D&D 5E The "Powergamers (Min/maxer)" vs "Alpha Gamers" vs "Role Play Gamers" vs "GM" balance mismatch "problem(s)"

[pming]

Hiya!

DM: Right then. 5e it is then. I'll be using Greyhawk if everyone's cool with that?
Players: Yup. Good with us.
DM: So, everyone, 3d6, in order, SDCIWC. Net bonus total of 0 or better. Go.
(players all roll characters)
DM: Done? Ok then. I've decided you will all start in the NE area of the Duchy of Urnst, on the SE corner of the Nyr Dyv.
Players: Ok then. Lets get to it.
Player 1: I have good Strength and Constitution (14 and 17). Thinking a nice Champion fighter.
Player 2: I am pretty average, lowest is an 8, but my highest is a 13. I can do pretty much anything I guess...Wis is 8 though, so...
Player 3: I have a decent Strength too, with 16. But my Con sucks, 7. My Int is 15 though. DM, can I switch my Strength and Con so I can make a Wizard that doesn't die in one shot?
DM: Fine with me...everyone good with that?
Players: Yup.
Player 4: Good! I didn't want to be a wizard again. I have an Int 14 and a Wis 15...with a Cha of 15 as well. Nice rolls. Str is 9, and my dex BLOWS, with a 7. At least I'm average with Con of 10. I think Cleric.
DM: Right then, looks like you all are set. A Fighter, Wizard and Cleric. Hey, Player 2, what did you go with?
Player 3: Well, looks like Thief is a good choice then for me. My dex is 12, so at least thats a bonus. Hmm...DM? Can I swap my Int with Wis so at least my perception isn't negative? For a thief that is?
DM:Sure. I'm cool with that.
Players: Ok, we are set. All bases covered. I think we should stick to Humans or maybe half-races.
Player 3: I was thinking Halfling.
Player 1: Ok. Human here.
Player 2: Human.
Player 4: Half-Elf. I'm thinking a human who was brought up with a heavy interest in his elven mothers heritige...life cleric, beauty of nature and all that.
DM: Perfect! Get going and we'll start when everyone's finished their characters.

*That's* how players...no matter what you are...should be making characters. As a group. With the GROUP as the focus. With each player having his/her choice of class be influenced by what the GROUP needs. This is how we've generally made characters for a campaign (any setting or system, honestly).

IMHO, it's not "power gamers" or "min/MAXERS" or "role-players" that are the problem. It's that for the last two decades or so, the RPG industry has been encouraging "special snowflake" character creation as opposed to "specialist in a group" character creation. Way back in ye olden tymes, the success of a group was based on how the GROUP worked together. How the GROUP complimented each other and covered each others asses (weaknesses). But recently, especially since 3e...with all the options and add-ons a single PC can amass, the focus drifted from "A GROUP of adventurers" to "A few individuals killing monsters together".

IMNSHO, if players and DM's would get away from the "I have to be special all the time!" and back to the "WE have to work well TOGETHER!", then the players who want to focus on one particular play style (power gamer, min/max, etc) can do that and it'd be fine...because everyone at the table created their character together with the focus on covering 'roles of the group' (re: Fighter, Magic-User, Thief and Cleric; the ENTIRE BASIS FROM WHICH THE GAME WAS CREATED!...*GROUP* focused).

*sigh* I'm old and crotchety. But that's how I feel. Do I like min/maxers? Not really...but if they create a min/maxed character with the group, filling a particular role, then everyone there will not be 'surprised' when that min/maxed character does his job well. When you have players each making a PC with no (or little) consideration of the adventuring party as a whole...that's when feathers start to get ruffled. When Player A made a damage dealer, and Player B also made one, but a different class; well, that's when you see pettiness, in-fighting, and jealousy rear their ugly heads.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[robus]

To be fair, it's been 120 years that cinema has wrestled with it's fundamental divide between Realist and Formalist filmmaking that was first seen in the very different styles of the Lumiere Brothers and George Melies. That fundamental divide informed criticism of the art form and IMHO led to its advancement over the decades.

