Being non-judgmental about play styles

[Doug McCrae]

I do still feel (rightly so, I think) that balanced-power parties are ideal.

Some groups solve this problem by having the optimiser do the stats for all the player characters. He gets the plaudits for being the recognised 'min/max expert' and the PCs are balanced against one another.

There can still be problems when everyone is min/maxed however:
1) It can greatly reduce the number of viable character types. Only a handful of classes, feats and spells in the rulebooks will be good enough. This means that large parts of the purchased books are useless.
2) It's harder for the GM to challenge the party. He has to spend more time creating NPCs and the type of challenges he can use may be severely limited. For example all bad guys may need to have dispel magic to bring down the self-buffing cleric in 3e.
3) The flavour of the game may become something other than intended. for example a supposed superhero game where the PCs use incredibly long range powers and sensory abilities to take out their foes from 5000 miles away. Or a supposedly medieval flavoured game where the knight is not viable. The lack of flight and ranged attacks makes him useless versus an opponent with both those powers.

 

[JamesonCourage]

I'd point out that while PCs do strive to win, it doesn't mean they make the most logical decision all the time. I have a close friend serve in Iraq. He isn't stupid, but he does stupid things at home (where he knows he's safe). When serving as a gunner, he still did stupid things often (as a way to break the tension). I'm assuming he knew his life was on the line.

At any rate, I think that for a lot of PCs, yeah, "optimizing" in-game makes sense. But I think that a lot of people put arbitrary preference ahead of logic, even if they're really intelligent people. And that's fine.

Anyways, as always, play what you like

 

[OnlineDM]

[MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION]: In this particular group there's only the one power gamer. However, I'm the only player who seems to be at all bothered by it. So it's on me to change, not him. And I think I'm doing better at that. It helps that we're currently playing Tomb of Horrors, in which it's more player skill than character power that matters so far.

[MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION]: Again, I'm another player in this case, not the DM, so I'm not in quite the position to ask the player to build a different character. Also, as I mentioned above, no one else seems to mind the power gaming (even though they don't do it themselves). If I were really that upset by it, I might try your proposal of asking him to build a different character - and I can tell you right now that he would probably embrace the challenge and come up with a very powerful character. And I would still roll my eyes at the power gaming. But as I said earlier, I'm getting better about this.

For what it's worth, I see where you're coming from with your point about it being easy to have a balanced party power level if everyone is an optimizer (it's going to be high-powered) than if no one is (some might be high power, some low). The problem is when you have optimizers mixed with non-optimizers; while it's theoretically possible that the non-optimizers will randomly have super-powerful characters, it's unlikely. The optimizers will outshine the others, and that's less fun as a whole for the table. Gaming with like-minded individuals where possible is the best solution.

 

[Doug McCrae]

But this brings me on to why I won't play a wizard in 3.X. I assume a wizard is pretty well educated. At the very least they know of all the spells in the PHB and can pick between them. Choosing the most useful, versatile, and/or powerful spells is just an intelligence and knowledge issue and Wizards are meant to have plenty of both. Which means that if they are as smart as the character sheet indicates they ought to have a very close to PHB-powergamed spell loadout (and Clerics and Druids are little different).

1) Smart people make mistakes. The most intelligent person I know didn't put the date on her wedding invitations.
2) I see the rules as a very imperfect representation of the game-world's reality. The best tactic is quite easy for us to see because the rules are a gross simplification. One can't assume that even highly intelligent characters can see the same thing.

 

[OnlineDM]

Some groups solve this problem by having the optimiser do the stats for all the player characters. He gets the plaudits for being the recognised 'min/max expert' and the PCs are balanced against one another.

I can understand why some groups might want this, but wow, definitely not mine! Character creation tends to be a very personal thing for the groups I'm in; outsourcing the stats to another player would not go over well. And remember, it's not just about stats here - it's about powers and feats and spells and gear so on; outsourcing that to another player would be required if you want everyone to have the high power level, and then everyone is just playing a pre-gen with a custom name and back story. Not fun at all in my groups.

I know that I personally screwed this one up when my wife and I first started playing D&D. I read all of the books and got really into it; she was more casually interested. When she started building her character I offered way too much "advice" and she never felt that the character was really "hers". Since then, I've tried very hard to back off when she's building a character. She'll occasionally come to me with questions, and I have to try to just answer the question at hand (how does this ability work?) and not go into a lengthy discussion of the context around the question, related issues, etc.

Players should be allowed full freedom to build their own characters. If they don't enjoy some aspect of the process and want help, that's one thing. But if a group says, "Listen, in order to get a balanced power level across the party, we're going to have Joe here handle all of the mechanical crunch for the characters; you still get to name yours, though!" that's going to be miserable for a group like mine (and, I'm guessing, most groups).

 

[JediSoth]

I will admit I'm judgmental about play styles I either don't like or don't understand. However, unless said play style affects other players' fun, I generally keep it to myself.

