D&D General DM Says No Powergaming?

[DND_Reborn]

That's never made sense to me.

Then allow me to explain.

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??

First, a patron is not a god (necessarily, anyway... most often not IME, YMMV). That is the primary difference between Clerics and Warlocks. A Warlock makes a deal, with the promise of power and additional power provided the Warlock keeps its side of the bargain. The Patron is locked into the deal or pact, granting power and more power if the Warlock continues to follow the agreement.

Once that conduit is open to the Warlock, the Warlock doesn't need the patron to further tap into the energy, magic, etc. to power their spells and invocations. That is why I would expect to keep my power as a Warlock. Some people do like to view this as the "knowledge" of how to tap into that conduit is what the Patron offers. Once the Warlock has than knowledge, the Patron isn't necessary any more.

But that doesn't stop the Patron from being angry I am not honoring the bargain, and sending minions to either help me get back on track or kill me.

That is just how I, as DM and player (rarely of Warlocks) view the connection between Warlock and Patron. A Patron grants gifts, which can't (easily?) be taken away--they are gifts.

Now, Clerics serve a god, and receive their powers due to this service and devotion. If that service or devotion fails, the god can stop rewarding the Cleric, denying the Cleric those powers. Clerics continue to depend on their gods, and failure has more immediate consequences.

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.

Not at all. When I have had players "annoy" the designs of the Patrons, the Patrons react and the Warlock gets with the program, makes a new bargain, learns to always be aware of the Patron's wrath, or dies.

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

LOL those are two of the least played classes IME. Funny how much variety there is, huh?

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

And yet another way we differ. There are no evil PCs in my games and I won't play at tables with them.

 

[Clint_L]

At my table story comes first, so if players are making choices that are done just for power gaming, I don't like that, and I'm very clear about it at session 0. I'm talking about broken mechanics like bugbear/sentinel/pole arm master that are being done not to enhance the story but to try to "win" D&D. I just flat out override RAW if a player pulls out some goofy combination that they pulled off the internet and would never occur to their character. And I've made tweaks to nerf things I find overpowered, like the spirit guardians/spiritual hammer combination. I find all those things are kind of metagame-ish, and also tend to make one player "the star," neither of which contributes to the atmosphere that I find fun.

I don't think there's anything wrong with power gaming per se, though. I know there are some folks that really enjoy it and play in campaigns where it is expected. More power to 'em! It's just not for me.

 

[Clint_L]

I agree that a discussion should be had about what is powergaming, and either/both of you may decide that this isn't the right group for each and that's OK.

On a tangent, it reminded me when I first got a gaming group after I moved. Met the DM and we talked about things and I said I had a character idea. I ran it past him and mentioned the character was CN. Now, that was a red flag due to previous experience for the DM but he asked me why, and I put it this way. The character was chaotic neutral because he took everything to an extreme, but he recognized the cost would be one day that attitude would be the death of him. The discussion went smooth and I joined the game.

Before session 0, lay out a list of your boundaries, such as no multiclassing, no 'combo X of the week' etc. Don't wait for it to come up midsession or when someone is levelling their PC. That's really not a cool move.

I agree with this. I hate alignments and don't use them, but at Session 0 I am very clear that I am not interested in running a game where the characters are evil jerks. I am also not tolerant of that player who wants to steal from the party and tries to subvert the narrative at every opportunity. It takes a ton of work to run a campaign and if a player doesn't want to get onboard with a cooperative storytelling game, I have no time for their selfishness.

For me "chaotic neutral" is a giant red flag (not quite a big as "chaotic evil" but close, because it is usually code for "I just want to do random stuff and entertain myself"). Obviously that was not the case for you, so it was good that the DM talked it out with you. By not having alignments, I can avoid that situation because instead I ask every player to give me a brief bio that includes things like wants, needs, and flaws.

 

[payn]

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]".

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.

You need to make a much better effort as a GM then simply saying “no powergamers “ My opinion of course.

 

[tetrasodium]

You need to make a much better effort as a GM then simply saying “no powergamers “ My opinion of course.

I don't disagree, but I've had way too many players blow off that effort while it's being made & feel like it's worth pointing out that neither of us sat through the second hand report of this particular effort

 

[payn]

I don't disagree, but I've had way too many players blow off that effort while it's being made & feel like it's worth pointing out that neither of us sat through the second hand report of this particular effort

Which is why I one shot, short game, try out at the table before launching a campaign. Those blow off players don’t get invited back.

 

[iserith]

Being only concerned with mechanics and discovering rules exploits. I don’t have an issue with powergamers but I want games I invest most in to have the best play style match. You have to be interested in the adventure material and playing as a group.

I find part of powergaming to be personality , so simply saying no PG isn’t really helpful. I’ll sit through a con game or org play with whoever. You don’t really know until you do.

For myself, it’s not the specific actions but the attitude and reasoning. Basically I want to avoid players who don’t care about other players’ fun (including the dm.)

So if I feel they’re trying to dominate the table by having the highest dps, that’s bad and unlikely to get another invitation. But if they just want a cool character who hits really hard with a sword but otherwise is a team player (especially at the meta level like actively biting hooks and engaging with other pc’s backstories), they’re gold and I want to keep them. Both could be a sorcadin.

What I distill from these responses is: "Only concerned with mechanics/exploits" and "Don't care about other players' fun." Although I wouldn't be best pleased at players behaving this way, I'm not sure I'd necessarily associate these things with optimizing/powergaming. They are just problematic behaviors on their own. Certainly I can imagine, for example, a player not great at builds or tactics who doesn't care about others fun. Or, conversely, I could imagine a person not concerned with mechanics at all being problematic at some tables (perhaps because they slow things down a lot).

 

[iserith]

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.

At a more basic level, I just don't want to be in the position of taking away a player's toys because they aren't playing in the way I would prefer. I'll just talk to them about it outside of the game and try to come to some sort of compromise.

 

[payn]

What I distill from these responses is: "Only concerned with mechanics/exploits" and "Don't care about other players' fun." Although I wouldn't be best pleased at players behaving this way, I'm not sure I'd necessarily associate these things with optimizing/powergaming. They are just problematic behaviors on their own. Certainly I can imagine, for example, a player not great at builds or tactics who doesn't care about others fun. Or, conversely, I could imagine a person not concerned with mechanics at all being problematic at some tables (perhaps because they slow things down a lot).

You asked for specifics and that’s my take. It’s not simple, you need to see it in action. Also, many types of players can be problematic but this thread is about avoiding power gaming at the table. The answer is personal and will vary by person. I’m an optimizer that some folks might consider a power gamer, and others a total noob. Which is why I think “no power gaming” isn’t going to work.

 

[Shiroiken]

Powergaming is a thing, but

1) It's hard to define. Building an effective character isn't necessarily powergaming, but some people having different opinions about what is and is not powergaming. The DM should simply provide a list of things they ban or nerf (for example, I hate Revivify and have banned it). Otherwise you're at the whim of whatever offends the DM at any given moment.

2) It's actually not as big a deal in 5E as many doomsayers claim. I've played a mediocre character amongst some min/max powergame characters without feeling left out. Yes I was overall less effective, but so long as the DM respected my niche, I still felt I was a contributing member of the group.