D&D General DM Says No Powergaming?

[jgsugden]

That's answering a pretty different question than the one asked though. If the GM's "job" is to ''balance for a more powerful party" with no say on how powerful is too powerful there must be tools built into 5ethat enable that gm to finesse monsters encounters & even individual PC strengths to the needs of their group. Past editions had various tools for that & I even named a few. You seem to be answering a very different & unasked question.

The question here is what do you do about powergaming. The answer, IMHO, should be: don't mistake it for a problem.

[qyuote]If you need to point at YouTube reddit & these forums as examples of tools 5e provides the gm you've listed three tools that are explicitly not things that [k]5e provides°. To go on and even suggest specific monsters for a group of a specific level very much calls into question if 5e actually provides[j] any tools for the gm to finesse encounters & even specific PCs as older editions once did. Our of the three tools you listed that are not provided by 5e reddit was created in 2004, YouTube 2005, & it looks like these forums seem to go back to 99 putting them squarely in the time frame of multiple past editions predating 5e. If there are "plenty" provided by 5e itself, why can they not be named[/QUOTE]You're awfully focused on where advice is available, and not on whether it is available. I advocate for better advice in the DM book to train DMs on how to handle a variety of issues, but it is a quibble in my mind because the advice is out there in huge amounts.

I don’t take steps to curtail power gaming, I remove folks from my games for being incompatible. Also, yes there have been times I am the person who left the group.

Consider that you might be removing people from the table for appearing to be incompatible - when in fact there are many ways in which you can all be at that table, have fun, and walk away super excited to play again - even with powergamers mixed with non-power gamers. It is undeniable that DMs make this work all the time. I fully admit there are some players that are incompatible with the rest of a table - but if you sweep any mix of power gamer and non-power gamer at the same table into this class, then that is a very, broad class and you're going to miss out on opportunities for fun.

The problem I find with the comparison here is that the showboating baseball player is simply doing trick shots (or the equivalent, I guess) in a contest that may not even be truly scored. Even if it is, the points don't really matter. No one on these casual teams is trying to win. It may not even rise to the level of "horse" or other nominally competitive games.

By comparison, the entire point of powergaming IS to win. To achieve, by some external standard, the best possible result--not just an enjoyable result. What I have previously called the "Score and Achievement" purpose of gaming. Score is the (semi-objective) metric by which one judges success, and Achievement is the act of succeeding at relevant goals while avoiding pitfalls along the way. The pleasure of powergaming is very specifically rooted in, as the kids say, wanting "to be the very best, like no one ever was."

YOu're making assumptions about pwoergaming that do not hold up at the tables I see.

I see powergamers that do it because they like the challenge of building the best. I see others do it because they aree desparate for attention and respect. I see others do it because there is someone specific at the table they want to impress. I see others do it because they want their character, for RP reasons, to be the best. I see others do it because they have an ego the size of the Earth. There are a lot of reasons to powergame - but they're not usually about winning the combats. Most power gamers expect that a DM will power game back at them and make combats more challenging. This isn't always true - but most power gamers I see tend to expect the DM to 'step it up' in response to their PC.

Because of this emphasis, not merely on being skillful, but on pursuing and displaying optimal success, Score and Achievement has the risk of very, very easily promoting the dark side of competition, even in a game that is supposed to be cooperative. It can foster vainglory and resentment, hubris and envy, acquisitiveness, aggression, and belligerence. Note: can cause, as in does not absolutely have to. The problem is that it's a major temptation to fall into that sort of pattern, and once it starts, it's self-reinforcing.

To expand your game analogy: imagine this baseball team of yours is actually competing in an amateur tournament against a slate of other teams. The prize is small but valuable to every member of the team, perhaps tickets to their favorite pro team or whatever. The only way to get the prize is to actually perform the best they can--they are not simply playing for the joy of the sport, they're motivated to win. Now the pro and college players are heavily incentivized to give it their all, because if they do well, everyone is more likely to win. But if the team was formed on the premise that everyone would be contributing more or less similarly, it can foster feelings of inferiority and resentment if you're the backbencher and evergone knows it. Being carried across the finish line by someone massively more powerful than you can be very disappointing and even demoralizing.