I think the equivalent issue on the D&D side is more with DMs than players. There's at least two schools of DMing that seem analogous to the filmmaking approaches you describe (and of course there's a continuum between them just as there is between the Lumieres and Melies):

1) The DM sets the world up (mostly meaning a dungeon) and the players have to navigate it as best as they can. The DM statically executes the pre-conceived plan.

2) The DM responds to the players actions in the moment adjusting the challenge dynamically in order to enhance particular dramatic/narrative effect.

Just in case we wanted to open a different can of worms...

 

[Tony Vargas]

Why?

Because challenges that test the high end of that differential can tend to overwhelm the low end.

D&D has long been about niche protection.

Well.... niche protection has been used to shore up really bad options. The classic Thief, for instance, was just awful, and to shore it up, the common-sense effort of watching out for traps was deprecated and Find/Remove Traps became a 'special' ability. And, holes in the system have become niches for the classes that plug them - the band-aid cleric was wedged into such a niche.

Much as 5e goes in for evoking the feel of the classic game, even when that feel was kinda icky, though, niche protection was not one of it's most atavistic forays. Traditional niches aren't so niche in 5e. Healing is available to multiple classes - and to anyone who has an hour to chill and some HD left. The 1e Thief's 'special' abilities are skills - even a mere tool proficiency any PC can yoink with the Criminal background. Fighters can cast spells, wizards can wear armor.

Better is subjective.

Strictly superior isn't. Not that such a high bar is required to be problematic, just that a little murkiness in evaluating how superior one build or class or whatever is to the next doesn't excuse that superiority.

 

[Lanefan]

IMHO, it's not "power gamers" or "min/MAXERS" or "role-players" that are the problem. It's that for the last two decades or so, the RPG industry has been encouraging "special snowflake" character creation as opposed to "specialist in a group" character creation. Way back in ye olden tymes, the success of a group was based on how the GROUP worked together. How the GROUP complimented each other and covered each others asses (weaknesses). But recently, especially since 3e...with all the options and add-ons a single PC can amass, the focus drifted from "A GROUP of adventurers" to "A few individuals killing monsters together".

Absolutely agreed.

IMNSHO, if players and DM's would get away from the "I have to be special all the time!" and back to the "WE have to work well TOGETHER!", then the players who want to focus on one particular play style (power gamer, min/max, etc) can do that and it'd be fine...because everyone at the table created their character together with the focus on covering 'roles of the group' (re: Fighter, Magic-User, Thief and Cleric; the ENTIRE BASIS FROM WHICH THE GAME WAS CREATED!...*GROUP* focused).

However, I'm not so sold on this part.

My own preference is that each player create the character she wants to play, within what the DM will allow and mostly in isolation of what the other players are doing. Then, once they all somehow meet in game and decide to go adventuring they assess their collective skills (OK, looks like we have three Thieves, a Cleric and a MU - we're awfully short on the front end) and then deal with it either by formulating strategies that play to their strengths and perhaps cover over their weaknesses, or by recruiting extra (usually NPC) party members either as henches or full members to fill the gaps.

When you have players each making a PC with no (or little) consideration of the adventuring party as a whole...that's when feathers start to get ruffled. When Player A made a damage dealer, and Player B also made one, but a different class; well, that's when you see pettiness, in-fighting, and jealousy rear their ugly heads.

If a party ends up with some mutually-incompatible characters e.g. a Paladin and an Assassin that's up to them to sort out; and though it sounds harsh if it means one of them gets driven out (or even killed) then so be it. That's how it'd play out were these people real...

As long as the arguments stay in character it's all good.

Lan-"neither a Paladin nor an Assassin this time"-efan

 

[ClaytonCross]

So it's the DM's fault for putting a poison-gas room in the dungeon in the first place?

