edition, or any other game, can do better in that respect. I can roleplay Monopoly if I want to, but I'll roleplay it differently from roleplaying 3E Realms because I adapt to the ruleset instead of tearing it apart just to make myself feel a better roleplayer. All in good humor here, no need to feel inferior to me. :P
Crust 07-23-04, 09:11 AM	Originally posted by Tempus665 Yet, WotC promotes their Worldwide D&D Game Day (http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dnd/20040722x) with slogans such as Experience Counts, and by telling us about how monster-stocked their dungeons are going to be. I get the feeling this is not a good move on WotC's behalf, not if they want to promote a roleplaying game. Interesting point. I agree to a degree. I believe it takes a group of friends, or at least minor acquaintances, to create that comfortable role-playing atmosphere we all hope to create at our own tables. It also takes time at the table to create that atmosphere. It's hard to imagine healthy, comfortable role-playing amongst a group of strangers sitting down together for the first time. I'm sure it's possible, though. Also, would these strangers want to role-play for a good part of the afternoon when their characters could be slaughtering baddies? We'll see what happens.
GothicDan 07-23-04, 12:01 PM	"So then, what is there in 3E that makes it easier to powergame if the DM still has the final say?" Because it's all laid out in neat, crunchy bits in tons of books that are just screaming, 'build me!' It's pretty much psychology working, here; if it's all laid out for you, and it takes less work to get to point X, you're more likely to go there instead of going to point X without a map, so to speak. Also, I think the fact that there AREN'T ways to easily attain whatever power in 2E makes roleplaying more of an opportunity because it promotes a sense of freedom that DMs have over their players. As much of an idealist as a person wants to be, there's a big difference in reality. Just because a DM can override anything in either edition doesn't mean that the players are going to be happy and take it - ESPECIALLY when they have a canon WoTC book saying otherwise. If they never see such a power presented to them, and think it up themselves, and the way to get it, ('Gain resistance to fire: Make a deal with the Emperor of the Efreeti to bathe for a hundred days in the royal forge of the City of Brass!'), it promotes intelligent thought and roleplaying. You may say that a DM can do this just as easily in 3E with feats - which, mechanically, he can. But realistically, people are pretty naive in believing what they read, so they (in general) may well get offended if a DM doesn't allow them to have it. Keeping players ignorant to some of the rules is one of the most important parts of AD&D - because in real life, do we know all of the rules governing our every action? I think not. "But when it's exactly the same thing in 3E, it's bad?" In 3E it's bad because they take it too far for starting and low level characters - but that's just in my opinion against yours, so this point can't really be argued. But one of the key factors behind this is the removal of Ability Prerequisites for classes, making 'rare' classes like paladin, ranger, and druid, easily playable by anyone who wants 'kewl holy/two-sword/shapeshifting p0w3rz.' This is partially what I mean by saying that 3E promotes - but does not originate - with powergamining. Mechanically, in a perfect world, it's no worse than 2E - but we're not in a perfect world. In a perfect world, our government would work just fine; one can say 'it's not designed for corruption.' No, it's not designed for it, but it certainly promotes it. Socrates's Hiearchy of the State is another prime example of organization for all by a single, supposedly impartial ruler (read: rules), which can get totally ****ed up by the instincts of mankind towards greed. You give them an inch, they take a foot, so to speak. "Saying a goblin shaman is a 2nd-level cleric is easy in AD&D. Guides or even basic suggestions on how to actually make one are all but nonexistent; even such basics as ability scores given for most monsters comprised of a range of Intelligence and the occasional mention of Strength. It was simple and effective that the DM could merely assign an attack bonus... ah... THAC0 for a monster out of thin air, yet at the same time PCs - who were supposed to be "special" and "elite" - were subject to rules rigid enough to make modrons feel uneasy." I really don't understand what's so hard about following the rules often set down directly in the monstrous manual saying, 'in a group of 50 creatures, there's a 75% chance to have a Shaman with 3 HD that casts spells as a 5th level cleric.' Moreso than this, there are specific rules in the DMG about creating monsters are PC races. It discourages more powerful races, and with good reason. And about the assigning of stats out of thin air? Yeah, so what if a DM did, instead of going by a formula? It meant that the DM had more variability in controling how difficult a given encounter was, and how challenging it was for the PCs. ""You shouldn't find some obscure feat in whatever sourcebook." Player's Option stuff was a min-maxers wet dream..." First of all, I'd hardly call Player's Options an obscure sourcebook; I'd consider it on the second tier of RPing materials, since it was published by WoTC as a non-campaign specific world, and it's very commonly known. And yes, it was possible to powergame with Player's Options - which is why a lot of 2E'ers I know refer to Player's Options as 2.5 - because it was the basis for the horrible powergaming rules known as 3E. Moving on. Player's Options - beyond using character point generation - gives you a lot of options that don't necessarily apply to powergaming at all. It gives you critical rolls for spells, a lot of new spells, signature spells (a bit of powergaming, but very iconic in the AD&D world), new proficiencies (which have MUCH less impact on crunchy bits of the game than skills and certainly less than feats), weapon proficiencies (which, unless you go above specialization, really don't provide you with more in the way of overall power, just alternative routes of power - STYLE), special maneuvers (disarm, trip, block, etc.), and ideas for character background and history. So, overall, it's powergaming 'potential' so to speak is still less than 3E - in my opinion. Even in the character point generation areas, there's a few blurbs about what DMs should do about characters that try to 'work the system' too much, so to speak. I've never seen a disclaimer like this after any of the many, many, many exhausting list of feats. The Hero Builder's Guidebook even gives tips for maxing your character out, instead of advising against doing it too much. "I agree. However, I see no problem in that a character who the player describes as being the best archer in the region can actually have the skills to back up that claim - and without an arbitary DM call that the character kills everything he shoots at with a single shot, as long as the DM is in a good mood and that no DM-protected NPCs are shot at (who of course have mysterious psychic powers and force fields conveniently ready just in case someone is foolish enough to try)." First of all, if one of my players EVER told me that they 'were the best at (whatever) in the region,' then I'd probably laugh at them. Why? Well, because there's always someone better than you, no matter what. And what the hell kind of a background/style is that? It's a shallow one equivalent to, 'I'm good with teh bowz, lolol.' Working towards being a fantastic archer for whatever reason is another thing, because it provides you with room to grow. I don't think the PCs have any right to say how good their character is in relation to people/monsters they've never seen/met; that's just as arrogant (wrong) as thinking that they can roll over a goblin at 3rd level, as you said. And I'm really not sure what kind of experience you've had with a DM which made you think that NPCs are always walking around with crazy powers. And let's see, what if that NPC did have a forcefield for some reason? Obviously the DM wanted her to have it. Maybe it was some magical experiment with a potion, maybe it was an inborn trait, or what have you - variability outside of what the players know is part of what makes AD&D fun. If you want to back it up, you certainly can - with Player's Options, as I said. And even if PO's is powergaming for 2E, I can guarantee you that you could make a 3E archer that could still put any combo'd 2E archer to shame in sheer terms of damage output - at an equivalent level. And 3E can do it a hell of a lot easier than you could in 2E. I won't even get into the fact that it is pretty much harder to powergame from the start in sheer terms of resources. Less weapon proficiencies (fighters start out with 4 - not all martial weapons!), less gold to buy stuff in the beginning, less HP, less bonuses from stats, etc. But that point should at least be noted, because it's a prime example of how the sheer roll-playing aspect of the game has increased. "Really, I couldn't powergame my way out of a box, but I'll gladly whip up a "casual" combat machine using kits and player's options I have around, and I'm willing to bet it doesn't even look like a wizard after I'm done. And that's not referring to style." Alright, it's a deal. You use whatever resources you have and we'll see if it could stand up to a 3E wizard. I already have my own wizard's background fairly fleshed out to prove that 2E does not have any less 'style' than 3E - because style should be only loosely accented by scores.
