Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Kabouter Games" data-source="post: 6705847" data-attributes="member: 6788812">I have accidentally become the powergamer at my current table, and I feel like a twerp for it. I'm the only one who multi-classed or took feats. My Shadow Monk Assassin is walking all over the combat. Yeah, it's kind of cool to be able to "bamf" in and out of combat and deal ridiculous amounts of damage. But it makes me feel...dirty. As though I'm taking away the spotlight from the others.This is my first foray into character optimization. It works. It works astoundingly well. This little Halfling is a complete ass-beater who deals damage and doesn't take any, who can deflect missiles and dodge AOEs. If I was part of a table where each PC was optimized, I wouldn't feel so grungy. But I do. I feel like "that guy," the one who has an untouchable ass-beater, who can't help but steal the spotlight, because he does. That's not cool. So I'm going to stop playing that character and see if I can't muck about with the new Ranger playtest.I've been playing RPGs for 30 of my 42 years on this planet. I have never seen an example of a table accommodating a min-maxer which didn't end in nobody having fun but the optimizer. While I acknowledge that anecdotes aren't evidence, I've seen enough examples of this phenomenon - and now I've experienced it as an optimizer myself - that I cannot condone the practice. When you drill down through all the excuses, justifications, and apologetica, invariably the practice can be put down to two root drives in a player: 1. a desire to exploit rules loopholes to demonstrate cleverness; or 2. a desire to dominate the table by making a "better" or "best" build. Me, I fell into the first category. While I had no desire to exploit the rules, per se, I did seek intricate ways to get what I wanted from the rules which can only be called meta-gaming. Creating a kick-ass character became more important than what that character could bring to the team. (Other than kicking ass, of course.)RPGs like D&D are an effort in collaborative storytelling. When a player deliberately engages in practices which will set his character significantly apart from - or, worse, above - the group, collaboration withers. The other characters will inevitably find themselves mere spear-carriers for the super-toon. Who has fun doing that?I dig the calls for "everybody deserves to have a good time" in defense of min-maxers. I really do. But it's simply not practical. For one thing, why should any player be more entitled to an enjoyable game than any other? Especially if their behavior is disruptive? Is that fair to ask of the other players? People like to say "everyone should have a good time." However, practically speaking, that's incredibly rare even at the best of times. It's damn near impossible in the face of disruptive player behavior. While I hate to stamp on anyone's good time, as a DM it's incumbent on me to assure that, at my table, as many people as possible have a good time. That goes for the deliberate gimpers as well as the munchkins.There's the main difference in opinion - "everybody deserves to have a good time" is an excellent goal at which to aim. We need to be content with "as many people as possible have a good time." The trick is to find that happy medium, accommodating as many play-styles as possible. I find that discussions of expectations before the first die is rolled to be the best method of avoiding disputes.I will still engage in character optimization threads, because it's an enjoyable exercise. But I will no longer bring such a character to a table unless I know that table is populated by others doing the same thing.Cheers,Bob</blockquote>

Verification