Author Topic: Roleplaying Types  (Read 8321 times)

Pozf

  • Nymphomaniac!!
  • *****
  • Posts: 14222
  • What is a man?
    • View Profile
Roleplaying Types
« on: August 11, 2009, 07:35:57 pm »
My brother just sent me this article I got a kick out of it. If you can think of any other kind of types of roleplaying discuss it here I suppose.

The Real men, The Real Roleplayers, The Loonie, and The Munchkin

Just in case you didn't know a munchkin is a person who abuses the rules for insane amounts of min/max. Best example is Pun Pun
« Last Edit: August 12, 2009, 12:29:05 pm by Pozf »
'Science is on the march. Don't get in its way.'

CrystalDragonSpaceMarine

  • Eternal Lover
  • *****
  • Posts: 2446
  • Show me your enemies.
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Rollplaying Types
« Reply #1 on: August 11, 2009, 09:11:05 pm »
My brother just sent me this article I got a kick out of it. If you can think of any other kind of types of roleplaying discuss it here I suppose.

The Real men, The Real Roleplayers, The Loonie, and The Munchkin

Just in case you didn't know a munchkin is a person who abuses the rules for insane amounts of min/max. Best example is Pun Pun

Ah, Pun Pun. Who knew such a little kobold could come so far.

But yeah, I'd seen that. Mildly amusing.

Churba

  • Passion Player
  • ****
  • Posts: 1429
  • The Fresh Prince of Leeds.
    • View Profile
Re: Rollplaying Types
« Reply #2 on: August 12, 2009, 07:03:40 am »
Ah, Pun Pun. Who knew such a little kobold could come so far.
For the Laymen among us, "So Far" should be read as "Literally ascends to godhood at level one."
« Last Edit: August 16, 2009, 08:25:51 am by Churba »

akashayi

  • Guest
Re: Rollplaying Types
« Reply #3 on: August 12, 2009, 12:27:49 pm »
The best/worst part about that article is that all of those people actually exist in most every gaming group xP

Though there are sometimes multiple twinks and munchkins...once it was so bad, that someone actually ended up giving this girltwink a twinkie with her picture on it as a gift. o_o

Also, you misspelled your topic name ./eyetwitch

Pozf

  • Nymphomaniac!!
  • *****
  • Posts: 14222
  • What is a man?
    • View Profile
Re: Roleplaying Types
« Reply #4 on: August 12, 2009, 12:30:38 pm »
Also, you misspelled your topic name ./eyetwitch

Yeaaaaa.... I have no excuse for that one >.< fixed it though
'Science is on the march. Don't get in its way.'

akashayi

  • Guest
Re: Roleplaying Types
« Reply #5 on: August 12, 2009, 12:32:38 pm »
ah, much better.

Pozf

  • Nymphomaniac!!
  • *****
  • Posts: 14222
  • What is a man?
    • View Profile
Re: Roleplaying Types
« Reply #6 on: August 12, 2009, 12:47:08 pm »
Ah, Pun Pun. Who knew such a little kobold could come so far.
For the Laymen among us, "So Far" should be read as "Literally ascends to godhood at level one."

Not Just godhood at level one, limitless stats, abilities, feats, and divinity levels meaning the most powerful god ever.
'Science is on the march. Don't get in its way.'

RoninAngel

  • Eternal Lover
  • *****
  • Posts: 2896
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Roleplaying Types
« Reply #7 on: August 16, 2009, 02:12:14 am »
Kind of like the real God, if he exsists.  :-\

Anyway. I don't Roleplay right now, mostly becuase 4th Edition can suck one and same goes for the New world of darkness.
I got 99 problems but a nymphomaniac jester girl ain't one.

Emp_Dragon

  • Harem Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 3229
  • Submit to the power of Sam
    • MSN Messenger - erik.arteus@hotmail.com
    • View Profile
Re: Roleplaying Types
« Reply #8 on: August 16, 2009, 04:33:30 am »
What's this TSR they are listing as munchkin favies?

RoninAngel

  • Eternal Lover
  • *****
  • Posts: 2896
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Roleplaying Types
« Reply #9 on: August 16, 2009, 09:20:06 am »
I don't really know what a "Favie" is but TSR is the now defunct company that originally produced dungeons and dragons. Wizards of the Coast bought them out so now they own the rights to D&D. It's lame, though, becuase they royally fucked it up recently, destroying complexity and danger in the game.
I got 99 problems but a nymphomaniac jester girl ain't one.

