ClaytonCross
Kinder reader Inflection wanted
So People like getting stuff. Its pretty much true. We are in large a materialistic world but not all stuff is material some of it is social acknowledgement or personal improvement. So we how do you make a game fun? How do you create a desire for them to move forward... 9 times out of 10 you give them stuff. D&D is a game were visuals are in your head so aesthetic rewards don't really mean anything. You might be able to grant a title or social reward but that does not always make since if your doing everything in isolation like dungeons or Alternate plans such as the Shadow Fel for example. So what is the most common thing to give? Well gold and xp of course. But what do those mean? Well you basically turn them in for quality of life improvements which first and foremost will be magic items and character skills/abilities. This is core to every RPG I have ever played and very much a part of every version of D&D ever released. How does this push players to power gaming? Well it means players are trying to become better at something and likely as a group specific players will try to be the best they can at what they consider to be there "job". Your Typical scouts will try and get things like the Sentinel Shield, eyes of the eagle, observant feat, skulker feat, and a class and/or background commination to get proficiency in perception and stealth. Your typical trap finder and secret finder will get things like gloves of thievery, observant feat, Dungeon Delver feat, and a class and/or background commination to get proficiency in investigation and Thieves' Tools. Then there is going to be your players just looking for DPR getting +1-3 weapons and armor while taking sentinel feat, great weapon master feat, sharpshooter feat, crossbow expert feat, and maxing out their primary attack stat as soon as possible. Why? They want to see improvement and see themselves getting more better some how as they go.
I don't think the desire to get more power is a player problem but a game mechanic design. Its the entire concept of leveling up.
I think the conflict with this comes from 2 sources.
1. SOME story GMs in particular don't care if players get better. They do it because they have to in order to get players to play and to drive the story. If most of these GMs were honest they would be happy if players were level 1 forever and they get annoyed when players plan their leveling, ask at the end of session if they have enough XP to level, search for the "best" spell or ability option for their goal (not necessarily DPR) and even punish them for doing so being good at things. Most of the time this happens by accident and is not an intent of the GM but a side effect of simple not wanting do deal with non-story elements.
Example 1, A player has a high perception, a observant feat +5 for passive perception, eyes of the eagle granting advantage on perceptions checks, and the alert feat so they don't get surprised as a result the GM gets annoyed that the player spots all ambushes he had planned due to high passive so, so the gm makes the player role so they have a chance to fail. When the GM realizes they get advantage on those roles the GM stops calling for checks and just has people jump out and "surprise" them only to find out the player is immune to the surprise status, so the GM puts a number of them and without any role. Player is not surprised but has to fight 6 characters at once that some how got to engage in point blank and moving away the ambushers would all get opportunity attacks. The character has misty step and teleports away. As a result the GM never ambushes them again. Why? Because the GM had a narrative idea of the group being ambushed abut having this character in the group meant it was not likely so the GM no longer felt if fun or interesting to do so. As a result the GM just doesn't do it. Its not an intended punishment by the GM but since player invested heavily into it and it and the game has changed to no longer include this element because a player is good at it the result is the player is shamed and underpowered for other things while other players still could be effected. This is not because the GM can't still do it but because the GM had this idea of an ambush and was hurt when multiple attempts at ambushes failed by the same player... which was also the only time the player actually shined in the group.
