Sir Hawkeye
First Post
The Grumpy Celt said:
Drat. I was sure it was Thomas Hobbes.
Have gamers ever been tolerant?
- Thread starter Tiefling
- Start date
Drat. I was sure it was Thomas Hobbes.
Sir Hawkeye
First Post
Power gaming and role-playing both have varying levels of intellectual development. Granted, mature gamers tend to shift toward role-playing. But the best power gaming is an exacting science. It requires a categorical knowledge of the rules and the connections between various elements, especially if one rules out elements that are unbalanced singularly. The best min-maxed characters are remarkably complex and blindingly efficient at what they do.
However, they are also radically disruptive when grouped with less powerful characters. A party of min-maxers requires the DM to be an effective min-maxer as well. Otherwise the players get lazy. With a good DM, however, the "adversarial" game is produced. This rather cerebral form of gaming requires tactical finesse on both sides, a keen judgment of power by the DM, and constant awareness on the part of the players. One of the best examples of this is the play of Teflon Billy in KoDT.
Essentially, the power-gaming path is the "left-brain" approach to D&D. It is neither inherently inferior or superior to the "right-brain" approach of role playing. Indeed, crossover is almost guaranteed. When so much effort is applied to a character, attachment develops, and empathy leads to better roleplaying (theoretically).
However, they are also radically disruptive when grouped with less powerful characters. A party of min-maxers requires the DM to be an effective min-maxer as well. Otherwise the players get lazy. With a good DM, however, the "adversarial" game is produced. This rather cerebral form of gaming requires tactical finesse on both sides, a keen judgment of power by the DM, and constant awareness on the part of the players. One of the best examples of this is the play of Teflon Billy in KoDT.
Essentially, the power-gaming path is the "left-brain" approach to D&D. It is neither inherently inferior or superior to the "right-brain" approach of role playing. Indeed, crossover is almost guaranteed. When so much effort is applied to a character, attachment develops, and empathy leads to better roleplaying (theoretically).
National Acrobat
First Post
I agree with one of Painfully's previous posts, it's one of those debates where people need to just agree to disagree. I converted my group (a long running campaign) over to 3E about a year ago and with the advent of the rules changes, about half the group has become min/maxers while the other half remains role players. It hasn't hurt my group at all. In fact, both sides have subtleties that the other's don't and they compliment each other well. The only problem that I have had is that I as a DM tend to have a deeply immersed story and there are nights, several in a row in fact, where nary a blade was drawn nor a dice dropped. The min/maxers know this because I have been their DM for over 13 years. They just grin and bear it 'cause they know that eventually, it will be showtime. For our group, we just don't argue about it, kinda like religion.
NoOneofConsequence
First Post
Theron said:
A genuinely excellent parallel.
KnowTheToe
First Post
BiggusGeekus said:
Just to let you know, I am a jerk.
Go on everyone can carry on now.
Tewligan
First Post
Age-ism and gaming groups
I'd like to chime in on something that's been mentioned a couple of times in this thread. Regarding groups that are reluctant to let younger gamers into their game, I think that a good part of that reluctance isn't just a matter of perceived gaming style, but the social setting. When I'm gaming, I don't want to game with people just because they happen to enjoy the same style of play that I do. I play with people that I would socialize with away from the table. I'm sure there are plenty of younger gamers who can both roll- and role-play quite well - however, I just don't have very much in common with them. I have a lot more in common with players who are in my same age range, who enjoy a lot of the same out-of-game things that I do, and with whom I'm as likely to have a beer and shoot the breeze as I am to spend a few hours rolling dice and storming the castle. Unfortunately, someone in their early teens doesn't fit into those categories very often.
I'd like to chime in on something that's been mentioned a couple of times in this thread. Regarding groups that are reluctant to let younger gamers into their game, I think that a good part of that reluctance isn't just a matter of perceived gaming style, but the social setting. When I'm gaming, I don't want to game with people just because they happen to enjoy the same style of play that I do. I play with people that I would socialize with away from the table. I'm sure there are plenty of younger gamers who can both roll- and role-play quite well - however, I just don't have very much in common with them. I have a lot more in common with players who are in my same age range, who enjoy a lot of the same out-of-game things that I do, and with whom I'm as likely to have a beer and shoot the breeze as I am to spend a few hours rolling dice and storming the castle. Unfortunately, someone in their early teens doesn't fit into those categories very often.
Theron
Explorer
I'm with you, Tewligan. My current gaming group consists entirely of guys who are either married or in long-term relationships, a couple of us have kids, and we've got all the job, mortgage, real-world life stuff that comes with it. Our youngest member is almost 30 and our oldest is almost 40. Any one of us would also be a scheduling nightmare for any other gaming group.
When we look at new blood (and we have let folks in), the first thing we consider is how well we get on with the person outside of the gaming table. The next issue is how well his or her schedule will mesh with our already tangled web of commitments and conflicts. Lastly, we worry about their playing style.
In short, I do this for fun and social contact. I've played with 14 year olds (my niece and nephew) fairly recently, but it's not something I'm looking to do on a regular basis.
- Old 'n cranky TB
When we look at new blood (and we have let folks in), the first thing we consider is how well we get on with the person outside of the gaming table. The next issue is how well his or her schedule will mesh with our already tangled web of commitments and conflicts. Lastly, we worry about their playing style.
In short, I do this for fun and social contact. I've played with 14 year olds (my niece and nephew) fairly recently, but it's not something I'm looking to do on a regular basis.
- Old 'n cranky TB
Painfully
First Post
Actually, I think new gamers, regardless of age, are the best to have, because they haven't learned how to powergame yet. They are involved with their characters and don't get distracted with trying to figure out what level caster the evil sorcerer is because he could create a wall of fire.
I think the reason for the conflict is that RP-focused play does not interfere with power-gamers in the way that power-gaming interferes with role-players.
Therefore, it is logical that RPers have more animosity towards power-gamers than vice-versa. I don't think one kind of play is "better" than the other but when you mix the two types, odds are that power-oriented play will overwhelm the other type.
That said, I have found that when power-gamers are a small minority of an adventuring party, they can bail-out a group of roleplayers when they're in a tight spot.
Therefore, it is logical that RPers have more animosity towards power-gamers than vice-versa. I don't think one kind of play is "better" than the other but when you mix the two types, odds are that power-oriented play will overwhelm the other type.
That said, I have found that when power-gamers are a small minority of an adventuring party, they can bail-out a group of roleplayers when they're in a tight spot.
