D&D General DM Says No Powergaming?

[payn]

I work my way up to long standing groups and campaigns. If someone wants to powergame, I won’t invite them to a long game. So I never have to say it.

 

[Mort]

As long as a player isn't being actively ridiculous (trying to pull off a coffee lock build for ex.) I generally don't have a problem.

And frankly, all you need to powergame 5e is wizard X and some good spell choices. Multiclassing, for example, more often then not, results on a LESS effective build than a single class character. Especially in low level campaigns (as most are).

 

[iserith]

I work my way up to long standing groups and campaigns. If someone wants to powergame, I won’t invite them to a long game. So I never have to say it.

What does a player need to do (or not do) to avoid being seen as a "powergamer" in the context of your decision to invite them to a long game? What specific things mark them as this type of player for you?

 

[CleverNickName]

Well, first and foremost, you need to talk to the players. You have to find out what style of game they want to play, and also describe the style of game that you want to play. This is best done over a few slices of pizza and some pints, without any dice at the table at all.

While you're chatting with your group, you need to be up front about specific problems you want to avoid. Don't use nebulous terms like "powergaming" and "min/maxing," because these terms have different definitions and will only lead to confusion. Instead, speak frankly and clearly, avoiding slang and being as specific as you can. Instead of saying "No crit-fishing!", for example, say "I don't want players constantly re-rolling dice in hopes of getting a natural 20. It slows the game down, and annoys other people at the table. Let's talk about how we can keep that to an absolute minimum."

You also need to listen to the players and be prepared to compromise. Imagine a player tells you that they are very excited about the new spells in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything, and shares their idea for an archfey Warlock patron and that new Pact of the Talisman, but you are excited to roll out your low-magic gritty realism campaign setting where characters can only learn spells through feats and magic items. Clearly this is going to be a problem, and you need to resolve that conflict in a manner that both of you can both agree on.

"Just play something else" is often rolled out as a popular solution--whether it means the player picking a different character, or you picking a different campaign setting. It's not really feasible though: the player isn't going to be happy about not being able to play their character idea, any more than you're going to be happy about not being able to play your campaign idea...and it would be unfair for either side to force their preference on the other. You are going to need a compromise, not a fiat or "put it to a vote." So instead of saying "you can't play a warlock, this is a low-magic game," maybe you could say "this campaign has less magic in it than the last one we played. Let's talk a bit about your warlock and the spells you were most interested in having...I'm going to be removing spells and spellcasters from the game, but I'll keep your favorites."

There's a lot of other broad-brush advice in this thread (and on the Internet as a whole), which can be helpful. Not using the multiclassing rules or feats (they are optional, after all) is fine, but it's not a substitution for talking to your players. You still need to find out what everyone else wants and expects, and share what you want and expect, to ensure that everyone starts on the same page.

THEN hand out some character sheets and start rolling dice.

 

[payn]

What does a player need to do (or not do) to avoid being seen as a "powergamer" in the context of your decision to invite them to a long game? What specific things mark them as this type of player for you?

Being only concerned with mechanics and discovering rules exploits. I don’t have an issue with powergamers but I want games I invest most in to have the best play style match. You have to be interested in the adventure material and playing as a group.

I find part of powergaming to be personality , so simply saying no PG isn’t really helpful. I’ll sit through a con game or org play with whoever. You don’t really know until you do.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I detest power gaming. 5E is already easy mode. There’s no point in making it even easier. I outright ban multiclassing as it’s the biggest offender. A few subclasses and feats are also banned. I get the whole power fantasy angle, but it very quickly devolves into an adversarial player who has to be the best and always win. There’s a lot of overlap with players who tell others how to build their characters and tell others how to play. If me saying no to power gaming keeps all that out (always does), then I count that as a huge win.

I try to give my players the benefit of the doubt, but I am wary. I recently added a new player to my group, and the first things he asked me were, "Can I make my own racial variant?" And, "Do you allow multi-classing?" I was definitely on alert after that first conversation, but it turned out that, partly due to roleplaying choices he wanted to make and partly due to a lack of familiarity with the rules, the new PC was if anything under-powered. So you never know.

 

[Mull Ponders]

Agree that "powergaming" is too vague. I did once start as a player in a campaign with 10 silver pieces, the clothes on my back (no armor), and a dagger, homeless with one day of food. We were freed slaves. That definitely slowed down any powergaming.

 

[Micah Sweet]

While I do understand, and to some point sympathize with the DM's who get upset with this sort of thing, saying just "no powergaming" is too vague to really to really tell anything to the player, and vague enough that the DM can throw out just about anything. I did come up with two rules that, I think anyway, would cover the same ground as "No Powergaming", while also telling both players and GM's what is and isn't allowed.

The main one is "No making other PC's superfluous". I think it's fairly easy to read, but I'm basically trying to say to not take the jobs of the other PC's. Like don't summon monster that make the Fighter basically dead weight or something similar to that. Just, y'know, be aware of what the other players are trying to do, and don't step on their toes, even if what you would do is better.

The other one, and I admit this is kinda nebulous in it's own right, is "No stinky cheese." What I specifically mean by this is stuff like Coffeelocks, Hexadins, Soradins, or people going Fighter 1/Spellcaster X just for the heavy armor proficiency. Stuff like that almost always reads to me as "I'm doing this purely to make an already fairly easy game even easier." Which is just lame, IMO.

I also try to actively make Warlock Patrons into a thing that actually exist, in that if you don't do what they want you to do, they get mad at you and take your Warlock levels away. I also try to do this with Clerics and Paladins, but in my experience, it's always Warlocks who get snippy with me when I do this stuff.

I completely support mechanical consequences to acting against the interests of the beings your PCs get their powers from.

 

[FlyingChihuahua]

I completely support mechanical consequences to acting against the interests of the beings your PCs get their powers from.

Some people get upset about that sort of thing though, saying that they're "evolving on the power that they are given.". Which, I mean, that's a reasonable interpretation of what's going on there.

I don't think you get to decide that though.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Some people get upset about that sort of thing though, saying that they're "evolving on the power that they are given.". Which, I mean, that's a reasonable interpretation of what's going on there.

I don't think you get to decide that though.

Oh, I know people get upset about it. It's still my stance though. If I went against my patrons interests as a warlock, I wouldn't expect to keep my power.