The Illusion of Powergaming

[marune]

"Roleplaying" implies that the players get into the personality of their character, not just the stats. Phil the Bard woos the barmaid because he's an insatiable lothario, not because he has a 19 Charisma and expects to get XP for "acting in character". Bob the Ranger doesn't pick goblinoids as his favored enemy because the bonuses allow him to slay CR 1/2 goblins by the dozens, they're his favored enemy because a band of hobgoblins razed his humble farming village to the ground. That's roleplaying.

The first problem is that "characters traits" (what you call "personality") aren't part of the D&D game. The second problem is that it's very difficult to add them and make them relevant because the game is "challenge-based" (classes + level).

Some will surely say that such things should not be part of the rules, and that's a great mistake. If you want a game in which it's fun to choose a sub-optimal strategy in combat because of some "personality traits" or "character's driven goals", you need a way to make it count.

 

[Maine-iac!]

Maine-iac, the "the game is X, it is played in only this fashion, and anythign else is wrongity-wrong-wrong, with wrong sauce, if you don't want to play that way, go elsewhere" position it not tenable - nobody here is a final arbiter about how to play D&D. Many here will find your position insulting. I'd suggest not continuing along those lines.

If playing 3.x by the rules is insulting or using a few capped words for emphasis that has nothing to do with mood tone frightens someone, then may every PC org (there must be millions by now) slay me.

My point was (again) that punishing a player for knowing the rules or optimizing their characters for the campaign (when others don't) would be wrong. If the campaign is role play intensive with many crunchy spots for diplomacy, bluff, etc. skills, and a player boosts those skills, that would be the same thing as what some label powergaming for combat. A previous poster put the onus on the DM somewhere around 100%. I couldn't agree more. It's their world and if a powergamer's sword is mightier than the DM's pen, make changes, don't punish. There's no need to make house rules on the fly or take things away from any player if the 'fun' factor disappears. After all, isn't that the heart of what you're implying when you (mis)quote me? I'm not being fun?

Every group has styles they like and dislike. Ours likes the RAW, mostly, and sees no issue with optimized builds as long as the concept makes sense in our campaign. I guess that makes us.......powergamers.

edit. I just realized I used "his" a few times and caught myself by replacing "his" with they, them, etc. Imagine the uproar, the lynching.

 

[Nifft]

edit. I just realized I used "his" a few times and caught myself by replacing "his" with they, them, etc. Imagine the uproar, the lynching.

No lynching... sadly, "they" is now an accepted singular pronoun. My poor language.

-- N

 

[rgard]

No lynching... sadly, "they" is now an accepted singular pronoun. My poor language.

-- N

I missed that memo.

 

[Nifft]

I missed that memo.

Ask that webster guy. (Definition 1b.)

Very annoying. But technically legal.

I wonder if D&D rules are descriptive or prescriptive (in the large, edition-spanning time frame)?

Cheers, -- N

 

[green slime]

Every group has styles they like and dislike. Ours likes the RAW, mostly, and sees no issue with optimized builds as long as the concept makes sense in our campaign. I guess that makes us.......powergamers.

Please understand mpov:

The problem is when a certain player either completely ignores the guidelines the DM has given them, or, fails to inform the DM. As always communication is key. It isn't a one way street (communication), and it isn't just the DM, when a player is given guidelines, and completely ignores them. The powergamer seeks to exceed campaign expectations (both that of the other players and the DM) with regards to concept, and will argue for the inclusion of rules (PrCs, races, feats, and so on) in order to achieve a level of power above and beyond what is "normal" and accepted by the group. If a group has a higher tolerance level of power in their campaigns, good for them. That isn't a problem. It all comes down to player expectations.

 

[Kmart Kommando]

i.e. - people who switch careers in the middle of their life have a lot of ground to make up

I did just that several times, and never fell behind the power curve. Military -> Semiconductors -> Elevator repair and modernizations (also accidentally became the IT department of that small company)

Let me fix that for you:

i.e. - people who switch careers jump from job to job without the necessary basic skill sets in the middle of their life have a lot of ground to make up

Multiclassing is only there because of the leveled nature of D&D. Your character isn't Fighter2/Wizard3/Arcane PrC7, it is Ulric Stonefist, dabbler in the Arcane secrets, his father's trusty rapier, Talon, at his side, ready to thwart evil and charm the masses.
You pull the concept out of your head, and unless the DM works with you to build the class 'Ulric the Dashing Gish' from 1 to 20, then you just have to pull out the standard classes and pick and choose and get as close as you can to what you feel would be fun to play.

 

[Greg K]

Multiclassing is only there because of the leveled nature of D&D. Your character isn't Fighter2/Wizard3/Arcane PrC7, it is Ulric Stonefist, dabbler in the Arcane secrets, his father's trusty rapier, Talon, at his side, ready to thwart evil and charm the masses.
You pull the concept out of your head, and unless the DM works with you to build the class 'Ulric the Dashing Gish' from 1 to 20, then you just have to pull out the standard classes and pick and choose and get as close as you can to what you feel would be fun to play.

And in the games I run, you have options at first level. For example, if your character's background is supposed to be trained in combat and magic.

1. Battle Sorcerer
2. Customizing your character as per the PHB. Take the feat I mentioned to reflect that you have had some basic magical training. We'll then use the Thug example, but tailor the skills to magic training.

 

[Greg K]

So you arent allowed to go to college because you want to be a doctor? You have to instead want to be a college student? Sorry, I cant agree.

No. if you want to be a doctor, then you are going to have to go to college,then med school and then do your residency. Either delay adventuring and finish your training, put your training on hold to go adventuring full time or accept the fact that your training is going to take a hell of a longer to complete if you are only going to train part time. However, don't complain that you cannot instantly gain the benefits of medical training when you have been spending time galavanting in dungeons or travelling between them.

 

[Greg K]

Same thing if you introduce a bunch of house rules stating you dont get HP when you level

Yet one of the training variants actually does this.

IMO, its a needless penalty. So to me, yes, taking away a feat for realism purposes (particularly in an unrealistic system like D&D) would make the game less enjoyable.

And, obviously we would not be a good match for gaming together as would neither Reynard nor I. I prefer versimilitude and it is a key requirement for my participation and enjoyment. As such, I despise the multiclassing rules as written. Not a big deal, we are looking for different things out of the game.