D&D 5E Char Ops forums: Something I wish hadn't come over.

The scientist in me feels compelled to point out that if the DM also considered your character "useless", and if he were one of those DMs who likes to tweak his adventures to his party, it could have gotten easier simply by virtue of your character not being quite as useless as the DM thought it was..

It's just an anecdote to provide a background for my inspiration for the guide, not intended to count as actual evidence of the effectiveness of the build. I posted it here to point out that being an optimizer does not mean you seek to overshadow anyone, not to convince them to play that style of Wizard


BTW, I strongly disagree with your definition of "powergaming" as being focused on intra-party competition. I often refer to myself as a natural powergamer but I have not a lick of that competitive instinct in my body. I enjoy keeping other people alive, and I also enjoy beating challenges that should be lightyears out of my league, and I enjoy doing so while expending close to zero resources. I'd characterize powergaming as an instinctive awareness of tactical potential and an inclination towards maximizing that effectiveness even if that requires roleplaying rationalization. If you hate the fluff for paladin the paladin/warlock multiclass but you can rattle off three or four ways, off the top of your head, why it would be advantageous, and you're tempted to multiclass your paladin in spite of the fluff... you are probably a powergamer by my standards.

In short, there are multiple definitions of "powergaming" out there.

Hmmm...looks like the spectrum is more nuanced than I had thought. Fair enough.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I think there is some correlation between "roleplaying rationalization" and powergaming. If you start with the character concept, as MechaPilot mentioned, then try to make it work mechanically without sacrificing the concept...that's optimization. If you figure out how to optimize first, then come up with a roleplaying rationalization ("Uh...I was a rogue before I had a formative experience and took my Oath, then as part of my Oath I thought making a Pact with the Archfey would help me achieve my goals...") you're powergaming.
 

Also, powergaming does not have to focus on combat. If the first thing you think when you read the Fabricate spell is, "I'm going to be soooo rich! I must learn this," you may very well be powergaming.
 

Powergaming: Building/playing a character with the goal of overshadowing the other characters in the party.
Optimizing: Building/playing a character that works effectively within a team to meet team challenges..

I disagree with both of your definitions.
(Note: what follows is essentially from another post of mine in a different thread)
There are a few definitions (of powergaming) that have been around for a very long time. Three examples of definitions include

a) an emphasis or focus on character power as defined in the game. This can be as simple as having an attitude that my starting character has to be as good as a special forces/olympic level athlete/whatever, have minimum of x in bonuses, delivering a minimum of x amount of damage, being great at social combat (in a game where social combat is power), etc and viewing the character as "sucks"/"inefficient" if they don't meet this arbitrary thereshold. Also under this character would be focusing upon abilities like domination or social skills in games where those options result in the most powerful characters (hence, dpr is not inherent to to the definition).
b) playing with the goal/emphasis upon accumulating power. In D&D which rewards characters as they level with bonuses, new spells, accumulation of magic items granting bonuses and/or spells, money that can be used to purchase magic which increases bonuses and provides new spells as as characters level in order to level repeat the cycle and grow in power, a player with emphasis on leveling and accumulation of power would be power gamer.
c) Optimizing/ Min-max. For some people, powergaming is Optimizing/Min-Max. However, given a and b above, I don't think a player need be good at min-maxing or even engage in it to be a powergamer. Powergaming is, therefore, an outlook/playstyle.
Optimization is just a tool. It is the prioritizing of available choices/resources to best meet some specific criteria (the concept) rather assigning those resources elsewhere which is why many powergamers and buttkickers engage in it (butt-kickers being those whose playstyle a strong emphasis/preference for combat and butt-kicking being its own playstyle axis). However, optimization, need not be used for power gaming or buttkicking. One can optimize to be best underwater basket weaver, but that is not going to make a character powerful in most games. It just represents how talented the character is. One can also optimize at character creation to be a farmboy psychic warrior who is the best horse racer in his community by assigning resources to those areas as appropriate without maxing out bonuses in those areas or keeping them maxed out over time (see below about degree of optimization being a continuum upon an axis).

Min/Maxing, however, in my opinion and in that of many circles of which I have been part, is viewed as an extreme form or optimization releated to powergaming given that the name is about minimizing weaknesses and maximize strengths (and, as such, about character power).

The other thing that often gets over looked is that power gaming and optimization are not binary. They are each a continuum on separate axis (again, why a&b above do not require one to be skilled at optimization or to optimize at all to be a powergamer). I don't care about dpr, having the biggest numbers or many things about which heavy powergamers care. However, on some style quizzes, I still show some degree of powergaming, because I like having my character to both improve in existing skills and picking up new skills to reflect my character's growth. Improving existing skills and picking up new skills both provide increased bonuses in order to be more effective mechanically and so, under b above, would involve some degree of powergaming which is why I usually get around 25% powergamer on certain tests.

Also, since optimization involves a) prioritization of available choices/resources to best meet a concept with specific criteria (even if either that concept is based upon mechanical bonuses or the character is weak and sucks in strength so assign a low score rather than somewhere else) and b)optimization is on a continuum (meaning one can engage in it to varying degrees), as soon as one starts assigning resources (even if it is ability scores), the player is engaging in some degree of optimization. The only way to avoid it is to generate everything mechanical about the character randomly or otherwise remove generation choice from the player (e.g., pre-made characters, set character templates, etc.) as well as mechanical improvements.

