Being non-judgmental about play styles

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

I personally prefer a variety of playing styles at the table. When everyone is an optimizer, or everyone is a role player, that is when I (at least as a GM) have a little less fun running the game.

I've found opening myself up to other playing styles has increased my enjoyment of the game. My tendancy is toward RP heavy games, but I can enjoy a game that is more focused on builds. As a GM, I am happy running a range of styles.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I personally prefer a variety of playing styles at the table. When everyone is an optimizer, or everyone is a role player, that is when I (at least as a GM) have a little less fun running the game.

I've found opening myself up to other playing styles has increased my enjoyment of the game. My tendancy is toward RP heavy games, but I can enjoy a game that is more focused on builds. As a GM, I am happy running a range of styles.

I didn't say "Everyone must be Style X".....I meant to imply that it is up to the players to determine how their style fits in.

I run the NPCs. I run the world. But I do not babysit the players.


RC
 

I didn't say "Everyone must be Style X".....I meant to imply that it is up to the players to determine how their style fits in.

I run the NPCs. I run the world. But I do not babysit the players.


RC

I hear what you are saying, and think you raise a good point about baby sitting. For myself, I do expect the GM to help juggle different peoples' expectations in a game. That has its limits of course. I am not talking about catering to problem personalities or giving drama queens a platform. I've just found with a flexible GM seemingly opposing styles can play side by side without much difficulty.

But at the end of the day you are right, if you aren't having fun, and the groups you are in isn't a good fit, better to find people who fit your personality more.
 

@DumbPaladin and @Bedrockgames - Thank you for chiming in with your thoughts on the original question. I particularly find DumbPaladin's comments to be fascinating. If I'm reading them right, he's saying that he thinks power gamers are BAD and should be shunned, just like dog beaters, etc. Wow. That's harsh. That's not the way I feel, but I still I appreciate the perspective, and I appreciate the thought of, "If you really want to learn to accept these horrible people, try interviewing a bunch of them." I don't think they're horrible, I just look down on them, and I'd like to not look down on them.

As to Bedrockgames's comment about trying to get a feel for the table as a whole and get the group to come to a consensus on "we are power gamers here" or "we are not power gamers here" I think that's a good approach in the big picture, but not always possible on a particular day. For an ongoing campaign, a player can choose to adapt or find another game if the rest of the table is very different from them; it's not going to be easy to do that at a public play game, but that's okay since those are one and done.

And to those on the thread who have chimed in to say "Here's why power gaming is right," I appreciate the input. It might help me become more accepting, even if it's not quite what I was looking for. And please try to keep in mind that not everyone sees things the way you do - not everyone feels that if you're NOT power gaming, you're "doing it wrong".

@Neonchameleon, I see things differently than you do, but I appreciate your perspective all the same. I think you're saying that tweaking a PC's stats to the max is not cool in your perspective, since it's not something the PC can control, but tweaking things like feats and powers and spells and gear is cool because the PC can control it and the PC as a "real character" would WANT every advantage they can get that's within their control.

To which I say yes, but the PC doesn't have the source books to browse through hundreds of feats and powers and spells necessarily, nor do they know about all of the possible equipment that exists in their mysterious world and therefore spend their time seeking out the right bazaar to get the Uber-Sword of Iwreckyou. An in-character way of power gaming would be for the PC to realize, "Wow, I really had a hard time when I fought that dragon; I'd really like to focus on fighting better against flying foes so that if I run into another dragon I'll be ready." And then the PC decides to spend his down time learning a feat to get an advantage against flying creatures or a better ranged weapon or a spell that's effective against dragons or something like that. The PC would NOT spend time getting a bizarre pair of feats that break the action economy in some completely non-intuitive way or something like that; that's not role-playing, even if it may be maximizing the PC's effectiveness. How the heck would the PC know about those possibilities?

I can't say, "All feat choices and power choices and spell choices and equipment choices are fine to maximize combat prowess because they're under the PC's control." That may be technically true, but it may strain the bounds of plausibility (given that we're already talking about a fantasy game here). That's meta-knowledge on the part of the player, and that's what I'm trying to learn to be more accepting of.
 

