Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="WizarDru" data-source="post: 3368913" data-attributes="member: 151">There are different issues at work here, some of which may be solvable problems and some of which may not.  The solution depends on the how the DM and the players interact, and what each group is willing to accept.An issue that the original poster has not actually stated but that I suspect is that the powergamer is consuming an inordinate amount of time with "Mother May I"s and specific rules requests and investigations in general.  This originates in a difference in play-style and enjoyed game-type.  It's quite possible that the player in question is much more concerned with the game as a tactical simulation while the DM is more concerned with the actual flow of play and views the game as more of an interactive adventure.  The conflict comes from the differing expectations on both sides.I had a similar situation.  One of my former players was such a player.  He spent a large amount of my time asking for specific rules, prestige classes, magic items and options.  An inordinately larger amount than the other players...which began to become an issue for me, as the DM.  I was spending more and more time (as we advanced in levels) focusing on that player and his character that I was spending less time on the other players and the game itself....to less perceived benefit on my part.Throwing multi-level encounters or scaling encounters to meet the powergamer's level is, in effect, telling the other players that their contributions are less significant and that the powergamer dictates the form and level of play.  It creates more work for the DM and can backfire terribly when one of the non-powergamer characters falls to an overpowered encounter that was ratcheted up solely to keep it challenging for the powergamer.  On the other hand, the powergamer will become bored by interactions that don't interest him or combats that are far less challenging because of the DM's choice to not powergame.Some of the suggestions here are tantamount to saying "If he powergames, you just powergame right back!", which to me isn't a valid strategy or choice.  It creates a cold war with repressed feelings and continual stake risings that will sweep the entire game up in it's clutches.  The other big reaction is "If he's powergaming, take the options away from everyone!", which in effect punishes the other players for not being as good at builds by removing their choices due to his actions.How do you resolve such a problem?  That really depends on the players and the DM and their preferences.  It's a truism that if the DM isn't having fun, eventually neither will the players.  Punishing the player isn't the answer, though.  The real question is this: how do the other players perceive the issue and how do you feel about it?  Do they find it frustrating that they can never be the hero of a combat because the powergamer is dominating...or do they not care, because they dominate during the RP portions or non-combat dungeon activities?Identify the real, core issues:  if you simply don't like his playstyle, then you may eventually reach an impasse.  If you can reach a compromise position, then that's good...but be honest in your reasons and choices.  If a player isn't enjoying the parts you enjoy strongly enough, then he'll realize it when you start tailoring the game to thwart him...and then no one is having fun and the game is effectively dead.In my case, I began tailoring combats to be difficult for the most serious powergamer in the group.  This had a lot of negative effects: characters who were more optimized for non-combat interactions felt neutered...more powerful creatures had higher SR, hit points, better saves and so forth.  The powergamer didn't feel any more satisfied than earlier...but now detected the resentment that came from his playstyle dictating the playstyle for others.  We were (and remain) friends and that wasn't good for any of us.  Restricting options just for him would merely have led to a (correct) appearance of favoritism.  Restricting options for everyone didn't make anyone happy.  And since most of his powergaming came from finding loopholes in the core in the first place, this was barely a patch.We eventually all agreed that he simply wasn't interested in playing the same game we were and he stopped attending that game, eventually ending up with a different group with a similar playstyle.  Both groups benefited from this move, however drastic it may appear.  I'm not suggesting you need to do this, but you and the players need to come to an accord concerning the issue before it becomes more significant than the game itself, IMHO.</blockquote>

Verification