Have more fun with powergaming

[Odhanan]

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.

It can mean that, you are right, Doug. In your example here, if the players with the lower-levels characters choose to go for the tough monster while being clearly the weaker characters of the group, they're making a choice. They could attack the monster while remaining at safe distance from it, make tactical choices that ultimately makes them survive, or they could just discard all these possibilities in favor of a frontal assault. This last possibility, for me, would clearly be a bad tactical choice they could pay with their characters' lives. There is nothing wrong about that in my mind.

 

[Elemental]

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?

I assume it's because two players aren't having fun. If it's an encounter they can handle, then the powerful characters will mow it down. If it's an encounter for the powerful characters, they can't meaningfully contribute. I had the same thing happen in a game of Exalted when two characters were doing interesting stuff in a fight against a bunch of pirates, and then a super-optimised character basicaly wiped them all out in two rounds, and then their leader in two more. Two players left feeling quite useless, and with invalid character concepts because their duelist and kung fu monk couldn't actually be good in a fight if the third character was there winning the fights single-handedly.

More seriously, if the players have to sit out encounters, it's going to be an hour or more gone from the evening. They're not getting to play the game as much, because they're not able or willing to make characters of that power level.

I often play powerful characters, but I try to avoid stepping on the toes of other players. I might have my character take on a peripheral threat in a scene rather than the big threat ("You guys take the cleric down, I'll keep his skeletons off your back!") or try and use teamwork tactics to give the others a chance to shine (like a wizard specialised in weakening enemies for his allies to take down). I might also offer advice in character generation ("You know, they'd be a lot more effective and still fit into your concept if you tried this....")

 

[Lot]

I realize games and movies/novels are vastly different. Since I use mediums with narrative structures to inspire my games, however, I think a comparison is useful.

Characters such as Aragorn, Conan, the Grey Mouser, or Jaimie Lannister are all examples of celebrated characters who would be at home in different types of D&D campaigns. If (or when) they were statted, I'm sure they are effectively optimized characters very good at what they do. I do not think this takes away from the value as full characters in an immersive, story-heavy game. Being good at what they do is a very important part of their backstory and character development.

On the otherhand, I would find it jarring if Conan entered a monestary to grab a few special abilities or the Gray Mouser started working on his spiked chain skill for the tactical advantage it would give him. My point is that optimization is great and it makes sense for a character to take steps to be more effective. I just want those choices (as artificial as they are in "real-life" understanding) to be consistent with the character.

I do not think that powergaming and immersive storytelling need to be mutually exclusive. In fact, a optimized character can help make a good story better. At least, that's how I try to make it work when I run a game.

 

[Tzarevitch]

No offense, this entire argument is nonsense. The problem here is everyone is happily tossing "power gamer" about without even bothering to make sure there is a basic agreement on what this term means for the purposes of the argument.


Camp 1 (self-described "non-powergamers") defines powergaming as wringing maximum advantage for one's character (synonymous with "maxmizing") with the implication that this is to the detriment of anything else (what the "else" is is open to debate.)

Camp 2 (self-described "powergamers") defines powergaming in terms of being fittest available for the task at hand, such that if interviewing for a spot in an adventuring party, your character would be most likely to win that spot. For example, when the village needed to be defended, the villagers in The Seven Samurai interviewed the most competent ronin they could find and hired the best they could afford. D&D campaigns operate on a similar vein so build your character along a similar vein. If you want to play a hero (or anti-hero) build a character that can BE a hero.


Until there is some agreement on what "powergaming" is, I don't see how the rest of these arguments on its effects have any validity.

Tzarevitch

 

[Pbartender]

Until there is some agreement on what "powergaming" is, I don't see how the rest of these arguments on its effects have any validity.

Actually, there is a tacit agreement on a definition and it includes both definitions you suggest...

I think most of in this discussion, at least, are going under the assumption that we're not working with a definitive dichotomy between Powergaming and Pure Roleplay, but rather a spectrum. You've got Powergaming at one end and Immersive Drama (or whatever you'd like to call it... what do we call it?) at the other, with a near infinite gradiation of mixtures between the two down the middle.

Your "Camp 1" is simply at the far end of the Powergamer spectrum, wheras your "Camp 2" definition is far closer to the middle ground.

Which is exactly what the OP is trying to get at... that the extremes of the specturm can both be detrimental to a game, and that a happy medium between the too should normally be strived for. Or at the very least, one should acknowledge what part of the spectrum they most enjoy playing in, and try to find other gamers with similar tastes, since no one part of the spectrum is necessarily better or worse than another.

Powergaming should not be completely shunned, as it can often make the GAME part of roleplaying games more enjoyable.

 

[Odhanan]

I think most of in this discussion, at least, are going under the assumption that we're not working with a definitive dichotomy between Powergaming and Pure Roleplay, but rather a spectrum. You've got Powergaming at one end and Immersive Drama (or whatever you'd like to call it... what do we call it?) at the other, with a near infinite gradiation of mixtures between the two down the middle.

It seems to me that the prime argument for this is the time factor. If a player is interested in power-gaming, then he spends less time immersed in-character.

For me, the argument is faulty from the start, because power-gaming and immersion aren't the only two activities around the game table. What about time spent eating snacks? The pauses? Moving around miniatures? The DM describing the environment? The time spent scratching hit points off the character sheet? Looking up how much you've got in Gather Information? Rolling dice? All these things and more consume time around the game table.

Fact is, I don't think that one activity just stops in favor of another: they all blend into the experience that is a role-playing game. When I paint a miniature, I think about the personality of the character I'm painting and how to represent that with colors and appearance. The same way, when I'm using Power Attack in-game, I'm thinking of the anger of my character and his lack of control over himself, AS WELL AS how much damage he'll end up doing. These things don't have to be opposites. The fact you can do both at the same time demonstrates the lack of logic of this dichotomy gamers keep seeing between power-gaming and role-playing immersion.

 

[pawsplay]

Your "Camp 1" is simply at the far end of the Powergamer spectrum, wheras your "Camp 2" definition is far closer to the middle ground.

Nope. I am an aggressive powergamer, but I don't view wringing maximum advantage to the detriment of everything else as a phrase that even makes sense. It's a colorless green things sleep furiously kind of sentence. Every maximized character is maximized for a purpose.

 

[Pbartender]

Fact is, I don't think that one activity just stops in favor of another: they all blend into the experience that is a role-playing game. When I paint a miniature, I think about the personality of the character I'm painting and how to represent that with colors and appearance. The same way, when I'm using Power Attack in-game, I'm thinking of the anger of my character and his lack of control over himself, AS WELL AS how much damage he'll end up doing. These things don't have to be opposites. The fact you can do both at the same time demonstrates the lack of logic of this dichotomy gamers keep seeing between power-gaming and role-playing immersion.

Exactly the sort of point I'm trying to make with the whole spectrum model I posted above... The two sides don't need to be exclusive of each other. They can be balanced against each other to greatly enhance the game.

 

[Odhanan]

Exactly the sort of point I'm trying to make with the whole spectrum model I posted above... The two sides don't need to be exclusive of each other. They can be balanced against each other to greatly enhance the game.

Indeed. I'm actually adding to your argument by refuting the dichotomy from another point of view.

 

[pawsplay]

Yeah, I explicitly deny the spectrum.