Have more fun with powergaming

[Elephant]

A moment ago, I saw a thread entitled "Why non-powergamers suck" - and when I clicked on it, it had already been (probably rightly) deleted.

Part of the idea suggested in the thread title is worth commenting on, though - a bit of powergaming can actually be more fun for a D&D game than studiously ignoring feats and spells that may boost a character's effectiveness.

How does a bit of powergaming make *your* game more fun? What about it appeals to you?

Edit: I should have also added:

=====================
Personally, it comes down to three things:

* I like having effective characters. While the role of clumsy oaf brings a nice sense of comic relief to many media, it's not a character concept that makes for a fun D&D PC, IMO.

* I enjoy the mental challenge of finding the right elements to choose for an optimized character - it's kind of like hitting the right notes while playing a musical instrument.

* It's fun when your PC can do impressive things in-game. Powergaming supports this.
=====================

(note for the many who decry powergaming: Please don't hijack this thread!)

 

[Land Outcast]

a bit of powergaming can actually be more fun for a D&D game than studiously ignoring feats and spells that may boost a character's effectiveness.

Just want to say that non-powergaming isn't about "ignoring things which would boost effectiveness", it's about not placing them above things which would boost the roleplaying aspect of the character.

 

[jdrakeh]

Just want to say that non-powergaming isn't about "ignoring things which would boost effectiveness", it's about not placing them above things which would boost the roleplaying aspect of the character.

Shh! You're unmasking this cleverly disguised "Powergaming is the only way to roleplay!" thread for what it is (i.e., the polar opposite of the thread that the OP says was deleted). That said. . . powergaming does have its place and there are people who enjoy it. What I don't get is why all forum discussions (including this thread) about powergaming or immersion have to start with an open condemnation of the other playstyle.

Every. Single. One.

This thread starts off by dismissively categorizing immersive roleplay as a form of deliberate ignorance (I quote "studiously ignoring feats and spells that may boost a character's effectiveness"), while those about the virtues of immersion often start off by damning powergaming as the deliberate ignorance of in-character motivation and/or conceptual detail in favor of instead paying attention only to the numbers.

Isn't it possible that both of these playstyles are equally valid when the hobby is examined as a whole, rather than as the product of an individual's personal preferences?

 

[Zendragon]

For me a little powergiming is fun. In one campaign, I have a Sorc/Monk. I took the Enlightened fost just to get more monk benefits. I didn't have to take it, but it would give me more benefits than just finishing out the Sorc class. As long as it doesn't get out of hand, it's fun.

 

[wayne62682]

I agree powergaming makes the game more fun. Most folks who I see that are anti-powergamer are what we refer to as "leeters" or "drama queens" and are the kind who think that it's "wrong" to choose effective things. These kinds of people quite frankly make me sick.

 

[theredrobedwizard]

As an accomplished powergamer I do have to say that, while it's a fun time, sometimes you do want to play an unoptimized character.

Sometimes.

Point is, nothings wrong with not powergaming. Sure, it hurts the team's chance of long term survival in a combat heavy campaign, but it's all fine.

-TRRW

 

[Land Outcast]

the kind who think that it's "wrong" to choose effective things.

I never heard about people who think it's wrong to be effective.

 

[BryonD]

I never heard about people who think it's wrong to be effective.

I've never seen anyone come out and say that.
But I've got a bridge to sell to anyone who believes that it isn't a fair assessment of the more-deeply-invested-roleplayer-than-thou BS attitude that comes roaring out whenever anyone presents an idea that the self-selected "true roleplayers" deem to be more effective than acceptable.
It seems that there is an upper level above which these people are no longer capable of role playing, so they naturally assume that anyone else must not be roleplaying if their character meets that criteria.
(And let's not even mention the badwrongfun of playing a beer and pretzels kick in the door game)

 

[Ravellion]

I really demand at least "basic powergaming" from my adventuring comrades. Such as having a positive charisma modifier as a paladin - but I might be able to forgive not having one - but that would really make me cringe when you start multiclassing into Monk at level 7 because your character is "upset with his parents pushing him to be a paladin all that time".

You know what I think is really good roleplaying? That if I have to face life and death situations with a small group of people, that those people are at least somewhat capable, otherwise I'd rather take my chances without them.

 

[Winterthorn]

A DM's view...

A moment ago, I saw a thread entitled "Why non-powergamers suck" - and when I clicked on it, it had already been (probably rightly) deleted.

Part of the idea suggested in the thread title is worth commenting on, though - a bit of powergaming can actually be more fun for a D&D game than studiously ignoring feats and spells that may boost a character's effectiveness.

How does a bit of powergaming make *your* game more fun? What about it appeals to you?



(note for the many who decry powergaming: Please don't hijack this thread!)

Speaking as a DM: I expect a certain degree of "power-gaming" from most players and regard it as Skillful Character Optimization (SCO). However, as a caveat to this view of mine, I draw the line with players generating PC's assembling a mish-mash of uber-features that fail to meet campaign context. "Over-the-top" character "builds" can spoil the fun for me, as DM, and the other players. And that's the point, does the power-gamed PC actually "fit" the setting/genre/theme; for the game setting/genre/theme - as far as this DM is concerned - defines the main limits of the kind of PCs are fun for me to referee. (Sometimes a DM has to simply, firmly and quietly say, "no".)

But the trickiest thing about what is fun is that it's all about context, degree, subjectiveness... What may be acceptable to one is not acceptable to another. So attempting to discern an absolute for everyone on play style is nothing more than an attempt to nail gelatine to a tree.

Regarding "SCO" , I do get a kick out what players put together, the diversity of ideas (given campaign context limitations), and their ingeneous "work-arounds". And yes, sometimes I relent because the power-gaming player somehow manages to make the other players and I break out in laughter, or awe, or just thumbs-up " ness dude".

I believe the wisest course of action, at the gaming table where this question arises, is to first negotiate before the game is set-up, and afterwards defer to the DM. It is the DM who has the responsibility to adjudicate issues predicated upon the intial intent at the table. Ideally, and I think this is quite important, everyone should have communicated adequately their expectations at the beginning. If some form of SCO occurs as things progress, and the DM has "read" and "managed"*** her/his players reasonably well, then there shouldn't be a problem and everyone can continue to gain some fun and enjoyment out of the game!

For players in my games who emphasize role-play, even at the expense of watching their character's mechanics (and thus overlook a healthy degree of optimization), when the opportunities present themselves, they will shine the most in driving the plot direction of the game!

In a way, I could say that those who practice SCO entertain the table through deft handling of challenging combat situations, while those who practice good role-playing will be the ones who entertain by driving the story (that in turn could lead to further of the above said combat situations). A potential yin-yang kind of give-and-take between play styles that makes it potentially enjoyable for all. A healthy balance if you will. (By no means do I wish to suggest that a player cannot accomplish good rp and good SCO... I salute those who can put it off! While those who fare poorly at both may cause me to ask if they enjoy my campaign, if they learnt the basic game rules well, whether they really like the hobby at all, or if there is another factor inhibitting their success, for this hobby does demand a fair effort at focus and enthusiasm.)

I don't always get that nice blend in a group, and other times extremes at both ends cause conflicts. But I like refereeing a diversity of styles in moderation, where campaign context is respected, and the principle terms of play are agreed to in advance.

For me, variety is the spice to a game - just don't over spice it

That's my opinion for now, before I really start rambling...

-W

***: Yes, sadly enough as many can atest, DM-ing can also be an exercise in player personality management.

PS: forgive my spelling and grammar