Being non-judgmental about play styles

[Balesir]

To the OP I have two (hopefully) useful points:

1) You are showing signs of tolerance; tolerance is good. To be clear, we are tolerant of things we disagree with; you can't be tolerant of something you agree with - that would be stupid

2) I don't know if you have ever read the "gaming agenda" stuff on The Forge. Some folk loathe the Forge - but for me it opened my eyes in pretty much the way you seem to desire for yourself. It explained to me what it is that various gamers are seeking from a game; where they are getting their "buzz". It also enabled me to selectively go for different "buzzes" in different games, and enjoy all of them. The specific article on "Gamism" and its attractions you can find here. The general index of articles is here. Reading the articles fully is something of a labour, but I found it worthwhile, in the end, and I hope you may, too.

And, on a different tack...

Yes, I know that's the way you approach this question. That's what I meant when I wrote, "I do understand the way you're using the terms, and don't consider it illegitimate". I note that in your reply you've failed to establish how it would be better for me to have used the terms in dispute, rather than "problem player". (i.e. you haven't explained to me how they're helpful terms)

"Better"? Would it be "better" for me to say "cheddar" or "cheese"? Would it be "better" for me to say "problem player" or "munchkin"? Would it be "better" for me to say "message board" or "EN World"? etc., etc., etc.

Vespucci, dude, you are trying to get a non-optimiser to optimise words!?! Saying "this word is a badwrongchoice of pow-, er, word - you would get more dama-, er, meaning out of this one" is not gonna work...

It may be a more optimal word, but it just doesn't fit RC's character concept, see?

 

[Neonchameleon]

I'm going to show the other side of the coin.

If you aren't powergaming in character in D&D unless you have a good reason you aren't roleplaying.

What do I mean by powergaming in character? In character, you do not have control of your attributes. You do not have control of your race. You have ... limited control of your class. But you do have significant control over your items, the contents of your spellbook, and your tactics.

And you are also involved in life and death struggles. To not try to weight the odds of survival in your favour is to declare that you don't care whether you live or die, or that the odds are so stacked in your favour that you have it too easy. And one of the best ways of weighting the odds of survival in your favour is with the best equipment and magic you can get your hands on. (Note that best is subjective - are you going for raw power, cost/benefit ratio, defence, nova potential, or what?) And getting the best spell book you can or equipment best suited to you, and using it to render the enemy dead or otherwise irrelevant as effortlessly as possible is absolutely power gaming. It is also roleplaying an adventurer - you can't disentangle the two.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I'm going to show the other side of the coin.

If you aren't powergaming in character in D&D unless you have a good reason you aren't roleplaying.

What do I mean by powergaming in character? In character, you do not have control of your attributes. You do not have control of your race. You have ... limited control of your class. But you do have significant control over your items, the contents of your spellbook, and your tactics.

And you are also involved in life and death struggles. To not try to weight the odds of survival in your favour is to declare that you don't care whether you live or die, or that the odds are so stacked in your favour that you have it too easy. And one of the best ways of weighting the odds of survival in your favour is with the best equipment and magic you can get your hands on. (Note that best is subjective - are you going for raw power, cost/benefit ratio, defence, nova potential, or what?) And getting the best spell book you can or equipment best suited to you, and using it to render the enemy dead or otherwise irrelevant as effortlessly as possible is absolutely power gaming. It is also roleplaying an adventurer - you can't disentangle the two.

They aren't mutually exclusive, and sometimes people mistake making a deliberately weak character for RP, but a roleplaying is about playing the character.

There are a few things going on I think. A role player is going to "optimize" from the point of view of the character (taking into consideration intelligence, preferences, etc). So he won't just pick the best tactics, buffs, weapons, etc from a 3rd person perspective, he will pick the best ones form the character's perspective. He will also keep in mind some people prepare themselves (i.e. go up in levels) suboptimally because of preference. For instance a boxer who just feels more comfortable fighting bull dog style even though he isn't built for it and would be better off with another approach, may continue to train in his spare time the way he is comfortable, rather than the way that will lead to victory in the ring.

I am not saying you need to make a crappy character, or that making a powerful character is bad. But from an RP perspective, the criticism of powergaming is when it puts optimization and power ahead of playing the character believably.

On the other hand you do need some level of system mastery (at least in a game like 3E) to realize cool character concepts if you are a role player. I've seen a lot of great character ideas fall short because the player couldn't make it work mechanically.

There is also the other side of things where people deliberately create uber character concepts, then construct power builds to realize them. Fundamentally they are powergaming I think, but they are also role playing because the character may indeed have depth and be interesting. These aren't mutually exclusive things, but there seems to be a spectrum. And I think you have more fun when you know which of these things is keeping you interested in the game (creating a powerful character, making an interesting character or a mix of both).

