Manifesto of the powergamer (rant), part I

[WizarDru]

To me, the issue is not one of powergaming, but group compatability. Powergaming, like so many terms, is relative to the person speaking it and the audience hearing it.

Some folks have a playstyle that emphasizes a more tactical approach: take a level of ranger to get the front-loaded feats, take a level or two of rogue for sneak attack and skill goodness, and then choose your prime class. 'Use the system to your advantage' are their watchwords. There is nothing wrong with this. They may see non-combat sequences as merely setups for said combats, or necessary filler that they suffer through to get back to the smackdown.

And all that's fine, as long as it's kept relative to the group as a whole, and everyone's on the same page. Over the years, I've encountered people on both extreme ends of the spectrum, and neither one bothers me so much, unless they intentionally work at undermining the game. A quick perusal of the Story Hours will show that we have a variety of perspectives available and that all sorts of games make entertaining reading. Wulf's Story Hour and Sagiro's are very different games in approach and tone, but both are excellent reading.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: The only wrong way to play is to not have fun. Period.

 

[Henry]

I design my characters by first making a rough estimate of the stats and abilities I want to play, then write a 2-3 pages background.

Duuuuude - you're a storytelling twink! NOBODY writes 3 pages of background anymore! It's all, like, hack n' slash n' stuff! Dispense with the tellin', and get with the killin'!


(I'm just kidding, abri.)

Seriously, I have gamed with at least 4 different groups of gamers in my lifetime. (If you count the permutations and combinations of people from all groups I have played with, my gamer circle has altered thousands of times!) I have gamed at conventions, as well.

With minor variations, we all game the same!

It comes as a shock to most people, because when you get on line people talk about how they despise powergaming this, and munchkinism that, and storytelling the other, but the fact is, we all get together during the week, with people we like to spend time with, and play an game of imaginary worlds in the ultimate goal of having a good time.

I have never personally encountered anyone who, for instance, played with people they hated, to create some grand masterpiece d'art. I have never encountered anyone who never created a character at some point in their careers that they grew fond of. Gaming is cool. People like to do things they think are cool.

We all have combats in our games. We all have some playing in character. We all have table talk. We all have had instances of going out for dinner before, after, or during a gaming session.

The DEGREE to which we have these things in our groups varies. That is immaterial, in the end.

Those who look down on others due to variations in play style have NEVER looked at their own games too carefully. Detractors who claim that they have NEVER played in a powergaming or combat heavy mode, and never will - I have to raise my doubts about the veracity of these people. A gamer may PREFER noncombat, or PREFER hack and slash, or may PREFER puzzle-solving - but preferences change over time. The righteous roleplayer likely was once a hack and slash player, or may yet be in their future, to let off some steam.

That is MY manifesto - the "Shut Up and Play" manifesto, to borrow a turn of phrase from Monte Cook. Those who detract from another's playing style need to honestly examine their styles of play, past, present, and future - agree to disagree - and Shut Up and Play.

 

[Sammael99]

Re: Re: Manifesto of the powergamer (rant), part I

That is MY manifesto - the "Shut Up and Play" manifesto, to borrow a turn of phrase from Monte Cook. Those who detract from another's playing style need to honestly examine their styles of play, past, present, and future - agree to disagree - and Shut Up and Play.

Henry...

You're my hewo !

 

[ced1106]

Better a powergamer than a munchkin or rules lawyer!

(Or are munchkins and rules lawyers prestige classes for powergamers...)


Cedric.
aka. Washu! ^O^

 

[mkletch]

Better a powergamer than a munchkin or rules lawyer!

(Or are munchkins and rules lawyers prestige classes for powergamers...)

Rules lawyers are not too bad, as long as no briefs are filed during the game session. Any litigation is fine once the dice go back in the bag. I've found it actually helps to keep the group in touch.

-Fletch!

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I just want to know how a L1 character averages 14 pts of damage a round.

The best I can do is:

1/2 Orc Ftr, 20 Str, Power Attack, WF: Greatsword

2d6 (avg 7)
+5 str
+1 Power attack

= 13 average

Which assumes you have a 20 Str (which isn't likely in my campaign, with 25-point buy stats).

 

[DonAdam]

I guess I define power gaming a little differently- I see it as introducing things that are better than what is possible with the core rules or abusing things out of whack with the vast majority of the core rules.

Another version is metagaming, which is ALWAYS to the character's advantage- this is what I find most people calling power gaming. I have nothing wrong with designing an effective character (if you don't you'll die in my games, because challenge is part of the fun of the game) but I do have a problem when one thinks that mechanical success is more important than roleplaying. This comes into play primarily with issues such as character knowledge.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Your half orc must be trying to monkey grip his greatsword. Two handed weapons get 1.5 x str bonus to damage.

2d6 +1.5(5)
7 (avg)+7=14

Of course, you can do a lot better than that.

Raging 1st level half-orc barbarian with 20 strength (base--24 while raging) and power attack:

2d6+1.5(7)+1
7+10+1=18 damage (average)

I don't really think that's particularly twinking or powergaming either. It's just your standard archetype with some very good stats.

I just want to know how a L1 character averages 14 pts of damage a round.

The best I can do is:

1/2 Orc Ftr, 20 Str, Power Attack, WF: Greatsword

2d6 (avg 7)
+5 str
+1 Power attack

= 13 average

Which assumes you have a 20 Str (which isn't likely in my campaign, with 25-point buy stats).

 

[Mistwell]

I just want to know how a L1 character averages 14 pts of damage a round.

The best I can do is:

1/2 Orc Ftr, 20 Str, Power Attack, WF: Greatsword

2d6 (avg 7)
+5 str
+1 Power attack

= 13 average

Which assumes you have a 20 Str (which isn't likely in my campaign, with 25-point buy stats).

Lots of ways. First, the half-orc will wield the weapon with two hands, making that a +7 strength, for an average of 15 damage if using power attack. That's not even going down the road of two weapon fighting, or exotic weapons proficiencies, or factoring in critical hits, or sneak attacks, or...well you get the picture.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Your half orc must be trying to monkey grip his greatsword. Two handed weapons get 1.5 x str bonus to damage.

D'oh! (smacks head)

Forgot the barbarian, too. Of course, since the L1 barbarian can only rage 1/day, its hardly like he'll deal out that damage EVERY combat, unless its only one fight per day. But I'll buy the 15 average.