Pathfinder 1E Advice Needed: Best way to work with Power Gamers?

[koesherbacon]

My question to ask is WHY are they powergaming?

The why is easy in this case.... They are younger gamers and simply have fun making these characters.

To reply to others, I have spoken to them and they still want to include much role play and to have encounters that aren't just combat. Just because they're otpionized, doesn't mean they want to cruise through everything, they still want a challenge, which I'm going to give by providing more enemies, more traps, and haunts (which I just read over for Pathfinder).

Last session we also decided to start over and almost like when playing a video game, hit reset and select the opposing side from lat time. Instead of working to stop the Drow (who were the primary enemy forces in the original idea), they're going to be working FOR them. This way, even though they're optimized, they'll have a much harder time in the world altogether.

Instead of stopping the enemy from stealing important information from Almas' Grand Cathedral Library, they're going to have to be the ones to sneak in and steal it while dealing with the Eagle Knights instead of allying with them as they would have previously.

I think playing as the bad guys will be more challenging since they can't get help from different factions, like they originally would have. They're not going to be able to rely on The Lantern Bearers or The Eagle Knights or the Ninth Battalion for help and will have to do it all while avoiding being caught by theses factions and other good guys.

What do you think, do you think this new scenario will make a difference? Why or why not?

I'll let everyone know after Thursday goes with their new characters who are the bad guys instead of the good guys.

 

[Lord Vangarel]

Playing with powergamers can be really difficult, especially if you, the DM, aren't as interested in it as some of the players. It can be even more frustrating if just one or two are powergamers and the rest of the group isn't. I once had a player who enjoyed 'winning' and would consistently produce super optimized characters. I did various things to try to cater for the playstyle but the player would just give up his character and create an alternate character that could cope with the new set of challenges. It even got so bad that the player would research the module we were playing and complain if I changed things around as that's not how it should be in the module. Needless to say we eventually had a parting of the ways.

My suggestion would be if you really do not like powergaming and the players are unlikely to change either find a different group or play a different system where it's not as easy to powergame. There are plenty of D&D like games available now that don't make it as easy to powergame as Pathfinder or 3rd edition.

 

[Uchawi]

For anyone that specializes take them out of their element from time to time, but if the table power games as a team, then challenge them with pace, or other unknowns. Offer combat or out of combat situations that are less predictable. So think of it as change the spotlight for individual players, or changing the stage for a team.

 

[gamerprinter]

As to why they power game, the game is built to allow them to do just that. Lots of gamers see class builds as a kind of riddle, if you find the right feats that correspond to specific class features you get synergy - the combination is greater than the class feature by itself. To a person that likes to find and emphasis these synergies - it can be a very fun part of class building. Of course the results is power gaming - and that's why it happens.

My players don't want to be suboptimal, and they do find the offered synergies advantageous to class design, but thankfully, my players only do this slightly and aren't really power gamers because. Once I did have a discussion with one player that had kind of a power-gamer mentality. When I asked him about it, he looked at me incredulously saying, "what possible reason would I not want to build synergies in my class build?"

Somebody mentioned in this thread, where parties have been seen to buff themselves up and that rush in as fast as they can trying to find as many encounters to run through before their buffing expires. This makes sense, if they know that the next chamber is going to be a big fight so its smart to buff up before entering. However, if they are buffing up before they know for sure there is a big fight coming, the easy fix here, is to include several chambers with no encounters at all. Wait until their buffs expire before introducing an encounter.

In the end, I don't think you'll have much luck. If a party likes to roleplay, they roleplay. If a party likes to power game, they power game. However, if they like to power game, they are not going to roleplay (ever). If you want roleplayers, you're going to have to find different people. Its really a question of apples and oranges.

 

[Greenfield]

Coming up with a "neat build" can be fun, and maybe even worth taking it out for a spin. Running every neat build in a an ongoing game, however, may be a bad idea.

Whatever happens though, you want to avoid the "arms race" mentality, the situation where they keep stacking it on, just to remain unstoppable, and you keep applying more force to show that they can indeed be stopped.

It turns the game from a friendly group story tell into a competition, with people striving to "win", not just the battle, but the game.

With regards to the specific mechanical issues: A high enough AC to provide a challenge for the combat monsters is freezing the more reasonable builds out? And you don't like it?

Obviously, the last thing you want to do is reward the combat monsters by making encounters that only they can shine in. Consider tactics with miss chances from things like concealment, rather than pure AC. Since a 50/50 miss chance applies to everyone equally, it levels that particular part of the playing field.

So what gives acceptable chances? "Shadowy illumination", like being more than 20 feet from the torch, or like a D&D 3.5 Darkness spell, gives a 20% miss chance. Displacement gives 50/50, as does being non corporeal. Blink is another spell or effect that works. Smoke or fog eliminates that nasty True Sight and/orghost touch ability.

Combat tricks are also useful. That power game character with his +9 Scythe of Ultimate Niftyness? What happens when he faces an opponent with Improved Disarm, who's built to make the best of it? If your bad guy approached unarmed and does the take-away, the power hungry PC finds himself facing an opponent who now possesses a +9 Scythe of Ultimate Niftyness!

Improved Sunder is also a nice way to pare over-equipped PCs down to size.

Another, outside-the-box thought might be to *increase* the power level of the guys who get left out of the fight against high AC opponents. Level the playing field that way, then run high AC opponents that everyone can have fun beating on.

