D&D General DM Says No Powergaming?

[Synthil]

As long as whatever way is chosen has exactly the same mechanical effects? It feels like 4e to me, where making sure you get the effects the rules say trumps any fiction, twisting the world to the crunch.

Yes. I don't see that as rules trumping fiction and more as unshackling them from each other. You can have whatever fiction you like and then apply the rules the most closely approximate that fiction. If anything that puts fiction first. If a player wants to play a warlock more like a sorcerer, a cleric like a white mage or a wizard as a priest, I have no problem with that. Classes are a metafictional thing, not a specific thing in the worlds themselves. That, to me, is less immersion breaking than all gods giving their priests access to the same spells apart from domain spells.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I mean I know it's fun to rag on 4E, but 4E did the best job of any WotC edition of actually explaining how the power sources of various classes worked. For example in 4E, Clerics are given a tiny fragment of the power of the god they follow, and that power isn't on a string, so if the Cleric "goes rogue", they keep it.

Narratively and fictionally this is more detail that we'd seen since 2E (including 5E), and on top of that, it's really great for stories, because you can have "rogue Clerics" misrepresenting gods, who need to be dealt with. You don't have to just be the one in trouble, you could be the one ending trouble. Indeed one of the elements of my campaign was that a number of senior Clerics of Bahamut had broken away and created their own, more warlike church, which was far more successful follower-wise than the "main" church. Of course they had the issue that that because Bahamut wasn't happy with them, they could not create new clerics - so they had to try and indoctrinate/poach/brainwash existing Bahamut Clerics... or even go to darker powers!

Don't you think that's kind of neat? I don't think that's "rules trumps fiction", at least with Clerics. I think that's actually pretty rockin'.

That is a very cool idea, but I don't think its worth that "rules over story" philosophy, which certainly isn't necessary for a story point like that, especially since the idea that even a god can't take back their powers has such far-reaching effects.

 

[overgeeked]

To me, the fiction is far more important than the mechanics. So when people say things like "ignore the fiction and focus on the mechanics" I nope out. Some people play D&D like it's a board game or video game, and that's fine for them. But I have zero interest in that. For me, the fiction is the point of the thing. Without it, there's no point playing this game instead of some other. There are hundreds of infinitely better designed games to play if you don't care about the fiction. On the flip side, if you care about the fiction there are hundreds of infinitely better designed game to play.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I would be fine with opt-in, but certain character concepts really lend themselves to having these kind of issues.

Sure, but that's why we go with opt-in, because otherwise it's just too much of a "low-hanging fruit" deal where most DMs are going to only harass the "usual suspects" whilst the others get a free pass (mix those metaphors!), mainly due to a lack of imagination on the part of the DMs.

Incidentally, every situation you described is something that has or can happened in a story, so it's not like those things wouldn't make sense, even if the rules don't support that sort of thing.

Absolutely, that's where I'm getting most of it from. In fantasy fiction Fighter-types and Rogue-types fairly often "lose their mojo" to injuries, depression, addiction, grief and so on. Arcane-types often lose their powers for reasons even they don't understand initially (this has been the plot of entire books). Divine types almost never appear in fantasy fiction (not with actual magic powers FROM GAWD anyway - and I can't think of even one with revocable powers), but that's a whole other discussion. But a lot of this would extremely novel to players, and as you say, it's not supported by the rules, and it's not really something people necessarily expect.

That is a very cool idea, but I don't think its worth that "rules over story" philosophy, which certainly isn't necessary for a story point like that, especially since the idea that even a god can't take back their powers has such far-reaching effects.

Oh they can take them back alright. From your cold dead body!

(You could probably also make a ritual so a willing or unwilling subject could have their powers repo'd by their god.)

I don't think it is rules-over-story as much as "create lore that doesn't encourage the idea that DMs should be snatching power from certain PCs".

Classes are a metafictional thing, not a specific thing in the worlds themselves.

So this is the question, are they? And D&D is inconsistent on point in most editions. 4E was the one where classes were least metafictional and most "an actual thing in the world", I think. 5E is more vague on this point.

