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

[Shiroiken]

I am at a stage in my life where I can pick and choose whom I game with. Competitive players who feel they need to prove their "skills" are better than the other players and the DM are not welcome to game with me. It's not that I find their powergaming disruptive, it's that I find the accompanied attitude annoying. IME, the difference between a powergamed character and the normally designed character is far, far less than the last few editions, so they don't pose as much of a design challenge as they used to.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Blue]

Have you talked to them?

No seriously.

People enjoy a lot of different things out of RPGs. One that seems fairly common but far from universal is mastery of the system.

There's a huge difference between "I want to be better than everyone else (and hog the spotlight)" and "what, my character is too well built and not giving other characters chances to shine? Let me change that".

Heh, I've run/played several games where one player had a much more efficient character then everyone else - but purposely took a support or defender-y character that made everyone else shine more. So everyone got plenty of spotlight moments. I've got no problem with that.

 

[Oofta]

The problem is that the rules of the game are not airtight so sometimes people are bound to come across combos that stay with in the rules, but end up making the game fall apart to the point where all enemies start going after that one person. If you come across something that causes a disturbance in the game and you fail to do something about it then that's a problem. Just because something is "with in the rules" doesn't make it right. Being effective does not always have to be about damage.

Which is why there are house rules and rulings. Interpretation of the rules can make a huge difference, and certain builds are going to be more effective than others. Building an effective character IMHO is not the issue.

The object of the game is not about killing everything you can as quickly as possible.

If that is a player's sole objective, yes that makes a boring character. But as a DM, I can and should balance that out by giving the group different challenges and by giving different people different options to shine. In addition, not everyone wants to be the guy who does the most damage, some people enjoy being the support person.

There is no one way to play, and not everyone is going to enjoy every style. Back in LFR days, there was one group of gamers that always played at the same table and built all of their characters to be synergized to work together and exploit every loophole. I wouldn't have wanted to play that way but I don't think it was wrong.

But let me put this another way. Let's say I build a character that does significantly better than party average amount of damage overall. I'm not breaking (or bending) any rules. The build makes sense from a character perspective. I've even made some choices to have a more rounded character that's not totally focused on combat, they can and do contribute the the game outside of combat. I don't bully/whine/pout/argue/dominate any more than the average player.

Other than having someone who does more damage than you expect, what have I done that is wrong?

 

[Phion]

The problem is that the rules of the game are not airtight so sometimes people are bound to come across combos that stay with in the rules, but end up making the game fall apart to the point where all enemies start going after that one person. If you come across something that causes a disturbance in the game and you fail to do something about it then that's a problem. Just because something is "with in the rules" doesn't make it right. Being effective does not always have to be about damage. The object of the game is not about killing everything you can as quickly as possible.

I get what you mean especially when potential to abuse mechanics are pretty obvious, the problem with powergaming is that you just go to the next best thing and you still shine just a bit brighter than everyone else at the table (pretty much what is happening with the banning of magic the gathering cards in standard at the minute, everyone just moves on to the next best thing).

 

[Corpsetaker]

Have you talked to them?

No seriously.

People enjoy a lot of different things out of RPGs. One that seems fairly common but far from universal is mastery of the system.

Sorry but when a gaming a system breaks because of "mastery of a system" then that should tell you the game wasn't meant for that style of play. No system in D&D's history can handle system mastery because it will break down. Sorry but it needs to be snuffed out.

 

[Corpsetaker]

Which is why there are house rules and rulings. Interpretation of the rules can make a huge difference, and certain builds are going to be more effective than others. Building an effective character IMHO is not the issue.



If that is a player's sole objective, yes that makes a boring character. But as a DM, I can and should balance that out by giving the group different challenges and by giving different people different options to shine. In addition, not everyone wants to be the guy who does the most damage, some people enjoy being the support person.

There is no one way to play, and not everyone is going to enjoy every style. Back in LFR days, there was one group of gamers that always played at the same table and built all of their characters to be synergized to work together and exploit every loophole. I wouldn't have wanted to play that way but I don't think it was wrong.

But let me put this another way. Let's say I build a character that does significantly better than party average amount of damage overall. I'm not breaking (or bending) any rules. The build makes sense from a character perspective. I've even made some choices to have a more rounded character that's not totally focused on combat, they can and do contribute the the game outside of combat. I don't bully/whine/pout/argue/dominate any more than the average player.

Other than having someone who does more damage than you expect, what have I done that is wrong?

Refer to the response I gave Blue.

 

[Corpsetaker]

So, let me start by acknowledging the obvious- the thread is obvious flamebait.

You don't need to acknowledge anything. You need to either stick to the topic at hand or move on to another thread. You are the one initiating flamebait which is against the CoC of the forum.

 

[Phion]

Have you talked to them?

No seriously.

People enjoy a lot of different things out of RPGs. One that seems fairly common but far from universal is mastery of the system.

There's a huge difference between "I want to be better than everyone else (and hog the spotlight)" and "what, my character is too well built and not giving other characters chances to shine? Let me change that".

Heh, I've run/played several games where one player had a much more efficient character then everyone else - but purposely took a support or defender-y character that made everyone else shine more. So everyone got plenty of spotlight moments. I've got no problem with that.

You nailed it on the head. I played a jedi force user in d20 star wars and it was simply too powerful, what made it worse I think was that this character somewhat forced the DM to acknowledge that this jedi stands out amongst the jawa engineer, the wookie melee fighter and the witty lying scoundrel. However the other characters were far more interesting than my jedi and their playstyle was a lot more fun (think guardians of the galaxy) so I asked to have my jedi written off as an NPC and swapped to a mercenary good with explosives; the campaign stopped shoving jedi related quests and we all had a good time.

I still optimized my character and he was still useful, but useful in a more fun way that everyone enjoyed.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*