D&D General DM Says No Powergaming?

[EzekielRaiden]

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.

The problem I find with the comparison here is that the showboating baseball player is simply doing trick shots (or the equivalent, I guess) in a contest that may not even be truly scored. Even if it is, the points don't really matter. No one on these casual teams is trying to win. It may not even rise to the level of "horse" or other nominally competitive games.

By comparison, the entire point of powergaming IS to win. To achieve, by some external standard, the best possible result--not just an enjoyable result. What I have previously called the "Score and Achievement" purpose of gaming. Score is the (semi-objective) metric by which one judges success, and Achievement is the act of succeeding at relevant goals while avoiding pitfalls along the way. The pleasure of powergaming is very specifically rooted in, as the kids say, wanting "to be the very best, like no one ever was."

Because of this emphasis, not merely on being skillful, but on pursuing and displaying optimal success, Score and Achievement has the risk of very, very easily promoting the dark side of competition, even in a game that is supposed to be cooperative. It can foster vainglory and resentment, hubris and envy, acquisitiveness, aggression, and belligerence. Note: can cause, as in does not absolutely have to. The problem is that it's a major temptation to fall into that sort of pattern, and once it starts, it's self-reinforcing.

To expand your game analogy: imagine this baseball team of yours is actually competing in an amateur tournament against a slate of other teams. The prize is small but valuable to every member of the team, perhaps tickets to their favorite pro team or whatever. The only way to get the prize is to actually perform the best they can--they are not simply playing for the joy of the sport, they're motivated to win. Now the pro and college players are heavily incentivized to give it their all, because if they do well, everyone is more likely to win. But if the team was formed on the premise that everyone would be contributing more or less similarly, it can foster feelings of inferiority and resentment if you're the backbencher and evergone knows it. Being carried across the finish line by someone massively more powerful than you can be very disappointing and even demoralizing.

So...yeah. I respect the analogical argument you have made here, but there's a critical difference that makes both your analogy and the one I just gave flawed: sports don't have this mix of "it's just for fun, not for an actual prize per se" and yet also "it actually involves trying to win, and to avoid losing, as much as you possibly can." Purely cooperative sport analogies will fail to recognize the critical importance of "I need to win the most" that is so incredibly common in powergamers, while competitive sports miss the fact that there is no "prize" other than continuing to play and gettibg outcomes one would prefer to see.

 

[overgeeked]

The math for the monster subsystem in general, and one off exceptions is designed to crumple like wet tissue to an unoptimized party until the GM is basically invoking rocks fall

Your numbers in that post are a bit off. The AC of monsters is designed so that a PC always has a 65% chance to-hit if they are using the standard array and following the assumed progression*. Monster HP in the DMG is wildly off from what WotC actually publishes. Blog of Holding broke down the math some time ago. And that math has held throughout 5E.

The trouble is the designers broke things out and designed around the assumed adventuring day instead of a single encounter, like in 4E. So you either run heaps of combat in a day, let the PCs steamroll everything, or do weird stuff like simply deny them a rest until they’ve completed enough encounters or jack up every fight to at least deadly.

* Highest array stat in your primary attack stat and increasing your primary stat at 4th and 8th. Along with prof bonus this means you always have to roll an 8 or better on the d20 to-hit.

unless the GM starts homebrewing a whole new monster subsystem.

I did just that. It comes out in a way that can replicate the official stuff but it’s flexible like 4E monster design. Still a whole lot of eyeballing.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I did just that. It comes out in a way that can replicate the official stuff but it’s flexible like 4E monster design. Still a whole lot of eyeballing.

Huh.

When you're feeling a bit happier with it (which I understand could be a very long time!), do you think you'll be able to start a thread on it here? I'd definitely like to see an approach like that.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

By comparison, the entire point of powergaming IS to win. To achieve, by some external standard, the best possible result--not just an enjoyable result. What I have previously called the "Score and Achievement" purpose of gaming. Score is the (semi-objective) metric by which one judges success, and Achievement is the act of succeeding at relevant goals while avoiding pitfalls along the way. The pleasure of powergaming is very specifically rooted in, as the kids say, wanting "to be the very best, like no one ever was."

No.

You're confusing powergaming with being a munchkin.