I think whichever way you go, consistency actually matters here, Emerson noted (he's usually misquoted anyway, it's "foolish consistency" he didn't like, not all consistency). It's kinda dumb if Cleric is an actual class but Fighter is purely metafictional.

Notably the first attempt truly all-round "fix" D&D, and one that prefigured 3E, 4E, and 5E in many important ways was Earthdawn, and one of the key things Earthdawn did was to make sure all the classes were NOT metafictional, but very much real things, part of the world, not just part of how we think about a game.

There are hundreds of infinitely better designed games to play if you don't care about the fiction. On the flip side, if you care about the fiction there are hundreds of infinitely better designed game to play.

So the summary is that there are hundreds of infinitely better designed games than D&D? I mean I can't entirely argue with that...

 

[overgeeked]

So the summary is that there are hundreds of infinitely better designed games than D&D? I mean I can't entirely argue with that...

If people don't care about the fiction and just want a board game or video game experience, those style games would do a better job. If people just want an RPG that's well-balanced and well-designed, there are RPGs that fit the bill like Fabula Ultima...but 5E is neither. If you want more crunch and more options, Pathfinder is right there...5E has less crunch and fewer options. If you want more story and less crunch, Fate, PbtA, 24XX, and hundreds more are right there...5E is not designed as a story forward game. The only thing 5E does better than any of those games is being popular.

 

[Blue]

Again, it’s not a problem for me, but if he says powergamers tend not to share his priorities in the game, how can you say he’s wrong? How can he be “disproven”? He’s not making some absolute claim that powergaming is incompatible with roleplaying—the “YMMV” is right there!

Please read what he actually wrote: "It's because I think power gaming is usually detrimental to running a game that is focused on character and story development, which is my whole thing."

(Bolding mine.)

THAT is a disproved statement. Powergaming is not contrary to running games focused on character or story development.

Sorry, making decisions based on stereotypes, that because someone is X they can not be Y or Z, is a harmful and incorrect opinion.

 

[Nefermandias]

Feats and multiclassing are optional. Just don't give your players that option and you'll never have to fear power gaming ruining your campaign.

 

[MNblockhead]

I could go on. Even a Gunslinger could forget the face of his father

DM: "Finally, after years of adventuring, you have have the warlord who killed your family in your sights."
PLAYER: "I picture the face of my father, realizing my beard is whiter than his was when he was killed, I cock my gun and---"
[record screech]
DM: "Waaait a minute. You never said anything about your father having a beard. You lose your proficiency with firearms and..."
PLAYER: "Just a second. Please wait while I go to the other room for a minute."
...
DM: "Are you opening a safe?"

 

[Vaalingrade]

Feats and multiclassing are optional. Just don't give your players that option and you'll never have to fear power gaming ruining your campaign.

Because that's all they exist for!

Wait, no.

If we want to go this route, better get rid of skills, gear and backgrounds too. Anything that allows character customization and making the character capable of doing what you envision them doing is powergaming after all.

Powergaming is basically just an insult and is worthless as a guideline for players.

 

[Cadence]

I wouldn’t be comfortable with a blanket rule against “powergaming” because that’s too nebulous of a term. I would want to know specifically what was being disallowed.

You see this kind of thing a lot playing Commander in MTG; groups will have some sort of general agreement that “unfair decks” aren’t allowed, but no consensus on what counts as “unfair.” If there are certain cards or combos you want to ban, just ban them!

For groups that regularly play together, it feels like social Commander can be regulated by seeing if you are "winning your fair share". If someone is winning more than half of the four player games (with other competent players they like to play with) they might be aiming too high for the group, and if they never win they might bea iming too low.

Is there something similar about dominating play in DnD too much?

 

[Zardnaar]

Always funny how people rank things. Like monks being terrible. My way of mercy monk in our ToA campaign has been right up there with the rogue in damage, frequently surpassing them. Admittedly that's in part because we're using the new rules from Tasha's where I can use my warhammer and get D10 for most attacks. Add in that we get fairly frequent short rests.

