Is it common for players to powergame?

[ARandomGod]

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.

This doesn't make sense to me. You say that power gaming, as you are defining it, is trying to make the character as invulnerable as possible before play even begins. Hence before there is any opportunity to have self sacrifice... Hence trying to make a character with more self to potentially sacrifice... and therefore making one more capable of said sacrifice and therefore more capable of heroism as you have defined it here.

So, as I'm understanding it, you're saying here that the ability to BE a hero is antithetical to heroism itself, and therefore hero's are antihero's... well, it just breaks down. I don't see any sense in this attempt. Could you try again?

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.

Once again, I'm not getting it. Sure, I'll agree that the quick fix isn't as good as long term enjoyment. But then again, building a character is long term. The quick fix of taking a feat without planning the character in full seems to be anti "powergaming" as you have defined it, and yet you're saying that it's anti itself too... Well.. What are you attempting to say?

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.

This I undersand. On the other hand, I at least semi-disagree with it. Or with part of it. Market research shows that people *will pay more* if you build a game with the potential to powergame, because you release the power gradually. This is what is meant when people say that WoTC didn't really make D&D so much as they made Magic: The RollPlaying. They took what they learned from magic and expansions and card (feat) combinations, and are making you buy more and more cards. And you do it. And it's very design is to encourage you to do so. They made the game this way to encourage powergaming and moneyspending. It's simple economics. Sure, you can get money spending other ways, other companies have done it. But obviously not with the success of Magic. And that's what this company is selling.

 

[ARandomGod]

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

ha!
I have to agree with this wholeheartedly. A game wherein all the characters are GODS can be fine. And a game where all the characters can be squashed like bugs can be fine. And you can have good or poor role players in either scenario.

 

[ARandomGod]

I find the power-gamer attitude to be pretty funny. Players can toil for hours pouring over books looking for that amazing combination that will really make their character a powerhouse. What they don't seem to realize is that D&D isn't limited in scope. For all the work they put into making their character powerful it takes but a few moments for the DM to scale an encounter to match. It is all relative.

Players simply cannot win in this scenario. The DM always can just lay down something that is tougher than the character. It has been my experience that once players realize this they tend to settle down and get back into a more common gaming mindset.

But, let me be clear, I think there is absolutely nothing wrong with building an efficient character. I just don't think you need to be cheesy to do it.

Granted, none of this holds true if it is really a DM vs. Player campaign (and I'd just leave that kind of game anyway). Life is too short to waste time on a bad game.

"Players simply cannot win in this scenario."

Actually, here I'd say that no matter what (barring the GM being an utter twit), the players have already won in this scenario. They've built their concept. They've had it play. Sure, their moment of glory was ten minutes... But they obviously got hours and hours of enjoyment prepping for that ten minutes. And that ten was pretty good. Compare this to those who got no hours of prep enjoyment, and played for only ten minutes... I think it's clear who's "won" in that comparison.

 

[Liquidsabre]

I've always been of the opinion that in a wholly balanced game system (anda balanced style of play, involving both roleplaying issues and combat issues to equal and fair degrees) that there cannot be any such thing as powergaming, all character paths being equal. The only time the majority of folks do not consider character paths as equal is when they "measure" the character according to combat alone, a common fallacy.

When looking at the game as a whole however, every character path is relatively equal, so powergaming becomes impossible as no character is any more powerful than others (without blinders on and narrowing ones focus by only looking at combat). Instead all that exists within a balanced game system is min/maxing. So a character can stack abilities to be really, really good at one thing, be it a superior diplomat, a melee combatant, a ranged combatant, an enchanter, a sneak, etc. that's all well and good.

Min/maxing, however, is it's own curse. The character is really, really good at one or two things, but as a result they aren't so good at other things. A noble charcter may be awesome at negotiations, acquiring treaties, currying favors, and pulling strings but may only be passable at ranged or mounted combat. A combat monster built for melee will be at a loss when fighting at range or when trying to talk his way through an approaching army. The sneak may be awesome at scouting, stealing, and assasinations for example but can't fight toe-to-toe, has lousy talking skills to get himself out of trouble, and can't wield a magic item to save his own life.

A min/maxed character will inevitably have weaknesses in a balanced game system. One can only powergame by attempting to change the balance of the system by altering rules to eliminate character weaknesses. It's this sort of activity that can be labeled and defined as powergaming. It's an important distinction.

 

[hong]

Sometimes it's so easy to powergame that you do it accidentally. For instance, my current character was designed for versatility rather than power (barbarian/shaman with average stats) but consistently dishes out huge amounts of damage.

Twink Without Thought. It's a Zen thing.

 

[Bigwilly]

Who you calling a twit?

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.

While I might not purposely cripple my characters, I tend to play jack-of-all trades types who are not particularly good at any one thing but have some ability in a wide range of abilities. In addition, a character who has an obvious weakness, even if just a pure fighter's low will save is something that can help to define a character - and that is roleplaying.

Bigwilly

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Bigwilly, I believe Trickstergod was referring to the oft-encountered, "I'm a better roleplayer than you because your 1st-level Fighter took Weapon Focus and Power Attack, whereas my 1st-level Wizard has no arms, a 9 Intelligence, no ranks in Spellcraft or Knowledge (Arcana), and has a lame duck as a familiar."

Anti-powergamers, if you will.

 

[Creamsteak]

My largest and most consistent problem with most players I've had is that they choose to "out-power" or "overpower" the enemy. That's a valid approach, but sometimes it's good to see other ways to win.

For instance, although it is valid to attempt to outfight the minotaur, it is also valid to trick, avoid, or trap the minotaur. Interestingly enough (and perhaps expectedly?) I've found that my younger brother and some of the players with less experience with the game tend to be more likely to treat the situation like it was more "real."

I posted a thread a while back about how my younger brother destroyed a stone bridge while an army was crossing it, instead of trying to fight or flee. He thought of the circumstances in a literal sense. The enemy is crossing a bridge, if I destroy the bridge, they can't cross. He didn't win because he had a higher damage output, or because he could out-diplomacy score there leaders, or because he was able to use his stealth and hiding skills to avoid the battle altogether. The only number crunching involved was to see if it was indeed possible to destroy the bridge with his plan. Once that was solved, we took the consequences.

 

[shilsen]

While I might not purposely cripple my characters, I tend to play jack-of-all trades types who are not particularly good at any one thing but have some ability in a wide range of abilities. In addition, a character who has an obvious weakness, even if just a pure fighter's low will save is something that can help to define a character - and that is roleplaying.

Bigwilly

Fair enough. Just note that an obvious strength can equally help to define a character and that too, to quote you, is roleplaying.

As I said before, power gaming is not inimical to roleplaying.

 

[shilsen]

Darn double post!