Poppycock.

Yes. the GM made the gas lethal. Could have knocked them out with sleeping gas. To be clear that is how a DM works or fails to work. Putting the players in a room and not letting them escape is killing player characters is not fun and pointless TPK, putting players in a room of gas and giving them a real chance to escape is story, and if the GM puts them in a room and they fail the test to escape

Also, what about self-inflicted deaths where the PCs either intentionally or otherwise cause their own demise? Is that the DM's fault too?

You should really watch this -->video<--. its not only funny but illustrates my point better than I can.

The local police might beg to differ. Killing players is a criminal offense in most parts of the world...

Killing characters, on the other hand, is fair game.

Busted!!! so my players have an extra danger round, it adds tension and a since of realism to my games. (joking incase anyone didn't catch that)

And most of the time that "reasonable way" means laying down the ground rules, defining the setting, narrating some background and story, and then acting as a neutral arbiter no matter what happens while otherwise staying out of the way.

Player characters causing a TPK is fine with me.

I keep hearing this but with no real reason that backs it up. Can you give me and example of "player caused death" any at all? I bet I can explain how it was the GM who did it. But I will not be able to say if the GM was wrong for doing so. That is a player/GM per campaign/situation matter.

'Character builds' breaking balance is not so much, particularly if the specific intent is to be "better" than the rest of the party and then backed up with a similar attitude in play. That said, character imbalance through sheer luck is just fine, 'cause life's like that.

I'm not at all interested in playing a game of who has the best system mastery..

So your not against 'Character builds' breaking balance your against players who want to be awesome? If its an accident and they hate it your good? I have never played a game where players fought to be the biggest loser of all things and I have never had player in a game complain because there was something they were good at that no one else was. Kind of seems like all players want to be the best at something its only a problem when 2 "Alpha Players" are fighting over the same job. Which usually shows up as DPR because its the one job everybody gets involved with to some degree. I mean usually even the healer of the group does some damage once in a while.

 

[Sunseeker]

Because challenges that test the high end of that differential can tend to overwhelm the low end.

Right, that's why you make dedicated challenges. The super-DPR barbarian isn't going to do a very good job in social challenges.

Much as 5e goes in for evoking the feel of the classic game, even when that feel was kinda icky, though, niche protection was not one of it's most atavistic forays. Traditional niches aren't so niche in 5e. Healing is available to multiple classes - and to anyone who has an hour to chill and some HD left. The 1e Thief's 'special' abilities are skills - even a mere tool proficiency any PC can yoink with the Criminal background. Fighters can cast spells, wizards can wear armor.

Maybe, but my point is that some classes still do certain things other classes don't do. It's not terribly difficult to make challenges that favor certain classes strongpoints.

Strictly superior isn't. Not that such a high bar is required to be problematic, just that a little murkiness in evaluating how superior one build or class or whatever is to the next doesn't excuse that superiority.

I meant "better" as in "what improves the fun at the table". The DM may have a different take on what should be fun and how people should be having fun, but the Table's fun should be a group consideration. Inflexibility is bad on all sides. (discounting jerkishness),

 

[ClaytonCross]

I think the equivalent issue on the D&D side is more with DMs than players. There's at least two schools of DMing that seem analogous to the filmmaking approaches you describe (and of course there's a continuum between them just as there is between the Lumieres and Melies):

1) The DM sets the world up (mostly meaning a dungeon) and the players have to navigate it as best as they can. The DM statically executes the pre-conceived plan.

2) The DM responds to the players actions in the moment adjusting the challenge dynamically in order to enhance particular dramatic/narrative effect.

Just in case we wanted to open a different can of worms...

I think its a fine can of worms since I bring up GMs control of the campaign in my original post. I tend to think the difference between GMs and there style of play relative to there players is part of what causes the hate toward min/max power gamers, "rule traditionalists" being someone knows the rules and tries to use them to the best of there ability but who may not be trying to ... lawyer the rule in order to gain more.

