D&D 5E Are powergamers a problem and do you allow them to play in your games?

[Li Shenron]

Then the issue is "they play for themselves and not for the group", not that they're playing an optimized character.

...

With no examples, no specifics, or pointing out disruptive behavior that has nothing to do with building optimized characters.

Pretty much because optimisation is not powergaming, it's just the first step of it.

 

[Li Shenron]

In addition if your player(s) always trivialize every encounter, then that's a DM issue, not a player issue.

Not what I am talking about. I am not talking about the GROUP trivializing an encounter. I am talking about ONE powergamer trivializing encounters, to the point that all other players have not much to do.

 

[Oofta]

Not what I am talking about. I am not talking about the GROUP trivializing an encounter. I am talking about ONE powergamer trivializing encounters, to the point that all other players have not much to do.

So once again ... can you give any specifics at all? Because all I hear is the generic "one guy is too powerful" repeated like a mantra.

If you have an issue, if you need help on how to deal with something, nothing can be done without knowing what the problem is.

 

[nswanson27]

Not what I am talking about. I am not talking about the GROUP trivializing an encounter. I am talking about ONE powergamer trivializing encounters, to the point that all other players have not much to do.

So in my experience this sort of situation is both an optimizer playing and others who have decidedly underpowered characters, where the underpowered characters are more to blame for the disparity than the overpowered one.
Closely related, but the optimizers usually are also the ones who make smarter decisions in combat than the underpowered ones, which sometimes I think is just as much of a factor too.

 

[Kobold Boots]

So in my experience this sort of situation is both an optimizer playing and others who have decidedly underpowered characters, where the underpowered characters are more to blame for the disparity than the overpowered one.
Closely related, but the optimizers usually are also the ones who make smarter decisions in combat than the underpowered ones, which sometimes I think is just as much of a factor too.

I agree with this, but will add that in my experience as a DM, I've had no issues with this since I stopped being a lousy DM.

That's not saying I'm a great DM, because players have to say that themselves. What it does say is I've figured out how to scale a game to handle these sorts of things. Others have too or it wouldn't be the same folks with the same opinions in this sort of thread all the time.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

So in my experience this sort of situation is both an optimizer playing and others who have decidedly underpowered characters, where the underpowered characters are more to blame for the disparity than the overpowered one.
Closely related, but the optimizers usually are also the ones who make smarter decisions in combat than the underpowered ones, which sometimes I think is just as much of a factor too.

Yep, IME that is often the case. The player who knows how to max his PC is often the player who is good at planning and playing the game. D&D is strange in that I keep running into people who find its better to not be good at the game or claim that having a lame PC makes for better role-playing. Not to me but everyone has fun in their own way. And in all my years of running D&D stats take a backseat to player decisions when it comes to a PC living or dying.

 

[Oofta]

Yep, IME that is often the case. The player who knows how to max his PC is often the player who is good at planning and playing the game. D&D is strange in that I keep running into people who find its better to not be good at the game or claim that having a lame PC makes for better role-playing. Not to me but everyone has fun in their own way.

I think it should be obvious that some people are going be better at building (or running) effective characters. Give two people the exact same PCs (especially higher level casters) and the result will probably not be the same. Sometimes the difference can be dramatic. I used to play with a guy that always played mages that specialized in fire and rarely cast anything but fireball and magic missile. Well, until he got to high enough level to cast Meteor Storm. Then it was Meteor Storm, Magic Missile and Fireball. Even when he knew they were going to be fighting opponents that were resistant or immune to fire. I liked the guy, but he was never going to be accused of being a tactical genius (although that Meteor Storm did come in pretty handy now and then).

No game can counter that. For example, checkers is about as simple as you can get, but I'm sure that someone who knows what they're doing would probably annihilate me in a game without even thinking about it.

 

[LapBandit]

Powergamers welcome, not a problem.

 

[GameOgre]

Yep, IME that is often the case. The player who knows how to max his PC is often the player who is good at planning and playing the game. D&D is strange in that I keep running into people who find its better to not be good at the game or claim that having a lame PC makes for better role-playing. Not to me but everyone has fun in their own way. And in all my years of running D&D stats take a backseat to player decisions when it comes to a PC living or dying.

While I find nothing wrong with having a optimized or at least fully functional character who can do his"job" it is also fun to play someone who isn't. Though it does take buy in from others at the table as well.

One of my Fav characters was a Wizard(Sorcerer) with a 9 int who insisted he was a wizard and was unskilled at Arcana but just (KNEW) all about the 104 Rules of Magic. He did have a decent Cha though and so could actually do his job(Sorta) but he was definitely a hindrance to his party at times.

Sometimes its fun to just be a $%$% up. A entire party of $%$% ups is awesome to play but you have to have the DM's buy in as well because.........you will be much weaker........but not any less fun!

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

While I find nothing wrong with having a optimized or at least fully functional character who can do his"job" it is also fun to play someone who isn't. Though it does take buy in from others at the table as well.

One of my Fav characters was a Wizard(Sorcerer) with a 9 int who insisted he was a wizard and was unskilled at Arcana but just (KNEW) all about the 104 Rules of Magic. He did have a decent Cha though and so could actually do his job(Sorta) but he was definitely a hindrance to his party at times.

Sometimes its fun to just be a $%$% up. A entire party of $%$% ups is awesome to play but you have to have the DM's buy in as well because.........you will be much weaker........but not any less fun!

It just depends on the group and DM. I tend to want to have an effective PC surrounded by other effective PC so we can accomplish what we are trying to do in the game.