So - don't play that game. That is not what we do at my table when we have power gamers. We let them be effective. We applaud them when they are as effective as they plan. We build them up and make them happy - because those players tend to want that response and the rest of the table can provide it without ruining their fun.

So...yeah. I respect the analogical argument you have made here, but there's a critical difference that makes both your analogy and the one I just gave flawed: sports don't have this mix of "it's just for fun, not for an actual prize per se" and yet also "it actually involves trying to win, and to avoid losing, as much as you possibly can." Purely cooperative sport analogies will fail to recognize the critical importance of "I need to win the most" that is so incredibly common in powergamers, while competitive sports miss the fact that there is no "prize" other than continuing to play and gettibg outcomes one would prefer to see.

Your argument falls flat because it is basically arguing that the game tables I've sat at for the last 30+ years do not exist. Having a power gamer at your table trying to optimize their PC only ruins the game if they're a jerk - which is usually in ways independent of their power gaming - or if others make it a problem. If not, you can have fun. I've been at those tables over and over and over again. I've also been at tables where the DM handled it negatively, or certain players handled it negatively - but I've had a lot of luck with getting the tables to try to simmer down and try just riding it out with a positive attitude. It is amazing how well it works when people are actually just having fun.

 

[tetrasodium]

Sorry. What?

tradeoffs in pros/cons. Take Alice (GWMfighter) & Bob/Cindy (firebolt fire dragon sorc/GWMbarbarian)
Alice hits for 2d6+5+10 each of three attacks(22/44/66avg depending on hit). Bob & Cindy hit for 3d10+5 with one attack(21.5avg) & 2d6+3+5 on two attacks respectively(15/30avg) . Alice is less impacted by a miss than Bob or Cindy & Cindy is less impacted by a miss than Bob but the damage also leans in favor of those less impacted. With every attack being made at the same full attrib+prof+mods there's never an optimal situation for Bob or a suboptimal one for Alice until AC is high enough that the situation is one where bob is going from being generally siuboptimal to an extremely suboptimal situation.

Going the other way with monsters the GM can't have monsters with ACs & tohits doing the same in ways that target the weaknesses & strengths of different PCs because all attacks are made at the same bonus.

 

[tetrasodium]

The question here is what do you do about powergaming. The answer, IMHO, should be: don't mistake it for a problem.

[qyuote]If you need to point at YouTube reddit & these forums as examples of tools 5e provides the gm you've listed three tools that are explicitly not things that [k]5e provides°. To go on and even suggest specific monsters for a group of a specific level very much calls into question if 5e actually provides[j] any tools for the gm to finesse encounters & even specific PCs as older editions once did. Our of the three tools you listed that are not provided by 5e reddit was created in 2004, YouTube 2005, & it looks like these forums seem to go back to 99 putting them squarely in the time frame of multiple past editions predating 5e. If there are "plenty" provided by 5e itself, why can they not be named

You're awfully focused on where advice is available, and not on whether it is available. I advocate for better advice in the DM book to train DMs on how to handle a variety of issues, but it is a quibble in my mind because the advice is out there in huge amounts.
Consider that you might be removing people from the table for appearing to be incompatible - when in fact there are many ways in which you can all be at that table, have fun, and walk away super excited to play again - even with powergamers mixed with non-power gamers. It is undeniable that DMs make this work all the time. I fully admit there are some players that are incompatible with the rest of a table - but if you sweep any mix of power gamer and non-power gamer at the same table into this class, then that is a very, broad class and you're going to miss out on opportunities for fun.YOu're making assumptions about pwoergaming that do not hold up at the tables I see.

I see powergamers that do it because they like the challenge of building the best. I see others do it because they aree desparate for attention and respect. I see others do it because there is someone specific at the table they want to impress. I see others do it because they want their character, for RP reasons, to be the best. I see others do it because they have an ego the size of the Earth. There are a lot of reasons to powergame - but they're not usually about winning the combats. Most power gamers expect that a DM will power game back at them and make combats more challenging. This isn't always true - but most power gamers I see tend to expect the DM to 'step it up' in response to their PC.So - don't play that game. That is not what we do at my table when we have power gamers. We let them be effective. We applaud them when they are as effective as they plan. We build them up and make them happy - because those players tend to want that response and the rest of the table can provide it without ruining their fun.Your argument falls flat because it is basically arguing that the game tables I've sat at for the last 30+ years do not exist. Having a power gamer at your table trying to optimize their PC only ruins the game if they're a jerk - which is usually in ways independent of their power gaming - or if others make it a problem. If not, you can have fun. I've been at those tables over and over and over again. I've also been at tables where the DM handled it negatively, or certain players handled it negatively - but I've had a lot of luck with getting the tables to try to simmer down and try just riding it out with a positive attitude. It is amazing how well it works when people are actually just having fun.

