D&D General DM Says No Powergaming?

[Faolyn]

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.

There have been people in this forum that have said that putting your ASI in your class's primary stat is powergaming. Like, an orc fighter with a racial +2 Strength, or a halfling fighter with the floating +2 put in Strength, are both examples of powergaming.

There have been people in this forum that have said rolling for stats, instead of using stat array or point buy, is powergaming.

So yeah, sometimes a definition of powergaming is actually needed.

 

[James Gasik]

Oh gees, this again? The long disproven gatekeeping that powergamers can't be roleplayers, that if you enjoy system mastery that you can't be part of a team?

Yes, you can get people who aren't team players. Regardless if they are powergamers. And you can have powergamers. Regardless if they are team players or not. Don't let that there is some overlap in any circles of Venn diagrams to the fact that there's also plenty of non-overlap. No matter what the circles are.

Begorrah! The Stormwind Fallacy has risen from the grave! Call an exorcist!

 

[James Gasik]

Roleplay out how you feel about how your Warlock Patron is commanding you to do something against your oath as a Paladin then.

I sorted this out in 4e, actually. I was an Eladrin Paladin of Corellon Larethian, who was also a Fey Pact Warlock- as a God of the fey-descended Eladrin and Elves, I hypothesized that also makes them an Archfey.

 

[Faolyn]

Balancing the adventure to the PCs is decidedly  not the DM's job, IMO. Far from it. To me, the DMs job is to present the setting and give the PCs reasons to engage with it. How they engage and what happens is a combination of player choices and emergent events. Balance in the adventure has nothing to do with it.

I honestly don't know why anyone would DM at all if some of you folks are right and problems at the table are always the fault of inflexible, capricious, tyrannical, or downright nasty DMs. Hopefully one day their poor players will rise up and cast them off, I guess.

What?! Of course it's the DM's job to balance the adventure--unless you want the adventures to either be so easy as to be incredibly boring or so powerful as to kill the party almost immediately, or you want some players doing everything and other players getting to do nothing.

 

[Faolyn]

Roleplay out how you feel about how your Warlock Patron is commanding you to do something against your oath as a Paladin then.

I can tell you that most of the people at my table would love to have this sort of conundrum!

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I like how you imply I don't have an adult conversation about those rules with the players.

Because that is the only way the thing you discussed could actually be a problem worth discussing. What was said previously (removing nothing, full text):

The issue as I see it is that, without providing guidance in the book, they are saying that no PC has to listen to anything the DM has to say about how their pact might work. They are functionally super powers, whether the DM wants that in their world or not.

If the DM doesn't want them, they can ban the class.

That both sends the wrong message and is like trying to kill a fly with a nuke.

The simple answer to this is, as the authors intended, "have an adult conversation." The only situation where this is a problem is where it wasn't possible to have an adult conversation. That is quite literally the design intent. It is what has always been meant by "rulings not rules" and by "DM empowerment." You, as DM, are given the reins and told to fend for yourself. The designers have no interest in protecting or assisting you in resolving conflicts that can, at least in principle, be solved by having an adult conversation between DM and player(s.) That is what 5e is and does; I dislike this approach rather a lot, but it is what they chose to go with.

Seriously, why do people always default to the DM being the bad guy in these types of situations?

Because the vast, vast majority of the time it's actually DMs demonizing players, and you don't notice because you're so used to doing that?

Seriously. The amount of flagrant, scathing distrust for or even dislike of players from DMs on this forum is staggering. And the open, explicit demands for "absolute power" (no, I am NOT joking, that exact phrase has been explicitly and repeatedly used by at least two distinct users on this very forum.) And for unquestioning and indeed unquestionable trust from players, with zero need to lift a finger in the other direction, solely because "DMs work so hard," thus players who don't meekly submit are (again, in some cases explicitly) trying to "destroy" the DM's literal actual works of art, again referencing something explicitly said by an actual user of this forum.

And, again, DMs are the ones claiming power. People who claim power are, and should be, held to a higher standard. Them's the breaks. If you don't like that, write a novel. Then there's no one under your authority but yourself.

 

[payn]

If your significant other is hanging out with someone that you know they're attracted to, there is a lot of ways to look at it.

You can decide not to trust that significant other, tell them you need them to stop socializing with that attractive person to save your relationship, etc... You can say, "Hey, cool, I trust you - but that is the type of thing that can catch you off guard. Be honest with me if something unexpected happens." You can quietly say to yourself, "Well, if you're going to do that, I've got a chance to hang out with Jean and see what might be possible there. Jean is hot and I think Jean has a thing for me."

