Being non-judgmental about play styles

[Elf Witch]

Well if you really want to change maybe you need to start with why it bothers you so much.

What is about people who powergame that makes you feel that they are playing wrong? Because I think that is what some of this is about.

I always remind myself if I am feeling judgmental that there are a lot of different ways to play. And that there is no right way.

I am not a powergamer but I understand what they want. They want a character that is really good at what it does. Having weakness is not their idea of a good time they want a hero.

 

[Hungry Like The Wolf]

Interesting problem, my advice would be to just not care but that's because I can't articulate very well.

When I find things annoying during a game, I sit back and engage in other aspects of the game. Like cracking jokes, interacting with the group between turns etc

Basically, if the game is getting bogged down, there is a social element to focus on.

 

[S'mon]

Wait, for real? That player is the smartest person alive...

Yes. It really happened. I booted the player on the spot (it wasn't his first offence), which led to a big tantrum and lots of invective against me on the Meetup board, combined with pleas to be let back in the game.

 

[S'mon]

I never said hate. I don't hate power gamers or any other type of gamer. But I'm judgmental toward them, feeling like "they're doing it wrong". And I don't like that feeling in myself.

As for where I draw the line, it's completely subjective, of course. If I look at a player's character and it looks like every single decision they've made it solely for maximum combat effectiveness with no regard for anything but that, yep, I'm going to look down on that player (and feel bad about myself for doing so). If they've picked a sub-optimal weapon as a sop to people who look down on power gamers, I'll still probably look down on them. If they do it to match a mini, I'll feel somewhat better, but if the PC is still otherwise totally min-maxed I'll still probably roll my eyes at the player (inwardly).

It's a spectrum. My goofball Bard with the stat array of all 13s and one 14 in his ability scores is one end (I guess I could go farther by giving him an 8 Charisma if I really wanted to test the limits of that end of the spectrum, but I don't). The ultimate CharOp board character is the other end. As you get closer to the CharOp end of the spectrum, I'm more likely to be judgmental. And that's what I'd like to change about myself

This sounds like you're saying that the less mechanically effective the character, the more you like it, and the more effective it is, the less you like it - so there's no red line? That does seem a bit of a problem in a game like D&D which seems designed around PCs being effective, and players seeking that. Have you considered that maybe you're doing it wrong?

Seriously, just relax and accept that your views are a bit eccentric. Be happy in your strangeness.

 

[AeroDm]

This sounds like you're saying that the less mechanically effective the character, the more you like it, and the more effective it is, the less you like it - so there's no red line? That does seem a bit of a problem in a game like D&D which seems designed around PCs being effective, and players seeking that. Have you considered that maybe you're doing it wrong?

Seriously, just relax and accept that your views are a bit eccentric. Be happy in your strangeness.

I think OnlineDM is just having trouble defining what it is that bothers him. He is a lot like Justice Potter Stewart with regards to pornography ("I know it when I see it.") There are a lot of powerful character builds that *aren't* power builds. But then there are some where you just want to sigh and say, "alright... let's go...". Those builds really do dishearten a lot of folks (players and DM alike) because it feels like they are missing the spirit of the game but they are well within the rules of the game.

I get that and I also get the desire to want to get over it. People come to to the table for different reasons. When you go to the bar, some people go there to get trashed. Others go just to talk. Those are different goals. You have to learn to enjoy talking about the people getting trashed.

 

[Greg K]

Power gamer is a pejorative term for optimizer..

I disagree. I don't even consider them the same thing.

The people I know have always used power gamer to mean someone whose emphasis is on playing a powerful character or for the accumulation of power. They don't have to know anything about optimization. The former can simply be finding 25pt buy unacceptable because characters are "too weak" or MAD. The latter can be playing for the gold, magic items acquisition, and experience points, because they lead to greater power.

Optimization is building toward a concept and allocate resources toward best representing a concept. Some players may optimize to meet an initial concept and let the character develop organically from there. Some may want to continue toward a final build that they have in mind. Like anything it can be taken too far and at its extreme you get min/maxing (CharOPs). (edit: The CharOPs, imo, may or may not involve min-maxing. It can just be taking optimization too far for power gaming).

Now, many power gamers may optimize, but optimization let alone min/maxing is not a requirement for being a power gamer.

And it is not like optimizing or power gaming are binary. They fall on individual axis with players having differing degrees of preference.

For myself, CharOPs boards crosses way past what I find acceptable for games I run or play in. Nothing against those players personally. They are free to play how they like at their table. If I am invited, I can always leave, but it is not acceptable when I am running.