Another Gnome 07-23-04, 03:18 PM	Alright, it's a deal. You use whatever resources you have and we'll see if it could stand up to a 3E wizard. I already have my own wizard's background fairly fleshed out to prove that 2E does not have any less 'style' than 3E - because style should be only loosely accented by scores. When did I fall into that trap? :turkey: I can make a 5th-level Player's Option wizard that will tear a 5th-level core wizard apart in 2E - that's the point here, isn't it? That 2E is just as "powergameable" with regard to "normal" play as 3E, right? What does pitting wizards from 2E and 3E against each other prove? * * * I really don't understand what's so hard about following the rules often set down directly in the monstrous manual saying, 'in a group of 50 creatures, there's a 75% chance to have a Shaman with 3 HD that casts spells as a 5th level cleric.' Moreso than this, there are specific rules in the DMG about creating monsters are PC races. It discourages more powerful races, and with good reason. That's precisely the NPC Special Power Syndrome I'm talking about. How can an imbecile 3-HD monster do something that one of those supposedly super-special and gifted PCs can't even dream of? It meant that the DM had more variability in controling how difficult a given encounter was, and how challenging it was for the PCs. I understand that, but I much prefer the elegance of 3E where a 3rd-level goblin cleric is a goblin cleric, and not a walking spellcasting ability that looks like a goblin. Or, if I prefer, I can have a goblin wizard, or a goblin monk, and every time I create an NPC like that, I both know exactly what I'm doing, and can relate this information to others without preparing a list of house rules used to create the NPC. * * * First of all, if one of my players EVER told me that they 'were the best at (whatever) in the region,' then I'd probably laugh at them. Why? Well, because there's always someone better than you, no matter what. And what the hell kind of a background/style is that? It's a shallow one equivalent to, 'I'm good with teh bowz, lolol.' Working towards being a fantastic archer for whatever reason is another thing, because it provides you with room to grow. I don't think the PCs have any right to say how good their character is in relation to people/monsters they've never seen/met; that's just as arrogant (wrong) as thinking that they can roll over a goblin at 3rd level, as you said. My point was that unlike in 2E, the 3E system supports specialization to a whole new level. As for background, say Joe Archer was a hunter, and pretty good with a bow compared to his fellow villagers; a fighter with good Dex will easily overshadow a commoner even at 1st level. After proving his skill time and time again, Joe gets bored of always winning the yearly archery contest, and with that he grows really arrogant and starts believing he actually is the best archer in the world. Well, so happens that one day a traveling 5th-level ranger with a fancy bow visits Joe's village and Joe can't resist challenging the stranger (and promptly gets beaten miserably). So, Joe learns the hard way that there are so very many better archers than he is, but instead of accepting the DM's evil laughter, he decides to show everyone and heads off to kill some goblins to better his shooting skills. Now, in 2E, despite all Joe ever did, he could never achieve more than any other fighter specializing in bow (without resorting to kits who aside from defining what a character is have this nasty tendency to also dictate who the character, is with all the "you must do this" and "you may never do that" stuff). In 3E, Joe can start following the archery path toward a dozen different goals and to any degree he wishes to - or get a grip and instead of becoming an arrogant archer turn into piety and pick up the mantle of a paladin. Or he could learn wizardry. Or try something more sneaky. * * * Oh well. I'm not actually trying to convince anyone here, but as a closing arguments (aside from that 2E power-wizard I'll get to once I find enough stuff to abuse :D ) there's one question I've asked several times without ever getting a real answer to it: Why do people who by their own words care least about the rules complain the most about the rules? Or, why is the powergaming of others such a big deal to roleplayers?
Faraer 07-23-04, 03:29 PM	Most often they don't and it isn't. But people who like things try to share them out of some mix of benevolence and egotistically trying to create an objective correlative for their subjective experiences. Sometimes people who secretly like things 'protest too much' about them. Whole mess of reasons. Though to be fair this affects the whole RPG culture and industry, not just individual campaigns, and powergamer-targeted books are less valuable to roleplaying-over-rules people. For my own posts here, there's an element of propaganda for Ed's Realms, which don't have their own commercial PR.
Urlithani 07-23-04, 04:55 PM	I think 3E promotes Roleplayers and Powergamers alike. 3E is more customizable and flexible for both types. Now, a cleric can play an instrument(Perform), a fighter can sit down and talk about magic theory with a wizard in a library(Knowledge: Arcana, Spellcraft), and a ranger can be a pickpocket(Sleight of Hand). I think perhaps that people who have been roleplaying for so long don't realize how this helps people who have trouble or are unable to think outside the box. For 2E, a roleplayer with a roleplaying DM, all he had to do was ask and the DM would say, "That sounds interesting! Go right ahead!" So I guess 3E just puts in writing what Roleplayers have always been doing with 2E: breaking the rules to flesh out interesting characters. So, since roleplaying works outside the numbers, everyone only sees what 3E does for people who try to beat the numbers. As for modern gamers being powergamers: Absolutely. Young people are the easiest group of people to get to play D&D because they do not develop stubborn habits or prejudices and see everything in an innocent light. Look at what kids watch these days: Yugioh, DBZ, X-men, Pokemon, Lord of the Rings, Spiderman, etc. Think of the extraordinary things that the protagonists do. Roleplaying may be initially boring to kids because sitting down at an inn and telling stories is what Mommy does when she meets her friends at the local B&N Cafe over a few cups of cappucino. Roleplaying may be initially boring to kids because a conversation while riding in a caravan is what Daddy does when he carpools with his friends to watch the annual Army/Navy college football game. Firebreathing dragons, elves, and kids controlling monsters through cards do not exist in real life. When those children play D&D for the first time, they strive to be the hero and expand their sense of wonder because to them, the inn in D&D is Pizza Hut with a medieval look, and they know nothing exciting happens at Pizza Hut except they get all the pizza they can eat. Then they find out that being the hero is a deadly, deadly thing. So they look through the rules, and "powergame" because, in order to become the hero they look up to, they need to select the things that give them the best chance of survival and success, which is what being a hero is all about. And there isn't anything wrong with that because Fun is the #1 priority. So I confess; Modern gamer equals Powergamer! WOOHOO! (I was told I get a +5 keen shocking burst bastard sword of speed for posting this...GIMME!)