I find very generally speaking story GM's are more prone to "sets the world up", not want to respond to players, and dislike min/max players because they without knowing the players stats and skill just through things in front of them base off the story of the world they have created. When a player has an ability that lets the party by pass part of their story the get mad.

GMs that really want the story to be about the players will as a rule have the party build character together (as PMing described above) ensure that each player has "Job" and will ask for a copy of players character sheets when they are done. That last one is tricky because I have seen GMs do that to ensure the players was not cheating to start or because they were afraid they would make some powerful build they didn't like. These GMs are different because they keep the character a reference and scale difficulty to the character, ensure at least one player has a skill before designing anything where that skill is key, and they will look at each character for what makes them unique and try to add some flavor shine moments off of those unique skills and abilities.

 

[ClaytonCross]

My own preference is that each player create the character she wants to play, within what the DM will allow and mostly in isolation of what the other players are doing. Then, once they all somehow meet in game and decide to go adventuring they assess their collective skills (OK, looks like we have three Thieves, a Cleric and a MU - we're awfully short on the front end) and then deal with it either by formulating strategies that play to their strengths and perhaps cover over their weaknesses, or by recruiting extra (usually NPC) party members either as henches or full members to fill the gaps.

If a party ends up with some mutually-incompatible characters e.g. a Paladin and an Assassin that's up to them to sort out; and though it sounds harsh if it means one of them gets driven out (or even killed) then so be it. That's how it'd play out were these people real...

As long as the arguments stay in character it's all good.

So you are okay with setting up a game in a manor that very easily creates conflict between players that is only resolvable by killing off a player character and re-rolling into a new one? The problem I see is your bold statement is not reliable.

My GM likes your style too, but literally every time we play the first few games are painful while we figure out who needs to change so our group works and we have fun instead stepping all over other players. I am not saying your wrong, just that last time restarted our campaign, me and a couple of the other players went behind the scenes and coordinated our players. One player did not because him and the GM kept saying "just play want" don't talk to the other players. ... Guess which player ended up changing and annoy out outside of the game?

I get it I really do, but I personally feel like I have had too many bad experiences with groups that were not planned from the beginning and jumping past that to a more fun start is great for me. I also don't recommend that for starting players because we had few show up for those first session, get a bad taste for D&D character conflict, then never show up for any RPG with us ever again.

 

[Lanefan]

Yes. the GM made the gas lethal. Could have knocked them out with sleeping gas. To be clear that is how a DM works or fails to work. Putting the players in a room and not letting them escape is killing player characters is not fun and pointless TPK, putting players in a room of gas and giving them a real chance to escape is story, and if the GM puts them in a room and they fail the test to escape

The poison gas room is what it is. Depending how things go the PCs might not ever enter it. If they do the door will close and poison gas comes in through the vents...unless they hold the door open while the searcher in the group searches for traps.

I keep hearing this but with no real reason that backs it up. Can you give me and example of "player caused death" any at all? I bet I can explain how it was the GM who did it. But I will not be able to say if the GM was wrong for doing so. That is a player/GM per campaign/situation matter.

Party Thief, invisible, sneaks off and lines up a backstrike. Meanwhile the party blaster, not knowing where the Thief is, lets loose a fireball. Thief is in the wrong place at the wrong time and is killed by the fireball.

Should the DM have made fireballs do less damage?

So your not against 'Character builds' breaking balance your against players who want to be awesome? If its an accident and they hate it your good? I have never played a game where players fought to be the biggest loser of all things and I have never had player in a game complain because there was something they were good at that no one else was. Kind of seems like all players want to be the best at something its only a problem when 2 "Alpha Players" are fighting over the same job. Which usually shows up as DPR because its the one job everybody gets involved with to some degree. I mean usually even the healer of the group does some damage once in a while.