But stunning strike? We've been facing so many brutes and constructs that I rarely use it. We're just about done and it's worked maybe twice? Meanwhile I've saved a few of my fellow PCs with my healing or physician's touch. Since I'm one of the two main front line fighters, along with the moon druid who transform into the biggest beast that will fit wherever we are. My being able to heal myself has been a huge benefit as well.

I'm not saying my experience is universal, but the DM cranked the difficulty up to 11 because we just tore through everything he threw at us, in large part because of a combination of how much damage my monk does in a round along with the moon druid being a great damage soak. The casters in the party almost play a supporting role. The casters are good at different things, but my monk still has plenty of chance to shine out of combat as well. For the most part though we work as a team both in and out of combat. It's not a competition.

Way if Mercy mini got a comparatively high ranking an A iirc.

 

[Zardnaar]

Monks and rangers are the hardest to rate, for two reasons. For both, it’s because there is such a power disparity between subclasses, as a gloomstalker ranger is at least one tier higher than the PHB Beastmaster ranger. (Same thing between the 4 Elements monk and some of the later monks).

The second issue applies only to rangers and has to do with the fact that 3 versions of the ranger have been printed. So power level varies depends on whether you are using the PHB ranger, the Revised Ranger or Tasha’s ranger (and which class you are using for them).

I’m hoping 1D&D settles on a single ranger chassis and a single power level for its subclass.

Tier lists usually rate stuff by subclasses so Gloomstalker ranger will generally get an S while PHB beastmaster is a D.

Bottom 3 classes generally Rogue, Artificer, Monk in no particular order.

 

[MwaO]

5E simply isn't a "rocket tag"-type game, even with a party full of highly-optimized PCs. How do I know this? I've played D&D with a party full of highly-optimized PCs. Like you might want to use more Hard and low-Deadly encounters than with a "normal" group of PCs, but not by much, not to the point that a "normal" group couldn't expect to handle it. There are games where "rocket tag" balancing can be a real issue, but 5E D&D isn't one. I can expand on this if you like.

Sure 5e is a rocket tag game. Most PCs/Monsters by default have 3-4 bad saving throws and at least 2 of the big 3. Casters have access to multi-targeting incapacitate early on and eventually, you get to the point where you can have very high odds of incapacitating an entire encounter with one spell. Unless the DM specifically starts choosing options to not let you do that. This isn't the optimized game. This is the base game. You're a Wizard or a Cleric with access to a huge range of PHB spells.

The optimized game is in part optimized because the players choose ways to reduce the rocket tag options on the DM side and then the DM is forced to choose ways to reduce rocket tag options on the players side. Or there's no game.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Sure 5e is a rocket tag game. Most PCs/Monsters by default have 3-4 bad saving throws and at least 2 of the big 3. Casters have access to multi-targeting incapacitate early on and eventually, you get to the point where you can have very high odds of incapacitating an entire encounter with one spell. Unless the DM specifically starts choosing options to not let you do that. This isn't the optimized game. This is the base game. You're a Wizard or a Cleric with access to a huge range of PHB spells.

The optimized game is in part optimized because the players choose ways to reduce the rocket tag options on the DM side and then the DM is forced to choose ways to reduce rocket tag options on the players side. Or there's no game.

That's not rocket tag by any definition of the term.

Rocket-Tag Gameplay - TV Tropes

When both sides are made up of squishy characters with the means to easily squish the other side, you have a case of Rocket Tag Gameplay. The slightest caress from any weapon in the game will reduce anyone to a fine paste, so the gameplay becomes …

tvtropes.org

What's the origin of the game terminology "Rocket Tag"?

I've seen a lot of people referring to 3.5 recently using the term "Rocket Tag". Specifically, where does this terminology come from, where was this specific terminology named or created, and what

rpg.stackexchange.com

3.XE was arguably that because of all the save-or-die or save-or-suck spells, but there are fewer of those in 5E (especially monster-side), and they're not very reliable, and contrary to what you're suggesting, the players don't have great options for avoiding the stuff that there is. Nor is "optimizing your saving throws to prevent CC from monsters" typically how people see D&D as being optimized.