GothicDan 07-23-04, 05:22 PM	"When did I fall into that trap? I can make a 5th-level Player's Option wizard that will tear a 5th-level core wizard apart in 2E - that's the point here, isn't it? That 2E is just as "powergameable" with regard to "normal" play as 3E, right? What does pitting wizards from 2E and 3E against each other prove?" My original challenge: <i>But, I'll give you an example of a 2E 5th level wizard character concept (style) that is just as good, if not better, than a 3E one, if you can show me a 2E 5th level wizard who is powergamed to be of equal level with a 3E one. Deal?</i> Why did I say this? To show that in general PCs have gotten much more powerful, to the point where it's hard for modern gamers to see anything past that power. We're talking why modern roleplayers (vastly 3E rpers) are more interested in powergaming than roleplaying, and my point was that I believe 3E promotes powergaming over roleplaying because they make it so much easier to powergame, and because fairly low level characters can reach levels of higher power so much quicker than those of 2E. :) Of course, you don't have to take it up if you don't want to. "That's precisely the NPC Special Power Syndrome I'm talking about. How can an imbecile 3-HD monster do something that one of those supposedly super-special and gifted PCs can't even dream of?" Uh. In regards to HD, in 2E, that had little more to do than with the number of HP a monster had, and they were all d8's. And who said anything about being an imbecile? A goblin shaman/cleric would have a higher Wisdom than your typical goblin, and probably an average Int. Look up the Complete Book of Humanoids if you want to play one as a PC - that's why it's there. I, personally, have never played in any 2E campaign in which the NPCs used those 'Special Power Syndrome' powers that you're referring to, but that might be because I was with a group of roleplayers over roll-players.... "I understand that, but I much prefer the elegance of 3E where a 3rd-level goblin cleric is a goblin cleric, and not a walking spellcasting ability that looks like a goblin. Or, if I prefer, I can have a goblin wizard, or a goblin monk, and every time I create an NPC like that, I both know exactly what I'm doing, and can relate this information to others without preparing a list of house rules used to create the NPC." First of all, I think you're confusing elegance with simplicity. Elegance implies not only concerted motion, but dexterity and art. 3E has the former, but not the latter, in my opinion. The core rulebooks are written incredibly dryly and bore the hell out of me. I used to be able to sit down and read the 2E core books for hours on end, and in 3E, it's written so dryly that I tend to skip right past the first chapter and go into the crunchy bits - which is how I think a lot of modern Rpers react, because of how the books are written and laid out. And you know why they didn't give you so much variability in 2E? Because they were trying to create a world and a theme that made it specifically AD&D. They wanted it to FEEL like AD&D, in which goblins were usually like this or that, and in rare circumstances (read: DMG), they could be something outrageous or different. That's just how it is in real life with humans, if you look at specific cultures in the medieval ages. Our modern abilities of communication, transport, and liberalism (for the most part) have really changed the very definition of culture, especially in America, which I feel has no true culture any more. Effectively, 3E is more in line with the modern American culture (and to a lesser extent, the Japanese culture), rather than the European culture it once felt more like, where there were more specific ways of viewing things, due to tradition, literature (read: TOLKIEN!), and mythology. AD&D was meant to have flavor and a story intact; 3E is not. I understand what 3E is trying to do, but it doesn't mean that I have to like it - and ultimately, debates are all about opinion. And besides, what's the point in talking about the mechanics of NPCs if they're all statted out in X or Y feat? That's boring. Easy, but boring. "My point was that unlike in 2E, the 3E system supports specialization to a whole new level. As for background, say Joe Archer was a hunter, and pretty good with a bow compared to his fellow villagers; a fighter with good Dex will easily overshadow a commoner even at 1st level. After proving his skill time and time again, Joe gets bored of always winning the yearly archery contest, and with that he grows really arrogant and starts believing he actually is the best archer in the world. Well, so happens that one day a traveling 5th-level ranger with a fancy bow visits Joe's village and Joe can't resist challenging the stranger (and promptly gets beaten miserably). So, Joe learns the hard way that there are so very many better archers than he is, but instead of accepting the DM's evil laughter, he decides to show everyone and heads off to kill some goblins to better his shooting skills. Now, in 2E, despite all Joe ever did, he could never achieve more than any other fighter specializing in bow (without resorting to kits who aside from defining what a character is have this nasty tendency to also dictate who the character, is with all the "you must do this" and "you may never do that" stuff). In 3E, Joe can start following the archery path toward a dozen different goals and to any degree he wishes to - or get a grip and instead of becoming an arrogant archer turn into piety and pick up the mantle of a paladin. Or he could learn wizardry. Or try something more sneaky." I wouldn't consider a hunter/archer who got shown up in another town and wanted to become the best archer in the world a very good background. I'd smack the player around a few times and give him some questions to think more about a character's personality. And if you really wanted to powergame that much (though I can't see what's the point in it), you could go into Skills and Powers and go into Mastery, High Master, and Grand Mastery. Yay, more bonuses! (/sarcasm) I'd rather have a cohesive theme and mood planned out than ultimate freedom. That's why I read novels and write stories instead of play video games where you can do this and this and this and this.... and this. "Why do people who by their own words care least about the rules complain the most about the rules? Or, why is the powergaming of others such a big deal to roleplayers?" Because as consumers of the RPing industry, we have paid hundreds and in some cases thousands of dollars to the publishers, and we think we have a bit of a right to state our own opinions and try to influence the way that things that we have loved for years will move. We all have a right to state our views on things, particularly about things that we don't like, because we want to see them changed, because they DO affect us. If I'm paying 40 (!) dollars for a book, I want to be able to use more than 1/4 of it.
