Why is there anger directed towards CharOp in editions of D&D produced by Wizards of the Coast and not towards other games (eg. GURPS, HERO, RuneQuest, Rolemaster, etc.)?

Is it because those games were CharOp friendly from the beginning, unlike D&D? Or is it because D&D is the most popular/recognized system?

Quote from: Rum Cove;575260Is it because those games were CharOp friendly from the beginning, unlike D&D?

I just answered this in the other thread, but I think this is it.

You had 25 years of D&D where CharOp wasn't the focus, and you really couldn't do it nearly to the extent you can in 3e.  So you've got the identity of the game already set, and then suddenly a new edition comes out where CharOP is a huge focus and exploitation from rules mastery becomes common.  Do any other game systems have such major differences between editions?

Quote from: Rum Cove;575260Why is there anger directed towards CharOp in editions of D&D produced by Wizards of the Coast and not towards other games (eg. GURPS, HERO, RuneQuest, Rolemaster, etc.)?

Is it because those games were CharOp friendly from the beginning, unlike D&D? Or is it because D&D is the most popular/recognized system?

A little of both. Also the sort of attitude pre-3 had towards chargen was already pretty rare outside of D&D when 3e showed up. There may have been some half-legitimate fear of the playstyle dying.

Outside of that, the existence of exploits, necessary feats/spells/whatever, and trap feats/spells/whatever left a bad taste in a lot of peoples' mouths. GURPS and the rest were at least perceived as being better balanced, and balance does start mattering when players have more say in chargen.

Nowadays, I'm not really sure why the animosity persists, given the existence of the OSR/clones/spinoffs.

I'll repeat my answer there, here with some additions:


HERO talks about the issue directly and at length in the rulebook itself. It's always been an issue. You don't see it here as I think I'm the only current player of HERO on the whole board (or at least the only one who talks about it).


The rulebook advice is that the GM keeps a firm eye on the construction (and later XP use) of the character. HERO is a rather special case in that *anything* can be built, and thus the character of the whole setting depends upon what and how everything is built.


In my own case, all characters are generally created by the GM himself with player input. This is due to few people having an interest in HERO's construction methods (which is detailed and for an RPG rather complex) and the GM's interest in keeping everything consistent in the setting.

I think part of it is what causes a lot of vehemence in these wars, Distinction Denial.  A lot of players never played anything before 3e, as a result they have absolutely no idea how different it truly is.  As a result, the observations of those who did experience other versions of D&D and realize it really is a completely different game are usually dismissed out of hand as sour grapes, grograge, whatever the cool insult of the day is.  And so it begins...

Not the only reason, but a big one.  Also the other major CharOp games started out CharOp and have always been so.  D&D has undergone so many changes from 2 to 3, and 3 to 4, that they're really not even the same type of game anymore, except under definitions so wide as to be meaningless.

IMO, CharOp anger in a level-based system is more normal than it would be in a point-buy game.  Levels are typically intended to be equivalent, particularly in 3e where everyone shares the same experience table.  Point buy options, by virtue of costing different amounts of points, are not.  So there's a base assumption that if you have 'X' in a point buy game, you paid for it and should be able to use it.  Complaints may arise that the costs are wrong, etc, but that's about it.  But when your level 5 guy is obviously on a totally different plane than my level 5 guy, and I have no option of getting where you are with my character concept, then I'm going to be unhappy.

Quote from: Rum Cove;575260Is it because those games were CharOp friendly from the beginning, unlike D&D? Or is it because D&D is the most popular/recognized system?

i think it is because of this. Also for the first two editions of D&D min/maxing was frowned upon not just by the D&D community, but in a lot of officially released material. 3E kind of reversed that and so those of us who took a dim view of min/max were a bit surprised as it dawned on us that 3E catered to it in a way.

Quote from: CRKrueger;575278I think part of it is what causes a lot of vehemence in these wars, Distinction Denial.  A lot of players never played anything before 3e, as a result they have absolutely no idea how different it truly is.  As a result, the observations of those who did experience other versions of D&D and realize it really is a completely different game are usually dismissed out of hand as sour grapes, grograge, whatever the cool insult of the day is.  And so it begins...

If it's a different game, it shouldn't matter.  I told WotC that I wasn't interested in 4th edition (I wasn't).  It's nice to have the edition you play supported, but it's not required.  They don't steal your books away.  I have pretty much all the books for 2nd edition (I want to get the Green source books like Vikings, but all the rest) so I could play that if I want.  I can play 3.5 if I want.  Releasing a new version doesn't HAVE to be anything like the last version, as long as it's good.  

In my opinion, 3rd was better than 2nd, and it was worth converting to.  4th failed that test.  D&D Next looks like it's going to fail that test, too.  