As an example I had a player who loved builds, and used character concepts as an excuse for builds (his own words, not mine). It took him a while to realize this. And it wasn't until he did, and until he vocalized it, that I could make the campaign suit his needs more.

As a GM, I don't mind running a game for role players or powergamers. I kind of like creating my own builds to match what the PCs are doing if they are powergaming, but I also love character focused role play with little to no combat. Both approaches can be fun, and I think there is a definite range with considerable overlap in between.

 

[DumbPaladin]

I'd like to steer the thread back on topic if possible. My question is, do you have any advice for me on how to personally become more ACCEPTING of optimizers or whatever term you prefer for this type of player?

No, sorry. I think the reason you've gotten the responses you have is because the question you're asking is extremely hard to answer. Switch "optimizers" with something else -- say, "dog beaters" or "really nasty gossips". Could you advise someone on how to be more ACCEPTING of dog beaters? Would you ever endorse this?

Some of us, like me, can't offer any help, because I don't think you SHOULD be more accepting of power gamers. They often aren't very easy, or enjoyable, people to game with.

I WANT to be accepting of this type of player, but it's a struggle for me. Is the conclusion just, "Dude, you don't like optimizers. Accept it. Try to avoid playing with them if they make the game less fun for you." Is that all I can do? I'd like to do better.

You really should accept it. If it's a bigotry, then it is, but it's one you acknowledge and can eventually learn to accept. I don't personally think it is a bigotry, since "power gamers" are not a creed, religion, race, gender, or anything else inimical; it's a choice to outshine other players in a cooperative game.

If you are absolutely dead set on figuring out how to coexist with power gamers, then I recommend you talk to 5 or 6 of them, interview them, ask them why they do what they do, and try, SOMEHOW, to find some positives in their behavior, and focus on those things alone.

--D.P.

 

[S'mon]

"power gamers" are not a creed, religion, race, gender, or anything else inimical

I think you mean 'inherent' not 'inimical'. At least I hope so...

 

[Vespucci]

I think that's a tip-off that the posting was meant in jest. See also the claim that optimization is not a creed. The final paragraph looks mostly serious, though: rather than asking other enlightened non-optimizers how to put up with optimizers, it is probably better to talk to one's fellow players about their preferred play style and what they enjoy about it.

YMMV.

 

[DumbPaladin]

I think you mean 'inherent' not 'inimical'. At least I hope so...

You're right. I shouldn't write posts at 3-something AM. Vocabulary department has gone to bed.

 

[Bedrockgames]

No, sorry. I think the reason you've gotten the responses you have is because the question you're asking is extremely hard to answer. Switch "optimizers" with something else -- say, "dog beaters" or "really nasty gossips". Could you advise someone on how to be more ACCEPTING of dog beaters? Would you ever endorse this?

Some of us, like me, can't offer any help, because I don't think you SHOULD be more accepting of power gamers. They often aren't very easy, or enjoyable, people to game with.

I think it is a two-way street. You are bound to have different types of gamers at any table to varying degrees. If you have an optimizer who is bothering the other players by unbalancing the game, I would suggest talking to that person and explaining that the group isn't into builds, and are bothered by his overly-optimized characters. I've had this happen in my games before, and usually a simple discussion has been enough to fix the problem.

This goes the other way though, if you have 3 optimizers and one player who is more into another style of play, do you ask the 3 optimizers to change or do you talk with the non-optimizer, explaining the group's style and maybe giving him a hand with builds (really optimizing these days involves little more than visiting optimization boards).

My approach as a GM has been to feel out the style of the gamers and find a way to make it work so everyone has fun. If you have a player who won't change his behavior (whether it be an optimizer who hogs the combat spotlight, or a dramaqueen who hogs the RPG spotlight), that can be a serious problem, and you should address it.

 

[Raven Crowking]

if you have 3 optimizers and one player who is more into another style of play, do you ask the 3 optimizers to change or do you talk with the non-optimizer, explaining the group's style and maybe giving him a hand with builds (really optimizing these days involves little more than visiting optimization boards).

I run games I would enjoy playing in, for people who I enjoy running those games for.

If, as a player, you don't enjoy the game, you should seek another. Over the years, obviously, more than one player has. And, over the years, that has never meant that I couldn't be friends with anyone.

OTOH, I've never been at a loss for players, either.

From where I'm sitting, the moral of the story is clear: Run games you would enjoy playing in, for people who you enjoy running those games for. Anything else, and you're not bringing your best game to the table.

IME. IMHO. YMMV. All that good stuff.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

You're right. I shouldn't write posts at 3-something AM. Vocabulary department has gone to bed.

You also made the mistake of XPing me in the wee hours. Next time, get some more sleep!