Example 2, A player spends gold and buys magic items and takes a feat for higher AC and/or Damage. The GM sends a monster that the GM expects to be a big fight. This player (or all the players) easily defeat the enemy that should have a possibly lethal encounter. As a result, the GM raises the encounter to have a higher CR or doubles its HP and Damage so that every fight moving forward nearly kills the group. As a result, the players are getting stronger but doing worse every battle as the GM increases the difficulty to add story tension. Now I am not against hard fights. I am not against waves of enemies. However if every fight is against a single powerful enemy that the group can barely defeat... what did they get for their power gains? Players should have of level CR fight once in a while or of a lower CR level just so that they can experience being more powerful once in a while. If you always scale enemies to push your group to their limit... players will always strive for max DPR because they are afraid if they don't they will Total party Kill and end the campaign. They want to live and move forward. If they fight multiple easy encounters, they might not focus on DPR as much since it has not been a challenge. I don't recommend playing on easy mode ether as players might get board of fights if they are not a challenge. How do you balance this? Best I can tell is by not balancing it. ... Seriously. If your build a story encounter you know the players can handle at CR you can also just build some random low and high encounters that or supper easy or impossibly hard. This way as a GM your not responsible for players dying by "following the path" but you put some side roads that are completely random using ones you made for lower levels and higher levels on the same random roll table. Also, sometimes you beat some goblins and get a chest of gold on their wagon and sometimes your players kill a dragon almost costing their lives and get...nothing but pride. This way they don't blow off the easy mission and they weight the risks of harder more dangerous missions but you keep the "required" story missions beatable so they always have a way forward because the "I don't know what to do we can't beat any of these guys" moment is painful... then again you don't half to tell them which way is the way forward maybe a subtle hint if them seem lost or maybe they take one of the other 2 options and it becomes the path forward or they circle back to the scarier path when they are stronger and feel like they can take it.
2. Player competition in power gaming happens when two players want to be best at the same thing (usually but not always DPR) and the two players can't peacefully share the duty. You can have two scouts, have two faces, have two DPR but if it becomes an unfriendly competition instead of a tag team partnership where they are willing to provide the "help" action in turns (I generally only allow a proficient character to help). This is where it can be a problem with players. You will know this if you get friction between two players. If its a matter of your whole party being over powered... er... see #1.
This is not saying that any type of play is wrong, just that you maybe causing your complaint. Even if your read this and realize it might actually be you as GM causing the issue it does not necessarily mean you need to change if its working for your party but it might release your tension and annoyance with your players if you realize its self inflicted. Sometimes just changing your perception can make something work fine. After all if its you and not your players who are annoyed with this and you come to terms with it to a point its not bothering you... Then their is no longer a problem. Making two or three different path options of different difficulty is time consuming and setting time for ambushes or traps you know you have a player that can easily find and by pass may make it so that building them feels more painful and a waste of time. If that's the case maybe you just take it that they are going to power game because your going to build deadly encounters every time and maybe you make and "ambush" and don't bother to have them role just saying that player that you think is going to spot the ambush spots the "ambush" as part of the plan of the encounter. Your doing the same thing but your making giving the player a nod for their buy in. I am not saying that is the approach I would take, I like the players to states and roles as well as enemies roles to be involved but its not wrong if your all having fun. We also all have different time restraints for game preparation due to number of games and amount of free time in our spare time. We also have different tolerances on what we are willing to spend that time on.
That's my opinion on this old heavily beaten dead horse.
I don't think the desire to get more power is a player problem but a game mechanic design. Its the entire concept of leveling up.
I think the conflict with this comes from 2 sources.
1. SOME story GMs in particular don't care if players get better. They do it because they have to in order to get players to play and to drive the story. If most of these GMs were honest they would be happy if players were level 1 forever and they get annoyed when players plan their leveling, ask at the end of session if they have enough XP to level, search for the "best" spell or ability option for their goal (not necessarily DPR) and even punish them for doing so being good at things. Most of the time this happens by accident and is not an intent of the GM but a side effect of simple not wanting do deal with non-story elements.
Example 1, A player has a high perception, a observant feat +5 for passive perception, eyes of the eagle granting advantage on perceptions checks, and the alert feat so they don't get surprised as a result the GM gets annoyed that the player spots all ambushes he had planned due to high passive so, so the gm makes the player role so they have a chance to fail. When the GM realizes they get advantage on those roles the GM stops calling for checks and just has people jump out and "surprise" them only to find out the player is immune to the surprise status, so the GM puts a number of them and without any role. Player is not surprised but has to fight 6 characters at once that some how got to engage in point blank and moving away the ambushers would all get opportunity attacks. The character has misty step and teleports away. As a result the GM never ambushes them again. Why? Because the GM had a narrative idea of the group being ambushed abut having this character in the group meant it was not likely so the GM no longer felt if fun or interesting to do so. As a result the GM just doesn't do it. Its not an intended punishment by the GM but since player invested heavily into it and it and the game has changed to no longer include this element because a player is good at it the result is the player is shamed and underpowered for other things while other players still could be effected. This is not because the GM can't still do it but because the GM had this idea of an ambush and was hurt when multiple attempts at ambushes failed by the same player... which was also the only time the player actually shined in the group.