Another Gnome 07-24-04, 04:18 AM	if you can show me a 2E 5th level wizard who is powergamed to be of equal level with a 3E one. Okay, now that I read that again, I suppose that's what it says, but as I said above, PCs aren't more powerful - they can't become more powerful - compared to challenges they face because exactly the same system that provides the PCs with power is used for the NPCs and monsters. The difference only shows when something in the same system is powergamed and something else is not, which I'm sure can be shown in 2E perfectly well if optional systems are introduced. And let's face it, much of the worst "munchkinism" comes from non-core material to 3E as well. PCs have gotten much more powerful, to the point where it's hard for modern gamers to see anything past that power. We're talking why modern roleplayers (vastly 3E rpers) are more interested in powergaming than roleplaying, and my point was that I believe 3E promotes powergaming over roleplaying because they make it so much easier to powergame, and because fairly low level characters can reach levels of higher power so much quicker than those of 2E. Fine, there may be more powergamers around in 3E, but I would guess that the number of those people will diminish in time when they either get tired of the game entirely or want to make their gaming experience a bit deeper. It's too early to judge at this point - especially compared to 2E. Of course, you don't have to take it up if you don't want to. If you insist that I make a 2E wizard literally on par with a 3E wizard instead of relatively, then no. I do know an impossible task when I see one. :D I, personally, have never played in any 2E campaign in which the NPCs used those 'Special Power Syndrome' powers that you're referring to, but that might be because I was with a group of roleplayers over roll-players.... Are you playing with a group of powergamers in 3E, then? Roleplaying 3E is no different from roleplaying 2E. The core rulebooks are written incredibly dryly and bore the hell out of me. I used to be able to sit down and read the 2E core books for hours on end, and in 3E, it's written so dryly that I tend to skip right past the first chapter and go into the crunchy bits - which is how I think a lot of modern Rpers react, because of how the books are written and laid out. I also used to read the 2E books hour to an end - though that was more because a rule I tried to find started on page 35, continued on page 145, and then jumped over to page 87 in another book. :smirk: Okay, seriously, I agree with the part about 3E being more dry, though I don't think 3E fluff is lacking in quality, but it is sorely lacking in quantity. Effectively, 3E is more in line with the modern American culture (and to a lesser extent, the Japanese culture), rather than the European culture it once felt more like, where there were more specific ways of viewing things, due to tradition, literature (read: TOLKIEN!), and mythology. AD&D was meant to have flavor and a story intact; 3E is not. Hey, I am European, no need to tell me how the culture in the old continent is superior. :P Again I agree with you about the Japanese influence in particular, but fortunately that at least has been kept to a minimum. Though I have to admit, all that katana-talk and how everything else that comes from the East is so much greater than anything the clumsy people of the West can come up with gives me good laughs on a regular basis. Now, 3E is more a ruleset than a complete game, I can't argue that. On the other hand, the result of that is not too different from 2E, in a sense - whereas 3E makes it possible to understand the rules without granting the ability to roleplay, 2E forced the roleplaying part by leaving the players hanging in the air with an incomplete and in many cases simply nonsenscial set of rules, ad hoc rulings and vague references to things. Both editions provide the means to become a "roleplayer"; 3E hand-walks the inexperienced player in but doesn't show where to go from there, while 2E has a learn or die mentality. Perhaps the 2E method "trained" better roleplayers. But better roleplayers is not what the game needed to survive. I wouldn't consider a hunter/archer who got shown up in another town and wanted to become the best archer in the world a very good background. I'd smack the player around a few times and give him some questions to think more about a character's personality. Hey! It's not like the whole story was there! :sad: And if you really wanted to powergame that much (though I can't see what's the point in it), you could go into Skills and Powers and go into Mastery, High Master, and Grand Mastery. Yay, more bonuses! (/sarcasm) Where's the powergaming in wanting to actually hit the apple on top of someone's head or shooting two arrows at the same time just because it looks neat? Sure, the same skills can be used to kill enemies more efficiently, but the character would be stupid not to take advantage of that. I'd rather have a cohesive theme and mood planned out than ultimate freedom. That's why I read novels and write stories instead of play video games where you can do this and this and this and this.... and this. Is that what you consider the PCs in your games? A bunch of characters in your story that do only what you want them to? I doubt that, but that's the impression you're giving. Because as consumers of the RPing industry, we have paid hundreds and in some cases thousands of dollars to the publishers, and we think we have a bit of a right to state our own opinions and try to influence the way that things that we have loved for years will move. We all have a right to state our views on things, particularly about things that we don't like, because we want to see them changed, because they DO affect us. If I'm paying 40 (!) dollars for a book, I want to be able to use more than 1/4 of it. But surely you understand you're probably in the minority - not necessarily on these boards, but on the market in general. The 3E books sell because what they are. As long as they sell, they won't change. * * * Hm. I'm really starting to feel weird for standing up for powergamers... :confused:
GothicDan 07-24-04, 03:33 PM	Well, Another Gnome, since you seem to actually concede on many points (or maybe that's just my delusional, egocentric brain interpretting it as so), I see little reason to continue this argument. :) But just a few quick things that I'd like to clear up. Europe: Go Europe! Know any good grad schools in the UK for physics? ;) Wizard Challenge: Forget about it. I'm content with what you've said if you are with what I've said - which it seems like we both pretty much are. Rules in 2E Books: I've never had a problem with finding rules in the core 2E books. Other ones, yes. And if you want to talk about this little problem, let's talk about WhiteWolf. ;) Survival: Yes. Sadly, the game as us old-schoolers love and knew it isn't the same now. It needs lots of consumers, not lots of roleplayers. Darn capitalism. Novels: I consider myself to be a novelist, writing an adventure in which everyone who participates can pick up the role of a character in it that is as of yet undefined. I suppose my method of roleplaying in AD&D is more along the lines of WhiteWolf, without all of the cheesy got/punk angsty pretentious holier-than-thou stupidity. In any event, I think that's all I have to say. :)
Another Gnome 07-24-04, 05:42 PM	GD, I'm always happy to come to an agreement to disagree and leave it at that - and make fun of angsty vampires. :P As for the educational system of the United Kingdom, it is with great displeasure that I must inform you of my rather limited knowledge concerning said topic; after all, there is quite a bit more to Europe than the island whom you are referring to.
GothicDan 07-24-04, 07:27 PM	Ah, well I know there's much more to the UK than England... I was just wondering if you happened to know of any. ;) But anyway, as this isn't the topic... Here is where I shut up! Discussion was fun, though!
Enslaved DM 07-24-04, 10:02 PM	It was simpler to power game in 2e. You take the right kit, specialize in the appropriate weapon and style, and that's it. Generally speaking fighters chose either longsword/bastard sword or hammer (stacking strength bonus of gauntlets/girdles). If you were a fighter the ring of vampiric regeneration was a great find. In 3.0 and 3.5 there are more options and choices. Much more energy can be spent onways to abuse the combos, because you have more options period. I've heard and seen more 2ed powergaming the 3.0/3.5.
GothicDan 07-24-04, 10:12 PM	"You take the right kit, specialize in the appropriate weapon and style, and that's it. Generally speaking fighters chose either longsword/bastard sword or hammer (stacking strength bonus of gauntlets/girdles). If you were a fighter the ring of vampiric regeneration was a great find." Um. Sounds like 3E, only replace 'kit' with Prestige Class, and add a whole slew of feats. And what about non-fighters in 2E? That's not to mention the fact that your Strength couldn't go above 25, no matter what bonuses you had, magical or otherwise. And rings of vampiric regeneration? Oh yes, very handy, even though they'd probably be about ten times rarer than even a normal ring of regeneration, considering the fact that few Wizards are going to waste a Con point on giving another person the ability to use the magic item, because they wouldn't actually be in melee damage much themselves. Ultimately, when you start saying, 'I've seen more people doing X and Y,' this is all anecdotal evidence, which in the scientific method, is one of the most flawed ways of doing anything. You have to actually analyze the rules as they're given and what they promote, not simply what you've seen/heard. At least, that's my opinion. :) Wow. I need to shut up. I think I'm exiting this thread after this post now, too. Later.
Enslaved DM 07-24-04, 10:26 PM	Same deal. Kit (specialty priest of the munchkin god, fighter bonuses for thieves, etcetera), fighting style (two weapon, sword and shield, etc.), and off you go. The difference is all the important decisions are made at 1st level and you are stuck with them. You may plan out what your future to do at 1st level in 3.0/3.5, but in 2e your pretty much stuck with it. I don't deny there is powergaming in 3.0/3.5, but you build the character of her career. In 3.0/3.5 there are a number of good options. In 2e there were a few clearly superior ones. Powergaming didn't come in to 3.0. The number of options available created the need to talk to strangers on a min/max board to squeeze every possible erg out of the system. You didn't have the variety of good options in 2e to make that necessary (and the internet was only bigin the later part, but that's another conversation).