If it is just a matter of accepting them, and not really about altering the balance at your gaming table (if I am reading you correctly), then simply recognizing people game for different reasons is probably the way to go. I used to resent powergamers, but then I realized many of them just really liked the process of creating powerful characters (in the mechanical sense), and others enjoyed the challenge of examining a game system and getting the most bang out of it possible. There isn't anything inherently wrong with wanting to play a powerful character, or seeing the system itself as a challenge. Where it becomes a problem for me, isn't the optimization itself, but if someone does so and repeatedly, knowingly, ruins the fun of others in the group (or even rubs their noses in it)---when the person is the only one at the table who thinks he is involved in a contest of some kind.
 

The full post has more (and feel free to comment over there if you like), but in a nutshell I find myself being judgmental toward power gamers, and I don't like that tendency in myself. I'd like to be more accepting of people who play games differently than I do, and I'm not sure how to do that.

It's perfectly normal to have tastes, opinions, positions, judgements, preferences that define what you like and don't like. By default, you approve of what you like and disapprove of what you don't like.

So, don't feel bad about that tendency in yourself.

Problems arise when your force your opinion on others. That's where you should guard yourself.

It's good to have standards. And, it's perfectly normal to have an opinion of distaste when considering others who do not meet those standards.

Just refrain from enforcing others to abide by your standards.
 

I hear what you are saying, and think you raise a good point about baby sitting. For myself, I do expect the GM to help juggle different peoples' expectations in a game. That has its limits of course. I am not talking about catering to problem personalities or giving drama queens a platform. I've just found with a flexible GM seemingly opposing styles can play side by side without much difficulty.

But at the end of the day you are right, if you aren't having fun, and the groups you are in isn't a good fit, better to find people who fit your personality more.

Don't get me wrong. If people need helpful suggestions, as a friend, I'll be more than happy to oblige. But, at the end of the day, they need to work it out themselves.

My partner runs a home daycare (and she is very good at it, IMHO). I run games. I hope to be half as good at it; but my games are not a daycare!


RC
 
Last edited:

@DumbPaladin and @Bedrockgames - Thank you for chiming in with your thoughts on the original question. I particularly find DumbPaladin's comments to be fascinating. If I'm reading them right, he's saying that he thinks power gamers are BAD and should be shunned, just like dog beaters, etc. Wow. That's harsh. That's not the way I feel, but I still I appreciate the perspective, and I appreciate the thought of, "If you really want to learn to accept these horrible people, try interviewing a bunch of them."


I am pretty much saying exactly that. Someone else mentioned, with a sad face, the mentality of players that want to "win" D&D -- a solo win in a cooperative game. The only way you can win a team game WITHOUT everyone winning equally is at the expense of the team.

I do believe, from lots of reading and personal experience, that powergamers are exactly this kind of person. They can be very destructive to a healthy group that wants to work together, because they want to stand out from the crowd and dominate anything and everything the DM puts before them.

I reiterate the "interview a bunch of them" comment, which was the best part of my post, because it's simple logic. You can't understand people without knowing those people. Talk to them, find out what makes them tick, what they enjoy about a game, what they care about & don't care about, and how they view the relationship between DM and player.

That'll probably give you your answer as to how to not look down on them.
 

Well, I've read through the entire thread(even the tangents), and I feel I can add something. You want to learn to be more accepting of other playstyles. One poster suggested getting to the heart of why it bugs you, which isn't a bad idea at all, but I'm going to back up the idea of learning to understand the Optimizer mindset. I find that when you find out why people do things, even put yourself in their shoes for a minute, it really helps the empathy.

To that end, I will ruminate a bit about my own playstyle, why I play the way I play, and what I get out of it. Those not interested in such a read can pretty safely skip the rest of my post.

Firstly, I identify as both a Roleplayer, and an Optimizer. I'm kind of a perfectionist about character creation. This will be important, later. I won't put a character into play until I can be proud about him(or her) in all aspects. I won't be satisfied with the RP until I can see my character perfectly in my head. I need to know how they talk, how they walk, how they hold themselves. I need to know how they act and why. Their personal history needs to be compelling, with hooks to lead into the campaign, and I need at least a few good ideas on where they might end up, as a person.

