All rules are for power gaming

[Warpiglet]

I recently read with interest a thread about multi-classing for power. It made me think about the rules and game as a whole.

As I was tweaking a character Bio today, I realize anything that is not just narrative has a specified in game effect. Every feat, every skill, every class ability is aimed at altering your ability to do something.

To that end, what are we really saying when we bust on power gaming?

We have our junior thespians complain about a lot. And frankly I am right with them sometimes. I HATED the stacking of prestige classes in 3.0/3.5! I am sure I would not like Pathfinder either.

But what the heck is a +2 ASI? How rich with roleplay potential is a move from 16 Str to 18 Str?

I unabashedly love D&D. I do not like the movement from cool stories and imagery to pure number crunching. Neither do I want the game to become some sort of drum circle where we all freeform make stuff up. I want rules and parameters and LIKE some wargame aspects of the game. I LIKE taking choke points and fighting orcs to a standstill.

But I also understand this stuff is all on a continuum. It is like some personality tests. The worst ones (which are not useful) place you in a whole new category based on a one point difference when one point could change because it was a bad day for you! In this game, a dichotomy between power gamer and thespian is about that useless.

It is really about finding your place on the continuum and then what kind of error bar you can stomach. Stray too far and you will not like it much. Have no tolerance for deviation and you play alone. This makes finding the right group paramount.

But make no mistake, the rules are there to be used and effect the outcomes of the game. I think the questions we ask about powergaming need to be reframed. But really if we are critical of the way they are employed, we are actually just saying we don't like your story.

Unless you bend and use cheese. Then you just suck

 

[Sacrosanct]

No. All rules aren't for powergaming any more than all cars are for racing. Believe it or not, people use a +2 ASI to apply to intelligence or charisma, and that difference plays into how they roleplay their PC.

Aren't you the one who created the infamous "Why do you hate 5e?" thread a while back? So I wonder if you're creating this one just to get reactions.

*Edit* No, you weren't the same. It was werebat. I apologize for the insinuation

 

[Hjorimir]

I don't think the concepts of character optimization and role-playing (or "story" if you prefer) are mutually exclusive concepts. Players are individuals and each is likely going to have a different opinion of what is and is not fun for their play experience. I love to see players running their characters with a lot of personality and live within the setting, but if they also happen to be a well crafted character - mechanically speaking - that doesn't bother me either. They are the heroes after all. Kill all of the orcs you want, I'll make more.

 

[billd91]

What roleplay potential is a move from 16 Str to 18 Str? Mosty, it means the character doesn't have to start maximized in his strength at 1st level - he can grow into being a bigger powerhouse instead of starting there - adding a relatively subtle mechanical reinforcement of a character's growth as their narrative progresses. That's been my take on stat boosting in D&D since 3e and why I've been in favor of them. In 1e and 2e, stat boosting was... unreliable. You might find an item that would do it, or a magic fountain or something else that the DM had put in a dungeon setting. But there was a lot more pressure put on having high stats right from the start of the character in order to 1) get the bonuses most relevant to your class and 2) get the XP bonus for having high stats relevant to your class. That, far more than the stat bonuses and boosts in 3e, led to a lot of very favorable stat rolling arrangements - including Method V in 1e's Unearthed Arcana that used a heck of a lot of dice to get the high stats the player wanted.

Incorporating natural increases in stats based on increasing levels (plus the removal of stat minimums for classes and access to bonuses starting at 12 rather than 15 or so) diminished the need to roll stratospheric stats and reinforced the narrative of growing in capabilities as a character becomes more experienced and grows from Zero to Hero. So you don't have that 18 strength at the start... you can still get it in your life as an adventurer.

 

[Warpiglet]

No. All rules aren't for powergaming any more than all cars are for racing. Believe it or not, people use a +2 ASI to apply to intelligence or charisma, and that difference plays into how they roleplay their PC.

Aren't you the one who created the infamous "Why do you hate 5e?" thread a while back? So I wonder if you're creating this one just to get reactions.

I did not create the thread you mention and have never seen it.

I am suggesting that the process of labeling others styles is often a misinterpretation.

Frankly, you are one of my favorite posters on EnWorld but I think your accusation is less than cool.

And my point stands: why put +2 ASI in intelligence instead of just saying you are smarter? It is all to have an effect in game, and that is no more or less noble as long as it fits your table and personal style.

 

[Warpiglet]

deleted due to error

 

[Bardbarian]

This again falls into the fallacy that games mechanics and story are inexorably separated and cannot lend to one another. Consider your example of strength increase. A +2 strength may mean to you a flat increase of manual lifting power and no more but it may also refer to the ability to use ones existing strength more effectively. If you were to compare a power lifter who can lift in excess of 800 lbs. to a heavyweight boxer who might lift half that amount, the obvious conclusion would be the power lifter is the stronger of the two. On the other hand if you were to measure the force a power lifter can put into a punch and compare it to what a boxer might measure, one will likely conclude the boxer is the stronger of the two. physical stats can be just as abstract as other elements of the game and merely represent a progression of the character through training or perseverance. This progression can be just as characterful as any other element of the game and is limited to your own interpretations. Why is one character with an 8 intelligence absolutely average while another is a savage brute? Is a monk raising wisdom power gaming, or representing the character's own growth in understanding? Like any other element you get what you want out of it. If all you want to see is combat effectiveness from the rules then you will surely find just that. If you want to use the rules as a framework to build a role play experience around, you'll find that too.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Warpiglet]

This again falls into the fallacy that games mechanics and story are inexorably separated and cannot lend to one another. Consider your example of strength increase. A +2 strength may mean to you a flat increase of manual lifting power and no more but it may also refer to the ability to use ones existing strength more effectively. If you were to compare a power lifter who can lift in excess of 800 lbs. to a heavyweight boxer who might lift half that amount, the obvious conclusion would be the power lifter is the stronger of the two. On the other hand if you were to measure the force a power lifter can put into a punch and compare it to what a boxer might measure, one will likely conclude the boxer is the stronger of the two. physical stats can be just as abstract as other elements of the game and merely represent a progression of the character through training or perseverance. This progression can be just as characterful as any other element of the game and is limited to your own interpretations. Why is one character with an 8 intelligence absolutely average while another is a savage brute? Is a monk raising wisdom power gaming, or representing the character's own growth in understanding? Like any other element you get what you want out of it. If all you want to see is combat effectiveness from the rules then you will surely find just that. If you want to use the rules as a framework to build a role play experience around, you'll find that too.

I think this is true. I put my lowest score in wisdom for my favorite warlock. I think it fits. But I also know I did not want to put it into Charisma even if he is an odd looking guy who might put people off.

All of my characters and games have a balance. I do not like (actually hate) cheese, do not like multi classing that has little thematic sense. But I still think we cannot make a selection in any way that has no numerical game effect which is why I have been trying to get off my high horse and judge less.

I happen to think I do it right. But as I get older also know that I am not the final word and that selecting a thing because it makes you more effective is not profane.

When done well they are linked. But they can also often be separated. I can pretend to be smart even without an intelligence modifier. Here we see the numbers and RP are not synonymous. And its OK. My preference is for people to play a role backed up by numbers. But people can also simply play a role.

 

[nswanson27]

Yeah I feel like I can gel with most tables, so long as any major deviations from typical play is announced up front, though I personally lean towards more tactical battlefield play and not so much on the RP. I also feel like most players can flex a good amount and still have fun. I think where the problem is when "my way" is the "right way", and is insisted upon, regardless of where you sit on the spectrum.