Being non-judgmental about play styles

[Bedrockgames]

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.

I think you hit something key here. It isn't so much the style as the gamer. I think rules lawyers, powergamers, role players, tacticians, can all get along fine together. The issue is when you have an a (excuse my language) A Hole powergamer or an A hole role player or an A hole rules lawyer. People who not only take their style to the extreme, but don't care how their playing effects other people and who don't make much room for other styles of play.

I've had fun with all different types of gamers. And my earliest experiences with D&D were with pretty mixed groups of people. Rather than the min/maxer, the rules lawyer and the role player getting in each others way, they were complimentary.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Neonchameleon[/URL], 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.

Correction: Tweaking a PC's stats to the max is something that's campaign specific.

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.

No. They don't have the sourcebooks. They simply live in the world, know the legendds to a better extent than we do, and know their life depends on getting things right. That gives them far more motivation than you or I ever have - and things can be tested.

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?

Feats I can count the way I count stats. Part of the inherent nature of the character and therefore outside the bounds of optimisation.

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). Sorcerors have fixed spells and so needn't min/max. They may have developed whatever they have in the same way you're stuck with your stats.

Unfortunately this means that two of the top tier classes (Wizards and Artificers) get to choose the most powergamable parts of their character (the spell list and the items) and both have high intelligence and a very good knowledge of their field. And getting the spell choices right really is a matter of life and death (sometimes more) so they have all the incentive in the world to get it right. This, more than anything else, is why IMO Vancian Magic needed to die. It meant that if you weren't twinking out your spellbook you needed a lot of justification as to why you were playing in character.

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.

And I can't say all are OK. But I can say that D&D warriors depend on their weapons and armour every bit as much as a sniper depends on his sniper rifle. They are not just aware of the difference between a +1 and +2 sword, but in many cases are able to discuss the difference between a +1 sword enchanted by an Abjurer and one enchanted by an Evoker - they are certainly able to go far finer grained than the game has mechanics for if there is any sort of wide scale creation of magic items.

 

[Bedrockgames]

My guess isn't that people who object to powergaming object to characters making optimal choices. They object to:

1) Characters making optimal choices that require metagaming knowledge
2) Optimal choices that are clearly unintentional accidents of the mechanics (i.e. the designers never meant A and B to produce Y, but didn't forsee the combination)
3) Optimizers who compete too aggressively with other players and only see the merit in their own playstyle.

I am not arguing that this is at all the case with powergamers (as my previous post states), but in my experience when people complain about powergamers, this is generally what they mean.

 

[Bedrockgames]

No. They don't have the sourcebooks. They simply live in the world, know the legendds to a better extent than we do, and know their life depends on getting things right. That gives them far more motivation than you or I ever have - and things can be tested.

.

I think what you say makes sense, but I also think there is an important piece people often overlook. I like to use a boxer analogy here since I think it partly supports what you are saying but also sheds more shades of gray on the subject.

A boxer trains to win. And he is going to "take feats" and take "skills" that help him toward that end. However he is also a real person, and he can make serious miscalculations about what training is best, can surround himself with trainers that give him bad advice, etc. He can also move his style in a direction that is very good in some conditions but not great in others. A boxer can also rely too much on his strength (because it has helped him win easily in the past) without focusing on other aspects of his game that need work (think George Foreman in the 1970s---power hitter, but he never really developed his jab or footwork until comeback decades later).

 

[OnlineDM]

Thanks for the follow-up posts, all. I've definitely been thinking about this issue a lot lately, and I feel like I'm making progress.

To be clear, it's definitely about the power gamer play style for me and not about the individual player. The main power gamer I interact with is an awesome guy and I really enjoy hanging out with him, even gaming with him. I've just found myself rolling my eyes (privately) at his tweaked-out-for-maximum-combat-effectiveness characters. There's no real character to them, just a combination of powers and stat choices and feats that result in ultimate destruction to bad guys.

Yes, I get that this makes sense in-character; if the character were a real person whose job was going into dangerous dungeons and fighting horrible monsters, of COURSE he would want to make sure he was as effective as possible at killing those monsters without getting killed himself! It's just boring to me.

[MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION] hit two points that I think are dead-on. I disapprove of characters making choices that require metagame knowledge, and I disapprove of characters making choices of mechanics that are clearly weird corner cases of the rules that technically work in a powerful way but that weren't "intended" to work together in that way. If the player has to say, "Technically, this works..." then it's probably a choice I'm going to sigh about. The third point about optimizers being overly aggressive about "their play style is the only way" hasn't been a problem for me, but I can see how it could come up depending on the player.

Ultimately, I think I've come to understand the power gamer mindset a little better, and I've come to understand where my own negative feelings toward the power gamer come from. So, mission mostly accomplished! I do still feel (rightly so, I think) that balanced-power parties are ideal. Power gamers should play with other power gamers, and mixing power gamers with players who have different focuses but who still care about being effective in combat is not going to work well. But I can at least respect power gamers a little more now, even if I think they should mostly play amongst themselves rather than at the same table as non-power gamers.

 

[Bedrockgames]

@Bedrockgames hit two points that I think are dead-on. I disapprove of characters making choices that require metagame knowledge, and I disapprove of characters making choices of mechanics that are clearly weird corner cases of the rules that technically work in a powerful way but that weren't "intended" to work together in that way. If the player has to say, "Technically, this works..." then it's probably a choice I'm going to sigh about. The third point about optimizers being overly aggressive about "their play style is the only way" hasn't been a problem for me, but I can see how it could come up depending on the player.
s.