It seems natural to me to be just as exacting when it comes to the mechanics. If I care about the character, why would I let them be poorly represented by their own sheet? The mechanics are the medium by which a character is projected into the game. Just as I would prefer to watch a good movie on the big screen, instead of a crappy 12-inch with a broken color shader, I want the vivid ideas in my head to be well represented in the medium of rules. I want the character to have strong defenses, a decent skill selection, and as much punch as I pack into a power selection. Sometimes I do two, three different stat arrays, weighing the pros and cons of each before settling on one.

But why strive to 'win'? This is a cooperative game! Well, yeah, it is. And I try not to ruin anyone else's fun with my fun. At the same time, you can totally win a cooperative game without having the other players lose. When the whole party overcomes a challenge together, it can be friggin' great! And plunking a 14 in my primary stat doesn't do a hell of a lot to get us there. Also, winning isn't just a final outcome, it's a few dozen little moments each session. When I pick up a d20, I get a little thrill. I move my mini, I start to describe my action, and toss the die. When it comes up in my favor, I get the flush of victory. I go on to describe the action with a twinkle in my eye. When I lift my blade to protect the innocent from the forces of evil, and I roll a 3, it's a letdown. I optimize in pursuit of the flush of victory. The same principle applies in any mechanical area. When an attack is leveled against me, and the Dm asks whether a 19 hits my AC, I want to confidently reply that it does not, not to reluctantly admit that I am taking 9 damage.


Also, Optimization does not have to be only about combat. It's about having a goal, and reaching that goal. I remember one campaign where we ended up having two Barbarians at the table. One was mine, the other belonged to a casual gamer who hadn't had time or inclination to make a very powerful character. Usually, in 4e(the game we were playing), it's not that hard to mix a more and less optimized character in circumstances just like this, but with us both being the same class, any disparity was gonna be obvious. So I took a sharp turn and optimized for maximum distance traveled possible in a single turn. I think I got to about 42 squares. It was still fun to do and talk about, but came up a lot less often(I never actually had a chance to go all out) in game. It took a lot of pressure off the situation.

An odd interaction I've noticed is that sometimes Optimizing helps my Roleplay. It does this by getting me to consider combinations that aren't always obvious and that break away from my normal style. For example, I've been working on a Revenant Fey Hexblade concept recently. Now, I usually don't play undead characters, but the Revenant has the mechanics I like best. It led me to ask myself the question, "But why would a dead guy have made a pact with a Fey Lord?" I won't go into any more detail here, but suffice to say, I found the act of answering the question to break me out of my "type" and I found the answer to the question fascinating. And that wouldn't have happened if I just played him as a suboptimal race.
 

I am pretty much saying exactly that. Someone else mentioned, with a sad face, the mentality of players that want to "win" D&D -- a solo win in a cooperative game. The only way you can win a team game WITHOUT everyone winning equally is at the expense of the team.

I do believe, from lots of reading and personal experience, that powergamers are exactly this kind of person. They can be very destructive to a healthy group that wants to work together, because they want to stand out from the crowd and dominate anything and everything the DM puts before them.

I reiterate the "interview a bunch of them" comment, which was the best part of my post, because it's simple logic. You can't understand people without knowing those people. Talk to them, find out what makes them tick, what they enjoy about a game, what they care about & don't care about, and how they view the relationship between DM and player.

That'll probably give you your answer as to how to not look down on them.

I really think you are painting with a pretty broad brush here. I play with some powergamers and they are not into winning, they are into role playing, they don't suck the fun out of the table at all. They just like to have characters that excel at what they are supposed to do. I have found that they are the ones to ask when you need help with a build to make it playable.


It sounds to me that you are not playing with powergamers but munchkins.

To be honest I would rather play with powergamers than lame ducks any day of the weak. I am so over playing with people who make a "role playing" decision to put their lowest stat in their prime attribute. Save me from bards with charisma of 8 , wizards with intelligence of 10 , fighters with an 8 in constitution.

Lame ducks force the rest of the party to pick up their slack and can do as much damage to the fun at the table as a munchkin.
 

Remove ads

Top