What does this have to do with powergaming? There are a lot of potential outcomes, and one of the biggest factors in how it plays out is how you respond to the situation. You're deciding where it is no longer worth squeezing that fruit for juice. There may be plenty of juice in that fruit for everyone to enjoy when you decide to give up the squeeze if you have the right tools to get it.

In my experience, the DMs that struggle the most with powergamers are the ones that treat D&D as oppositional rather than cooperative. They get frustrated (or fudge the dice/numbers) when the PCs get some lucky strikes in and take down a foe 'too easily'. They feel that the game needs the PCs to be vulnerable to their threats in order for the game to work. At the core, they feel the players are cheating - and they may not realize it, but they mean the players are cheating against the DM.

The DMs that do not struggle with powergamers tend to be the ones that let the PCs shine. They let the high powered PC be devastating in combat. They look to things other than survival as the core challenges of the game. Don't get me wrong - they still have some battles where the PCs have their hands full surviving - but the PCs spend more time trying to achieve a goal than they do trying to survive to the end of the battle. The PCs feel like heroes from comics that you know will survive, but might fail to save someone, might fail to prevent the tragedy, etc... Those are great stories to experience because your PCs do feel powerful and heroic - and still have actual chances of truly failing in a combat without having to build a new PC.

D&D absolutely works over a broad spectrum of power levels unless someone obstructs it. That 'obstruction to fun' is usually a DM that is trying to control the game tightly. It can be players, too, but usually it is that DM that just wants to have "their" fun by making sure the PCs/play3ers can see how awesome they can build an encounter.

To that end, my suggestion to DMs that have powergamers at their table is: Don't see it as a problem. See it is a tool. Figure out how to use their effectiveness as part of good storytelling and to create challenges for the group that allow them to shine and risk failures, even if their survival is never at stake. The DMs that make that leap tend to find their players get more engaged, get more involved, and are happier with the overall experience. YMMV - but is usually doesn't when people really make the leap.

That is a rather strange example, but I think I get it. However I’m not in the business of getting folks to their potential. I’m not dating my gamers and I don’t work with them. This is my leisure time and I’m going to optimize it which means I get to be picky.

I’d look at it more like baseball softball. The majors are folks that make a living at it. State of the art equipment and competition at the highest level. Fast pitch softball is often competitive and folks are dedicated without it being their main focus. Then you have slow pitch casual games that anybody can join and isn’t really about the competition.

Some folks think you can mix and match, but all my experiences lead me to believe you are better off meeting the group where they are at then adjust to the variety. Clearly, my miles vary.

 

[bedir than]

Oh gees, this again? The long disproven gatekeeping that powergamers can't be roleplayers, that if you enjoy system mastery that you can't be part of a team?

Yes, you can get people who aren't team players. Regardless if they are powergamers. And you can have powergamers. Regardless if they are team players or not. Don't let that there is some overlap in any circles of Venn diagrams to the fact that there's also plenty of non-overlap. No matter what the circles are.

It seems there was difficulty in reading what I wrote.

If they don't have interest in the group they aren't welcome at my table. I will absolutely welcome anyone to play D&D. My group doesn't need people who desire to harm the group.

That's a gate I will always keep.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

If your significant other is hanging out with someone that you know they're attracted to, there is a lot of ways to look at it.

You can decide not to trust that significant other, tell them you need them to stop socializing with that attractive person to save your relationship, etc... You can say, "Hey, cool, I trust you - but that is the type of thing that can catch you off guard. Be honest with me if something unexpected happens." You can quietly say to yourself, "Well, if you're going to do that, I've got a chance to hang out with Jean and see what might be possible there. Jean is hot and I think Jean has a thing for me."

What does this have to do with powergaming? There are a lot of potential outcomes, and one of the biggest factors in how it plays out is how you respond to the situation. You're deciding where it is no longer worth squeezing that fruit for juice. There may be plenty of juice in that fruit for everyone to enjoy when you decide to give up the squeeze if you have the right tools to get it.

In my experience, the DMs that struggle the most with powergamers are the ones that treat D&D as oppositional rather than cooperative. They get frustrated (or fudge the dice/numbers) when the PCs get some lucky strikes in and take down a foe 'too easily'. They feel that the game needs the PCs to be vulnerable to their threats in order for the game to work. At the core, they feel the players are cheating - and they may not realize it, but they mean the players are cheating against the DM.