WizO_BigSister 07-25-04, 10:42 AM	Originally posted by Crust It's hard to imagine healthy, comfortable role-playing amongst a group of strangers sitting down together for the first time. I'm sure it's possible, though. Also, would these strangers want to role-play for a good part of the afternoon when their characters could be slaughtering baddies? We'll see what happens. I don't find this a hard concept ... in fact I've done this on several occasions. Granted most of them were at roleplaying/argaming conventions where everyone accepted that the game would involve a mix of getting under your characters skin and making big holes in the enemies skin :D The bottom line is what the players expectations are. If you talk about this before you start the game and everyone agrees then of course it is possible to have a game slanted towards an in-depth in-role style. Picking up an earlier issue ... yes reading is important. HOWEVER it doesn't have to be Dragonlance or even any D&D based novels ... in fact it may be even better if it isn't! What is important is a habit of reading books that tell you what is going on inside a person ... what motivates them, how they are thinking and feeling and what their reactions are. Watching movies, plays or TV programs that get you inside another person's skin can be just as useful. There has always been a difference between introspective and thoughtful movies/books etc and the more action orientated hack, bash'n'slash stuff ... this is nothing new. "Dumbing down" to sell more is not a recent thing either. Just getting people to read isn't the answer either ... there have always been pulp paperbacks with all the psychological insight of a large brick!
Cold Napalm 07-25-04, 05:42 PM	Umm...yeah 2nd ed was easier to muchkin true...why? Because you could do it one way and only one way. You think kits are muchkin?!? Good god you have no idea what it was to muchkin in 2ed do you. You took the fighter mage class, used skill and power with 17 str with 19 for to hit and damage and 15 for encumberence and used a shield and longsword with sword and shield style. That's it...everything else pales in power comparison. If you are using cure rules, fine your a fighter mage period...and that's it. Oh yeah be an elf...get elven chain. As for ring of vamp regen...good luck finding a sane DM who'll give you one of these or a PC mage who will make one for you. Okay okay, I admit that the penalty for swashnbucklers were kinda weak...unless you had a sadistic Dm who took to heart bad things always happen to YOU. The reason 3.0/3.5 is much more munchkin friendly is now you don't have to be a fighter mage to be a munckin. Also with all the option, nobody looks closely at all the possible combination which leaves loopholes...like my BAB 25 build MAGE. This is an abuse of tensers...but it's there. Also there is my 50+ dice rolling build along with my at least 200 damage build...umm yeah a rogue with fighter attack bonus doesn't seem so bad now does it.
ClobberinTime 07-28-04, 07:24 PM	The bottom line is this- There is not really that much of a difference its just a question of extremes, No roleplayer wants his/her character to be so weak it can't do anything, what is the point in that. Is someone going to take levels in aristocrat or warrior or adept for the sake of roleplaying- No, not unless they want to sit and watch combat and hope they don't die anyways. There are tons of builds that are good and aren't egregiously power gaming. And honestly I can't see sitting around for two hours without rolling a single die, to me thats just not fun. What would I rather do watch you act out your characters mood swings or watch Viggo do it as aragorn on a screen, well sry but Viggo's probably just slightly more interesting. Now at the same time time anyone whose character is so min-maxed that without a group around them they have such flaws in what they can do is just waiting for the DM to take advantage of them. City adventures are great for this, how long until the fighter with spot -2 can stay in the room at the inn without being jumped by a buch of nearly (to him at least) invisible thieves is and should be left to the DMs imagination. Cause if he leaves the room the pick pockets will see him coming a mile away. The most obvious class to abuse for power gaming is the paladin. Divine favor is just too juicy to pass up, but you know what being LG (and you must remain that way to get your +'s) is hard. Put that power gamer on morally ambiguous ground whether they like it or not, and if they screw up make them beg the gods for forgiveness. Now thats roleplaying.... In the same vein most PRCs have some alignment component, so make the PCs live up to it, so its not just words on paper, Yes samauri must be lawful, etc... The bottom line is the DM can always force roleplaying onto his players if he wants to, and he can also always, always come up with someone bigger and badder than his PCs if they get out of control... Here the quote should be-' Yes that is the Simbul, and yes she looks very very angry'
Cold Napalm 07-28-04, 08:25 PM	Hey I have taken levels of expert many times...it's one of the best classes...I mean really you get to pick 10 class skills...that rocks...and is a great way to get into prestige classes. I have once had levels of aristracrat. Never a peasant though.
GothicDan 07-28-04, 11:55 PM	"And honestly I can't see sitting around for two hours without rolling a single die, to me thats just not fun." Excuse me while my jaw drops. Don't.. Understand.. Roleplaying.. Interaction.. Not dice rolling.. I'm going to go totter off confusedly now.:confused:
Another Gnome 07-29-04, 03:33 AM	I've played the game in a breakfast table without needing dice for anything (real life breakfast table, that is, and until you've acted out a female dwarf having breakfast, you don't know what you're missing :D ). I would however remind you GD, that there are die-rolling rules on interaction skills in 3E, and not using them at all is just as bad as only rolling a die when interacting with people. I can well understand that someone's not having fun after spending half the character's skill points on Diplomacy or Appraise only to find out that the DM refuses to roll a single die in a game session where all the "action" is in haggling for a decent price for something - after spending hours "acting in character" trying to find someone to sell it. Besides, it's fun a-plenty to watch rolling and roling on a collision course occasionally. Having a gruffy and greedy merchant suddenly starting to act all nice and helpful just because a really good Dip roll may eat away believability if the players don't put any emotion in their characters, but in the hands of a DM able to "switch personality" in mid-sentence, it will likely give a few good laughs instead. It is a game, after all. :)
Ilhuicatl 07-29-04, 08:41 AM	When I first started I wanted to be a Paladin. Sword and shield. Bash the evil back to where it came from. Background? Why? Then I slowly got emerged into the joy that is roleplaying. Soon I hated those fights popping up for no apparent reason. I wanted to chat, talk, mess around with all those npc's. We even did whole session without one single combat action (maybe pounding a chest or door), spending time in shops, in elven woods, ... I even grew tired a few weeks ago when zombies popped out of nowhere, just to 'have' a fight in the game. Thought of quitting the day because I was enjoying the roleplay with the locals. All I'm saying is... give those kids a chance. A lot of what a session makes up can be blamed on the storyteller. Make them enjoy conversations, let them have a chance at roleplaying. When a fight does come up, make it worthwhile, be sure they talk about it sessions later. And for the record: I HATE dungeon crawling! One trap and I'm usually out. :)
ClobberinTime 07-29-04, 10:04 AM	My point was simply that variety is the spice of life and in a really fun campaign things end up being a happy medium. The new rules on Diplomacy, bluff etc... are just great too by the way. Which one of us social deviants hasn't wanted to play someone who can give a speech like Bill Clinton (or substitute your favorite orator here). So Napalm, didn't want to take the exp penal for rogue, or did you just need those 2 extra skill points.
GothicDan 07-29-04, 11:21 AM	I've always had a big problem with people making characters they can't back up, but that's just me. For example, in place of Diplomacy, Bluff, etc. rolls, you had a character with a high Charisma. And you chatted and role-played that character with a high Charisma. It makes roleplaying more humanized than rolling dice around the table. Pretty much the only time I ever roll dice is when the DM is asking me to make a check of some sort. But that's because I play a 2E 4th level necromancer with no access to the Invocation/Evocation school, where most of the rolling comes from. :) I'm so glad that I found this 2E group. It gives me tingles of joy.
