Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Argyle King" data-source="post: 6158369" data-attributes="member: 58416">I'm not opposed to powergaming in theory.  I'm not even really opposed to it in actual play.  However, what I am opposed to is a game offering me choices which aren't honest choices.  If there is one choice that everybody takes because it's so ridiculously good that none of the other choices matter, that is something which bothers.  It happens sometimes, and I understand that it can be tough to realize how something you thought up will work in actual play once all of the pieces of a game are put together.  That being said, I don't believe trap choices should be intentionally built into the game; such things are especially bad when it comes time to bring someone new into the game.  In my opinion, powergaming wont matter in a good game because a good game will provide enough variety to the ways you can handle an in-game problem that a character being uber in one area wont break the game because there will be times when that strict specialization will mean the same character is poorly equipped to handle a different situation.  For example, if I'm playing a rpg which supports that idea that combat solutions to a problem and non-combat solutions to a problem are equally valid, then it doesn't matter that the silver tongued bard can out-talk everyone because there are going to be situations in which he's not well suited.  Likewise, the combat monster barbarian is going to be awesome in one area, but may struggle in others.  In my ideal game, both of those characters can adventure with each other and both feel as though they contribute to the experience.What I feel is bad game design is when one particular approach to problem solving trumps others, yet other options are presented as being equally valid when they -in reality- are not.  If the game assumes that I'll be hacking and slashing through the vast majority of problems, and the game also makes taking that option vastly superior to other options, then I believe it's a mistake on the part of the game to try to present something like a feat which increases my attack bonus and a feat which gives me a bonus on a non-combat skill as being on equal footing.  As a player, I've had frustration from games not due to my inability to make a character (I can get by well enough if my intent is to powergame,) but because I was playing a game which told me a character concept was a valid way to play a game when it actually wasn't.  Such an experience is forgivable if it arises from something which was a mistake or wasn't noticed during the design of the game.  It might very well bother me, but I understand that things slip through.  To intentionally mislead potential players of your game by designing such things into it is something I feel is wrong.</blockquote>

Verification