"Advice" is not a tool If you need a hammer or screwdriver it doesn't matter how much detailed advice that you have about harness of building materials & friction within them as long as you are lacking a hammer screwdriver or some other tool capable of letting you make do. Tools made for a GM to finesse monster specifics for a group that may or may not contain PCs of wildly different power scales would come in the form of rule structures & rule subsystems granting them that level of control on top of "advice" about encounter balance itself.

 

[iserith]

As a player, having powergaming teammates is pretty great. We have a more survivable party overall which means I can chill and have another drink.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

As a player, having powergaming teammates is pretty great. We have a more survivable party overall which means I can chill and have another drink.

One of my players is a "powergamer" that uses their optimized abilities to help their non-powergaming party member deal more damage. Because of this, the Monk is the most damage-dealing PC in the party.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

I have been well served by not playing with jerks.

My friend often reads up and chooses twilight cleric or recently diviner wizard. But he is using his powers to boost the party much of the time.

You can power game and not rain on others’ parade. If he threw his weight around and demanded the best items or did not let others speak or contribute, that would be infinitely more objectionable than taking powerful abilities.

I can play with almost any style so long as the No asshats rule is in play.

I did not have fun playing D&D in one campaign in the past few years. One less frequent player often talked over us and seemed to seize the initiative in conversations with npcs. He usually insisted on going ahead of the party and in effect took over.

He was not the most powerful or was powergaming per se.

For me, powergaming sucks due to a mediating variable: It’s throwing your weight around and dominating the game which really sucks. Powergaming harmoniously is a totally different animal. What? You healed and blessed us to win? I am still having fun. Powergame away.

 

[Nefermandias]

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.

Speaking for my table. I have never allowed feats and multiclassing and my game runs perfectly smooth.

And no, powergaming is a real thing, not just an insult or an imaginary problem.

On the other hand, I find the tone you use to talk to people here quite insulting.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

One of my players is a "powergamer" that uses their optimized abilities to help their non-powergaming party member deal more damage. Because of this, the Monk is the most damage-dealing PC in the party.

This is basically what I do. I tend to powerbuild support characters. I don't think I even ever played a class that had a role other than "Leader" in 4E lol (except in a campaign where I was playing multiple PCs). But I can just make everyone else awesome and occasionally fix a problem no-one else has a way to (usually via Bard social skills, Druid shapeshifting, or the like, depending on the character).

When I was DMing 4E one of the most optimized PCs, played by a friend of mine, was a bizarre Gith Shaman whose summons were his ancestors, and really acted like a total bumblers, but it was some total Columbo deal, because that dude was buffing the living hell out of the party, "accidentally" stumbling his tank-spirit into the way of vital enemies, and just generally keeping everyone alive and making extra attacks and stuff (4E Shamans were kind of like a more magical Warlord), it was amazing to watch as a DM. Even the other players were kind of buying the act lol.

 

[jgsugden]

"Advice" is not a tool If you need a hammer or screwdriver it doesn't matter how much detailed advice that you have about harness of building materials & friction within them as long as you are lacking a hammer screwdriver or some other tool capable of letting you make do.

We're ... not ... building ... something ... physical. We're storytelling. You don't physically build a story. You tell it. The core of telling a good story, with good characters, that entertains and excites - is going ot be based upon lessons and advice, not on a number generator, data table, or probability scheme.

Tools made for a GM to finesse monster specifics for a group that may or may not contain PCs of wildly different power scales would come in the form of rule structures & rule subsystems granting them that level of control on top of "advice" about encounter balance itself.

IF the game were that fragile where such things were necessary in order for it to work, I might have similar concerns. However, I do not because the game works fine without it. You don't need these type of specific tools.

