Is it a bug, or a feature?

[Dethklok]

It occurs to me that, when designing a roleplaying game, one might be excused for failing to note when certain powers are too effective, certain skills too cheap, or certain weaknesses too mild for the extra points they give, because this gives power gamers something to do as players. Indeed, a well designed game may contain such minor imperfections on purpose, like pottery formed with artistic asymmetries. After all, if min/maxing is impossible, then what is there for powergamers to do?

In other words, why not let the powergamers have their fun, so long as their having slightly stronger characters than the other players do doesn't break the game? Isn't it only when game-breaking imbalances ruin the experience for everyone else that problems come in?

 

[Ahnehnois]

In a word, yes.

Telling a story does not require that all the participants are equal (and indeed, inequality is more interesting). Simulating a world does not require that all members of that world are equal (and indeed, pretty strongly goes the other way, and suggests that inequalities should be better described). Creating an entertaining game experience does not require that all characters be equal (and indeed, trying to maximize a character is one of the main venues for enjoying an rpg).

A character that completely dominates the game is sometimes (but not always) a problem, and certainly avoiding that is a valid design consideration. But removing all inequalities from characters is not a desirable goal.

 

[Meatboy]

For me its a feature. I am a power gamer in that I like my character, whatever the concept, to be as effective as I can make it. If I play a warrior I certainly want to be able to fight, or if its a stealthy character I want to sneak and so forth. It only becomes a bug when a single class or power combination lessens everyone else's fun at the table.

 

[nnms]

The main issue with the approach is that you'll end up with some trap choices as well. While those who enjoy the mini-game of character optimization do there thing, it can be easy for someone going by what sounds cool to pick something that won't pan out for them in play.

 

[Michael Silverbane]

I'm pretty sure this was intentional in Type III D&D (and possibly Type IV, as well). Some options are, upon examination, more or less optimal than others.

I am sure that there has been some discussion from designers about certain choices that are meant to be traps, or that are meant to be suboptimal, but to appeal to a certain aesthetic. But I do not know where I saw that discussion.

 

[nnms]

It was definitely in a Monte Cook interview I read here on Enworld. There are definitely intentional differences in power levels in 3.x feat choices, for example.

 

[JamesonCourage]

It was definitely in a Monte Cook interview I read here on Enworld. There are definitely intentional differences in power levels in 3.x feat choices, for example.

Interesting. Any idea where that interview is? I know of his Ivory Tower Game Design article where he stated that some feats were intentionally better than others in certain ways (Toughness is an alright feat for a one-shot when your Elf Wizard has 3 HP, in his example, but not in long term campaign play), but I'm not familiar with the EN World interview you mentioned.

(As an aside, I'm not disagreeing that some feats are better general choices than others... Natural Spell for Druids, or Power Attack for melee, etc. I'm just curious about the interview.)

 

[nnms]

At this point, I couldn't cite it. And now I'm second guessing myself and thinking I might have heard him talk about it on a podcast or something.

Sorry!

 

[Dethklok]

it can be easy for someone going by what sounds cool to pick something that won't pan out for them in play.

This I think is the primary downside to the issue. It often happens in games - and I'm thinking especially of oldschool Magic the Gathering, here - that certain strategies which by all rights should work, fail when pitted against hodgepodge strategies where cards are selected simply on individual merits. As soon as the most important consideration is "how broken is this option," then the game is broken (although interestingly it remains functional for those who haven't yet figured out the inherent imbalances).

 

[Random Bystander]

The job of a game designer, or a GM, is not to enforce equality of outcomes, but equality of opportunities. A power-gamer can select sufficiently-synchronous abilities to make their character more powerful in any RPG; they do not need built-in imbalances to make it easier for them.