Emp_Dragon

  • Harem Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 3229
  • Submit to the power of Sam
    • MSN Messenger - erik.arteus@hotmail.com
    • View Profile
Re: Roleplaying Types
« Reply #10 on: August 16, 2009, 09:32:27 am »
Ok, then I know and favies=short for favourites

CrystalDragonSpaceMarine

  • Eternal Lover
  • *****
  • Posts: 2446
  • Show me your enemies.
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Roleplaying Types
« Reply #11 on: August 17, 2009, 03:51:30 pm »
Kind of like the real God, if he exsists.  :-\

Anyway. I don't Roleplay right now, mostly becuase 4th Edition can suck one and same goes for the New world of darkness.

Oh, don't I know it. The mechanics suck, and the fluff blows. Both combined creates a vortex of badness.

Now, I grant you, some elements seem good, but it's just too video-gamey for me. They got rid of some of the Vancian casting, but on the flipside, your Fighter *also* has his own Vancian casting.

All in all, if I want to RP, I'm just going to pick up something non-D&D, or just play 2nd or 3rd edition.


Edit: I just noticed *now* I'd described 4e as "badass". I guess the concept is just that engrained into my mind!
« Last Edit: August 20, 2009, 11:25:16 am by CrystalDragonSpaceMarine »

Pozf

  • Nymphomaniac!!
  • *****
  • Posts: 14222
  • What is a man?
    • View Profile
Re: Roleplaying Types
« Reply #12 on: August 17, 2009, 03:53:59 pm »
I still prefer 3.5 just because I have all the 3/ 3.5 books ever made on my other computer...
'Science is on the march. Don't get in its way.'

CrystalDragonSpaceMarine

  • Eternal Lover
  • *****
  • Posts: 2446
  • Show me your enemies.
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Roleplaying Types
« Reply #13 on: August 18, 2009, 03:50:48 pm »
I still prefer 3.5 just because I have all the 3/ 3.5 books ever made on my other computer...

Heh...me too. I prefer to just make stuff up, rather than use the Rules As Written. I prefer as few numbers and dice rolls as possible.

Foof

  • Guest
Re: Roleplaying Types
« Reply #14 on: August 19, 2009, 08:29:36 pm »
Oh man.  This makes me think of the game I play daily.  I'm trying to figure out if this guy is a Munchkin or just borderline Munchkin-Loonie.

Emp_Dragon

  • Harem Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 3229
  • Submit to the power of Sam
    • MSN Messenger - erik.arteus@hotmail.com
    • View Profile
Re: Roleplaying Types
« Reply #15 on: August 20, 2009, 08:06:30 am »
I liked Eberron :)
I also played a few locally produced (Eg. Swedish) RPGs when I was little (started playing around 1993)

CrystalDragonSpaceMarine

  • Eternal Lover
  • *****
  • Posts: 2446
  • Show me your enemies.
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Roleplaying Types
« Reply #16 on: August 20, 2009, 10:29:55 am »
I liked Eberron :)
I also played a few locally produced (Eg. Swedish) RPGs when I was little (started playing around 1993)

Eberron has great fluff. So does Planescape, though I've never been able to play either since I couldn't find a good game group.

RoninAngel

  • Eternal Lover
  • *****
  • Posts: 2896
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Roleplaying Types
« Reply #17 on: August 20, 2009, 10:43:19 am »
Kind of like the real God, if he exsists.  :-\

Anyway. I don't Roleplay right now, mostly becuase 4th Edition can suck one and same goes for the New world of darkness.

Oh, don't I know it. The mechanics suck, and the fluff blows. Both combined creates a vortex of badass.

Now, I grant you, some elements seem good, but it's just too video-gamey for me. They got rid of some of the Vancian casting, but on the flipside, your Fighter *also* has his own Vancian casting.

All in all, if I want to RP, I'm just going to pick up something non-D&D, or just play 2nd or 3rd edition.

