All rules are for power gaming

[Wiseblood]

If you like Paladins, you're just a bad, bad person.

Would the inverse be true? If you dislike paladins AND/OR like anti-paladins would you be a good, good person?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Buliding characters is a fun part of the game and yes, in a certain way I am a power gamer. The question is however which comes first: raw numbers or a character concept. As long as your optimization serves the concept and not vice versa, it is ok.

 

[FrogReaver]

Buliding characters is a fun part of the game and yes, in a certain way I am a power gamer. The question is however qhich comes first: raw numbers or a character concept. Qs long as your optimization serves the concept and not vice versa, it is ok.

It doesn't matter which comes first...

I can do numbers first and then make a character concept to fit it and roleplay it perfectly (well in my case probably not so perfectly...) though I may end up concluding such a character isn't a good fit for my current game OR I can do a concept first and then find numbers to fit it and then discard said character if I deem that it will not be a good fit for my current game.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

It doesn't matter which comes first...

I can do numbers first and then make a character concept to fit it and roleplay it perfectly (well in my case probably not so perfectly...) though I may end up concluding such a character isn't a good fit for my current game OR I can do a concept first and then find numbers to fit it and then discard said character if I deem that it will not be a good fit for my current game.

Hmmh. Maybe you misunderstood me. Or maybe I didn't explain it well because I was in a hurry. I just believe as long as you don't try to put square pegs onto a round hole you are doing it right. If you are ready to dismiss a character because concept or numbers don't fit into a game you would be a valued player at my table. Both parts are important. I do however think that you don't have to take every +0.5 to damage even if it means that you miss out on expanding your character concept.

 

[Caliburn101]

This is a core issue with level-based character progression systems.

In skill-based systems it is common to see both 'you can spend xp on what skills and abilities you used adventuring' and 'you can train up those skills and abilities you pay or arrange for someone/something to teach or help you with'.

Progression is thus tied to actions of the character, both in play and in downtime, and it explains where it came from.

Level a Fighter and suddenly you can do 'the new combat thing' even though you never have before and you didn't ever use the associated weapon etc.

You just go PING! and level up.

It does eat into verisimilitude, but it is simple'ish.

Pros and Cons and all that...

 

[FrogReaver]

Hmmh. Maybe you misunderstood me. Or maybe I didn't explain it well because I was in a hurry. I just believe as long as you don't try to put square pegs onto a round hole you are doing it right. If you are ready to dismiss a character because concept or numbers don't fit into a game you would be a valued player at my table. Both parts are important. I do however think that you don't have to take every +0.5 to damage even if it means that you miss out on expanding your character concept.

About how much damage is acceptable to give up for expanding on character concept?

 

[Ratskinner]

I've played and enjoyed enough fringe story games to say that no, not all rules are about power gaming. Take Fiasco, frex, the idea of power gaming doesn't even make sense there and yet it has rules and even winners and losers (sort of).

That said, traditional RPGs like D&D have plenty of rulespace taken up by things that aren't really necessary for any story purpose and just serve powergaming needs. Lists of weapons or spells, numerical stats and tactical info, etc. And while it's technically true that story is not the opposite of power gaming, these rules aren't there to serve story.

That said, ::shrug:: powergaming is as legit as story.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

About how much damage is acceptable to give up for expanding on character concept?

Your own decision. I think a character should be effective. If you try to play a damage dealing fighter, damage somehow also belongs to your character concept.
If you are a social character. A bard or maybe even a warlock, you can easily forgo damage in favour of something that supports your social role.
So take the warlock: you could skip agonizing blast for at will disguise self and at will silent image or the invocation that gives deception and persuasion. At level 1 to 4 a good old crossbow could be used instead of eldritch blast without giving much damage and without givig away that you are a warlock.

 

[Krachek]

I do not agree.
You can make rules that let no space for power gamer.
In fact 5ed is very good at that.
A Dm can shut down most pc optimization with a few changes to rules.
No SS and GWM. No MC for paladin. Eldritch blast multi beam based on warlock level.

In first edition optimization was not really possible.
No feat, no ASI, no sub classes choices.
Optimization and power gaming is derived from card game and war game, and pvp computer game.
It is not really at heart of DnD.

 

[Warpiglet]

I do not agree.
You can make rules that let no space for power gamer.
In fact 5ed is very good at that.
A Dm can shut down most pc optimization with a few changes to rules.
No SS and GWM. No MC for paladin. Eldritch blast multi beam based on warlock level.

In first edition optimization was not really possible.
No feat, no ASI, no sub classes choices.
Optimization and power gaming is derived from card game and war game, and pvp computer game.
It is not really at heart of DnD.

Other than 5e, the only edition I would play is AD&D 1st edition. I feel you. I do not like or play MMOs, but I think you might be overlooking the point due to your preferences (which I might actually share with you).

First, you say you can shut down optimization--by modifying the game! That sort of moves the goal posts. Making rules so the game is different does not discuss the game as is--RAW.

Second, the real thrust of my post is that pretending and playing a role is not the same thing as getting better at a role due to higher bonuses or interactions of bonuses. As a result, I think we need to think about preferences and how much is too much for our own individual taste--in lieu of turning our noses up (a priori) at people that try to be effective.

I do not know too many players (any!) that would simply ignore ASI or feats at appropriate levels in this edition.

I personally walk a line. My warlock for example has reasons to be obsessed with wizardry and death. He will take 1-2 levels of wizard. Abjurer is "better" but the character story says necromancer (should I take two levels).

I could just say in his story that these things are true and initially that is what I did. Then I started thinking it would be fun to be MORE EFFECTIVE in the role and story I created. I could have the same story without 1-2 levels in wizard and it would still be the story.

I know it is subtle navel gazing of a fan-boy...but that is the thrust of my argument.