Is it common for players to powergame?

[Faraer]

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?

A min-maxed character does not have more self, just more spells or higher skills, and is not more heroic. Heroism is about emotion. I'm also saying that a lot of the tendency to powergame is to do with trying to protect yourself from 'the plot'.

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?

In my direct and second-hand experience, the mentality of conscientiously 'building' the rules incarnation of a character is a superficial experience that isn't rewarding for most people in the long term. In so far as it's done for its own sake, people who do that tend to get bored. Even if they don't, I feel it's a soulless, mechanical experience that doesn't offer deep emotional rewards.

The idea that playing a less rules-effective character is better roleplaying is, at least as far as this thread is concerned, a straw man, no? By 'powergaming' I mean someone for whom the aim of character power, and the means of manipulating the rules, *predominates*.

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.

That sounds reasonable, so what are you disagreeing with? The strategy is to play to the mentality of a contingent of high-spending existing roleplayers (and encourage it, if possible, in others), but that mentality -- even the mentality of reading 300-page rulebooks at all -- is of much more limited appeal than the basic experience of roleplaying, which will not grow in popularity while these kinds of rulesets predominate.

 

[Geoff Watson]

I do have a problem with people saying that. I have heard people say so many times that they are power gaming when they take a particular feat. If they are there, why not use them to the best effect. If a feat works better with one weapon than another, do you not think that the person would more realistically (oh no, I used the r word) than with one that it does not work as well with?

I was replying to Random User who was saying that he wasn't a powergamer because he didn't take Power Attack, even though the feat he did take was better with his chosen weapon.

Geoff.

 

[Hjorimir]

"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.

Where I think they've spent hours thinking they will gain an advantage to only not gain an advantage.

 

[Saeviomagy]

In my direct and second-hand experience, the mentality of conscientiously 'building' the rules incarnation of a character is a superficial experience that isn't rewarding for most people in the long term.

"I don't enjoy it and neither do my friends"

In so far as it's done for its own sake, people who do that tend to get bored. Even if they don't, I feel it's a soulless, mechanical experience that doesn't offer deep emotional rewards.

"Other people suck because they do enjoy it"

Yeah. You're a great person and we should all model ourselves after your tastes. All hail Faraer!

 

[Jolly Giant]

Our group has been playing together since the release of 3.0. There are 6 of us, but only one who could be called a powergamer. And he's not too much of a powergamer either. Well, he can be pretty bad... But he could've been worse! He's does sometimes choose the less powerful option because he feels it makes for better RPing...

 

[molonel]

He seems to fit the mold that another poster mentioned: a kid in a candy store. He's always reading every D&D book he can find for equipment, magic items, and templates/rituals/subtypes that he can use for his PC. He know's more goodies that exist than I do ... Just because a player sees it in a book doesn't mean he should be able to get it and that his PC would have concidered searching for it ... Is it even concidered powergaming when players do that stuff? Am I wrong for thwarting it?[/

Yes. When someone combs through books looking for specific items, races, templates, feats and prestige classes looking for just the right mathematical combination in order to maximize output, that's powergaming. I'm a powergamer, and I don't have any problem with powergaming. I'm playing right now in a campaign called "The No Holds Barred Campaign" where we were specifically challenged by the DM to do our worst with any published d20 book.

I would never run such a campaign myself. It's too much work, and too much math for my tastes. I even burned myself out making my character. We used the optional Gestalt rules from Unearthed Arcana. By the time I was done, I was literally SICK of combing through books looking at feats, spells and prestige classes.

One of the most important things for you to do as a DM is set down guidelines for which books you will allow to be used in your campaign. Not all books are created equal. In fact, some of them are downright piss poor: badly written, badly edited, horribly balanced. Sometimes a book is perfectly balanced when used within its own setting. Some of the Forgotten Realms books come to mind. But when you mix them with some of the books from Mongoose Publishing, or some of the stuff from 3.0 Oriental Adventures, you get some NIGHTMARISH combinations.