"Vortex of badass?" I would say 4th ED is a vortex of "badness:" it's so terrible it makes other games around it suck. I will say one thing, it is fast to build a character now and that is pretty awsome, honestly. It could take like an hour to build a 3.5 character. I have played it pretty extensively, from 1st to 5th level or so, with like 3 different characters, and the thing I hate is the customization has been ripped from the game. Every change has been on the side of reducing creativity in making a character. Changing powers to at will, encounter and daily are is nice though, it's good to not have to rest every time the spellcaster needs to recharge spells. But magic is no longer magical in the game anymore. And almost every power and magic item deals damage and nothing is good for utility or flavour. The Lethality of old edtions is all but gone. Why? It's not like resurrection wasn't every freaking where in 3.5. This wouldn't seem that bad, but if you fight agiasnt Vecna, THE GOD OF DEATH, he has no instant death attack. WTF! I guess having power over mortality doesn't make you more leathal then any other monster  ::)! The story/fluff has majorly suffered too. 4 of the 6 alignments are gone, presumibly becuase their target demographic was too stupid to tell the difference between "lawful evil" and "neutral evil" >:(. That one is an espeshally sore spot with me beucase alignments are the one thing that I've always liked most about D&D, and the one thing that has permeated into nerd conciousness as a whole. The fluff in genral is bad, playing to folks with little or no imagination. But worse is that previous editions of the said "this is what we have but feel free to invent your own". They've despenced with that attitude and now it's more "this is what we have and if you don't like it, fuck you!" The magical elements: Flying carpets, Dearn's insant fortress, et al,  have been for the most part removed from the game in favour of having boringly ballenced damage spells.  So I would say that although some things are nice about it, everything that made 3.5 good is gone (customization, huge feat trees, 11 character classes, awsome magic items, monsters, spells, fun  ::) ). 4th edition is a cool game, as long as you don't confuse it with Dungeons and Dragons.
I got 99 problems but a nymphomaniac jester girl ain't one.

Churba

  • Passion Player
  • ****
  • Posts: 1429
  • The Fresh Prince of Leeds.
    • View Profile
Re: Roleplaying Types
« Reply #18 on: August 20, 2009, 11:00:13 am »
Two Words - Burning Wheel.

CrystalDragonSpaceMarine

  • Eternal Lover
  • *****
  • Posts: 2446
  • Show me your enemies.
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Roleplaying Types
« Reply #19 on: August 20, 2009, 11:43:55 am »

"Vortex of badass?" I would say 4th ED is a vortex of "badness:" it's so terrible it makes other games around it suck. I will say one thing, it is fast to build a character now and that is pretty awsome, honestly.

LOL. You know, I had just noticed that, scrolling down. I meant to say ‘badness’, I have no clue how it came out ‘badass’.


Quote
It could take like an hour to build a 3.5 character. I have played it pretty extensively, from 1st to 5th level or so, with like 3 different characters, and the thing I hate is the customization has been ripped from the game. Every change has been on the side of reducing creativity in making a character.

Gotta agree on that. If I didn’t want customization, I’d just play 2nd ed.

Quote
Changing powers to at will, encounter and daily are is nice though, it's good to not have to rest every time the spellcaster needs to recharge spells. But magic is no longer magical in the game anymore. And almost every power and magic item deals damage and nothing is good for utility or flavour.

That’s because utility spells properly [ab]used could beat just about anything. :P
From what I hear, they’re definitely going for the ‘MMO’ style play. Which for pen and paper is dumb.

Quote
The Lethality of old edtions is all but gone. Why? It's not like resurrection wasn't every freaking where in 3.5. This wouldn't seem that bad, but if you fight agiasnt Vecna, THE GOD OF DEATH, he has no instant death attack. WTF! I guess having power over mortality doesn't make you more leathal then any other monster  ::)! The story/fluff has majorly suffered too. 4 of the 6 alignments are gone, presumibly becuase their target demographic was too stupid to tell the difference between "lawful evil" and "neutral evil" >:(. That one is an espeshally sore spot with me beucase alignments are the one thing that I've always liked most about D&D, and the one thing that has permeated into nerd conciousness as a whole.

What mystifies me is that they kept alignment, but made it make less sense than it did. Couldn’t they just get rid of it? But no. I don’t get it. How am I supposed to play Darth Vader or Inspector Javert now? How am I supposed to play Jack Sparrow now? Hell, how am I supposed to play a Drizzt clone?!?!?

Quote
The fluff in genral is bad, playing to folks with little or no imagination. But worse is that previous editions of the said "this is what we have but feel free to invent your own". They've despenced with that attitude and now it's more "this is what we have and if you don't like it, fuck you!"

I really hate what they did to Forgotten Realms. You could tell it was basically, “well, we need a contrived reason to alter the cosmos so the changes to the system make sense in-story”.

Quote
The magical elements: Flying carpets, Dearn's insant fortress, et al,  have been for the most part removed from the game in favour of having boringly ballenced damage spells.  So I would say that although some things are nice about it, everything that made 3.5 good is gone (customization, huge feat trees, 11 character classes, awsome magic items, monsters, spells, fun  ::) ). 4th edition is a cool game, as long as you don't confuse it with Dungeons and Dragons.

I’ve always hated direct damage spells. If I want to roll a bunch of dice so I could hurt something, I’d play a fighter. If I play a wizard, I want to be GOD.

But anyways, this has been a nice rant.