Furthermore, I can hang with many of them away from the gaming tables provided we don't talk that aspect of gaming. I just don't want to game with them and I don't think their style should be catered to by designers, because they are going to find a way to break games anyway. All that results is more limited and,imo, uninteresting choices out of fear that player will break the math. Better to tell the GM to watch out for such things and rein it in if it becomes a problem.

Or to quote the Roleplayer's Manifesto by GOO. "Munchkinism and Min-maxing are not problems with the game. They're problems with the player".*

* Note: I don't consider these the same thing. For myself, the former means cheater and, the latter is only a problem with groups that don't do it or when it otherwise disrupts a table or the GMs fun.

 

[OnlineDM]

Thanks, [MENTION=13650]AeroDm[/MENTION] - you put it pretty well. I don't want characters to suck, but I don't want characters to outshine one another too much. There's a certain power level that I tend to like in my own characters, and when I see other players building characters that I feel are significantly above that power level I tend to feel like they're all about power and not at all about character.

I'm doing it right, and everyone who loads up on power beyond that level is doing it wrong.

The odd thing is that I don't look down on players who build characters significantly below that power level; I might offer to help them, or I might try to tone things down in my own character so that the others get to shine, too, but I don't feel like they're doing it wrong.

For instance, I've built characters in D&D 4th Edition that put an 18 in their key ability score before any racial bonus. And I've felt dirty in doing so. I understand that it's optimal for a lot of classes (the Hunter and the Thief, for instance, really have no reason not to max out their Dexterity), but it feels... wrong somehow.

Perhaps I value balance... yes, I think that's probably it. A character that's optimized just around combat is unbalanced in and of itself. If that character tries to do anything other than their one big thing, they're going to be pretty lousy at it. Of course, in a well-balanced party that's okay - the other characters pick up the slack in those other areas. I still feel judgmental toward those optimized characters despite myself, though.

Anyway, I feel like I've gotten some useful perspectives on this question now. In the end it's largely a question of putting the right groups together. If you've got an optimizer, make sure they're in a group with other optimizers. If you've got players who don't focus on building optimized characters, make sure they're in a group with one another. Mixing them... well, it's probably best not to if it can be avoided.

As for me, I'll adapt to my group. If I'm playing with optimizers, I'll join them in the min-maxing. If not, I'll play to the style I prefer. Unfortunately, I know that I'll be in some mixed groups, and I'll muddle through as best I can.

 

[Vespucci]

If I use pokemount to describe a paladin's mount in 3e, it hardly means that I am prejudiced either against the 3e paladin's mount or those who enjoy them.

That's not an instance of the position you were attacking. Please try harder.

See, I actually find this line of reasoning prejudiced. You are judging without (prior to) knowledge what is meant, and/or you are applying a characteristics of a perceived group to individuals/individual actions without (prior to) actual knowledge.

In the future, just write, "I know you are, but what am I?"

Everyone affecting a scandalized tone and saying, "Oh, I don't mean anything bad by that," can look back on a long history of people making the same move with terms of abuse.

[sblock=the most inflammatory example]Just saying, "Well, I don't mean anything bad by '', or 'gook'," doesn't stop them being pejoratives. Of course, now someone is going to come out and say "That's not the same thing!" without providing any substantial argument...[/sblock]

 

[Raven Crowking]

That's not an instance of the position you were attacking. Please try harder.

Okay, then. Railroader. That's a bad term in my book.

When I say it, I am definitely not going to affect a scandalized tone and say, "Oh, I don't mean anything bad by that."

I am not "prejudiced" about railroading, because I am not "pre-judging" anything. I am being judicious about railroading. And, if you like it, and can find players who like it, you can run your game however you like. But I still will not think it good (barring extraordinary circumstances which I have yet to encounter).

Likewise, munchkin. In my books, a munchkin is not someone making an effective character, but someone who goes overboard with optimization. If you like it, that's fine, but in my book that's not a good thing. Again, that's based on observation of the effect on gaming, not "pre-judging" anything.

You can be my friend, and be a railroader or a munchkin, but you cannot play in a game I am in (again, barring extraordinary circumstances which I have yet to encounter) and either railroad as a GM or be a munchkin as a player. No thank you.

And it is not abuse to say so, in my book. At all.

But, to be honest, I do find claiming that this is similar to actual abusive situations or statements to be somewhat offensive. Disliking railroading is not akin to being a racist. Nor is it anything to feel guilty about.

Just....No.


RC

 

[Jhaelen]

Power gamer is a pejorative term for optimizer.

Funny, for me it's the opposite: I tend to use 'Optimizer' (or rather 'COBoard guy/gal') as a pejorative and consider 'Power gamer' a neutral term