If this is the case, your best bet may simply be to implement a rule against metagaming during character creation and reserve the authority to veto broken rules combinations (if a character takes a feat and combines it with a class power that clearly weren't meant to produce the result they do produce).

It sounds like the power gamer in question is a reasonable guy. So it may even be worth explaining the issue to him. Or encourage him to try out other approaches to character creation.

I did have a campaign where the mix of powergamers and other styles became an issue. But once I set up some groundrules to muffle the effects of powergaming (really doing little more than eliminating broken rules combos and limiting the number of optional prestige classes and feats available--you don't have to allow every splat book entry into your campaign), things worked out pretty well. The real problem is some players were breaking the system and others were not, so we had some lopsided power levels.

 

[OnlineDM]

I do exactly this when I'm the DM, and it works great. I'm talking about situations where I'm a player in a game where another player is a power gamer and the DM doesn't care. There, I need to learn to be more tolerant (because I do want to play with these people if I can make it fun). And I think I'm getting better.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I do exactly this when I'm the DM, and it works great. I'm talking about situations where I'm a player in a game where another player is a power gamer and the DM doesn't care. There, I need to learn to be more tolerant (because I do want to play with these people if I can make it fun). And I think I'm getting better.

I see, in that case I think it probably requires some flexibility and open-mindedness. First, how many people in the group are powergamers? (i believe you said there was just one, but I want to make sure). If its just this one guy, then he is kind of the odd man out and, I am guessing, there is a good chance he senses that even if he doesn't show it. Maybe try talking with him about his playstyle. See if it is a matter of him preferring optimization or simply not knowing how to approach the game differently (I wouldn't present it as an issue. I would be diplomatic and just talk generally about playstyles and what you both get out of the game).

If there are more powergamers in the group, you might want to consider giving powergaming a shot yourself (that is if the group is primarily a powergaming group). There was a time when I would never consider making a power build. But I've been in groups where that is what everyone did, and when I tried my hand at it, my enjoyment in those games increased. Even if you don't end up doing this in the campaign, it is worth trying your hand at powergaming so you can appreciate what this other players is trying to do.

This doesn't mean you are changing your fundamental playstyle for every game you ever play in. It just means adjusting to the style of the group.

One other thing to think about, and I do think this has already come up, but I'll say it again just in case. Really think about why you currently aren't having as much fun with the powergaming group. Is the balance issue? The competetiveness? Lack of enthusiasm for system mastery? etc. I think if you can identify the thing that makes your enjoyment of the game smaller when playing with these optimizers, you'll have an easier time with this.

 

[Oryan77]

As a DM, I refuse to play with a powergamer or anyone that chooses to make my job as a DM harder than it needs to be. I also won't DM anyone that makes a mockery of the game.

As a player, I'm a lot more tolerant. I don't mind playing with a powergamer. I don't even get jealous if they are outshining me in combat. Sometimes it is fun watching the other players totally destroying things. I just do what I can to help.

As a player, I also don't care if someone is acting like an idiot in an attempt to be funny. If the DM is ok to have his game treated like a joke, then I know what type of game it is and I don't mind adjusting to it. Hell, I might even join in on the slapstick fun.

I just enjoy the roleplaying part when I'm playing. So as long as I'm able to roleplay my PC, I'm not bothered by what other players are doing. Sometimes it's fun to force a powergamer that doesn't roleplay to roleplay with my PC. That alone can be pretty entertaining every once in a while.

 

[Neonchameleon]

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!

Absolutely. And once more on the striving to win issue, in character of course I strive to win. What we are facing is dangerous and losing means death. If I'm roleplaying even a game of Fiasco or Paranoia, my PC is striving to win. I might not care at a meta-level whether he (or she) wins - the game itself is fun (and winning at Fiasco is a challenge). But he or she certainly cares.

Also, Optimization does not have to be only about combat. It's about having a goal, and reaching that goal.
...
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.

Absolutely. I'd go further. Optimisation is about mechanically realising your character concept as accurately as possible. And it can provide a lot of support for your background and a lot of help win making the way your character finally works out match his or her background.

To be clear, it's definitely about the power gamer play style for me and not about the individual player. The main power gamer I interact with is an awesome guy and I really enjoy hanging out with him, even gaming with him. I've just found myself rolling my eyes (privately) at his tweaked-out-for-maximum-combat-effectiveness characters. There's no real character to them, just a combination of powers and stat choices and feats that result in ultimate destruction to bad guys.

Try investigating something. Ask him to play a character class/combination you know to be sub par (Assassin comes to mind in 4e - and non-hybrid assassin at that). See if he says no or whether instead he takes it as a challenge. Making a character who is for some reason sub-par feels as if I've done a sloppy job and isn't something I like to do. Making a character who is built as well as he can be towards a certain end (utterly insane maneuverability for my monk springs to mind) or starts off as a commonly believed to be second rate class and is then built as well as possible (3e Bard, 4e Warlock) allows me to take pride in my work rather than feel as if I've shown up to a game with a half-assed character.

If the player has to say, "Technically, this works..." then it's probably a choice I'm going to sigh about.

Agreed.

So, mission mostly accomplished! I do still feel (rightly so, I think) that balanced-power parties are ideal.

Agreed absolutely. The question is how you reach that happy place - if anything it's easier (in 4e) to have a balanced power party between optimisers than between non-optimisers - the optimisers will all be heading in the same direction whereas the non-optimisers will end up with random power levels.