Example 2, A player spends gold and buys magic items and takes a feat for higher AC and/or Damage. The GM sends a monster that the GM expects to be a big fight. This player (or all the players) easily defeat the enemy that should have a possibly lethal encounter. As a result, the GM raises the encounter to have a higher CR or doubles its HP and Damage so that every fight moving forward nearly kills the group. As a result, the players are getting stronger but doing worse every battle as the GM increases the difficulty to add story tension. Now I am not against hard fights. I am not against waves of enemies. However if every fight is against a single powerful enemy that the group can barely defeat... what did they get for their power gains? Players should have of level CR fight once in a while or of a lower CR level just so that they can experience being more powerful once in a while. If you always scale enemies to push your group to their limit... players will always strive for max DPR because they are afraid if they don't they will Total party Kill and end the campaign. They want to live and move forward. If they fight multiple easy encounters, they might not focus on DPR as much since it has not been a challenge. I don't recommend playing on easy mode ether as players might get board of fights if they are not a challenge. How do you balance this? Best I can tell is by not balancing it. ... Seriously. If your build a story encounter you know the players can handle at CR you can also just build some random low and high encounters that or supper easy or impossibly hard. This way as a GM your not responsible for players dying by "following the path" but you put some side roads that are completely random using ones you made for lower levels and higher levels on the same random roll table. Also, sometimes you beat some goblins and get a chest of gold on their wagon and sometimes your players kill a dragon almost costing their lives and get...nothing but pride. This way they don't blow off the easy mission and they weight the risks of harder more dangerous missions but you keep the "required" story missions beatable so they always have a way forward because the "I don't know what to do we can't beat any of these guys" moment is painful... then again you don't half to tell them which way is the way forward maybe a subtle hint if them seem lost or maybe they take one of the other 2 options and it becomes the path forward or they circle back to the scarier path when they are stronger and feel like they can take it.
2. Player competition in power gaming happens when two players want to be best at the same thing (usually but not always DPR) and the two players can't peacefully share the duty. You can have two scouts, have two faces, have two DPR but if it becomes an unfriendly competition instead of a tag team partnership where they are willing to provide the "help" action in turns (I generally only allow a proficient character to help). This is where it can be a problem with players. You will know this if you get friction between two players. If its a matter of your whole party being over powered... er... see #1.
This is not saying that any type of play is wrong, just that you maybe causing your complaint. Even if your read this and realize it might actually be you as GM causing the issue it does not necessarily mean you need to change if its working for your party but it might release your tension and annoyance with your players if you realize its self inflicted. Sometimes just changing your perception can make something work fine. After all if its you and not your players who are annoyed with this and you come to terms with it to a point its not bothering you... Then their is no longer a problem. Making two or three different path options of different difficulty is time consuming and setting time for ambushes or traps you know you have a player that can easily find and by pass may make it so that building them feels more painful and a waste of time. If that's the case maybe you just take it that they are going to power game because your going to build deadly encounters every time and maybe you make and "ambush" and don't bother to have them role just saying that player that you think is going to spot the ambush spots the "ambush" as part of the plan of the encounter. Your doing the same thing but your making giving the player a nod for their buy in. I am not saying that is the approach I would take, I like the players to states and roles as well as enemies roles to be involved but its not wrong if your all having fun. We also all have different time restraints for game preparation due to number of games and amount of free time in our spare time. We also have different tolerances on what we are willing to spend that time on.
That's my opinion on this old heavily beaten dead horse.
Last edited:
Nah pun aside, if you have Players on your table competing for dpr then you got other problems afflicting good rpg also i guess. Competition as in roleplaying would be a good Thing though but never by numbers. 