I surprised and frustrated one of our party's fighters by letting him meet an Awakened Construct, an Iron Golem with Fighter levels. Oh, and "she" was wearing armor with a full helm, so he wasn't aware what he was facing. He thought it might be an Ogress with some levels and gear. She/it was level appropriate for the PC, but had so many immunities that a lot of the usual tricks to increase damage weren't working. No poison, stat or level drain, no Critical Hits. He was built like a Cuisinart, lots of attacks that add up, rather than a few big damage attacks. Her/its DR frustrated him, since he didn't know what he needed to penetrate. He suspected a Stone Skin effect, and presumed that the armor was Fortified to block sneak/crits.

So a dose of the unexpected is always nice. If you use things like that, though, remember not to let them know who that is behind the iron mask. Not during the battle, and not afterwards, unless they defeat "her" and have a chance to unmask the foe. If your monster survives, either by winning or escaping, you can use them again.

 

[Zelc]

If everyone in your group likes to power-game, then great! Treat them as higher level than they actually are when you're creating encounters and doling out XP. Let them know this ahead of time so they don't get upset when they receive less XP than usual. Tell them you want to make fights more interesting for them but keep the leveling pace roughly the same. You could also doll out XP on when they resolve plot lines rather than for winning fights.

If some people in your group like to power-game and others don't, then it's harder. You should discuss this with them and spin it in terms of making the game enjoyable for everyone. You can challenge them to make powerful characters with weaker classes and more restrictions (see here for a tier list for 3.5E; EDIT: Here's a tier list for Pathfinder). They'd likely be able to make some powerful characters, but they'd be less powerful and more limited in what they're good at. Alternatively, ask the min-maxers to play a supporting role in combat. Maybe the non-min-maxed Fighter would still be happy if the min-maxed Wizard locked things down for him to kill. Maybe the min-maxed character could play a trip-based Fighter who sets up the non-min-maxed Barbarian to smash the enemies.

It seems like you've already talked to them and you've tried switching sides. Reducing the support they can draw on would certainly make things more challenging for them, but don't forget to still scale encounter CR's appropriately.

In the end, I don't think you'll have much luck. If a party likes to roleplay, they roleplay. If a party likes to power game, they power game. However, if they like to power game, they are not going to roleplay (ever). If you want roleplayers, you're going to have to find different people. Its really a question of apples and oranges.

That's the Stormwind Fallacy. Roleplaying and min-maxing are not mutually exclusive. This is especially egregious because the OP even said his players want to role-play.

 

[gamerprinter]

That's the Stormwind Fallacy. Roleplaying and min-maxing are not mutually exclusive. This is especially egregious because the OP even said his players want to role-play.

I never said they were mutually exclusive, but it still tends to be true. At my table there is one min-maxer, though the majority prefer somewhat optimized builds those are generally feat selections and not really through abusive stat dumping (so not min-maxers as regards to stats). Our group has 2 that prefer more elements of roleplay. So our group is definitely a mixture in styles of play. So we do manage to get more roleplay incidences in our game, though our purist min-maxer, is always chomping at the bit, encouraging everyone to stop play-acting and get into some combat. So obviously it isn't mutually exclusive, my group is a prime example of that. I believe (from experience) that my current group make up is rare.

IME, however, my group is not the most common you'll encounter. I have indeed run into groups of mostly min-maxers with a GM that would like to include some roleplay. Unless at least one of the players want that as well, the experience most often plays poorly, where roleplay is attempted once then never again. When the players are all fighting you in unison to not roleplay (and in my experience this is the case with most overly optimized players), roleplaying never seems to work. Again, this is only when involving a group that is mostly optimizers - as seems to be the case with the OP.

I wish him all the luck, and I really hope he manages to pull it off (getting a group of optimizers to want to roleplay), but I have some strong doubts. I have hope he can make it happen, I just don't have faith that it will.

Edit: having read it, I don't agree with the Stormwind Fallacy article much at all.

 

[Dragonsbane]

Although mostly already said, here are the things I personally do:

1) Keep magical items under control
2) Keep sourcebooks under control - my players use just Core and APG, and their PCs are still well-optimized lol
3) Use more numbers / surprise / tactics

In addition, I make sure to include game mechanics for non-combat things all over the place. For example, if you don't have people with knowledge skills or linguistics or other information skills players will miss hints (and I make sure to point out in examples chances for nice-XP combat and loot too).

One of my favorites is RP skills. EVERY NPC interaction in my game includes two checks beforehand - an "offensive" RP skill (Diplomacy, Bluff, or Intimidate) and a defensive one (Sense Motive). This gives the RP a sense of where to go, and then on top of that I make sure the RP would make it happen. Players who just roll for those things and then don't RP (ie "I got a 27 on my Diplomacy so I talk with him about the quest, whats my info, I got a 27 so I MUST know!!") simply don't get anywhere

I read that link on the Stormwind Fallacy, and tbh it seems like the author is trying to make his point via debate-style antics. Although my RPers do optimize their characters, I really can't agree too much with the author. After DMing hundreds of players, in my games I had people that are mostly one (RP) or mostly the other (min-max), with very few falling into the "both" category. Not to mention, when I do have a RPer who optimizes his PC, this is almost always because the RPer learned that his PC gets left in the dust when around the min-maxer, so it was a necessary part of PC survival and playability to "learn" how to min-max.

Just my experience! Not saying I am 100% right

 

[Wulfgar76]

Pathfinder and 3rd Edition D&D are the worst systems for the problems you are encountering.

Have you considered 2e, 4e or the upcoming D&D Next?

There are also other fantasy RPG systems like 13th Age, Savage Worlds and Numenera - but those are not D&D variants and I don't know much about them.

 

[pemerton]

There are also other fantasy RPG systems like 13th Age, Savage Worlds and Numenera - but those are not D&D variants and I don't know much about them.

13th Age is a D&D variant.