 

[Mort]

Feats and multiclassing are optional. Just don't give your players that option and you'll never have to fear power gaming ruining your campaign.

Wizard X is still a thing. Feats and multiclassing just slows them down.

 

[tetrasodium]

Sure 5e is a rocket tag game. Most PCs/Monsters by default have 3-4 bad saving throws and at least 2 of the big 3. Casters have access to multi-targeting incapacitate early on and eventually, you get to the point where you can have very high odds of incapacitating an entire encounter with one spell. Unless the DM specifically starts choosing options to not let you do that. This isn't the optimized game. This is the base game. You're a Wizard or a Cleric with access to a huge range of PHB spells.

The optimized game is in part optimized because the players choose ways to reduce the rocket tag options on the DM side and then the DM is forced to choose ways to reduce rocket tag options on the players side. Or there's no game.

You aren't using the term rocket tag quite right, that's just shooting fish in a barrel because you describe a situation where only one side is equipped with a rocket to tag with. Also it's not just casters. The math for the monster subsystem in general, and one off exceptions is designed to crumple like wet tissue to an unoptimized party until the GM is basically invoking rocks fall unless the GM starts homebrewing a whole new monster subsystem. The monsters are not capable of creating a rocket tag situation until they are powerful enough that the party is not capable of inconvieniencing the monsters.

3.x did have the ability to slide into rocket tag, but it also had various tools 5e stripped from the GM like this or this or even this by a different less quotable name plus this stuff & associated hooks spelled out on phb141 table8-2 but those too were torn from 5e. Using those tools the GM could finesse monsters to their group in ways that kept the battle appearing somewhat uncertain even when it was fixed the whole time.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

For groups that regularly play together, it feels like social Commander can be regulated by seeing if you are "winning your fair share". If someone is winning more than half of the four player games (with other competent players they like to play with) they might be aiming too high for the group, and if they never win they might bea iming too low.

Is there something similar about dominating play in DnD too much?

The trouble is there are so many variables with D&D, and perceptions of "dominating" can vary wildly too. Like, a Moon Druid even played slightly competently without any real optimization beyond choosing to turn into sensible things is highly likely to "dominate" combat from 2-4, which could 6-12 sessions pretty easily, but at 5th, when people get 2nd attacks, 3rd level spells and so on, suddenly he's going to be somewhat "meh". And there are a huge number of such permutations.

 

[nevin]

Hypothetical here DM says that.

It's kinda clear what they mean what's not clear is where they draw the line.

For me I don't ban it atm only banned things are any race that flies and the Twilight cleric. Shepard druid might join that list.

In session 0 I do say Powergaming is not required. If you watch tier lists I prefer you don't use F or S tier stuff just don't abuse it.

I have vetoed one player with rolled stats and wanted a paladin/hexblade (with natural 20 stats).

So yeah if I see a Gloomstalker ranger rock on up with sharpshooter and wood elf I can more or less guess what's gonna happen but there's other ways to deal with it.

thing is there's nothing really wrong with someone maximizing thier character Dm should be able to adjust for it. And generally you maximize and there's something that is your kryptonite. Seperate em from the character that deals with that Kryptonite and they are generally screwed.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Please read what he actually wrote: "It's because I think power gaming is usually detrimental to running a game that is focused on character and story development, which is my whole thing."

(Bolding mine.)

THAT is a disproved statement. Powergaming is not contrary to running games focused on character or story development.

Sorry, making decisions based on stereotypes, that because someone is X they can not be Y or Z, is a harmful and incorrect opinion.

isn't part of the basic definition of a powergamer basically that they'll take a mechanically effective option over a weaker but thematic one? i don't see how that wouldn't conflict with a character focused game, either by undermining the character for power choices or just making an incredibly shallow character

 

[tetrasodium]

isn't part of the basic definition of a powergamer basically that they'll take a mechanically effective option over a weaker but thematic one? i don't see how that wouldn't conflict with a character focused game, either by undermining the character for power choices or just making an incredibly shallow character

No that's more like basic charop. The degree to which a player does it & how they use the results are rather critical but can be rather nebulous & lack simple broad brush terms like "powergaming/powergamer".