And this is where you are 100% absolutely wrong, especially with D&D, most collaborative game ever if played in the right way. I've already said here that for me, as a DM, my fun is when my PLAYERS are having fun. And when I'm a player, it's when the other players are having fun, and I go out of my way to make this happen.
I'm not wrong. What I said is not in conflict with what you're describing. As a DM, my fun is also when my players have fun. But it's still my fun. I'm not going to jump into philosophy here, but I probably would not be doing it if I didn't enjoy it. It makes me feel good. If it didn't, I wouldn't do it. I'm not doing it for some altruistic reason, I'm doing it for the selfish reason that making them have fun makes me have fun. Which is why I chose game design as a career.
it's forcing it down the throat of everyone else at the table, just for the pride of having "the build"
I do think that DMs have a right to put some restrictions in regard to their setting, intended tone, etc. But unless the players decided to have a group concept and that one person decides to change his mind and do something random, I don't see how it's forcing it down everyone's throat. It's no ones business if you feel like playing an half-elf sorcerer, and it's no ones business if I want to make powerful choices. It has nothing to do with pride. You don't choose your flaws, or bonds, or backstory out of pride. You do it because you're excited to explore that, to roleplay it, etc. Well mechanical choices are taken exactly the same way.
But we probably have different definitions of powergaming. You seem to define powergaming as someone that builds the most powerful character possible in spite of anything else happening around him. I define a powergamer as someone that tries to make the most powerful version of his character concept. I also know that they get most of their fun in going through tough encounters and overcoming bad odds. My theater kids group are not fond of combat encounters, they don't mind them. But one every two sessions is enough. But they get their fun from expressing and exploring who their character is. I give different things to these two players; but neither is further or closer to what D&D is. They're both right into the fertile ground of what D&D is.
Yes, it's possible. Have you ever done that for pure story reasons ? Please answer honestly. And show me the character.
Pray tell, let us know about the characters that you have played, I'm interested.
I personally don't have a example, because I rarely play, and if I do campaigns tend to fizzle out. And to be honest, I'm not the biggest fan of multiclassing as a player. I haven't played enough to be bored of the vanilla concepts.
However, even though multiclassing hasn't been rampant in my games (even though I allow it), on the two occasions where a player used multiclassing, it was for story purpose. We reached a point in a campaign where it made sense for their character to go a different way, and that player asked me if it was OK he if started multiclassing at the next level.
But their characters are not created for story reason or to explore race/class combinations. They are created to be powerful, which restricts them to a few acceptable combinations.
But their characters are not created for story reason or to explore race/class combinations.
It can be that way. I've had players treating D&D like a Diablo game, they'd make their mechanical choices in a vaccuum and arrive with their sheet ready next session. But we were fine with that as a group. But most of the interactions I had with what is described as powergamers, they made their choice of concept and story, and after that made the most efficient choices possible. They did not go "I really want to use this broken build I found on the internet... hmmmm... which class is better to do that." They said that they wanted to a certain class and ancestry, came up with a concept, and then scoured the books to choose their options and take the ones that would make that concept as efficient as possible.
It's interesting that I, at least, have quotes from the designers that prove their intent when designing the game when you have NOTHING from them mentioning powergaming, crating builds, etc. as the intent of the game. I've asked this question 10 pages ago, and still nothing.
Except that I never said powergaming, crafting builds and all that were the
intent of the game. But I acknowledge that what rules and content is included in the book is as good a clue as the preface to determine what kind of game this is.
A quick example would be the game
symbaroum which I recently bought and started reading. Someone on here highlighted the fact that the game really sells itself, both on the backcover and in the preface, as a game where you do these incursions into a dangerous forest. It's gritty, survival-focused. You go in, you go out. Except that there's no exploration rules in the book. You could argue all you want that the preface and opening chapters say it should be played one way, but the rules don't support that. It's not the same as what we're describing, but my point is that rules are absolutely pertinent in gauging the design of a game.
[Edit: apparently I had two tabs open and I lost some of my post]:
If you just looked at what most of the content of the book is, you wouldn't be wrong to think that this is in most ways a tactical, or combat-focused or character-building game first. You said it yourself that roleplaying doesn't need rules per say, hence why there is a preface where the designers take a moment to say that despite everything you find in the book, there's more to it. The rules don't fully reflect how this game is played. You're asking me to show you where on the package of the Hershey it was chocolate bar.
And the only thing I'm telling you here is that the most annoying players that I've encountered are powergamers who, not only content with promoting competition at tables, also sneer down at people who are obviously not as clever as they are for having "inferior" characters.
Which is not a controversing statement. If it was just that, I don't think anyone would have bitten. But binary statements like "Sorry, if you allow this, it means that this is what you want" or "Powergamers are selfish" are not in the same boat.
If you think that I have said this, then prove it. I'll be waiting.
A few lines away...
No, they are not, but their interest in technical options is:
- Preventing them from enjoying other aspects of the game
- Preventing them from exploring many parts of the game because they are deemed inferior.