The main play style I don't like is the adversarial "Us vs. the GM" style. I understand it exists often in groups where everyone is very competitive and they either don't like or don't get that you can have fun in a game without trying to screw the other players over, but I've never really enjoyed that sort of game. It's one reason I find games like Carcassone and Settlers of Catan to be superior to Monopoly. I'm sure there are groups that choose to play in this style because they all think it's fun. That's great, but I won't be joining them.

Regardless of play style, though, I think all of them can provide fun for a group provided everyone is on the same page. I think that's where the biggest source of conflict comes in regards to play styles. When you get the Power Gamer in a group with the Actor, the Tactician, and the Investigator, and none of them realize they're all playing the same game, you're going to get conflict. It's compounded when people bring attitudes and play styles from one particular game and use them in a different game with a different genre.

Still, like I said, I keep my opinions on play styles I see to myself for the most part unless it's actively affecting my (or that of my players) enjoyment of the game.

 

[Mark CMG]

Regardless of play style, though, I think all of them can provide fun for a group provided everyone is on the same page. I think that's where the biggest source of conflict comes in regards to play styles. When you get the Power Gamer in a group with the Actor, the Tactician, and the Investigator, and none of them realize they're all playing the same game, you're going to get conflict. It's compounded when people bring attitudes and play styles from one particular game and use them in a different game with a different genre.

Yup. There can be many ingredients in a soup but if only one person thinks we're all making soup and another stew, and another shepard's pie, and another salad, then there can be difficulties. Of course, if we're all making one big feast, that might work out, too, so there's various ways to skin that cat. Damn, I was getting hungry until I mentioned the skinned cat . . .

 

[JediSoth]

Yup. There can be many ingredients in a soup but if only one person thinks we're all making soup and another stew, and another shepard's pie, and another salad, then there can be difficulties. Of course, if we're all making one big feast, that might work out, too, so there's various ways to skin that cat. Damn, I was getting hungry until I mentioned the skinned cat . . .

We'll just have Piratecat throw that cat on his smoker and it'll be good eats!

 

[kitsune9]

Do you just avoid gaming with people who have play styles that you don't enjoy? Or is there a way to learn to embrace those players and have fun at the same table?

The only play style I don't tolerate is people's enjoyment at the expense of the other players. Chaotic jerk types who do whatever they can to derail the adventure just "shake things up", confrontational with other players because they want to be, or attack NPCs because they think it's funny or something.

As for power gamers, most of my players are definite power gamers, so it's a play style I accommodate in my games. But for those players who want to be roleplayers or some other approach, I can accommodate for that as well.

My own play style is power gaming taken to the extreme. I love one-trick ponies, but that's me.

 

[Water Bob]

To be clear, it's definitely about the power gamer play style for me and not about the individual player.

Don't forget that, as GM, you have a lot of control over this. For example, I'm an ogre when it comes to rolling up stats. I play it RAW (for the Conan game) and don't make any exceptions. The book says 4d6, drop lowest, six times, then arrange to taste, and that's the way it happens in my game.

I'm all for people maximizing their characters given what they have to work with. But, I also reward good roleplaying. And, it's hard for that maximizer to get too many bonuses if he threw some low or mediocre stats.

The GM can hamper optimizers in other ways, too, so that their characters don't get too out of hand.

For example, my game focusses on a clan of Barbarians (Cimmerians, like Conan). They don't even put locks on their doors in the village. So, I've barred the Open Lock skill. A character cannot get it at this time (he'll have to search it out in the game).

Plus, don't forget the training rules in the 3.5 DMG. This gives you another tool in the game to keep optimizers from growing their characters in a non-roleplaying oriented way.

Ultimately, I think I've come to understand the power gamer mindset a little better...

It's the same mindset used when people buy a single player computer game then download a "cheat" for it. People like to "win".

I feel that those people are not getting everything out of a roleplaying game that there is to get.

I don't think those types of gamers play the same type of game that I do. They're playing a "game", while I'm trying to "live" in a fantasy world.

Do you just avoid gaming with people who have play styles that you don't enjoy?

Yes. Absolutely.

It's true that it is sometimes hard to find players. But, at the same time, I'd much rather play with a "good" (someone who appreciates the game in the same way as I do) player than someone that just frustrates me or bores me.

Right now, I've got three players in my current group. Two are strong roleplayers, and I'd play a one-on-one with either of them anytime. One is a poor-to-moderate roleplayer, optimizer, and seems to me to be playing the game the same way he would a first-person shooter computer game. He's "OK" with the other two. They're good influences on him. But, I'd never play a one-on-one game with him. It just wouldn't be any fun.

And, there's another player I've played a couple of sessions once who wants to come play with us, but I just don't like his play style. He hasn't got a roleplaying bone in his body. He's a total rollplayer.

He doesn't "mesh" with the group, and he would not add anything (and probably detract) if I let him join us. So, I've polietly come up with excuses to stave him off. I don't want to hurt his feelings, but I'm not going to let him join us, either.