Is it common for players to powergame?

[Hjorimir]

It is all relative...

I find the power-gamer attitude to be pretty funny. Players can toil for hours pouring over books looking for that amazing combination that will really make their character a powerhouse. What they don't seem to realize is that D&D isn't limited in scope. For all the work they put into making their character powerful it takes but a few moments for the DM to scale an encounter to match. It is all relative.

Players simply cannot win in this scenario. The DM always can just lay down something that is tougher than the character. It has been my experience that once players realize this they tend to settle down and get back into a more common gaming mindset.

But, let me be clear, I think there is absolutely nothing wrong with building an efficient character. I just don't think you need to be cheesy to do it.

Granted, none of this holds true if it is really a DM vs. Player campaign (and I'd just leave that kind of game anyway). Life is too short to waste time on a bad game.

 

[The_Gneech]

As a counter-example, take Champions/Hero System. Since even equipment costs you character points in that game and since experience produces, at best, very incremental changes, the emphasis is on the character creation and getting the most bang for your buck at the beginning of the process -- experience hones your initial concept rather than builds hugely upon it. Therefor your character, though not really static, is pretty well set along a given path early on. Again, this is not bad at all -- it is the way the game is devised.

Sidenote: I played HERO almost exclusively for several years (1987 - 1994 or so) and most of the time, I was the only one who spent my experience points. Everybody else more or less WAS static.

I am also the group's resident rules expert, who plumbs the rules, tries to come up with effective combos and neat things to do with it, etc. However, I am also real into coming up with a strong character concept, and playing characters' quirks to logical conclusions even when it's terribly disadvantageous to do so.

Am I a power-gamer? Or were the rest of the group's members just way too casual gamers?

-The Gneech

 

[jmucchiello]

As a counter-example, take Champions/Hero System. Since even equipment costs you character points in that game and since experience produces, at best, very incremental changes, the emphasis is on the character creation and getting the most bang for your buck at the beginning of the process -- experience hones your initial concept rather than builds hugely upon it. Therefor your character, though not really static, is pretty well set along a given path early on. Again, this is not bad at all -- it is the way the game is devised.

What? Champions detractors always stuff it straight into the powergamer category. Worse than D&D. A newbie champions player creating a character at 250 points versus a veteran champion player will result in characters differing in effectiveness by about 10:1.

OTOH, Champions (and the genre it emulates) can be played quite well with huge differences in power between characters. Think Justice League or Avengers. What is Hawkman doing running around with Superman? How does Hawkeye contribute with Thor around? Well, they can and good players can play Champions in the same way. Likewise, good players can play D&D with wide level disparities well.

It just comes down to how well your players play. Powergaming can be done by both good and bad players. Strict role-playing can be done by good and bad players. Powergaming is neutral. Strict role-playing is neutral. It is the players that affect your view of the style.

(Personally I prefer a bad powergamer to a bad RPer. The bad powergamer is quiet until his turn in combat when he overshadows the group. The bad RPer just won't shut up. )

 

[Captain Tagon]

I'm one that thinks that powergaming isn't necessarily a bad thing. How many of use are 'powergamers' when it comes to our own lives. We try to play to our strengths and downplay our weaknesses. Most characters would do the same thing. Now powergaming to the exclusion of all else becomes a problem, but so does any other aspect of the game.

 

[Oryan77]

There's lots of great feedback here. I've always had the same opinion that everyone powergames to some extent...it's just part of making a good PC. But I think it's usually just because you have a character concept in mind and want to build it efficiently, not because you're trying to make him the most powerful fighter in the world. The type of powergamingthat I don't care for is searching through books and finding things that you can simply add to the PC just for the sake of getting the "cool beefed up stuff" to make the PC "uber-powerful". My example for this is the same player I originally mentioned wanting to add a vampire template to his Fey'ri PC after he gained enough XP for the level adjustment; which he's CN aligned. Now, I already know all of the reasons that this isn't even possible (the rules saying ALL vampire are evil and I don't allow evil PCs, +LA, ect ect) and logically no one WANTS to become a vampire and plans for it to happen (maybe if you were CE you might seek out a vampire).