You are absolutely right: Just because a player sees it in a book doesn't mean he should be able to get it and that his PC would have concidered searching for it. You're the DM. It's your world, and your game.

The important thing is to lay down the rules for everyone, and not seem partial or like you are trying to limit one player specifically.

Although, I must confess, if your idea of powergaming is a flying mount - especially in a Planescape campaign - then your bar is a lot lower than mine.

 

[Oryan77]

Although, I must confess, if your idea of powergaming is a flying mount - especially in a Planescape campaign - then your bar is a lot lower than mine.

Well this is something I'm still adjusting to. I'm probably an "Undergamer" or something. I might need to think bigger when giving PC's access to goodies. One problem I have is that I learned D&D by playing Darksun as my first campaign. Magic and pretty much anything "cool" is either illegal or rare in the world. And I'm also used to thinking in terms of novels I've read. Most fantasy books I've read don't have adventureres decked out in 50 different types of magic items, nor do they have flashy powerful mounts. So I'm used to things being on the low end of the scale. I also prefer things to be low end & modest in my games. But maybe I'm being too extreme?

Planescape could be an exception where it's normal for low lvl PC's to have crazy stuff, but I still try to keep it to a minimum. In a setting like Greyhawk or even Forgotten Realms, is it normal for a 5th lvl PC to own a flying mount? I sometimes think back to books I've read, and wonder, "If it's normal, why didn't someone like Drizzt ever just go get a flying mount instead of a horse"?

 

[mhacdebhandia]

One problem I have is that I learned D&D by playing Darksun as my first campaign. Magic and pretty much anything "cool" is either illegal or rare in the world. And I'm also used to thinking in terms of novels I've read. Most fantasy books I've read don't have adventureres decked out in 50 different types of magic items, nor do they have flashy powerful mounts. So I'm used to things being on the low end of the scale. I also prefer things to be low end & modest in my games. But maybe I'm being too extreme?

Seriously, I think D&D just isn't the game you're looking for.

 

[Metus]

I've liked what's been discussed on this thread so far.

Personally, for me, while most of the players I've met have not been powergamers, every single person in the group I DM in is one (except for one guy, and that's just because he doesn't care enough to powergame). These players are the definition of powergamers, busting out with the half-drow/half-dragon/half-giant/half-demon characters, and combing every sourcebook for even the most minimal advantage they can give their characters. They usually (but not always) have a complete disregard for the setting or any background material, and try to justify the aforementioned racial selection no matter what. In a previous thread I created discussing my group, Buttercup mentioned how they were "playing D&D like it was a video game". I thought that was very appropriate, and perhaps a good description of powergamers.

I know one previous poster mentioned it was because of the system - D&D lends itself to powergaming. I would agree that yes, without any customization D&D does lend itself to powergaming. Because of this, D&D is the only system my players really want to play, simply because it deals (or appears to deal) less with story and characters and more with numbers and rolling dice then any other RPG we have.

As a DM, powergamers are very discouraging, and for me, the bane of my existence.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

And I'm also used to thinking in terms of novels I've read. Most fantasy books I've read don't have adventureres decked out in 50 different types of magic items

Start reading the Forgotten Realms D&D books. 50 is conservative.

nor do they have flashy powerful mounts.

Off the top of my head:

The Dragonlance novels. Dragon mounts.
The Dragonriders of Pern. Dragon mounts.
The Lord of the Rings. Shadowfax (super-horse), Nazgul dragon-things, giant eagles, giant mammoths.
A series by Mercedes Lackey. Griffon mounts.
The greek myth Perseus. Pegasus mount.
The Riftwar Saga. Dragon mounts (Ashen-Shugar and his people.)
The Chronicles of Xanth. Various strange mounts.
A Wizard in Rhyme. Dragon mount (Good ol' Steg!)
A Song of Ice and Fire. Dragons and a giant elk.

"Flashy powerful mounts" are well-established in the fantasy I've read...