Spycer

I think we may have a confusion in terms here. To me, exploiting loop-holes, min-maxing, cheeze monkey-ing, munchkining... all terms for the same thing. To me the term you choose has more to do with wheather you approve of the action in question, rather than what it is. If a system is fairly ballanced, it is hard to min-max or cheeze monkey to any degree. If it is broken, you can munchkin it up. The only real problem I have with a broken system is that if someone is NOT trying to min-max, and they end up FAR more powerful than the other players, or if one player is power-gaming and the others don't care to or don't know how. The first is something that is completely the systems fault, and would probably turn me off of a particular game. The second is fixable, by either asking said player to tone it down, or teaching the noobs how to min-max, whichever is easier or prefered. I guess the only term that isn't always the same as the others is min-max. You can always minimize disadvantages and maxamize advantages, but the system limits to what degree. If you can't be FAR better than the other characters at your one SOMETHING, all the characters are going to be bland and generic.

The fact is, if you lock it down so much that someone cannot possibly cheese-monkey it, there is no wiggle room to be creative. I, as a DM, don't want to do that to my players. If they min-max, so be it, the world gets tougher and smarter to compensate, but at least they are having fun! We really should play some time. The key to playing a game like that without running in to that, is to have a DM/GM/ST who knows their players. If I plan on playing a silly, slapstick comedy game, because I know you and yours joke around a lot, then cool. If you come to me and ask to play a more serrious game, you should try and stick to being serrious about gaming, since you asked for it. It's also up to the DM not to be lame like that.

And because of that it is limited to simplistic, basic, non-exploitable, little-creativity actions. If you could "cheese moneky" 2nd ed effects, its because you CARED about the game, and got CREATIVE. In 4th there is no advantage to giving more of a shit over just showing up and declaring basic actions. You don't need to care. The system lends itself to this, which leads to boring games and bored players.

I think that's the biggest part I hate about it. See my unique examples: Mage A is 1st level. He can cast some spells. He may or may not have a race (see note below) Mage B is also 1st level. 80%+ of the spells he can cast are IDENTICAL to Mage A's spell list. He might not take one or another of the extreemly limited options, but he sure doesn't have to read anywhere but the mage pages. (Race may be the only unique thing about any 4th ed character, and you only get to choose it once, and any given race is basically a done package, take it or leave it.) I found that I could take the PDF of the book, print the mage section, and write my stats on the back of page 1 and use that as my character sheet, simply highlighting the spells I picked and noting total attacks and damage in the spell descriptions. This was far more effective than actually using the character sheet itself, because there was so little space wasted on powers I didn't get. And that was the most complicated I could make a 4th ed character.

I just started out my Utramarines, and have just over 1k so far. Just put the assault squad together last night.... http://hondos.nilbog.net/uploads/1250687395.png http://hondos.nilbog.net/uploads/1250717516.png http://hondos.nilbog.net/uploads/1250711955.png http://hondos.nilbog.net/uploads/1250657170.png http://hondos.nilbog.net/uploads/1250629330.png http://hondos.nilbog.net/uploads/1250623851.png http://hondos.nilbog.net/uploads/1250720011.png http://hondos.nilbog.net/uploads/1250670371.png Every time I read that my brain translates it as "Fuck the What?"

Honestly I have found that if you have players who respond that way, you have issues that go beyond system. I am all for a balanced, well tested, creative, interesting game system. None of the editions of DnD so far have won out on all fronts. Older was more imaginative and engaging, but less balanced. Newer is more balanced, but more watered down. Granted, a lot of this is from my own impressions, and I am not saying someone can't pick up the 4th ed PHB and think it's the most engaging thing ever written, but it's just not doing it for me.