It's okay if they release different games.  It's also okay to try to influence their future releases to cater to your style.  But if you're perfectly happy with your edition of choice, no worries.

For myself, I'm not perfectly happy with 3.5.  I think it's the best so far, but there's room for improvement.  I was hoping D&D Next would emulate some of the things 3.5 got right and maybe fix some things it got wrong.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;575308It's okay if they release different games.  It's also okay to try to influence their future releases to cater to your style.  But if you're perfectly happy with your edition of choice, no worries.

Of course WFRP3 didn't invalidate existing WFRP2 content, but it did mean there would be no more WFRP2 content.  The publisher isn't the issue however, the rancor is created amongst the gamers themselves.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;575305i think it is because of this. Also for the first two editions of D&D min/maxing was frowned upon not just by the D&D community, but in a lot of officially released material. 3E kind of reversed that and so those of us who took a dim view of min/max were a bit surprised as it dawned on us that 3E catered to it in a way.

That's a major reason. "Sticking to the RAW" too much can easily become just the kind of thing this quote warned about:

Quote from: Some Guy in WisconsinIt is the spirit of the game, not the letter of the rules, which is important. Never hold to the letter written, nor allow some barracks room lawyer to force quotations from the rule book upon you, if it goes against the obvious intent of the game. As you hew the line with respect to conformity to major systems and uniformity of play in general, also be certain the game is mastered by you and not by your players.

Which seems to aim for a healthy balance of all things - use, don't abuse, and don't let others get away with it either. A primarily social solution to a primarily social problem.

Another thing I would bring up is that CharOp brings out a lot of issues in the rules which aren't there for people who don't practice the playstyle, or may even be seen as positive features instead of game-breaking bugs. The WotC design team, who collected a lot of their feedback from communities wher CharOp flourished (notably the RPGA and the WotC forums), took a lot of steps to remedy these problems without considering their impact on people with different, or differently weighted preferences. The results were rather far-reaching, both on individual rules, and on the significance of rules on gameplay. It helped drive away a lot of us, some via 3.x, and some via 4e.

I acknowledge other people like playing within precise boundaries and using the possible mechanical advantages at their disposal to their fullest, but personally, I have little interest in doing that. I don't like it, I don't like wargames, and my only interest in chess is to admire a nice set as an art object or maybe to play a quick round with someone who sucks at it just as much as I do. Creative problem-solving, sure (this Sunday, we defeated a minotaur by setting an ambush and making it charge into two readied polearms for that double damage); using characters effectively, sure, but beyond that level, it gives me nothing, and there is a point where it starts to become just as boring as ten-page character backstories.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;575264Do any other game systems have such major differences between editions?

I'm glad you asked. Let's take Gamma World.

GW 1st & 2nd edition very much old school D&D style game.
GW 3rd edition "Faserip" style system with colour coded charts
GW 4th edition mix of AD&D2e and proto D20
GW 5th edition Alternity based system with complete rethink of setting and player races.
GW 6th edition D20 based system with complete rethink of setting, tone and player races.
GW 7th edition D&D4e based system with complete rethink of setting, tone and player races.

Quote from: Rum Cove;575260Why is there anger directed towards CharOp in editions of D&D produced by Wizards of the Coast and not towards other games (eg. GURPS, HERO, RuneQuest, Rolemaster, etc.)?

Is it because those games were CharOp friendly from the beginning, unlike D&D? Or is it because D&D is the most popular/recognized system?

D&D was CharOp friendly since the beginning, just like the others. You just didn't have Internet so CharOpers could easily compare strategies.

Quote from: Rum Cove;575260Why is there anger directed towards CharOp in editions of D&D produced by Wizards of the Coast and not towards other games (eg. GURPS, HERO, RuneQuest, Rolemaster, etc.)?

I've seen anger, and lots of it, directed towards CharOp in GURPS and HERO. I don't know about the rest, but D&D is hardly unique.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;575264I just answered this in the other thread, but I think this is it.

You had 25 years of D&D where CharOp wasn't the focus, and you really couldn't do it nearly to the extent you can in 3e.  So you've got the identity of the game already set, and then suddenly a new edition comes out where CharOP is a huge focus and exploitation from rules mastery becomes common.  Do any other game systems have such major differences between editions?

Yeah this is pretty much it.

I avoided the hell out of GURPS, HERO, Champions, etc. for this very reason. To see it completely take over D&D was disappointing.

Quote from: Xavier Onassiss;575344I've seen anger, and lots of it, directed towards CharOp in GURPS and HERO. I don't know about the rest, but D&D is hardly unique.

Speaking of GURPS, CharOp is one (of a number) reason why I won't use the system. It's heavy focus on Stats was such that it prevented many character concepts from being affordable even if they weren't as a effective.