To me, that doesn't look like exploiting the rules. Why would a player choose a background that gives abilities they don't want?
And how is it "powergaming" to choose proficiency in Perception? What skill choices aren't powergaming?
A4 is an interesting idea in the context of a game that emphasises PC equipment load outs and spell load outs as the main suites of player resources. So it was interesting in the context of classic D&D.
But there are a lot of approaches to RPGing in which the main action of play is not about managing those sorts of resources, and in which setting up a situation which is all about turning stalactites into makeshift spears is just tedious rather than fun play.
Seeing as the thread seems to have moved to a point where posters are expressing their views about what makes for good RPGing, I'll express mine.
I think that, while you may be right about the default way to approach RPGing, I think it tends to make for mediocre RPG experiences, and is the source of a lot of the conflict that I seem to read about on these boards between players and their referees.
Every decision a player makes about his/her PC - both in backstory, and in play - has implications for the wider gameworld. Eg if a player makes decisions about his/her PC's parentage, that is already determining that reproduction in the gameworld - both biological and social aspects - proceeds in ways similar to the real world. If a player declares as an action "I look for a secret door" that forces the GM to confront the question of the forms that architecture takes in the gameworld.
So if we start from a premise that the GM controls "everything else", we're setting ourselves on a direct course for conflict, railroading, "player entitlement", etc.
Similarly, if the GM is never allowed to tell a player how his/her PC feels unless a NPC uses a spell, huge swathes of fiction are precluded. When Frodo feels weary in Morder, that's not because Sauron cast an Emotion spell on him. When Lancelot feels passion for Guinevere, or - in the movie version - when Aragorn feels shame before Arwen about his human heritage - those aren't magical effects.
And it's hardly a feature of new-fangled systems that they allow for non-magical emotional consequences to occur to PCs. In Classic Traveller (1977) PCs are subject to morale checks. In the early 90s, when we player Rolemaster, either I as GM or the players for their PCs would call for rolls on the Depression critical table (RMC III) when a PC experienced some sort of trauma like the death of a loved one.
As I posted upthread, the heart of RPGing is collectively establishing a shared fiction, with the players contributing by declaring moves for and about their PCs. If everyone agrees with a proposal as to how the fiction changes ("I walk across the room and open the door") then lo-and-behold!, that's now true in the shared fiction. If there is some sort of contention, then the rules of the game tell us how to sort it out. If those rules give unilateral power to the GM, then it's not a game that I want to play, but let's be upfront about that and not pretend that the players also have some sacrosacnt sphere of power. But if the rules don't just say "GM fiat", then I can't see any way in which they're going to preserve some sort of "players control PCs, GM controls the world" demarcation.
Many good points. Let me start with this:
"
Gamesmanship is the use of dubious (although not technically illegal) methods to win or gain a serious advantage in a game or sport. It has been described as "Pushing the rules to the limit without getting caught, using whatever dubious methods possible to achieve the desired end". It may be inferred that the term derives from the idea of playing for the game (i.e., to win at any cost) as opposed to
sportsmanship, which derives from the idea of playing for sport."
I posted in another thread but the idea is the same. There is this idea among some players that D&D is a competition, of which the only goal is to win, and gamesmanship is completely applicable. "Anything that gives my PC an advantage that is not specifically prohibited by the rules is fair game and necessary on my path to victory." We all see these people, the people who believe the "DM should be completely neutral and just follow the rules" but completely miss the long hold rule (and most other stuff that's bad for them) that its the DM call and its final. It isn't a competition, players don't "beat" the DM. Technically the DM never "wins:" if the group survives and finishes the adventures the DM played the losing side, if the DM kills them all the group has to start over (a loss for everyone) and if the DM miscalculates something and it results in a TPK the players say "What the hell was that?"
In addition, its not a "rule" but the PHB states in its "fluff" text "There’s no winning and losing in the D u n g e o n s & D r a g o n s game—at least, not the way those terms are usually understood. Together, the D M and the players create an exciting story of bold adventurers who confront deadly perils." To some it seems "I made a decision about my PC without any DM input and therefore the DM must allow it otherwise he is gaining an advantage on me to win." The DM is the director and set manager of a improv theatre, the players are all actors and assistant directors. Your DM isn't trying to beat you, he isn't the enemy, every single advantage isn't needed against the DM since the DM isn't against you. If a DM makes a decision adverse to your PC it isn't a slight, or insult, or the DM trying to get the upper-hand. This game is about sportsmanship:
"Sportsmanship is an aspiration or ethos that a
sport or activity will be enjoyed for its own sake, with proper consideration for
fairness,
ethics,
respect, and a sense of
fellowship with one's competitors."
How many times have you played and see the DM miss something that bad for your PC and you stepped in to remind the DM? For example you see the DM roll a single d20 and state "The giant attacks you, he misses" and the PC reminds the DM "Wait, that attack should have been with advantage due to my condition, you should roll twice." its a group game
What I see here in some cases is players MC to gain a perceived advantage in a competition that doesn't exist against an enemy that isn't there. If you want to optimize your PC go ahead, but remember from the PHB "Playing D&D is an exercise in collaborative creation." I understand that is not a "rule" as it is in the preface, but it is still relevant. If you come up with a great idea, the collaborate. If the DM doesn't see it your way he isn't trying to screw you.
Like I said I would allow and break MC rules for an MC idea as long as you have a good backstory and good idea on how it all fits together. I don't think players should think of a perfect mechanical, optimized build and then try to shoe horn a 5 minute backstory to justify something, especially if utterly resistant to all input from their DM. I am not against the hexblade builds at all (I don't think they are OP) what I am against is "I heard this build is great so I am going to play it and I don't care how its fits into the DMs world." In all these pages I have yet to see any really good ideas on the backstory and creation of the infamous hexblade/paladin builds, and in a specific thread on hexblade/paladin MC the author flatly stated they just don't care about any backstory or RP its all about the optimizing the power levels.
Arial Blacks idea was actually the closest to a plausible idea. The biggest problem I had was the Player is "in" on the PC deception, he knew from the beginning his PC was being deceived and tricked and used that to get the MC he wanted without any repercussions of course. To me that's like starting off as a Paladin and just planning your downfall without consulting your DM just so you can get into the Oathbreaker oath, which is DM controlled: "At the DM's discretion, an impenitent paladin might be forced to abandon this class and adopt another, or perhaps to take the Oathbreaker paladin option that appears in the Dungeon Master's Guide." It seems to me the DM needs to be in on that from the very beginning, starting with "I want to try out the Oathbreaker option, what are the ideas that fit into the campaign so we can make this work for everyone."
Its mostly just stylistic differences, but to me its more important in a MC build, which is a big decision in a PC life. If you tell your DM in advance, he can have a triggering event that can help the class switch along and be plausible. As an example, look at Conan the Barbarian movie, he starts off as a Barbarian, gets captured and sold into slavery and then gets formal weapon training (dipping into fighter class) and then in his travels meets a witch who leads him to meet a rogue archer, who appears to teach him some roguish ways. There are myriad examples of this in literature and in peoples minds also.