I'm not talking about flavor text at all, but rather the rules themselves. Allow me an example: A spell in 4th says "This spell deals x damage, and moves the target 3 squares (saves halves damage and negates movement." What can you do with this spell? Hurt someone, and move them. Now, don't get me wrong, you can move them off a ledge, in to flanking, away from the mage, whatever. But that's all you can do with it. The rules specifically disallow doing anything more with it. In 2nd end, spells were more like "This spell creates a zone in which reality is altered. Things are more slippery, have more weight, and only colors in the lower spectrum can be see through it." This allows you to use it to trip people, block line of sight, solve a trap/puzzle which involved large, heavy but immovable rocks, chose your wardrobe to make yourself invisible behind it, but not your enemies, etc. It may have included a side note about possible damage from falling due to weight being increased. But even with that, the damage bit was a side note. The spell let you PLAY with it, and use creativity in its execution. Did this cause players being viciously creative to unbalance things? Maybe. But it rewarded play that was creative and fun for the group. In 4th, you can still be creative and have fun, but the game isn't encouraging it, but rather hindering it.

I think there may be. I have all the stuff for it ready, but it depends on what everyone else wants to do. Bored is coming, and was Spunk coming too?

I haven't, but now I am.

Items are drastically different. If you took one character from 2nd, and transfered it to 3rd or 3.5 his equipment either does not exist, may have a close equivalent, or the item with the same name does something drastically different. Same exact problem going to 4th ed. Each of them changes values, creation systems, relative power levels compared to characters, and overall feel and utility. Each edition gets more and more like a childrens touch screen menu of choices, making everything less complex, and leaving you with less room for creative play. Each step feels more like an MMO push button power, without much choice left. Old spells and class abilities, etc in 2nd gave the idea behind things, and left it to interpretation. 4th tells you exactly what one single thing that power or item does, limited to exactness. None of these things can't be worked around, and any good DM/GM should work around them, but why choose a system that is watered down?The only reason I can think of is a GM who has no control of their own game, and/or no sense of game ballance. Also, I love THAC0. It is exactly the same as the attack rolls in 3rd, but it's expressed backwards and retarded.

I played DnD 2nd, 3rd, 3.5 and 4th, and with each edition it gets more polished, simpler to understand, and more watered down and less imagination inspiring. WoD did the same thing. The OWoD had lots of cheese and problems, but NWoD has no soul to it. I prefer content to shiny system.

Where did you get those clothes? The ... toilet... store?

Mutants and Masterminds is fun, unless you notice its broken. It is, indeed, -very- broken. Other than that its a great game.

I love HOL. I actually own the real physical books.

Never did understand the Nokia advertising thing...

Has anyone looked at the Spycraft or Fantasycraft tabletop RPGs? I know they are based on DnD 3.5, but not much more about them.

I invested well over a grand in just books in 3rd and 3.5 but in the end, the PDF copies of most of them serve me just as well, since I don't use them all constantly, so I sold most of the supplements. I didn't want to play 4th, but my best friend bought it and tried to run it, which did not go well. The entire party voted and I was elected NEW DM without anyone bothering to tell me until it was done. He lent me the books, and now I am running 2 games, using his books. At least the players are happy. I've played both old and new WoD and I agree, I like old better. New is a fine game, as long as it wasn't related to old, or published by WhiteWolf, but as long as they are related, players will hate NWoD. Honestly, in both the case of DnD and WoD, each new edition gets more polished, better art, higher budget, and dumbed down more. I found the same thing going from 2nd ed DnD to 3rd. 3rd to 3.5 felt like a windows update, rather than a lifestyle adjustment. Either way, each of the above is a good way to spend some gaming time, but each new edition has to find a game or a facet or something that sparks my imagination, or else I won't really play it. Or apparently a mutiniy can do it to. As far as Shadowrun, I've made characters for it several times, but never actually played it, as games always fall apart.

So, I have recently picked up Warhammer 40k, am currently running two DnD 4th ed games, and have a myriad of card and board games often played at my place. So, my question to you is, what games are you currently/recently playing, and what are you really in to? Also, here is a random warhammer picture:

11 most badass last words ever uttered 5 real life soldiers who make rambo look like pussy