This player is still a good player. He does roleplay and enjoys roleplaying. He actually roleplays more than my other players who don't powergame. I had a blast DM'ing him in both games so far. Does anyone have any advice on how to deal with his powergaming so I don't end up getting annoyed by it sooner or later? I've talked to him a few times about it so hopefully he'll cut back on the amount he powergames. But how can I deal with it reasonably so where he won't feel I'm controlling his PC and telling him how to level up? I do have the feeling that he'll constantly be planning ahead for possible templates and things to gain when levelling if I don't deal with it now. He seems to fit the mold that another poster mentioned: a kid in a candy store. He's always reading every D&D book he can find for equipment, magic items, and templates/rituals/subtypes that he can use for his PC. He know's more goodies that exist than I do.

I don't mind using that stuff, but maybe I'm wrong here, I just don't think that's stuff a player should be trying to obtain himself. That's more for the DM to find and surprise the players with by presenting the option in game for the PC's. Just because a player sees it in a book doesn't mean he should be able to get it and that his PC would have concidered searching for it. It really sucks to me as a DM when a player asks for that stuff, because it feels lame if I start from scratch and grant it to the PC later down the road. People talk about how it's bad for a DM to "railroad" PC's, but this seems like the opposite....PC's railroading the DM by asking to setup the chance to gain a template or quest for a magic item he read in a book. If it was reasonable, like building a PC so he can get a PrC and he attempts to search out NPC's that will help him achieve that profession, I'll work to make that happen. Are there ways to do it in game in a way he won't think, "Man, this DM doesn't let me do anything I want my PC to do"? My example would be, deterring him from doing things like raising the cost of an item when his PC tries purchasing it and him getting upset because he knows the DMG says it costs X amount and I'm charging twice that much. Or me telling him that his PC will never be able to setup a ritual that he (as a player) found in a book that would grant him abilities because his PC would never have though of it.

Is it even concidered powergaming when players do that stuff? Am I wrong for thwarting it?

 

[threshel]

I think most gamers fall somewhere in the middle. However, the kind of trap your new player laid for you concerning skill bonuses is unfair and disruptive, IMO. I say this having been on both sides of the very same trap.

Asking for something innocuous then immediately translating a "yes" into another, similar, but no longer harmless, bonus is unfair to everyone at the table. Including the asking player, who has just argued himself (and everyone else) out of ten minutes of game-time. The object is to get you to set a precedent that the player will then immediately use to gain an ability which breaks the RAW. Or at least bends them. It's most commonly used when the player expects a "no" if he asks straight out. It's one of the first signs of a player v. DM mentality, or, as I suspect in your case, a vestige of it. It sounds like you guys get along well, so it'll probably fade with time.

As far as your player "looking ahead" as it were, Knowledge skills can be great tools. Is he asking for a particular magic item? If his character has a suitable number of ranks (or can hit a DC you set) in K:Arcana, then he might know about it, or at least can imagine the possibility. Similarly, K:local (or region) for regionally based PrC's, K:Religion for religious based PrC's, etc. I believe that templates are the perview of the DM, and consistent enforcement of that is all that will help. AFAIK, there is no mechanic for "buying" templates with XP. I know that Savage Species has a leveling mechanic for templates, but I don't think it's quite the same.

Good communication is your best tool to resolve this. It sounds like he's had few DM's and isn't really aware of the differences that can arise from a change in DM. As he becomes more familiar with how you play and what he can expect, he should settle in. Again though (and I can't say it enough), this will only work if you've clearly communicated.

On the ever-present and patently ridiculous p-gamer v. r-player "debate:"
I proudly say that my group and I are relentless and remorseless powergamers (the variety that stays within the RAW). We are also relentless and remorseless role-players, designing detailed histories and developing interpersonal connections within and without the party. We greedily consume all aspects of the game, and any who choose smaller portions are missing the full-course meal, IMO.


J

 

[Arnwyn]

Does anyone have any advice on how to deal with his powergaming so I don't end up getting annoyed by it sooner or later? I've talked to him a few times about it so hopefully he'll cut back on the amount he powergames. But how can I deal with it reasonably so where he won't feel I'm controlling his PC and telling him how to level up?