Cole Deschain 07-29-04, 11:29 AM	Originally posted by GothicDan WhiteWolf, without all of the cheesy got/punk angsty pretentious holier-than-thou stupidity. Somebody's been playing too much Vampire, not enough Freak Legion. Heh. Anyway. It's role-playing, not roll-playing, and anybody who's out to create some sort of uber-beast as their primary goal is going to run into trouble with me. If, on the other hand, they create an uber-beast but give a reason why he' so combat adept and socially inept, I tend to let it slide, provided they play the glaring gaps in any true twink character's resume as well as the "kneel before Zod!" aspects.
GothicDan 07-29-04, 12:26 PM	Well, I think that all of WhiteWolf's stuff has a pretentious air about it. Maybe not the angsty goth wannabe part that Vampire has, though. :)
Enslaved DM 07-29-04, 04:13 PM	My DM (at the time) favored the fighter types. I saw more than one ring of vampiric regeneration. I appologize for my limitations on how to min max 2nd edition. I am only vaguely familiar with some of the later cheese as it showed up after I was leaving the game. I wasn't playing it after the early 90's. Vampire and Earthdawn dominated my RPing until 3rd edition came out. The most viscious combats I have ever seen has been in Vampire. With a good Storyteller the free form of the game is a thing of terrible beauty during battle.
GothicDan 07-29-04, 04:34 PM	Vampire always felt really... Fake to me for some reason. Although I have never actually played it, I'm a much bigger fan of Mage. But above all else, is 2E AD&D. Specifically, Planescape and Dragonlance! Woot!
Enslaved DM 07-29-04, 05:07 PM	Mage is tricky as the world has so few boundries, but I have enjoyed the few sessions I've played. As a Storyteller you do have to watch for the munchkin combos. Vampire is much more grounded. What you can and can't do is much more defined, as is the world you live in. Vampire is simple: welcome to the world of the supernatural. Your at the bottom rung. Your prey outnumbers you 100,000 to one and has flamethrowers and nuclear weapons. If humanity as a whole catches on that we exist, we're screwed. Oh, disobey me and I'll twist your head off like a bottle cap.
Cold Napalm 07-29-04, 08:48 PM	I like vampire...go malkavians. I love those malkies hehehe. Haveb't seen broke until you play vampire.
WizO_BigSister 07-31-04, 08:25 AM	Points to the header at the top of these forums ... the one that says Forgotten Realms :P If you want to discuss the merits of other games pretty please take it to The Rec Room (Off Topic Forum) (http://boards1.wizards.com/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=405)
Nathara 07-31-04, 08:47 PM	To bring things back around to the Forgotten Realms and the subject at hand.... I think the game system itself has very little to do with the number of powergamers it supplies. In reality, I think that game style is determined by ones previous inclination and how quickly one is introduced to the roleplaying vs. rollplaying argument. It seems that, though the official policy on playstyles is that they're all equal, most folks hold allegiance to one style in particular and hold it above others. And if you are perhaps lacking in an aptitude for that particular style, the risk and perhaps experience of ridicule or pressure seems to be not worth the effort. So then they avoid it. As to how this relates to the Forgotten Realms... I think we are all in agreement that FR is an incredibly rich and detailed world... which helps facilitate and inspire roleplaying just SOOO much! But, on the other hand, to the inexperienced, the wealth of information around coupled with the pressure from FR purists could make them rely heavily on what they know -- Dritz, Elminster, or many other well known and overplayed characters. Perhaps instead of debating the merits of this edition over that (I am hearing no support for 1st... hmmmm...), perhaps we can further come up with causes and solutions to develop the playstyle we have granted our allegiance to. Nathara
Kail 08-01-04, 03:17 AM	Players are no more powergamers than GMs let them be. Face it, if your the GM, you have the final say for what is appropriate for you game and what is not. An interesting, though time consuming way to get good character builds with strong connections between stats/abilities and background is to "model" the character. Modeling, in the way the old TSR MSH game used the term, mostly. You take a characters background and work out the skills and abilities they would have, a sort of reverse egineering approach. This way you can tie in all of the class abilities and skills to the character. Just like trying to figure out the stats for a novel based character, except the player is the writer. 3rd Ed has, in my opinion a better ability to support a wider range of charcter concepts and have mechanical 'teeth' behind them. Your character is the son of a blacksmith, who sets out to earn a better lot in life so he can court the daughter of a local noble? His attempts at poetry and sarinading her have only earned the ire of her father, and made an enemy of a young dandy who her father favors as a suitor. Easily done with 3rd edition, and in a way that the character sheet can bare out his background. I like being able to build an interesting character background and then design a stats end of the character and have the two match up instead of building up a nice background and then its, Fighter with a few weapon profs and a couple of non-weapon profs that don't cover things very well. While not powergaming, I think that adventures facing the dangers of the wilds of the Realms would be inclined to maximize their effectiveness to some extent. If they did not make sure they were pretty good at what they did, either themselves or someone in their party could well die as a result. This, to me, is not flat out powergaming, but unless you have a really demanding concept, a bit of economy when working up the levels makes sense. If the concept calls for it though, shoot the works and let those abilities such as attack bonus and saves suffer. GothicDan I've always had a big problem with people making characters they can't back up Would you extend this same belief to physical abilites, and mental skills or just social interaction skills? If its just social skills, that's a bit unfair, hypicritical really. Why allow for someone to play a character that is physical able to preform things the player cannot when you wouldn't have them preform social feats the player cannot? Having ranks in Diplomacy is no different than having ranks in swim, jump, tumble or Knowledge{Local:Silver Marches}. They represent something a character is good at, not something the player is good at. If I have a player at my table who want to try to play a charismatic bard and he's not the smoothest speaker or most comfortable roleplayer, should I tell them to play a fighter with a average or lower charisma? If you wouldn't let the str-18 character succeed at leaping across the gap just as a bridge crumbles out from under them without a Jump check, you shouldn't let the Cha-18 character succeed at talking their way into a nobels ball without a diplomacy or bluff check. Either can default to attributes, but ranks in the above skill represent time and effort spent to improve those areas the character thought important, and they player should be allowed to use them. If your not using your social skill system at all, your allowing players to get buy with a narrower range of skills and helping them powergame by teaching them that somethings you don't need in the game to get by, so those resources can go to other things. Ending the rambling mess with this observation. Combine it with $.75 and you can get the small cup of coffee at McDonalds, if its on special. Any system can be powergamed in, all it takes is a player who wants to do that style of play and a GM who allows it. The current generation is no more likely to powergame than any other, and if they are powergaming, they tend to learn RPGs from their elders. Kail
Faraer 08-01-04, 11:11 AM	On the question of the influence of rulesets on play, those of you who haven't should read Ron Edwards's essay "System Does Matter" (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/_articles/system_does_matter.html). 1st edition AD&D has no particular advantage over 2nd for a Realms campaign. 2nd edition is largely a re-presentation of the 1st edition rules, with the edges filed down, the principles changed and in some cases misunderstood, and the Gygaxian flavour removed. In many ways 2nd edition is a less coherent and fun game than 1st. But for the job of representing the Realms, where Ed always adapted the ruleset loosely and didn't adhere strictly to its assumptions, the plainer, blander, and in some cases more logical 2nd edition works better, and so Ed's players voted to adopt it.
