Have more fun with powergaming

[megamania]

Why did it take some fun away from you ?

Looks to me like you had an issue with two players optimizing their characters, you then use higher-CRed creatures, and now they are challenged aren't they? So the problem is solved without much tinkering on your part. I'd think that you'd be fine by now. Why does it still bother you?

But the two that don't power game tend to die and regularly. I am torn between how to keep the game good for each type of PC developer.

 

[pawsplay]

I don't think it's true. Much like there's always a way to optimize something, every optimized character has its flaws.

Every optimized character has its flaws, but not every highly specialized, flawed character is optimized. An optimized character is effective, and that means both succeeding in their chosen domain and surviving long enough to make the attempt. A brittle or highly situational set of abilities is not optimal except in a very narrow sense. A tapeworm may be optimized for living in the intestines, but a D&D character, being at any time subject to a variety of dangerous challenges, needs some general ability to survive in order to be considered "optimized."

A sports car would not be considered optimized if it could go very fast, but could basically not turn. It might be optimized for speed, but it's not an optimized sports car.

To me, no 12th level character character with a Will save of +3 is optimal, unless they are immune to mind affecting abilities or have some other hedge, for instance.

 

[Odhanan]

But the two that don't power game tend to die and regularly. I am torn between how to keep the game good for each type of PC developer.

Are the two who do not optimize their characters strongly opposed to the notion of powerful characters? Are they frustrated by the situation? Did you discuss it with the players involved? If they don't mind, then you shouldn't make a big deal out of it and let them deal with the difficulties on their own. If that's an issue for them, then clearly it becomes an issue for you as well. Then you have a number of ways to deal with this. 1/ discuss it outside the game and see what the players think about the issue. Solutions might pop up on their own during the conversation. 2/ Tailor the allocation of treasure to specifically benefit the weak characters. Not all the time! Just enough to make their characters more useful or long-lasting during a more challenging encounter. 3/ Tailor some of the encounters to be manageable by both extremes. The huge-tough monster for the optimizers, the grunts for the non-optimizers of the party. 4/ design some situations that are specifically manageable by the "weak" characters. Traps for the rogue. Magical things for the wizard. Assuming of course all the PCs aren't playing the same character classes here...

 

[Odhanan]

Every optimized character has its flaws, but not every highly specialized, flawed character is optimized. An optimized character is effective, and that means both succeeding in their chosen domain and surviving long enough to make the attempt. A brittle or highly situational set of abilities is not optimal except in a very narrow sense. A tapeworm may be optimized for living in the intestines, but a D&D character, being at any time subject to a variety of dangerous challenges, needs some general ability to survive in order to be considered "optimized."

A sports car would not be considered optimized if it could go very fast, but could basically not turn. It might be optimized for speed, but it's not an optimized sports car.

To me, no 12th level character character with a Will save of +3 is optimal, unless they are immune to mind affecting abilities or have some other hedge, for instance.

I get what you're saying, but that still doesn't invalidate my point and Umbran's hammer analogy: if a character is optimized, he's excellent at something. Not everything. He may be decent instead of weak in other areas (which is your point as far as I understand it), but being decent at something still means you can be challenged in this particular area.

 

[chobin foot]

I think this is a false dichotomy, to the point where neither of the choices you give represent the best of adventure or campaign design. It isn't like a DM must choose to always target the weaknesses, or never do so. A good DM provides a wide variety of encounters - some will be made to play to the character's strengths, some to weaknesses, and some will probably be designed without much regard for either in particular.

I don't think anyone sets out to be a "bad" DM... so I'm not 100% in love with your tone right now (in my best caveman voice).

So you only occasionally optimize encounters for your players? Are you boring your players in the non-optimized situations? Are you unfairly targeting the optimizer at times, or forcing some situations because you want to put an optimizer in his place?

I still think these are fair questions to think about when it comes to actual play & knowing what the players want... there's a very fine line between balance and broken with some optimizer situations, which can lead to trouble.

I too think of it as a false dichotomy. As a DM, you can use the character's strength as a tool, an advantage to exploit for adventures that specifically challenge said-character. I'm not talking about going "against" or "play-into/yield" here. I'm talking of playing WITH the player.

I don't think the objective should be to play "against" each other... it's not a miniatures-based fantasy combat game, is it?

Ultimately, I agree that we should talk about playing WITH the player... assuming that the player is interested in cooperative storytelling & team play, which they always are not. Sometimes, it is a measuring stick/contest to break things... and if you ever exploit a character's weakness, it's perceived as being a difficult GM.

Optimization is what it is. If it's what everyone agrees to, then why not? My post was all about playing WITH the players & knowing what their expectations are as a group.

 

[pawsplay]

I've got an analogy. I used to play a lot of Street Fighter 2. Obviously, I hold no grudge against someone who's not a great player. But I would expect improvement over time if they were going to keep playing with me and others. A lack of fluency in the game is not simply an impediment to a good challenge, but also a message to the other players that you are not invested in the activity itself.

Another analogy: if you've ever played hackey sack with someone else, it's great making the other person reach and miss. But if you can keep that thing going back and forth a long time, that's the real object. GMing is kind of like pitching those throws, to see if they can kick it back.

 

[Odhanan]

Ultimately, I agree that we should talk about playing WITH the player... assuming that the player is interested in cooperative storytelling & team play, which they always are not. Sometimes, it is a measuring stick/contest to break things... and if you ever exploit a character's weakness, it's perceived as being a difficult GM.

Well, at our game table the players actually play with the DM and are interested in teamplay (nevermind the "cooperative storytelling". At our game table, we're not "telling a story" but playing out actual events as they occur. The cooperation is there, though).

So... the "which they ALWAYS are not"? It is just plain wrong from my side of thing. This makes your reasoning moot from where I stand.

 

[Doug McCrae]

3/ Tailor some of the encounters to be manageable by both extremes. The huge-tough monster for the optimizers, the grunts for the non-optimizers of the party.

What if the non-optimizers take on the huge-tough monster? That's always the problem I've had with widely varying power levels. I don't like to control encounters as a GM, I want the players to have the freedom to approach them as they wish. Unfortunately that can mean there's no plausible way to stop the mega-monster ripping the weaker PCs apart if that's the way things turn out.

 

[pawsplay]

What if the non-optimizers take on the huge-tough monster? That's always the problem I've had with widely varying power levels. I don't like to control encounters as a GM, I want the players to have the freedom to approach them as they wish. Unfortunately that can mean there's no plausible way to stop the mega-monster ripping the weaker PCs apart if that's the way things turn out.

Well, Pavlovian conditioning may not be fun, but it's ultimately quite effective.

 

[Elephant]

in my games as DM powergaming is a waste of the players time.

*off-topic rant snipped*

Okay, we get it. You don't like powergaming. Why are you posting in my thread, exactly? This is supposed to be about what's *fun* about adding some powergaming to D&D.