Free Will and Story

[Starfox]

About magic items - one way to use the Leadership feat that is sometimes maligned is to get yourself a personal magic item crafter. While this might be questionable in some ways, it is a way to give non-casters control over their own inventory if the spellcasters in the party start crafting for themselves and only themselves - I've used this method myself.

Overall, Leadership is an ability with much narrative control in it, even if it feels fairly blunt.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

D&D is a cooperative game, a shared experience for all at the table to have an equal experience, not for an single individual to have "power" through winning. I'm sorry, I don't know your friend, but I do not believe that the game design in any way should pamper to this level of antagonistic behavior.

I don't think that's how everyone views the game. I believe it is semi-cooperative. The group still has goals to accomplish. Often those goals are defeating their enemies/challenges. Whatever those enemies/challenges are and what they do/how they work is decided by the DM.

So, even though the game is cooperative, there are antagonistic aspects of the game. Jim doesn't believe that he is "winning" against the other players. He believes he is winning against the enemies. The other players are on his team and should be helping him in his ultimate goal to utterly devastate their enemies. Since those enemies are controlled by the DM, beating the DM is sometimes required in order to defeat those enemies. After all, if the enemies plans are decided by the DM and you can outsmart the DM, you can defeat the enemies plans. Do something the DM doesn't expect and you'll find the enemies don't expect it either.

He has a low opinion of others and their ability to help him win. He's stated a couple of times that it isn't his fault for powergaming. It's the other player's fault for not properly knowing the rules and how to use them to their fullest in order to beat the enemies. Since so many of the other players won't even fully read the rules they have to have their characters created by other people and then don't even know how to use their abilities properly after their created. He has to pick up the slack for having so many bad characters in the party. After all, a "proper" party does the absolute most damage they can in a round. If players are deciding to use less powerful attacks or not choosing to do simple things like maxing their Strength, then they are deciding to be bad on purpose. He has to do extra damage to try to make up for that damage they've chosen not to do.

Again, sorry if this seems judgmental.

No need to worry. I don't have any illusions as to what kind of player Jim is. He's fairly transparent about it. Which is why in my current D&D Next playtest game I've reverted to rolling dice instead of point buy for stats and I do not allow custom backgrounds or specialties. Remove his ability to choose powergaming options and he resigns himself to just powergaming within the framework of the rules we are using. If those rules don't allow him to powergame much, then he doesn't end up much more powerful than anyone else. Also, he doesn't complain nearly as much about other people's choices since the difference between a powergamed choice and a non-powergamed choice is so small it isn't worth worrying about.

 

[Starfox]

The group still has goals to accomplish. Often those goals are defeating their enemies/challenges. Whatever those enemies/challenges are and what they do/how they work is decided by the DM.

Anyone remember the Prince valiant comic. There is a scene there with Valiant, Galahad, and Lancelot needing to pass by a guard. One of them has to shoot the guard, and a miss would cause a catastrophic alert. They are intensely competitive. What do they do? They coordinate and shoot three arrows - and all three hit, doing the job three times.

The lesson here is that competition is good, as long as it is a part of the developing story and doesn't become a cover for bullying.