Cold Napalm 08-01-04, 10:54 PM	Actually system mostly matters. FR in 1st/2nd wasn't incredible broken compared to core rules. FR in 3.x is exceedingly broken compared to core. So we see an influx of power gamers playing 3.x FR where they didn't really feel the need to in previous version. Setting matters too. Vampire attracts very few power gamers. Exalted and abberant which basically uses the same ruleset as vampire attracts hoards of power gamers. So if we want power gamers out of FR, the mission is clear...turn the setting into an agnst filled world of eternal torment full of people in fluffy black shirts (yeah males too). :angel:
Cole Deschain 08-01-04, 10:56 PM	Originally posted by Cold Napalm So if we want power gamers out of FR, the mission is clear...turn the setting into an agnst filled world of eternal torment full of people in fluffy black shirts (yeah males too). :angel: And then they get mauled by spirtually-cool, good-guy werewolves. Heh.
GothicDan 08-02-04, 01:15 AM	Werewolf - one of the worst WW games ever. But moving on. "Would you extend this same belief to physical abilites, and mental skills or just social interaction skills?" No, because the last time I checked, you can quite easily measure how much you can lift, and you can't easily measure how good you are at talking. I think numbers in real life easily translate to numbers in RPGs. "If you wouldn't let the str-18 character succeed at leaping across the gap just as a bridge crumbles out from under them without a Jump check, you shouldn't let the Cha-18 character succeed at talking their way into a nobels ball without a diplomacy or bluff check." And to a lesser extent, considering I don't even play 3E anymore, I dislike the entire skill system as a whole. But if you have a character with a high Cha and the Etiquette NWP in 2E, then you can roll dice all you want. But it really takes away from the roleplaying experience. We already have combat defined by dice, do we really need everything else defined by them, too? As to the people that aren't very good at trying to represent something that their character is good at? Call me an elitist snob, but if they are playing a high Cha and can't manage to at least sound somewhat convincing, then they don't have the imagination or ability to truly play that character. One of my biggest pet peeves? Stupid people who try to play genius-intelligence wizards. Oh my god oh my god....
Barmoz 08-02-04, 03:05 PM	To the question of whether or not the realms encourages or enables powergaming, I think the answer depends on if a person is a powergamer or not. For someone who is a powergamer, the answer is no, because looking at the iconic characters, they are so horribly built from a "min / max" perspective as to be crippled against encounters of an appropriate challenge rating for them. Aside from Shade and the Twisted Rune, there's really no single collection of epicness in the realms. There are powerful individuals, but there's no high-level playground for hack & slashing. For someone who isn't much of a powergamer, the answer is more likely to be yes, almost everyone of importance throughout the realms is 15 or higher, all the way up to 40 or more. In their games, these levels are almost unreachable, campaigns end long before players have to worry about designing epic spells or leading massive armies of followers. I think the real answer is that the realms offers enough content for everyone to get something out of it, and it isn't too strongly biased towards one side or the other. The fact that so many people can argue both sides says it's probably neither.
Cold Napalm 08-02-04, 04:48 PM	Humm very good point about the iconic characters...they are for the most part horribly build...the simbul anyone?!? YIKES what were they thinking. But you don't have to fight the iconic characters at epic levels...there are a lot of epic monsters you can play with...along with the planes. I mean what high level party does not go plan hopping?!? I think you should be able to play characters with abilities you do not posses. I how would you like it if your fighter used how well you fight instead of a dice roll? That said...I don't think everything should be reduced to dice rolls since well..that's boring. I basically have the rule of if you come up with something good, no dice roll is needed, you succeed period. If you can't come up with anything good, you can roll for it...but do so at penalties. For instance if you can't come up with what to say to a guard to let you pass, you check lets you come up with something...but after a pause which makes him suspecious. This rewards you fi you RP well...but does not negate the possibility of you playing characters with attributes you do not have. I mean how many role players do you know that is socially well adjusted?!?
GothicDan 08-02-04, 10:37 PM	Cold Napalm, I could see the validity in your take on things. It seems to make sense. But... "I mean how many role players do you know that is socially well adjusted?!?" Being able to act and thing on your feet really has nothing to do with being socially well adjusted. I'm horrible in all social situations yet I'm a fantastic actor. I guess I just take the 'role' part of roleplaying much more seriously than most people nowadays. What's the point if you're playing a high charisma bard and you can't come up with any of his witty poems, satires, flirtations, or rousing speeches? He's just a bunch of numbers on a piece of paper, then.
Kail 08-02-04, 10:45 PM	Gothic Dan, 2nd Ed, not to show my roots or anything, two characters with a Cha16 one with and one without the Etiquette NWP, which would you consider more skilled in a social setting? The point of role playing is to represent a character in a given situation. That character's skill level, not the players, should be paramount for helping determine success or failure. I'm not saying every situation in a game should be ruled by dice, but they have a place. If nothing else, the skill ranks, like the old NWP scores should act as a guide to how well a player represents a character's ability. Should a thief with a Cha-11 and no Etiquette NWP be plaid as being as smooth and well spoken as the Bard or Mage with a Cha-15 and the Etiquette NWP? If not, then its no different than playing a character with Diplomacy+10{Thanks to his +2 from Cha} as being more able to handle himself socially than the character with Diplomacy+5{+0 thanks to Cha}. Its about playing to the character's ability. Like the genius level wizard being plaid by a stupid player, its painful for me to watch someone dump the Cha stat, or Wis and play a well spoken, soulful character. Playing well above the stat is just as painful to watch as someone playing well below the stat. And, stats can be a help to someone who wants to play a character who they think will be a lot of fun, but they may not be socially up to the role of. I shouldn't stop an shy person from playing a high Cha character any more than I should stop a weak individual from playing a high Str character. Cold Napalm, I think that FR being the default setting might have more to do with the "influx" of powergamers that you think is happening. Me, I've always seen a few in play in the Realms. Just a matter of course. Ask a DL player about powergaming and FR and Dark Sun come up first off. Personal experience tells me that Vampire attracts scads of power gamers, they're just better at hiding it. Powergaming into social skills and social powers/gifts in a system where said abilities have had 'teeth', no puns here, for years now. But, that's just personal experience mind you. That and &.75, as said before, will buy you a cup of coffee, on special of course. Kail
GothicDan 08-02-04, 10:58 PM	Kail: I currently agree with most of what you're saying. :) I'd just much rather have a player try to appropriately play out his character's personality and appropriate stat score than roll dice. As long as a person's making an ATTEMPT to justify the character's score, be it high or low, it's better than dice-rolling, in my opinion. If a character with a high Cha and the Etiquette proficiency is having a hard time roleplaying the character, but is TRYING (instead of rolling the dice), then depending on the situation, his character will still behave properly. That's the point - to encourage players to become better roleplayers instead of letting them just roll the dice, I think.
Crust 08-02-04, 11:05 PM	Originally posted by GothicDan I'm horrible in all social situations yet I'm a fantastic actor. Which is why, as Cold Napalm said, good role-players are terrible in social situations. ;)
Cold Napalm 08-02-04, 11:13 PM	I have a horrible habit of making low wisdom characters since I get to do reckless stuff and point and go see wisdom 6 see. :angel: Yeah I know many RPer can act...but some of us are hopeless. Toss a succubus and watch it fall apart bad. Does that mean said player should never play a bard or that swashbuckler? No...but if you have a low tolerence for out of character stuff...then OH GOD YES. My pet peeve is actually people with high wisdom acting like a fool.