While I've seen boatloads of D&D-related arguments within our crew over the years regarding all sorts of things, I have never in my life seen an argument over DPR, mostly because as a concept it's utterly foreign to us and the way we play.

When someone starts using the term DPR, like 'character build', to me it just puts up a red warning flag that this is probably someone who is going to be a nuisance as a player.

 

[ClaytonCross]

The poison gas room is what it is. Depending how things go the PCs might not ever enter it. If they do the door will close and poison gas comes in through the vents...unless they hold the door open while the searcher in the group searches for traps.

I see your point here I just don't entirely agree with it. While your right about the room the GM doesn't just make the room he determines if its lethal and puts up signs and reasons for them to go into the room. If the players go into the room because the GM created it as part of a "path" had them role perception for a random lever with no other information. Its like the big red button. Chances are some one is going to pull it an kill them all. If that happens, the GM defiantly lead them to that by not providing enough information.

Party Thief, invisible, sneaks off and lines up a backstrike. Meanwhile the party blaster, not knowing where the Thief is, lets loose a fireball. Thief is in the wrong place at the wrong time and is killed by the fireball.

Should the DM have made fireballs do less damage?

I have to admit. I did not think you would think of a time when players killed themselves but player vs player (intentional or not) would indeed be out of the GMs hands. In the case of player vs player the GM would not be developing or coordinating the game only interfering with player decisions. So bravo to you sir, I do have to consed that not all deaths are GM controlled.

I will still say many and perhaps most are the result of GM decisions. I thing not recognizing that GMs control most of the game and even largely guide player characters means that any failure to gauge there strength or failure provide them with enough information for them to act with the correct level of caution does fall under the GM. ... Still in the vain of letting players make there own decisions if a character wants to walk off a cliff or into a room filled with gas I can see why you would see that as interfering instead of coordinating play. My point of view is that many players see a room filled with poison gas and thing "This must be here to protect something I better check it out". Too many GMs make a story with a trap that kills you instantly and no warning that you are in a dungeon where that is thing and just start mercilessly killing off players then blaming it on them for bad roles. That is not fun and a game killer. ... I kind of imagine players in your games saying "and I check for traps" at the end of every sentence. Where in my game, I put NPCs with the group who red shirt into the room or signs or something that says, "warning if you fall from this height you go splat, also there is a gas leak in the janitors closet around the corner and stupid leaver that locks the door, we should avoid that room until we get it fixed." Having provided that if they walked into the room and pulled the leaver or jumped off the cliff ... I as the GM would absolutely kill them, except blame for it, then follow that with "but I did give you fair warning".

The big difference in our thinking it that I require a warning of some kind but also that if they all die like that its my fault for putting in a room like that and somehow leading them to believe their was some reason to go in there and pull the handle. You don't seem to put up signs, blame them for being curious cats, and then expect them to learn by living in fear. At least from my point of view.

While I've seen boatloads of D&D-related arguments within our crew over the years regarding all sorts of things, I have never in my life seen an argument over DPR, mostly because as a concept it's utterly foreign to us and the way we play.

We don't use that term and honestly its always the GM that says a player is an "over powered" "min/maxer" "rules layer" which is odd because its not always the guy doing the most damage it usually the guy doing something that defeats the GMs planed story in my experience any way. Which is why I feel like it a misconception that power players are the problem and made this post.

When someone starts using the term DPR, like 'character build', to me it just puts up a red warning flag that this is probably someone who is going to be a nuisance as a player.

I do talk character builds and I am some times considered a nuisance but not for the reasons you would expect. I think backwards from most people apparently so the GM said pic a direction everyone else yells right and I say lets go strait, everyone looks at me funny and say what? I am pretty sure we can knock that wall down and get to the center of the maze... they stare at me a little more and we go right. I like building character a lot, and I like them weird and unexpected but capable enough not to hold the group back. That however does not define my play nearly as much as my backward way of thinking and my traditionally bad roles on everything.