Not Everyone is Interested in Powergaming [merged]

[EyeontheMountain]

My problem between powergaming and role-playing is which seems to be the strongest factor in character creation. I run a lot of PBEMs, with people I have never and will never meet face to face. So I ask for full character sheets plus backgrounds, as a way to get the crunch of the game, (obviously) and to get the fluff of what kind of player i am dealing with, and how the player is likely to act in the game.

And believe me, I get all kinds. From people who have a concept and then cannot put together a character (rules-wise) who really can pull their own weight in the party. Nice concept, and some interesting combinations, but just not effective in a way the party needs them to be effective. Sure, I let some of them in, but not in the top four slots, they can come in as a 5th, 6th or such character, the more general slots.

I know people may not agree with me, but in my experience having the basic four roles, plus backups does make the game work better.

The other end of the spectrum is power-gamers, who have a concept they want to play, but it is not a concept of a character, but a concept of a set of rules/feats/abilities they want to 'try out'. Generally thee show up in my games where I start at levels much higher than 1. And then the optimizing begins with odd feat selections at low levels (like those who take quicken at first level, to save their higher slots for other things),and then a lot of rules-driven choices, that make little or no sense in any role-playing sense, like alignment shifts at key points, or 'I was an assassin, but now I am good, and of course you will still let me use my death attack' kind of people. To me that is power gaming, and it is pretty easy to pick out form the crowd. Is it wrong, not really, but it is a totally different style of game.

For my games, I don't actually like either extreme. I want characters who are competently built, and effective, without getting into power gaming territory. It is a fine line, though.

 

[blargney the second]

Now, on to Doug McCRae's hypothesis, I'll make it clear how I interpret something being called the "Stormwind Fallacy." Again, I could be wrong.

There was a guy named Stormwind who said optimization precludes good RP, deficiency implies good RP.

Nah, it's simpler than that. Occam's Razor never touched his chin. Stormwind's Fallacy is a little ditty that Tempest Stormwind came up with to get character optimization detractors to realize that optimization and roleplaying are not mutually exclusive.
-blarg

 

[Someone]

While I don't have a problem admitting that you can create a concept of a badasss fighter, mage, or whatever (we're playing D&D, the game is about heroes fighting monsters) and thus that powergaming and good roleplaying can coexist, I don't think it's valid for roleplaying and extreme powergaming.

Of course, the definition of extreme powergaming will vary from person to person, but it often involves reliance on a very specific trick, normally an implausible and irreducibly complex combination of magic items, feats and prestige classes that inevitably think you to lead if he's playing the character or the trick.

 

[Chainsaw Mage]

D&D which is harmful to another person - whether physically, emotionally, mentally, or even spiritually - is still a form of abuse, even if the person who is playing the D&D is having fun.

Excellent point. I would also add that D&D used in the creation of child pornography, serial murder, or suicide bombing is also badwrongfun.

 

[Nifft]

Excellent point. I would also add that D&D used in the creation of child pornography, serial murder, or suicide bombing is also badwrongfun.

Two of those are bad ideas... but D&D is all about the serially killin' things (and the serial takin' of their stuff).

AAAAaaaannnd just to swerve us back on-topic, powergaming helps you kill things, and therefore take stuff.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Warren Okuma]

Behold the Mu-mu min-min build...

Halfling Wizard level 20 (Commoner is way too easy)
Feats: Four bonus feats: Empower Spell, Enlarge Spell, Extend Spell, Heighten Spell,
Level feats: Maximize Spell, Quicken Spell, Silent Spell, Improved Counter Spell, Scribe Scroll, Widen Spell, Spell Penetration, Greater Spell Penetration.
Weapons: None.
Skills: Swimming (Cross class) Level 11, Jumping (Cross class) Level 1/2 (not there yet.). (Skills are at is -16, due to no armor proficiencies)
Equipment: Has -1 full plate (so he can sleep in armor... he can't take it off), and -1 tower shield (so he always has it ready) he has a spell failure rate of 85%, and he punches without improved unarmed attack so he provokes and attack of opportunity (and cannot do lethal damage, or use spells) the rest he keeps on his self, plus spell book.
Spells: None. Too stupid.
Tactics: Punch
Stats (elite array, point buy too easy)
Str 11-2 = 9
Dex13+2 (Halfling) =15
Con 12
IQ 8
Wiz 14 (so he knows he is silly)
Chr 15+5 (level) = 20 (so he can recruit others)
BAC +10/+5
ref 8, fort 7, wil 14 (ah well)
-6 armor check penalty full plate, -10 armor check penalty tower shield, -2 for tower shield encumbrance penalty, -1 for str, for a total penalty of -19.
Thus Moo-moo has a -9/-14 to hit melee.
Unarmed damage 1D2+1 subdual.
AC 10 +1 (dex)+1 (size)-2 (curse)+12 (armor/shield bonus)=22 Ah well, touch is AC10.
Hit Points: 72

 

[Nyaricus]

It's really as simple as the terminology:

optimize: 1. enhance effectiveness of something: to make something function at its best or most effective, or use something to its best advantage.

effective: 1. producing result: causing a result, especially the desired or intended result.


I agree with you that there is a huge difference between an optimized and an effective character, and that both can bring something to the table. I recall a level 7 dwarf barbarian from a game 3 years ago. He used his level 1, 3 and 6 feats to take Great Fort, Lightning Reflexes and Iron Will. He almost never failed a save

cheers,
--N

 

[pawsplay]

I disagree with the distinction. To be effective, a character would have to be optimized for effectiveness. To be optimized, a character would have to be effectively optimized.

A character who contributes meanginfully to the party is both optimized and effective. A character who does not is neither.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I'll go you one further- a PC that is neither optimized or effective can nevertheless be quite welcome to the party if the PC is entertaining.

I've run PCs whose only real function is to get the other PCs into or out of trouble. Usually trouble he got them into in the first place...

But she was entertaining, so the players didn't mind, and in some cases, egged her on.

 

[Nyaricus]

I disagree with the distinction. To be effective, a character would have to be optimized for effectiveness. To be optimized, a character would have to be effectively optimized.

A character who contributes meanginfully to the party is both optimized and effective. A character who does not is neither.

I disagree with your disagreement

The dwarf barbarian I mentioned above, for example - he was not optimized. He didn't have PA, WF: Greatsword and Cleave. However, he could pass almost any saving throw shot at him, which meant he was there for the entire fight, and was thus an effective character - compared to a fighter, who might not have passed a fireball's Reflex save, and who might've been taken out early. He was by no means optimized, but he was effective at what he did - which was to stay in the fight longer then most.

Being effective =/= mean that you have to be the best you can be - the dictionary even agrees with me there. There is a distinction between the two.

A character who contributes meaningfully to the party is obviously effective at what they do, and probably (but not necessarily) optimized.

cheers,
--N