They're related but they're not the same thing. The bolded bit is just absolutely wrong. No. Absolutely not. The pleasure of powergaming is making a highly optimized and highly efficient character, which is absolutely not the same thing as "the best there ever was" or the like. You can powergame and end up with quite an ineffectual character if you have certain constraints and many people do self-apply those constraints. Certainly you don't need to end with a dominating one

The self-proclaimed "powergamer" in my group just doesn't like casters. So he doesn't play them. And thus the most optimal characters he can possibly make will never, ever be the most dominating or winning characters in 5E. And this goes for like virtually every powergamer I've ever met. They all have preferences and quirks and things they like and don't like, and they're not trying to "win", they're trying to have a character that is very effective.

"Winning" at all costs, including the happiness of everyone involved is the mark of the munchkin. One of the key traits there is being willing to derail the entire game to force into your character's area of competence (usually "killing things"). The munchkin is also usually a lot less choosy about their character class/race/etc. - they'll usually prefer something menacing and edgy, but if they have to play a Kobold to be Pun-Pun, the munchkin will play a damn kobold.

The fact that you're taking "powergamer" to mean "munchkin" is a great illustration of how any DM who wants to "ban powergaming" should be considered a red flag about that DM's knowledge of the game, and if he's not immediately willing to explain his position, that's a whole other red flag.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

That is a very cool idea, but I don't think its worth that "rules over story" philosophy, which certainly isn't necessary for a story point like that, especially since the idea that even a god can't take back their powers has such far-reaching effects.

Well the goal (whether or not it was achieved) was to make the rules BE the story.

That is, Investiture (the thing referred to above) is both a rule and the story that rule entails. This is, incidentally, also the narrative reason why the Avenger existed. Avengers are the "internal police" of their churches: it's their job to hunt down and deal with heretics (as in actual heretics, people who were faithful but betrayed that faith) and other dangerously divergent members of the clergy. Or consider my often cited example, Lay On Hands: you spend a healing surge, and the target gains HP as if they had spent one. Or, in story terms, "I give of myself, to replenish you. For a little while." The mechanics literally ARE the story: you literally actually do give some of your own energy to restore another.

As I said, one may find fault with the execution here, that's a matter of debate and probably of taste as well. But it is not this idea you're presenting, of rules über alles, fiction a distant afterthought. It is instead an effort to make the rules BE the fiction, and then encouraging players to adapt that fiction whenever the default fails to be what they need it to be. In the end, I vastly prefer rules that I know work, and which encourage me to tell the story around them, rather than being handed a story from on high and fold "I don't have the slightest clue how it works, figure it out for yourself, you're the DM aren't you?"

 

[MwaO]

That's not rocket tag by any definition of the term.

If you have a high enough DC and attacking a bad save, odds are your target doesn't have enough options to get out of it because they're likely to be hit and then they are rarely making a saving throw. That's save or suck. And again, this is base 5e.

Optimized parties tend to have a Paladin who adds Cha to saves.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

No.

You're confusing powergaming with being a munchkin.

They're related but they're not the same thing. The bolded bit is just absolutely wrong. No. Absolutely not. The pleasure of powergaming is making a highly optimized and highly efficient character, which is absolutely not the same thing as "the best there ever was" or the like. You can powergame and end up with quite an ineffectual character if you have certain constraints and many people do self-apply those constraints. Certainly you don't need to end with a dominating one

The self-proclaimed "powergamer" in my group just doesn't like casters. So he doesn't play them. And thus the most optimal characters he can possibly make will never, ever be the most dominating or winning characters in 5E. And this goes for like virtually every powergamer I've ever met. They all have preferences and quirks and things they like and don't like, and they're not trying to "win", they're trying to have a character that is very effective.

"Winning" at all costs, including the happiness of everyone involved is the mark of the munchkin. One of the key traits there is being willing to derail the entire game to force into your character's area of competence (usually "killing things"). The munchkin is also usually a lot less choosy about their character class/race/etc. - they'll usually prefer something menacing and edgy, but if they have to play a Kobold to be Pun-Pun, the munchkin will play a damn kobold.

The fact that you're taking "powergamer" to mean "munchkin" is a great illustration of how any DM who wants to "ban powergaming" should be considered a red flag about that DM's knowledge of the game, and if he's not immediately willing to explain his position, that's a whole other red flag.

It would seem Wikipedia--with actual citations, I might add--disagrees. Bolded for emphasis.

