Power Gaming vs Role Playing

[Grandvizier]

I have been following a thread, where some diametrically opposing views on how a D&D (non specific on edition) should be played. The Power gaming faction wants to exclude characters and even their weapon choices f they aren't max out to the most powerful possible, even down to calling character creation a "build". As can be imagined, this has created some not so polite responses from traditional role players. The key thing that has come out, is the two factions are not playing the size game. The fact the system can be used for the two games is a credit to the system, however doesn't, change the validity of both types of games and the position taken on both. I think we all need to take a step back and realise the two games actually are mutually exclusive, with alot of grey in between. It does however put a responsibility on DM to explain how his game will be played, and also to advise new players the game is played a variety of different ways. Would hate neophytes to be put off completely, as the as the style of play ill suits them.

 

[thanson02]

My response to those who wish to argue, always remember the first rule of D&D: Never tell a player how to play their character.

If you are a power gamer, then be a power gamer. If not, then not.

Sent from my XT1096 using Tapatalk

 

[Celebrim]

Power gaming and role-playing don't have to be in opposition, though sadly you are right that they often are. Some of the best role-players I've met were also power gamers. The key take away from such discussions is, first, that each player only has a right to say how his own player character should be built and played. And second, when you have players at the table with different aesthetics of play (the formal name for the two different 'games' you've noticed), that each side needs to compromise just a little bit to ensure everyone has fun. That means that the role-players have to at least not make incompetent characters, but play characters that can legitimately contribute to party success and which try to contribute to party success. And it means that the power gamers have to role-play in situations were role-play is warranted and at least not try to disrupt role-play when it occurs. Often I find that powers gamers will realize at some point that role-playing is a very powerful tool for advancing their character's interests and problem solving, and that role-players will realize that competent characters live longer and as a result are more likely to have the grand story arcs that they desire.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

Optimized or non-optimized, all I care about as a DM is if you’re having fun, not infringing on the fun of anyone else (including me), and your character is interesting to DM for. If your character has no personality, no hook, or is just a collection of numbers and abilities designed solely to “win the game,” that's when I have a problem.

Celebrim is right about compromise being a part of it. Regardless of play styles, the players need to know that everyone has to have their moments in the spotlight and people have different definitions of what’s fun in the game.

 

[RedSiegfried]

Yeah, I still don't understand why you can't powergame and roleplay at the same time. I can say as a fact that they are NOT mutually exclusive, because in my groups we play like that almost all the time.

In my experience, what people often disagree on is what constitutes roleplaying. Usually if someone is roleplaying the way another person thinks is "correct," they don't care so much if they're powergaming/minmaxing/optimizing/whatever. Not to try to place blame or take sides, but in actual games I've played in, what I see more often is self-proclaimed "roleplayers" complain about others not roleplaying the way they expect. Only one time in a game did I have someone get really upset because a few others weren't optimizing/powergaming the way they expected them to, and even that turned out okay in the end. Usually, the people I play with are the kind of folks who just naturally tend to have the same philosophy as I do about the game ... you can do one or the other a lot, or both, or neither, and we'll all work together to help you to have fun playing the game the way you like to play it.

Not trying to say one way or the other is right; it's just my observation. Like I said, I see no reason whatsoever why someone can't optimize the heck out of their character and still roleplay - they're two entirely different parts of the game that are in no way mutually exclusive, and to me that's one of the reasons I love RPGs.

 

[RedSiegfried]

Often I find that powers gamers will realize at some point that role-playing is a very powerful tool for advancing their character's interests and problem solving, and that role-players will realize that competent characters live longer and as a result are more likely to have the grand story arcs that they desire.

You win today's Internet, sir.

 

[Aenghus]

I find spotlight hogging to be bad form regardless of whether it manifests as excessive powergaming or excessive incompetence, no roleplaying or entirely selfish roleplaying. RPGs for me are about coperation and collaboration more than competition and adversarial play.

Everyone in a group needs to be sufficiently compatible to sustain the game for its duration. There are no hard and fast rules to ensure this, I've seen groups that seemed fine on paper explode in practise, and groups that never should have worked gel together somehow. On the other hand, these are the rarities, normally careful groundwork and player selection based on similar mutual RPG preferences do help to produce a successful group.

 

[Lanefan]

My response to those who wish to argue, always remember the first rule of D&D: Never tell a player how to play their character.

If you are a power gamer, then be a power gamer. If not, then not.

Being - or self-defining as - a power gamer is a philosophical background to how one approaches the game as a whole (which, in my opinion, can be argued), rather than just how one plays an individual character (which, as you correctly note above, cannot). Big, big difference.

Lanefan

 

[was]

..Regardless of whether you choose to build an 'optimized' or 'cool concept' PC, I have always found that the role-playing is done AFTER character creation.

 

[Lylandra]

In my opinion, it totally depends on your group. As long as everyone is having fun, then mix and match playstyles at will. If someone doesn't overly enjoy roleplaying in character and is a beast in combat, then why not? As long as said player doesn't interrupt the flow of non-combat activities or belittles other players who don't play their characters as effectively as he does.

For my own enjoyment, I would prefer players who play an actual *character* and not what MMORPGers call a "toon" or a stick with stats. I'd also want to have players make cohesive characters who actually make sense. As strong and interesting as your character build might be, it doesn't make too much sense to use backgrounds that contradict each other or to belong to two factions who openly oppose each other. I'd also stay away from playing quarter-races if they are only included to allow a certain build. But that's my personal red line on munching and over-constructing a character.

On the other hand, I'd also be careful to not have a "klutz character" in your group that someone builds as a polar opposite to the seemingly bad power-gamer. Playing a character with weaknesses is great, playing a character that's weaker in combat or outside a city or without bodyguards (hello bard!^^) is fine as well, but having a character "sabotage" certain areas of play just because they are not his or her main interest just isn't fair to others. If you don't enjoy combat or want to solve stuff diplomatically, totally legit. I'm a diplomancer myself. I also enjoy a good fight. Just sort it out in character, help your group and discuss it afterwards.