Ask "why?". Always ask why. Everytime the player brings something up, if he wants to add the vampire template to his fey'ri, you ask him "why?".

You, as the DM, shouldn't do the talking - the onus should be put on the player. They player should be the one talking, justifying, and giving reasons for his/her decisions. Once you ask that, the player will often find that his reasonings are pretty silly, and will back off. If not, it will give you tremendous insight into what the player is really thinking, and thus will much more easily tell the player that what he wants may not (or may) fit the campaign.

Always ask why.

 

[Carpe DM]

Oryan:

Even reading through the books and looking for neat stuff isn't necessarily a bad thing. I'll admit to doing the same, both as a gamemaster (a harpy with the Virtuoso class? Yowza!) and a player (a marshal 2 / Pal 5 / Fist of Raziel 10? Yowza!).

I would recommend letting him do what he wants, but enforcing the RAW. If you said no evil characters, then no evil characters. He understood that up front.

Also, here's a line I use at the beginning of every new campaign to avoid the ridiculous "consistency trap":

"I run a rules-based campaign. This does two things: it assures you I am not changing the rules based on my personal preference, and it keeps challenges fun by making sure your characters don't get too far out of hand. What you can do under the RAW, you can do; what you can't, you can't.

Sometimes, you are going to come up with a neat idea, and I will have to interpret the rules. I like letting you do things that the rules allow. But in return, you're going to have to let me change my mind later about a ruling, if I think it's changing the core of the game."

best,

Carpe

 

[random user]

Do you feel a need to justify that you aren't powergaming or min/maxing? Just play. I have actually seen this a lot lately with D&D/d20. The system is so crunchy that there becomes a huge division between those that embrace the crunch and those that don't. And then we end up with discussions like these.

I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I was justifying it. I read the original comment, thought about it some, and decided my players weren't powergamers and moved on.

Some people then later replied, and I was curious to his replies. When I re-read his post, I realized his real question was "Is powergaming common?" That's when I decided to respond that my players were not. Whenever I state something, I try to give at least one example, just so people get a better idea of what my statement means. On occassion, I've misunderstood the question, or I'm on a different page than another person; in those instances examples help both of us.

Just a side note: this is technically not possible by the core rules, because a hand crossbow is an exotic weapon, and the Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat requires a BAB of +1, which a 1st-level wizard does not have.

Ah yeah I remember that conversation now. We talked about it, and he had come up with a detailed history regarding why he used a hand crossbow, and after talking to all the players, I rule 0'd that it wouldn't be unbalancing him for him to take it. In general I don't like to change rules, but unanimously the players decided it would be good, and I went along with it.

My example would be, deterring him from doing things like raising the cost of an item when his PC tries purchasing it and him getting upset because he knows the DMG says it costs X amount and I'm charging twice that much. Or me telling him that his PC will never be able to setup a ritual that he (as a player) found in a book that would grant him abilities because his PC would never have though of it.

That's a bit tricky. Several posters have made good suggestions above. In addition to asking "why" I would say that you can ask that in the game as well, and then take a reasonable scenario to thwart him.

For example, the player wants to go through a ritual to become a vampire even though he's not evil. After finding a couple people who refuse to help him, he finds someone who is going to charge him a lot (or otherwise make it non-trivial). He sets up the ritual and... of course it doesn't work because he's not evil.

So now he's out the money, but he signed a carefully worded contract that simply said that he would be allowed to go through the ritual, not that the ritual would help him in any way.

 

[Aristotle]

Players simply cannot win in this scenario. The DM always can just lay down something that is tougher than the character.

I agree, although the gamer your describing sounds more like a Munchkin (someone who attempts to 'win' role playing games and constantly outdo the DM and his/her fellow players). Power gaming isn't really about winning or even outdoing the other players or the DM. It's simply about making the most effective character possible (sometimes to absurd extremes) using the rules available (or what the player *believes* are the rules).

It can be disruptive if one player is playing that way and the rest of the group is not, but its just the style of play that player is acustomed to (no different than a player used to purely social/storytelling role playing in a group full of simulationists).