D&D 5E A simple questions for Power Gamers, Optimizers, and Min-Maxers.

[jasper]

If that's what you think I'm saying, then you don't understand my message at all.

Then clarify your message. In small simple words a southern with a Sith graded edduddercation can understand.

 

[jasper]

steenan...The "powergamer = problem player" issue is endemic to games where the rules are not clear in their intent and/or (usually "and") they don't fit the game style advertised. .....
No problem player is endemic to nearly all games.

 

[Caliban]

Then clarify your message. In small simple words a southern with a Sith graded edduddercation can understand.

Only the Sith deal in absolutes. This might explain your problem.

 

[Lanefan]

Playing with the rules only detracts from the game in two cases:
1. When the rules are used against their authorial intent. This means either twisting words and interpreting them against a known spirit of given rule

Which to some might be the very definition of powergaming - twisting and squeezing the rules to gain any possible advantage, regardless of the rules' spirit or intent.

or not knowing the intent of given rule because it's not clearly communicated in the game text (which falls under the case 2).
2. When the rules are poorly designed and have no clear intent, don't support their design goals or the goals conflict between different rules. This requires house ruling by the group to fix the problem if it's minor of just discarding the game and using a different one if such problems permeate the whole ruleset.

Yes, this can be a (or greatly add to the) problem.

The difference, I think, is between those who don't (or can't, due to ambiguity) know the intent of the rules and thus violate it unintentionally or unknowingly vs. those who know quite well the rules' intent and go ahead and (try to) violate it anyway. However, this is only half the story...

The "powergamer = problem player" issue is endemic to games where the rules are not clear in their intent and/or (usually "and") they don't fit the game style advertised.

...and this vaguely hints at the other half: the intent of the individual table. If the intent of a particular table as a whole is to power to the max then a more casual gamer won't likely fit in and may well be seen as a problem. The reverse is also true: a full-on powergamer is likely not going to fit in a more casual kill-the-monsters-and-pass-the-beer game and may well be seen as a problem. And of these two scenarios I rather suspect the second is much more common, thus leading to the bad rap powergamers seem to get.

A well designed game has rules that, when engaged, create fun for everybody involved. For example, in Burning Wheel a player needs to grab every advantage in fiction and use the rules that represent it - or they will fail. And the game is quite clear on that. In Fate, "abusing" the fate point economy by intentionally pushing your character into trouble is exactly what drives the game forward and supports its intended play style. And so on.

These are examples of rules trying to drive a particular playstyle, which is fine; but a case can also be made that a well-designed game's rules should be neutral (though clear) and thus flexible enough to allow the playstyle to sort itself out and-or allow for - and roughly equalize - vastly different playstyles within the same game.

Lan-"the monster's dead now; time for a beer"-efan

 

[steenan]

Which to some might be the very definition of powergaming - twisting and squeezing the rules to gain any possible advantage, regardless of the rules' spirit or intent.

For many, it isn't. A lot of people intentionally build powerful characters and get their fun from it ("powergame"), while staying within the rules. For me, it has always been the difference between "theoretical optimization" (as in: see how much I can get with literal reading of RaW) and powergaming in practice.

...and this vaguely hints at the other half: the intent of the individual table. If the intent of a particular table as a whole is to power to the max then a more casual gamer won't likely fit in and may well be seen as a problem. The reverse is also true: a full-on powergamer is likely not going to fit in a more casual kill-the-monsters-and-pass-the-beer game and may well be seen as a problem. And of these two scenarios I rather suspect the second is much more common, thus leading to the bad rap powergamers seem to get.

It is only a problem when the group uses a ruleset that doesn't fit their style. Using a system that rewards build optimization and then not optimizing and complaining that someone optimizes is like using screwdrivers to drive nails and get offended when someone uses it to drive a screw instead.
If the group is not interested in playing the optimization game, there's a lot of systems that cater to this.

These are examples of rules trying to drive a particular playstyle, which is fine; but a case can also be made that a well-designed game's rules should be neutral (though clear) and thus flexible enough to allow the playstyle to sort itself out and-or allow for - and roughly equalize - vastly different playstyles within the same game.

My point is exactly that such system does not exist.

Each game rewards some behaviors, just because of how the rules are build. Each is based on some assumptions and the only difference is if they are hidden or clearly communicated. A lot of problems at game tables come from assuming that games are style neutral just because they are popular and then getting frustrated when they are not. I think it's the second biggest source of issues after miscommunication within the group.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

It is only a problem when the group uses a ruleset that doesn't fit their style. Using a system that rewards build optimization and then not optimizing and complaining that someone optimizes is like using screwdrivers to drive nails and get offended when someone uses it to drive a screw instead.
If the group is not interested in playing the optimization game, there's a lot of systems that cater to this.

Such as D&D 5th Edition?

Generally, the complaint is not the purely mechanical "someone is optimising". Its a social issue derived from the way that a player is using an optimised character. Its quite possible to be disruptive to the enjoyment of the other players without playing an optimised character, and its quite possible to play an optimised character in a fashion that probably won't impact the enjoyment of the rest of the group.

A lot of problems at game tables come from assuming that games are style neutral just because they are popular and then getting frustrated when they are not. I think it's the second biggest source of issues after miscommunication within the group.

That's the advantage of tabletop roleplaying games: they can be played in whatever style the DM and players decide. As you say, miscommunication within the group, including what style that particular campaign is to be played in can cause issues, but clearing that up that is part of the DM's role.

 

[Caliban]

Such as D&D 5th Edition?

Generally, the complaint is not the purely mechanical "someone is optimising". Its a social issue derived from the way that a player is using an optimised character. Its quite possible to be disruptive to the enjoyment of the other players without playing an optimised character, and its quite possible to play an optimised character in a fashion that probably won't impact the enjoyment of the rest of the group.

Same thing goes for the "non-optimized pure RP" characters. It's quite possible to play them in a fashion that is disruptive to the enjoyment of other players (regardless of their characters being optimized or not).

The "dumb" character who refuses to do anything even remotely useful. The "noble" who constantly condescends to the rest of the party and NPC's because they are commoners. The self-declared "leader" who constantly tries to boss the other PC's around. The "shady" character who constantly tries to rob, swindle, and trick their own party members. The "sage" who insists everyone else is an idiot (at length, especially when anything goes wrong).

In moderation these can all be interesting characters that contribute to fun of playing the game. Taken to an extreme they become one-dimensional and irritating. Playing an optimized character is no different. Except with optimized characters you also have the added issue of petty jealousy from someone who made a mechanically sub-par character and feels outclassed. (Although I suppose there is a similar issue with RP'ers who have the spotlight all the time in non-combat situations because of their RP ability. )

 

[dave2008]

It is only a problem when the group uses a ruleset that doesn't fit their style. Using a system that rewards build optimization and then not optimizing and complaining that someone optimizes is like using screwdrivers to drive nails and get offended when someone uses it to drive a screw instead.
If the group is not interested in playing the optimization game, there's a lot of systems that cater to this.

What if a ruleset supports both play styles?

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Tony Vargas]

What if a ruleset supports both play styles?

Then it wouldn't be D&D, and it'd be time to break out the torches & pitchforks, again.





...what is it with you and positing ideally balanced hypothetical systems, anyway?