"Another form of powergaming involves a focus on acquiring power during game progression, often by acquiring powerful equipment or unusual abilities. This lends itself to gameplay which is materialistic (and often, in the context of the game world, arguably amoral) and can frustrate other players who are looking to interact with the game world, score points, and not merely acquire game resources.[2] Another term for a powergamer is a munchkin,[3] who may be differentiated from normal powergamers to describe players who seek to acquire power and loot at the expense and disregard of their teammates.[4]"

Based on the above, "munchkin" is to "powergamer" as "square" is to "rectangle." You may not automatically be a munchkin if you're a powergamer, but every munchkin is a powergamer. Which fits perfectly into my claim that powergaming brings the temptation to do things in a crappy, socially-destructive way, a temptation that can be extremely strong because, in most D&D games, you need to be able to win fights quickly and efficiently if you want to succeed at your objectives.

 

[tetrasodium]

Your numbers in that post are a bit off. The AC of monsters is designed so that a PC always has a 65% chance to-hit if they are using the standard array and following the assumed progression*. Monster HP in the DMG is wildly off from what WotC actually publishes. Blog of Holding broke down the math some time ago. And that math has held throughout 5E.

The trouble is the designers broke things out and designed around the assumed adventuring day instead of a single encounter, like in 4E. So you either run heaps of combat in a day, let the PCs steamroll everything, or do weird stuff like simply deny them a rest until they’ve completed enough encounters or jack up every fight to at least deadly.

* Highest array stat in your primary attack stat and increasing your primary stat at 4th and 8th. Along with prof bonus this means you always have to roll an 8 or better on the d20 to-hit.

I did just that. It comes out in a way that can replicate the official stuff but it’s flexible like 4E monster design. Still a whole lot of eyeballing.

I agree that 65% was the goal, they just did it assuming no magic items & a lot more instances of things like the actor feat than +2 primary attribute, those all add up to really wreck the 65%. Getting rid of iterative attack penalties so that there was no difference between playing the odds with many attacks that cumulatively combine to a fewer number of attacks with a smaller total bang without retuning them in other ways adds to the problem by making anything that could be challenging play out completely random

 

[overgeeked]

I agree that 65% was the goal, they just did it assuming no magic items & a lot more instances of things like the actor feat than +2 primary attribute, those all add up to really wreck the 65%.

The math assumes you’ll have +5 to your primary stat by level 8, which is the hard cap for PC stat mods. The only thing that gets you higher or circumvents this is magic items and 1-2 high level class features. So if the referee doesn’t want that math wrecked they can give out non-bonus magic items.

Getting rid of iterative attack penalties so that there was no difference between playing the odds with many attacks that cumulatively combine to a fewer number of attacks with a smaller total bang without retuning them in other ways adds to the problem by making anything that could be challenging play out completely random

Sorry. What?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Well the goal (whether or not it was achieved) was to make the rules BE the story.

That is, Investiture (the thing referred to above) is both a rule and the story that rule entails. This is, incidentally, also the narrative reason why the Avenger existed. Avengers are the "internal police" of their churches: it's their job to hunt down and deal with heretics (as in actual heretics, people who were faithful but betrayed that faith) and other dangerously divergent members of the clergy. Or consider my often cited example, Lay On Hands: you spend a healing surge, and the target gains HP as if they had spent one. Or, in story terms, "I give of myself, to replenish you. For a little while." The mechanics literally ARE the story: you literally actually do give some of your own energy to restore another.

As I said, one may find fault with the execution here, that's a matter of debate and probably of taste as well. But it is not this idea you're presenting, of rules über alles, fiction a distant afterthought. It is instead an effort to make the rules BE the fiction, and then encouraging players to adapt that fiction whenever the default fails to be what they need it to be. In the end, I vastly prefer rules that I know work, and which encourage me to tell the story around them, rather than being handed a story from on high and fold "I don't have the slightest clue how it works, figure it out for yourself, you're the DM aren't you?"

This is why I still maintain that a  lot of posters on this site (or at least several prolific ones) are big 4e fans.

Regardless of your perspective, the rules are still considered more important than the story, such that the fiction should be molded so that the rules effect makes sense. I dont recall any advice suggesting otherwise, and back in the day when I asked about this stuff, people would encourage me to literally make something up so that the rules effect remained unchanged. I found that extremely irritating, and I still do. Its one of the reasons that I left 4e after playing it for about 18 months.

Anyway, bashing 4e is not my intent. I just didn't care for it personally.