Seriously. I've thrown a bunch of kobolds at a 7th level party and we've had a blast. PCs in my campaign at level 3/4 have dealt with beholders, ancient dragons, and powerful fiends. For the entire period of 5E we've known that the EL/CR system is faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar from precise ... and yet the edition has been so well received.

The tools that make a real difference are not the ones you seek. They're the ones I referenced. They're the ones that help a DM build a good game that is fun, exciting and engaging ... and that has nothing to do with whether the monster should have 72 or 87 hp.

 

[Blue]

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

As stated multiple times already, this is the Stormwind Fallacy, a disproven myth that has teeth because it "feels truthy". That part isn't up for discussion, that's already be long discredited.

 

[Panzeh]

Generally, i kinda presume in d&d that warlock, paladin, and cleric power source isn't important and that the mechanical stuff is fixed to them because they're not really gaining any extra power over anyone else for it. If we were playing something like GURPS, a warlock pact is a disadvantage or credit on powers that I will absolutely tap with consequences for failure, but in d&d, they're not balanced with that in mind, so I don't mess with it.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

As stated multiple times already, this is the Stormwind Fallacy, a disproven myth that has teeth because it "feels truthy". That part isn't up for discussion, that's already be long discredited.

Yeah what gets me about this is, people repeating it, it's like, really, you believe that? You've playing D&D for this long, and you believe that? Like honestly?

Because I feel it's this thing people say that's completely unreflective, that they seriously haven't thought about. I could have told you it was false after playing AD&D for about 2 years.

There's just really no correlation whatsoever. The ex-munchkin powergamer in my group is a pretty strong RPer and very keen to RP, often coming up with elaborate lines of RP, too, and often coming with much more in-depth backstories for his PCs than other players, ones which often tie in usefully to the world. He'll often have the most optimized melee combatant in the party, but he's also the most likely to have actually detailed friends/relatives etc. in the setting, and will be great at taking onboard setting facts and using them and so on.

And I've certainly seen the reverse, too.

In fact, if I think hard, I'd say if there's any correlation at all, it's between at least some attempted optimization and being more into RPing the character. Not always competent optimization, but people who care tend to try. Even that's not always true though. I have one player who selects whatever they think sounds cool/fun with no real regard for optimization in D&D (not all RPGs, bizarrely, he was really thinking hard over what to pick for his Medium Advance in Spire!), and also does a good job RP'ing.

I find it incredibly hard to believe that anyone who has played 5 or 10 or 15 or more years has never seen a PC who was optimized and RP'd well, or vice-versa.

 

[Redwizard007]

It would seem Wikipedia--with actual citations, I might add--disagrees. Bolded for emphasis.

"Another form of powergaming involves a focus on acquiring power during game progression, often by acquiring powerful equipment or unusual abilities. This lends itself to gameplay which is materialistic (and often, in the context of the game world, arguably amoral) and can frustrate other players who are looking to interact with the game world, score points, and not merely acquire game resources.[2] Another term for a powergamer is a munchkin,[3] who may be differentiated from normal powergamers to describe players who seek to acquire power and loot at the expense and disregard of their teammates.[4]"

Based on the above, "munchkin" is to "powergamer" as "square" is to "rectangle." You may not automatically be a munchkin if you're a powergamer, but every munchkin is a powergamer. Which fits perfectly into my claim that powergaming brings the temptation to do things in a crappy, socially-destructive way, a temptation that can be extremely strong because, in most D&D games, you need to be able to win fights quickly and efficiently if you want to succeed at your objectives.

Wikipedia, while not usually way off the mark, is not what most would consider a source worth citing. It is, however, a good starting point and often has links that lead to more established sources.

As a powergamer, I can confirm that they missed the mark here. I min-max and optimize almost every character I make, within a given concept, but if someone accused me of being a munchkin we'd be calling in seconds and finding a quiet spot in the woods for a duel.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Speaking for my table. I have never allowed feats and multiclassing and my game runs perfectly smooth.

That proves nothing at all about the actual effect of feats and multiclassing. That's like saying 'I have never played D&D with Theater of the Mind and my game runs perfectly fine'. Good for you, but it's not making the point you're trying to make.

And no, powergaming is a real thing, not just an insult or an imaginary problem.

It's an insult for a far broader thing that isn't a problem in and of itself.