Now, the above does not mean that there are not some people whom power game to overshadow the party, but they are not representative of all power gamers and are a subset whom are jerk players.
The above also does not mean that there are not some people whooptimize to fulfill a role in the party, but they are simply using optimization as tool to meet a specific criteria (i.e., fill a specific role with a specific level of competency). However, filling a team role at a specific level competency is not the only criteria for which someone might optimize.

The real issue with powergamers and optimizers in my opinion is when a player crosses over some arbitrary threshold on either end of the powergaming and/or optimization axis (or should it be axes) and the point conflicts with the preference of the DM and/or other group members. This is more pronounced among those whom are tied to their "builds" and pre-planned builds for multiple levels regardless if the DM tells them it is inappropriate for the campaign. However, this is no different than other playstyle conflicts when expectations clash. For instance, the groups I play with are more about exploration and story "creation" than butt-kicking and powergaming. However we had a method actor type player that was so far over the top and into stealing other people's spotlight that he was just as obnoxious as the powergamer/butt-kicker/optimizer whom would a) complain if we did anything other than combat; and b) told players that they built their character wrong for optimizing for combat or taking the most powerful options. Both got themselves kicked out.
 
Last edited:


Beyond the already frequently-stated "this is a player behavior problem and should be addressed as such" response, there's another and (IMO) more interesting reason to keep the character optimization stuff and make it easily-available to the people who want it. It's useful as a way to simplify making a character, for people who are well-informed but have difficulty making decisive choices. Like me.

I use charop threads pretty much all the time when I'm creating a character. I look for advice from other players. I check what options are considered "good" or not, by whatever rubric the writer chose. Does that mean I always follow their advice? Hell no. But it means that, when I don't, I do so knowing what I'm doing. These threads enable me, and others like me, to make informed decisions about our characters. Does my concept require--or prohibit--certain choices? If so, what consequences will that have? Do I want to stick with that concept, even with those costs, or should I consider creating a new concept--and if I do, what consequences will that choice have?

It's not strictly a matter of "concept optimization" or "min-maxing." Oftentimes, I browse through a guide to find an interesting interpretation of what a character can do. For instance, a "Brawler Fighter" described as "choke-slamming a dragon" was quite evocative to me--and so I immediately began to wonder what choices I, as a character-creator, could make to support this behavior. What can I do to give incentive for this evocative image, such that the powerful behavioral choice is also the flavorful choice and the story-supporting choice? Alternatively, maybe I have a concept already formed, but want to know the various ways it can cash out, and what the differences between those ways are--like a "classic Merlin/Myrddin Wyllt archetype," which could be a nature-flavored priest, a Wizard/Sorcerer with a deep link to the fey (and/or demons), or a high-Int Druid with a degree of hermeticism and "formal" education, or something else entirely. Each of those things will mean something, mechanically; each will open some doors and close others. Reading through charop threads to glean what options are available--especially if the author recognizes the use of resources not spent purely in a single pillar--can give focus and help me find a comfortable and appropriate (whether for flavor, story, combat, skills, or any of the above!) way to reach that narrative goal.
 

I actually like the class guides from the char op forum. They are usually not abusive and just give personal opinions about certain things. They sometimes help me understand the idea behind some features better.

Sometimes I wholeheartedly disagree with the assessment of certain features or spells, because some guides are just written for tactical combat games. Other guides value out of combat and non-damage spells that help in exploration and interaction a lot higher.

So I did visit guides a lot, but since I am the DM, I only did it for fun and insight, not to break a game... which is very hard in 5e even with the most powergamimg guide... especially because many of them have at least one rule wrong because it qorks differently in 5e than in 3e. But usually helpful posters point it out in the discussion and again, I do profit for my own game.
 

D&D is a game that penalizes bad play and weak characters with permanent death, so it always seems odd to me to complain about character optimization.
Agreed.

I would add: in a game where PC building is mostly input-based rather than output based (eg choose your stats, your class, your gear, then add up all the resulting bonuses), and where in action resolution it is always better to bring bigger bonuses to bear on the situation, I think it it likewise odd to complain about character optimisation.
 

Agreed.

I would add: in a game where PC building is mostly input-based rather than output based (eg choose your stats, your class, your gear, then add up all the resulting bonuses), and where in action resolution it is always better to bring bigger bonuses to bear on the situation, I think it it likewise odd to complain about character optimisation.

It's a "Don't hate the player, hate the game" kind of situation.

D&D has always had options that are treated as equal but are very disparate in power.

It has always had a war of flavor vs power.

It has always had a character building minigame (though it used to be mostly a game of chance and is now one of skill.)

Getting mad at optimizers for playing the game is missing the target.

Now getting mad at an optimizer who is an attention hog is a different issue.

I've seen suboptimizer attention seekers too.
 

Powergaming: Building/playing a character with the goal of overshadowing the other characters in the party.
Optimizing: Building/playing a character that works effectively within a team to meet team challenges.


If only the latter were more common than the former. Of course, my DM experience is a small set to judge from I suppose! I do think it is a good distinction, however.
 

Remove ads

Top