Is it common for players to powergame?

[Arnwyn]

I'm wondering, how common is it for players to powergame in D&D?

I think it is fairly common for players to powergame. In a game that often involves characters fighting for their lives, it's only natural for players to consider their options and choose an optimal route for character creation.

and try to beef up their PC anyway they can no matter how unreasonable or realistic it may be?

Now this, however, I don't think is all that common. Really, the rules are the rules - actually expecting something to go outside the rules is pretty silly. Sure, there might be house rules and the DM might rule differently depending on the situation, but people should consider that a bonus - not something to be actually argued for.

 

[Faraer]

But, back on topic: powergaming is common, and it is not a bad thing. It has its roots in a desire to have a character that is good at something; heroic, if you will.

I think powergaming is quite antithetical to heroism. Heroism is self-sacrifice and perseverance against odds; powergaming is trying to 'win' the game by making your character as invulnerable as possible before play even begins.

The current vogue is 'all play styles are equally valid'. I don't agree; I think powergaming is bad, because the kid-in-candy-store, power-ups, 'levelling up', 'character build' mentality is a shallow, self-aggrandizing one that gets some people quick thrills at the expense of long-term enjoyment and that of other players.

Aside from all this anecdotal stuff, I assume that Ryan Dancey's 1999 market research did conclude powergaming was widespread enough that the game should cater to it. This seems to be a foolish way to restrict the game to the kinds of people already playing it, though.

 

[Carpe DM]

This is always hard to answer. Because I just left a campaign in which I was not permitted to control my character because of "powergaming" concerns, let me give you an alternative perspective.

I am usually a DM, so I share your concerns. But it is frustrating when a DM's vision of what is right for your character wins over what *your* vision for the character is.

What are the costs of a DM-restrictive approach?

(1) It reduces player involvement with their own character. That's the joy many players get from playing. They have no other "toys" in the world to care about.

(2) It always feels arbitrary. Not letting a player have a flying mount *in planescape* just because it's his first horse? Yet I'm sure some other player has an equivalent boondoggle. Perfect consistency is impossible whether you intercede or not -- so interceding just makes the DM look unfair.

(3) There is a difference between powergaming (the use of the RAW for advantage, which I think is just plain *fine*) and powermongering (the bending of rules for advantage, which is not). The example you gave at the end is a good one: a player seeking to bend a one-time advantage. But that's different from a player building a wise and powerful character.

The above is not a criticism of you. I don't play in your game, so obviously I don't know the situation. I do, however, always powergame, because the elegant crafting of characters is what gives me joy, either as a DM or as a player.

So often, complaints about powergamers are simply complaints that players have read and care about the rules. Why is that not a good thing? If they don't accept your authority as a DM to houserule, that's bad -- but if you houserule too often to thwart player desires, you'll lose your players. That's the dynamic.

best,

Carpe

 

[dreaded_beast]

double-post

 

[dreaded_beast]

The current vogue is 'all play styles are equally valid'. I don't agree; I think powergaming is bad, because the kid-in-candy-store, power-ups, 'levelling up', 'character build' mentality is a shallow, self-aggrandizing one that gets some people quick thrills at the expense of long-term enjoyment and that of other players.

I think this is only true if the other players in your group don't play in a similar fashion.

You put a "non-powergamer" in with a group of "powergamers", most likely he will either have a horrible time or change his style to become more compatible with the group. Vice-versa.

 

[Carpe DM]

The whole "powergaming vs. roleplaying" thing is a patently false dichotomy.

Anyone who's played knows that players with powerful characters can engage in excellent roleplay, and people with weak characters can be downright terrible roleplayers.

best,

Carpe

 

[dreaded_beast]

The whole "powergaming vs. roleplaying" thing is a patently false dichotomy.

Anyone who's played knows that players with powerful characters can engage in excellent roleplay, and people with weak characters can be downright terrible roleplayers.

Yes, very true.

I should have realized that while I was typing my previous post. Let me make a quick little edit.