The DMs that do not struggle with powergamers tend to be the ones that let the PCs shine. They let the high powered PC be devastating in combat. They look to things other than survival as the core challenges of the game. Don't get me wrong - they still have some battles where the PCs have their hands full surviving - but the PCs spend more time trying to achieve a goal than they do trying to survive to the end of the battle. The PCs feel like heroes from comics that you know will survive, but might fail to save someone, might fail to prevent the tragedy, etc... Those are great stories to experience because your PCs do feel powerful and heroic - and still have actual chances of truly failing in a combat without having to build a new PC.

D&D absolutely works over a broad spectrum of power levels unless someone obstructs it. That 'obstruction to fun' is usually a DM that is trying to control the game tightly. It can be players, too, but usually it is that DM that just wants to have "their" fun by making sure the PCs/play3ers can see how awesome they can build an encounter.

To that end, my suggestion to DMs that have powergamers at their table is: Don't see it as a problem. See it is a tool. Figure out how to use their effectiveness as part of good storytelling and to create challenges for the group that allow them to shine and risk failures, even if their survival is never at stake. The DMs that make that leap tend to find their players get more engaged, get more involved, and are happier with the overall experience. YMMV - but is usually doesn't when people really make the leap.

As @payn said, your opening paragraph had me skeptical, but by the end I completely agree. You've most likely seen my logorrheic flailing in that direction.

• Support what the players care about, as long as it isn't exploitative, abusive, or coercive.
• Listen in order to understand, not just to reply.
• Whenever possible, say "yes, and..." or "yes, but..." If necessary, say "no, but..." Flat "no" is to be avoided.
• Build off what your players are enthusiastic about. Foster motives that give value to survival, rather than just survival value.
• Avoid becoming precious about "your" game. The players have a stake too.
• Be open-minded. That's kind of the whole point of playing with other people instead of flying solo or writing a novel.

 

[jgsugden]

That is a rather strange example, but I think I get it. However I’m not in the business of getting folks to their potential. I’m not dating my gamers and I don’t work with them. This is my leisure time and I’m going to optimize it which means I get to be picky.

This is also your player's leisure time. If you get to be picky because it is your leisure time, why can't they choose to play the PCs that make them happy?

I’d look at it more like baseball softball. The majors are folks that make a living at it. State of the art equipment and competition at the highest level. Fast pitch softball is often competitive and folks are dedicated without it being their main focus. Then you have slow pitch casual games that anybody can join and isn’t really about the competition.

Some folks think you can mix and match, but all my experiences lead me to believe you are better off meeting the group where they are at then adjust to the variety. Clearly, my miles vary.

Truly, your miles seem different to you, but the question I'd ask you to consider is why the groups can't match?

Picture 9 people playing ball. The first is a former MLB catcher. The second was a college pitcher. The third a high school star that didn't go to college. Then there are a few folks that played in high school, a bench warmer and someone's significant other that has never held a bat before, but thinks this could be fun.

In one scenario, the former MLB person is frustrated that everybody sucks, that nobody is taking it as seriously as him, and that nobody is really making a win the priority. The former college player agrees, but doesn't realize the MLB player considers him in that bucket of people that suck. There is bickering and criticism, and pretty soon nobody has fun and everyone is looking to end early.

In the next scenario, everyone is having fun. The former MLB player is showboating - with one at bat sending the ball out of sight, and the next a strikeout as he tries to hit the ball with the bat between his legs. The college player tried to blast one out after the MLB player, but had to give mad respect at the imporessive shot - but did manage to make contact with the bat between his legs (non-dirty). The other folks are playing and everyone cheers on the significant other when they manage to make contact that goes nearly as far as the one hit between the legs of the college players. There may have been drinking. Who is to say.

The situation is going to be what we make of it. Every time people get together to have fun, the people that are there are deciding whether it will be fun or failure.

Speaking from experience: You absolutely can have powergamers at the table with inexperienced or RP focused players while everyone has fun. It isn't a lot of work, either. It just takes the right mentality. This game is only as fragile as we make it. One of the groups I currently DM has two optimized builds and two really odd builds that are on the weaker side. Everyone is having fun. The optimized builds are doing 80% of the damage. However, the other two have starring roles in some of the storylines. Everyone is itching to get back to the table to discover what comes next.

You can say, "That is fine - but that is not how I want to play." To an extent, that is fine - but my question would be whether you're making the players happy with your approach, or if they have any frustrations or disappointments in having options curtailed when there are steps to avoid powergaming.