D&D General DM Says No Powergaming?

[Micah Sweet]

I'd expect to keep my power, but I would also expect my Patron to send more powerful servants to "set me straight" about the deal I made.

That's never made sense to me. Why would any patron (or  god) make a deal with a mortal that's so one-sided that the PC can keep what the patron gives them no matter what?? It just reads to me like an excuse to let the player do whatever they want, because that's easier than adjusting the character sheet.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Oh, I know people get upset about it. It's still my stance though. If I went against my patrons interests as a warlock, I wouldn't expect to keep my power.

The problem with this is that most spellcasting classes don't have an equivalent to a patron that can revoke their powers at any moment. Wizards just know magic, they can't lose it. Same with Druids, Sorcerers, and Bards. This is unfair to Clerics and Warlocks. If there was an equivalent for those classes, I'd be more okay with this sort of "punishment" for betraying their source of power. But even then I'd be wary about how far I'd go and what sort of consequence would make the campaign more fun, not less.

 

[Micah Sweet]

To me, this is the whole point of being a warlock instead of a cleric.

A cleric's relationship with their deity is one of mutual cooperation. You and your deity are mostly in agreement about how things ought to be. The deity gives you power and you use it in service of those goals.

A warlock's relationship with their patron, however, is at best a wary truce and can easily be downright antagonistic. That's why your power is a pact -- a bargain, a contract, with specific terms binding on both parties. So long as you don't breach the terms of the contract, the patron must provide you power. If the contract does not specifically forbid you to work against the patron's interests, you are free to do so. Even if it does, you can look for a loophole.

How else can you possibly make patrons like the Fiend work? If the Fiend can withdraw the warlock's powers at will, then the warlock is nothing but an instrument of evil. Anything you do is with your patron's permission and approval, and therefore serves an evil cause. There's no way for them to work within a good-aligned party.

There's a difference between using power you've been giving for your own reasons, and actively working against your patrons interest. Doing the latter is my issue.

Also, evil PCs are a thing, and alignment is sketchy in 5e anyway.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

"Using the power of evil for good" and the "Servant rebel" are two of the biggest plotlines for a warlock style character. Not allowing it would fail the promise of the premise.

It’s more interesting when their goals are incongruent. Do just enough to get some power and do sneaky stuff to keep from showing your hand and having it stripped.

One day with your party going Vader on the Emperor…

There is also a lot of text suggesting not everything is a 1:1 gift. The feat eldritch adept and the fathomless and the great old one don’t say anything about obedience as just a few examples…it also says you “learn” and grow in power.

I have not read anything saying it’s revocable specifically. It’s ok if you play that way but it’s not hard coded.

 

[Maxperson]

I don't say no outright. If it's disruptively powerful or just plain disruptive, I'll ban it. Otherwise as long as everyone is having fun, I don't care who does what.

 

[Vaalingrade]

It’s more interesting when their goals are incongruent. Do just enough to get some power and do sneaky stuff to keep from showing your hand and having it stripped.

One day with your party going Vader on the Emperor…

There is also a lot of text suggesting not everything is a 1:1 gift. The feat eldritch adept and the fathomless and the great old one don’t say anything about obedience as just a few examples…it also says you “learn” and grow in power.

I have not read anything saying it’s revocable specifically. It’s ok if you play that way but it’s not hard coded.

Of course it you try to enforce that with the existing patrons (the ones people care about), you're going to end up having a conversation like "So Phil, I noticed you weren't being very disruptive or problematic enough during the game. Keep it up and you'll be seeing some consequences from your patron. All I'm saying is I'm going to need you to ruin my game a little more next session."

 

[Micah Sweet]

I skipped 3E so wouldn't know. In 4E we never had a warlock so it never came up. It comes up regularly in 5E.

Warlock is IME the second most popular 5e class. Right behind bard.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

What exactly does "no powergaming mean?"

Is it strictly a know it when you see it type thing?

Because too often the definition seems to be "don't play in a way I don't like."

There’s the saying- if you sit down at a poker table and you don’t know who the mark is, you’re the mark.

Relatedly, anyone who says that they are low maintenance is not, in fact, low maintenance.

Rounding out the trifecta, if someone is saying that they just can’t figure out what a power gamer is and demanding you provide a strict definition (because that would give them something to argue about)…. then, yeah, you’ve found the power gamer.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The problem with this is that most spellcasting classes don't have an equivalent to a patron that can revoke their powers at any moment. Wizards just know magic, they can't lose it. Same with Druids, Sorcerers, and Bards. This is unfair to Clerics and Warlocks. If there was an equivalent for those classes, I'd be more okay with this sort of "punishment" for betraying their source of power. But even then I'd be wary about how far I'd go and what sort of consequence would make the campaign more fun, not less.

Fiction first. There are consequences for your actions.

 

[tetrasodium]

To flip the OP around, do folks really think you can head a powergamer off at the start? Do you really think that will produce a good game? I long ago ditched the idea I can trick a player into the preferred play style. It never works no matter how bad you want it to. YMMV

Yes and no. On the one hand there is the "teach the gm a lesson" crowd of munchkin that's going to do it either way, but not all powergamers are like that. There's a second type of powergamer who is quite happy to build a monstrosity that keeps a big chunk of their arsenal in the back pocket waiting to be pulled out judiciously if & when the group is in desperate need until it's time to put it back behind a break glass in case of emergency.

Unfortunately there no clear divide or convenient name to differentiate the two "know it when I see it" groups in any useful fashion. Even trying to create a set of terms just opens the door for one group of them to subvert spirit of the terms by the letter. By being up front about it

Spoiler: the GM is doing a bunch of things though

• Some fraction of those two groups will make an effort to restrain themselves to some degree because the request has been made
• The GM has a strong footing when bob ignores the "no powergaming" request & they feel a need to step in reminding Bob about the line that he was expected to avoid crossing.
• If Bob gets salty or tries to claim that the gm is being unreasonable after that reminder the GM has solid footing when they make more hands on or mechanically involved changes

This thread started out because a gm appears to have made a good faith effort to lay out some expectations during a session zero & the unfortunate results of so many years of the community saying "the gm needs to do session zero... the gm needs to define x y z during session zero or the GM is at fault for any and all problems [the player need not even be mentioned as having responsibilities then]".

I was onboard with the idea that people are a lot faster to cry "That DM" than they are "That Player" but this is a pretty alien train of thought to me, and I'm usually told whenever I talk about my groups that I've had very bad luck with players.

It's not all that alien. You just don't see it that often because it tends to be quickly turned around with accusations like "well what did you do", "well you have too many/too strict house rules", "well you should have written better houserules because that loophole a player found is on you", "you need better players" or the ultimate "you have the wrong expectations for the type of game you want to run".

In the context of this gm having a session zero where they laid out an expectation of "no power gaming" as a thing at least some point, we could find gobs of articles & videos about things the GM is responsible for doing before/during/after a session zero & all of us could probably rattle off a solid 3-5 things that are unlikely to get much debate but what are the player's responsibilities for a session zero is a topic that I'm not sure I've ever seen tackled.