 

[Wombat]

I think every game system encourages general (not specific) types of play.

D&D, with an emphasis on XP, levels, feats, and equipment, encourages a certain type of powerplaying -- get the most stuff, so you can get the most points, so you can get the most XP, so you can advance in levels and get more feats. This pushes players to think in terms of immediate rewards and where you character is going next level. This is not bad, it just is something more or less built into the game.

As a counter-example, take Champions/Hero System. Since even equipment costs you character points in that game and since experience produces, at best, very incremental changes, the emphasis is on the character creation and getting the most bang for your buck at the beginning of the process -- experience hones your initial concept rather than builds hugely upon it. Therefor your character, though not really static, is pretty well set along a given path early on. Again, this is not bad at all -- it is the way the game is devised.

Then there is Ars Magica. Since the game is set not in days, but in seasons, your characters tend to take very long-term views of development and plans, at least the magi who can easily live for 150+ years; your companions will probably live less long and your grogs are almost like mayflies. For a grog to advance, he has to go out in the field and be active, the only way he can become a better spearman; for a magus to advance, he has to stay in his lab, not be interrupted, and either read or write or create magical items or train his apprentice. Thus depending on which character is being played at any given moment you have totally different desires for the type of campaign or adventure you want to run and vastly different goals. Again, this could be good or bad, depending on desires, attitudes, and campaign style.

That's just three examples. You could say all three systems encourage "powergaming", but it would mean something slightly different in each case. In the RPG community there is generally a split between those who are really into Rules As Written and those who are into the Spirit Of The Game. The first group gets the labels like powergamer, munchkin, wargamer, rules lawyer, roll player and the like; the latter are seen as closet LARPers, weirdos, GM-hogs, drama queens, and the like. But in the end you need both types to really keep gaming going. Any group will have elements of both -- in the end it is the particular mix that you enjoy that is important to the smooth functioning of the group.

 

[Trickstergod]

I believe, to a degree, everyone power-games. However, there are varying degrees of it.

On the one hand, you have the folk who have a character concept and just want it to be a valid and useful one, for it to shine. They'll say "I wanna be a pirate!" and, within that framework, will probably try to be good at a few, appropriate things. They may not always make the best of power-gaming decisions but will, if they realize, go with the more powerful tweak that makes sense than the less powerful one that makes sense. Generally speaking.

On the other hand, you have those who just look at the rules and try to power game from there. These are the folk who don't talk about pirates and cutlasses and trying to find a way for a peg-leg to be beneficial, but instead go on about reach and synergy bonuses and attacks of opportunity or whatever. They talk more about rules, less about character. They'll also generally be the better power-gamer - they're less restricted, or completely unrestricted by ideas such as character concept.

Then again, there are the folk who purposely cripple their characters and then claim that's somehow 'role-playing'. Personally, I think that just makes you a twit. Role-playing has little to do with a characters numbers and more to do with what you do with those numbers. The Everyman and the Superman can both make for great role-playing opportunities. However, I still suppose it stands that not everyone power-games, despite my initial supposition - but I think those who deliberately don't aren't always folk I'd hold in too high regard (just the same as for those who deliberately do power-game; both are obnoxious, in my mind).

Beyond that there are those who just kind of go with the flow of things, making a character and doing what's fun. However, I still think they fall into that first group - they may not ever bother with any kind of character build strategy, but if they realize something's neat and useful, they'll probably pick it up over something that, while neat, may not be so useful. They won't look for this stuff, but if stumbled across, will go with the 'power-gaming' decision - in part because they don't have any silly notions like 'I have to handicap my character to make it interesting.'

So, yeah, while I guess my statement that 'everyone's a power gamer' isn't quite true or believed by me, it's not too far off the mark. It's just that there are those who try to be strong within a character concept and then there are those who just want to be strong.

 

[BOZ]

in our current group, i'd say about half are powergamers, and the rest are not. and it shows, especially in combat.