Not Everyone is Interested in Powergaming [merged]

Not Everyone is Interested in Powergaming

This is the continuation of a discussion I started with moritheil in another thread (link & quotations below).

I think there are many good and valid ways to play D&D. One is powergaming, which I myself enjoy. I usually don't powergame, though. Usually I spent about half the character build time on rules-tweaking, and the other half on developing the character's personality, history, ethics, all that squishy roleplaying stuff. I definitely play an effective character in terms of bonuses to this or modifiers to that, though. That's how I have fun, which means I'm playing D&D right, period. I'll entertain no argument on this; it's is one of the most sacred assumptions of our hobby that fun comes first. Agreement on it is essentially unanimous.

Sometimes, though, I do powergame. I do it funny, though: I usually limit myself to core rulebook material. The main reason for this is that I enjoy the challenge of building a competitive character using the SRD, which is free. I max out that oft-overlooked D&D quantity: The number of dollars in my wallet. It's how I have fun, which means, again, I'm playing D&D right.

So, these habits of mine informed the reasons I selected the core rulebook build for Kelson's cleric. It was garaunteed to be effective, acceptable to the DM, and simple, which is what he was looking for. You're absolutely right that my build is weird, because it was optimized in an unconventional way.

More to the point, yes, I'm out of the crunchbook powergaming loop. I'm instead in the much cheaper core rules loop, and sometimes when I'm in the mood I hang out in the characterization loop. I'm having a lot of fun, too. It feels like I'm cheating, actually, which makes me pretty munchkin, if you really think it over. : ]

This is the thread:

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?p=3498849

Here are the relevant bits of the related discussion:

moritheil said:

Dissenting opinion: DMM Persistent is a typical build. At this point, everyone who isn't new knows of it and uses it (barring DM forbiddance.) There are many more powerful builds. That said, it is a little complicated for a beginner.

Click to expand...

shurai said:

Excuse me for outright contradiction but you're wrong. I've been playing 3rd Edition since the week it came out, and I've never heard of it. Not everyone plays with noncore books, not everyone is a powergamer. Powergaming is a perfectly valid and fun way to play D&D, I'm sure, but there are many other perfectly valid and fun ways to play, and lots of people do so.

Click to expand...

moritheil said:

How am I wrong, then? I don't mean any offense, but it sounds like you're out of the loop with regard to build optimization. I wouldn't consider your situation at all typical with regard to character builders. Optimization is the context of this thread.

Click to expand...

pallandrome said:

Well, you did say EVERYONE (emphasis mine) who isn't new knows of it and uses it (barring any bans). If he isn't lying about not being new, yet not knowing about the build, then what you said is demonstrably incorrect. It is also incorrect because I also do not use the build, even though it is allowed in one of the games, and I play a Cleric. Not that I have any problem with powergaming, mind you, just that I wasn't in the mood for it when I built the character.

Click to expand...

moritheil said:

Given his lack of knowledge, I would say that he's quite new to building characters in an effective manner.

Would you say that you never have used it to build a character, and will never use it to build a character? No? Then please stop attempting to define my position for me.

Click to expand...

Too true. I know plenty of D&D 3.5 players who sacrifice mechanical efficiency for thematic awesome. Some people just don't care as much about the numbers as others do. Powergamers are only one type of player.

Stormwind Fallacy: The fallacy that optimizing precludes good roleplaying or that being intentionally deficient signifies good roleplaying.

nittanytbone said:

Stormwind Fallacy: The fallacy that optimizing precludes good roleplaying or that being intentionally deficient signifies good roleplaying.

Click to expand...

To be fair, this is equally true the other way 'round -- mechanical optimization isn't the only way to have fun, nor does its presence guarantee that fun will be had. Different people have fun different ways. That is the reality.

Indeed. As I posted in the original thread, just because I know HOW to build a DMM Cleric, and am allowed to do so, does not mean I have any urge to or ever will.

The group that I play with does not have any very good optimizers, other than myself. If I were to twink out a Cleric or a Druid to be as powergamed as possible, it would in some ways limit the other players from having opportunities to shine. It would also be annoying to the DM, as he would have to account for the massive power imbalance in the party in order to put togeather a challenging game (i.e. How to challenge my character without insta-killing everyone else). Since I can enjoy myself just fine without twinking out a character, I just don't bother to.

not interested in the least.

although, i've got plenty of experience at this game to make a powertwinker

diaglo said:

not interested in the least.

although, i've got plenty of experience at this game to make a powertwinker

Click to expand...

Yeah ... I'm with you on this one Diaglo. Although you have more years under your belt than I do. :\

I have an impression, that there are acutally very few groups, that play just the powergaming style D&D. I think most of the groups are somewhere in the middle of different aspects of D&D - power gaming, tactics, story and character immersion. And I firmly believe that it is this exact combination of different approaches mixed to meet each groups requirements which creats the great game D&D is.

I as DM support all needs and wishes of my players trying to do my best to accommodate them.

nittanytbone said:

Stormwind Fallacy: The fallacy that optimizing precludes good roleplaying or that being intentionally deficient signifies good roleplaying.

Click to expand...

I actually think the hypothesis you've attacked is partially correct, if you consider the finiteness of time people have to devote to the hobby. Past a certain threshold, I'd say it's clear that time spent improving the character's numerical performance can't be concurrently spent on exploring the character's, well, character.

I've experienced this personally, at the gaming table: At character creation I start to obsess over this or that choice of feats or magic items, then realize I don't even know the guy's name or where he's from or what color his hair is. I can spend twice as long to both powergame and characterize, but then I start to have less fun per unit time.

What is wrong with my personal experience such that it's incorrectly causing me to disprove the fallacy? This isn't rhetoric, I really want to know what I'm doing wrong.

shurai said:

That's how I have fun, which means I'm playing D&D right, period. I'll entertain no argument on this; it's is one of the most sacred assumptions of our hobby that fun comes first. Agreement on it is essentially unanimous.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but I have to throw up an argument at this point. Fortunately, I don't think that my argument contradicts anything that has been already said, because I believe my condition is assumed by the OP and thus the need wasn't felt to be said. However, anytime anyone offers up and unarguable assertion that fun is the number one unarguable point to D&D I have to offer up this exception:

D&D which is harmful to another person - whether physically, emotionally, mentally, or even spiritually - is still a form of abuse, even if the person who is playing the D&D is having fun.

That is my exception. So long as nobody is being harmed physically, emotionally, mentally, or spiritualy then I concur. Fun is paramount to "playing the game right." If, however, someone is being harmed in any of those four categories then I don't care if you are having fun or not - the game is being played wrong because then it is no longer a game. It is abuse.

Having said that, I agree with the OP. My exception stated above is typically an assumption that most people agree upon and thus often not stated. So long as we all agree to that point, then please let the "fun parade" begin, and I'm all for it. Fun takes precedence over "right way."

In my heirarchy it goes like this:

1. Safe Gaming Environment (Absolute #1, nothing breaks this)
2. If we are having fun and condition 1 is being met, we're okay.