On the other hand, I find the tone you use to talk to people here quite insulting.

Apologies good sir. I'll instead just start accusing people who use options I disagree with of ruining the game, which as we all know is the polite way to comport ourselves.

 

[Umbran]

Apologies good sir. I'll instead just start accusing people who use options I disagree with of ruining the game, which as we all know is the polite way to comport ourselves.

Mod Note:
So, if this is going to go snarky, it might as well stop now.

If the discussion isn't going to be respectful, don't have the conversation.

 

[MwaO]

Your numbers in that post are a bit off. The AC of monsters is designed so that a PC always has a 65% chance to-hit if they are using the standard array and following the assumed progression*. Monster HP in the DMG is wildly off from what WotC actually publishes. Blog of Holding broke down the math some time ago. And that math has held throughout 5E.

The trouble is the designers broke things out and designed around the assumed adventuring day instead of a single encounter, like in 4E. So you either run heaps of combat in a day, let the PCs steamroll everything, or do weird stuff like simply deny them a rest until they’ve completed enough encounters or jack up every fight to at least deadly.

* Highest array stat in your primary attack stat and increasing your primary stat at 4th and 8th. Along with prof bonus this means you always have to roll an 8 or better on the d20 to-hit.

I did just that. It comes out in a way that can replicate the official stuff but it’s flexible like 4E monster design. Still a whole lot of eyeballing.

Yup, all this. I think in general, Jeremy Crawford(or someone who works for Crawford) sets out design guidelines, and then R&D kind of follows them? Part of the problem of fuzziness in game design is sometimes no one is clear what one hand is doing — as an example, 5e's typical campaign hands out 1 good permanent magic item per 4 levels, 1 good consumable per level. You likely end up with the equivalent of a +3 weapon if that's something important to you.You just don't have assurances of specifically a +3 weapon. Which ends up with a lot of mess — Adventurer's League has strong incentives to hand out double the magic items of a typical 5e campaign as an example.

I redid the spellcaster NPCs in 5e in 2016 to be more 4e style design — all spells and effects on a single page, hp more monster style, and put them on dmsguild. Worked out well, made over $100 from them so far.

 

[Umbran]

As a powergamer, I can confirm that they missed the mark here.

As a sometimes powergamer, if you include the next phrase, "...who may be differentiated from normal powergamers..." then the mark seems hit, to me.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Generally, i kinda presume in d&d that warlock, paladin, and cleric power source isn't important and that the mechanical stuff is fixed to them because they're not really gaining any extra power over anyone else for it. If we were playing something like GURPS, a warlock pact is a disadvantage or credit on powers that I will absolutely tap with consequences for failure, but in d&d, they're not balanced with that in mind, so I don't mess with it.

That is how it works in D&D. I just feel making the choice to hitch your star to another being for power should have some teeth to it, and am a little irked that the default rules basically encourage you to not care about that, because it makes no difference mechanically.

 

[Pedantic]

That is how it works in D&D. I just feel making the choice to hitch your star to another being for power should have some teeth to it, and am a little irked that the default rules basically encourage you to not care about that, because it makes no difference mechanically.

I generally agree that the narrative justification for warlock magic should be reflected mechanically, but I'm not sure that losing class abilities is a particularly good way to do that. I would have worked whatever the "favors" for your patron are into spell recovery explicitly, for example, much the same way clerics have to pray or wizards study.

Or, perhaps you could do something with marks, giving you a physical or mystical signature weirdness what calls you out as a warlock, playing off the idea of being "marked" by the bargain.

It just feels wasteful to provide an interesting narrative, and then tie it a class that could just as easily be representing a hundred other things.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I generally agree that the narrative justification for warlock magic should be reflected mechanically, but I'm not sure that losing class abilities is a particularly good way to do that. I would have worked whatever the "favors" for your patron are into spell recovery explicitly, for example, much the same way clerics have to pray or wizards study.

Or, perhaps you could do something with marks, giving you a physical or mystical signature weirdness what calls you out as a warlock, playing off the idea of being "marked" by the bargain.

It just feels wasteful to provide an interesting narrative, and then tie it a class that could just as easily be representing a hundred other things.

I'm open to different ways to make that character choice matter. As it stands in the rules, however, it doesn't.