GothicDan 08-02-04, 11:15 PM	Cold: Eh, according to AD&D tests, my Wisdom is 16, and I have no common sense whatsoever. :) "Which is why, as Cold Napalm said, good role-players are terrible in social situations." And I agree with that, many are not, but the essence of roleplaying is really acting. Just because you're bad at social situations doesn't mean you can't act like you're not in character, per se. :)
Cold Napalm 08-02-04, 11:49 PM	Hehe per se yes...But it's hard to act when you have no idea what you actually suppose to do. Kinda like the first time you kissed a girl. It's all awkward because you have no idea what it is your actually suppose to be doing. Asking somebody who has no social skill what he's doing at a ball when he's suppose to woo the countess is umm...interesting. Well wisdom doesn't have to mean common sense...although people do lump them together. I have no sense of self preservation so umm yeah common sense goes out the window. Fortuantely, I'm skilled enough to keep myself alive despite myself. A wisdom test once said I was very wise though.
GothicDan 08-02-04, 11:55 PM	" Asking somebody who has no social skill what he's doing at a ball when he's suppose to woo the countess is umm...interesting." Exactly. That's the point of roleplaying, I think - to expand your ability to react to various situations and to be able to think on your feet and solve problems. But maybe I'm giving AD&D a more educational slant than most. :p
Cold Napalm 08-03-04, 12:10 AM	And some people are just unteachable ;) .
Cunning Linguist 08-03-04, 03:15 AM	Originally posted by GothicDan " Asking somebody who has no social skill what he's doing at a ball when he's suppose to woo the countess is umm...interesting." Exactly. That's the point of roleplaying, I think - to expand your ability to react to various situations and to be able to think on your feet and solve problems. But maybe I'm giving AD&D a more educational slant than most. :p But if the character has tons of skills in diplomacy, but the player knows little, if anything about how to talk to hostile people, why should he be punished for this? Besides, what is stopping you from roleplaying? Those numbers on your character sheet? Elminister is said to be a fantastic danser, yet he only has a few skillpoints in dancing.. What is stopping the barbarian from being a fantastic diplomat with his 3 in diplomacy?
Cold Napalm 08-03-04, 03:50 AM	Mainly...because I don't want there to be a dice roll for everything. I actually want interactions here...that's what's fun for me...but if they really are stuck I do let them roll for it...I just put a penalty to keep them from doing so again in the future unless they really need to.
Cole Deschain 08-03-04, 04:54 AM	Amen. If I wanted a stat for everything down to brushing the PCs' teeth, I'd play GURPS.
Derren S. 08-03-04, 04:57 AM	Originally posted by Cunning Linguist Elminister is said to be a fantastic danser, yet he only has a few skillpoints in dancing.. What is stopping the barbarian from being a fantastic diplomat with his 3 in diplomacy? The same whats stopping a wizard from beeing a expert swordsman. The stats and skills are representing the character in the gaming world and when he doesn't have ranks in diplomacy the character is no good diplomat, no matter how many UN meetings the player has taken part. Or should I hitmy DM in the face to show him that my 8 strength halfling should get a strength bonus to damage and not a penalty?
Cold Napalm 08-03-04, 05:13 AM	Also not that just because people SAY he's a wonderful dancer does not make him one. You could be called a great diplomate and still be a lousy one. Also who's to say el doesn't augment his steps with some minor magic?
GothicDan 08-03-04, 12:41 PM	Cunning Linguist: In regards to what you quoted me about, I refer you to my earlier statements where I already agreed with Napalm. If a character has a high cha/Etiquette or a good Diplomacy score, and he or she at least makes an ATTEMPT to play the character as charismatic, then it works for me. It shows that a person is TRYING to roleplay. People can run around saying 'OMG that's SOO not fair!!!!!' but I don't give a crap. I want good roleplaying. I don't need a bunch of dice rolling. What's the point in roleplaying a situation if you're not going to ROLEPLAY it? If you just roll all of your encounters in a RPG (if you don't even ask the player for an IDEA of what his character is doing/saying in a social situation), you're not roleplaying at all! DM: What do you do? Player: I go to the ball and woo the countess! *Roll* DM: You made it. She's wooed. Player: Okay cool, I go home now! If that's what people want for 'roleplaying,' then I am ashamed to even be in this discussion at all. The key point is TRYING to roleplay, not just rolling dice. Dice are only there for when the DM and the player can't easily conclude interactions themselves.
Derren S. 08-03-04, 06:17 PM	Requiering the players to roleplay their actions is fine. Only basing the result of the action on how the player roleplayed and not on the skills of the character is imo wrong. If you do this, diplomatic players never have to take diplomacy and shy ones shouldn't botter because it won't help them anyway.
GothicDan 08-03-04, 09:28 PM	"If you do this, diplomatic players never have to take diplomacy and shy ones shouldn't botter because it won't help them anyway." As I said before, dice/rolling is only used for when a DM cannot conclude an interaction based without them. In my opinion, it would be up to the DM to conclude that a character with little charisma and little/no Diplomacy/Etiquette could actually use it effectively. If it's a close call (in the DM's mind), then sure, rolling is fine. Otherwise, the DM should just RP out the NPCs as he feel they would react in the situation.
Derren S. 08-04-04, 03:52 AM	And thats exactly what I think its wrong. You are giving the diplomatic players an advantage because of player skills and make the character a mix between the character and the player. That is imo unfair and it is basically metagaming because of using player knowledgs/skill in game. If someone wants to play a diplomat imc he should better take a class with diplomacy skill, put skill ranks in it and have a high charisma and not play a Cha 6 half-orc with no diplomacy rank and instead visits evening school to take negotiation courses. If you play with a physic student, do you let the character make gunpowder and explosives because the player knows how to make them?
ClobberinTime 08-04-04, 12:19 PM	So I just cant believe that anyone who played 1ed and 2ed could have a beef about the new rules for social interactions. In 2ed and 1ed you could spend hours arguing over whether or not so and so should be convinced about this or that 'What do you mean Elminster didn't buy my argument and isn't going to help'....etc... etc..... And there are rules in 3ed for the rolepalying element. If the PC is roleplaying and acting like a jerk, but has a diplomacy rating of 20, make that NPC hostile and increase the DC. Or hell invent a new category like uber hostile so the roll is harder. Same with bluff and sense motive, etc... Having rules to cover these things was one of the huge, just huge advancements of 3ed.
Cole Deschain 08-04-04, 12:33 PM	If you mean being able to house-rule stuff in... that's always been there. DM's fiat.
GothicDan 08-04-04, 03:14 PM	Well, Derrin, you completely misinterpretted what I was saying. I said numerous times that I, as a DM, let the players act how they well, putting on them the responsibility to play their characters out appropriately according to their stats. I am not giving the diplomatic characters an advantage - I'm giving the roleplayers the advantage. If they roleplay a character with a low Cha or what have you as too diplomatic, then they get smacked down for roleplaying inappropriately. As I said, people can tell me this is not fair, etc., but it's exactly what I want. So far, as far as gaming goes, that's what I want. I want roleplayers, and I don't care if that scares away some people who don't know how to roleplay, or who aren't willing to learn. It's my perogative to run a game as a DM how I want it to be, and as long as the players like how I DM, then it's fine. If they don't, then they can leave.