Power Gaming

[William Ronald]

They certainly don't have to be mutually exclusive.

But, for some reason, in my experience they seem to be mutually exclusive in 95% of players. And, further, it just leads to the "optimizer" making sure everyone has an optimized character and then wanting to direct the battlefield during every combat.

Thankfully, we now have the minis game. Where, hopefully, the optimizers will go to get their battlefield jollies.

Don't get me wrong. I don't make ineffective characters on purpose. I do try to make them good at what they do. But the cherry-picking prestige (and regular) class levels just to eek out the maximum theoretical damage is blah. I have actually played under a DM who would sit there for two minutes to figure out the best possible value for Power Attack. I mean, he would literally sit there and out loud walk through the calculus to pick the right number. God forbid he just estimate and say, "He'll power attack for 2." No, it's two minutes of math and a mini-debate to decide whether it's better to power attack for 2 or 3--for that one attack in the combat.

That's the "it's become a math problem" that's annoying to some of us.

But if you like math, have at it & enjoy!

I like to think that a player can have an effective character and be a good roleplayer. In a former group that I was in, character optimization reached an absurd level. (Let's say that I felt that I was in a bad videogame.) However, there are ways to ensure that somethings are not done in the campaign. One is to say no. Secondly, prestige classes very often can (and perhaps should) have campaign organizations behind them. Just because you have joined once prestige class and the only organization in the campaign from which it is available, does not mean that a separate organization will give your character the training in another prestige class. ("Sorry. We do not like the fencing school that you studied under, as its leaders have often insulted our style of combat. So, we cannot accept your application into our organization. Have a nice day.")

 

[Arc]

They certainly don't have to be mutually exclusive.

But, for some reason, in my experience they seem to be mutually exclusive in 95% of players. And, further, it just leads to the "optimizer" making sure everyone has an optimized character and then wanting to direct the battlefield during every combat.

Thankfully, we now have the minis game. Where, hopefully, the optimizers will go to get their battlefield jollies.

Don't get me wrong. I don't make ineffective characters on purpose. I do try to make them good at what they do. But the cherry-picking prestige (and regular) class levels just to eek out the maximum theoretical damage is blah. I have actually played under a DM who would sit there for two minutes to figure out the best possible value for Power Attack. I mean, he would literally sit there and out loud walk through the calculus to pick the right number. God forbid he just estimate and say, "He'll power attack for 2." No, it's two minutes of math and a mini-debate to decide whether it's better to power attack for 2 or 3--for that one attack in the combat.

That's the "it's become a math problem" that's annoying to some of us.

But if you like math, have at it & enjoy!

I think the problem is that you're playing with poor optimizers, not that you're playing with optimizers at all. A good optimizer will do all the odd prestige class dips and character optimization tricks, but will do it unoptrusively. He'll whip major butt, but also defer to other characters when their strengths come into play. Sure, he's amazing in combat/certain skill checks/certain situations (depending on the build), but he doesn't try to be everything. I think what you're dealing with is inexperianced, immature optimizers. Don't dismiss them because they haven't had enough practice to learn how to do it unobtrusively, but push them along toward that. After all, don't your other players hold up the game to look up rules and double check their rolls?

Also - no optimizer who cares enough about his power attack mod won't have a graphing calculator ready with the formula to figure it out

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

I've never found optimization and roleplaying to be mutually exclusive. Quite the opposite!

My best optimizers are unquestionably my best roleplayers. I'm serious, it's a direct correlation. If I had to highlight, say, the top four players in my group for roleplaying and for character optimization, I'd have the same list, albeit not necessarily in the same order. And one of these guys, though a capable optimizer, is also a downright munchkin, dubious loopholes and all - but the characters he munchkins out are such fun in roleplay that I'm inclined to allow some of that dubiousness.

The players who come in with one class and a half-dozen randomly chosen PHB feats are the ones who haven't invested thought into their characters and expect them to die in one or two sessions (as they generally do ). They play them like stereotypes (or pseudo-archetypes) and always have more ready, since they're practically pregenerated by D&D.

The players who come in with detailed backstories and interesting personalities also have tightly and effectively selected combinations of feats, skills and classes to get exactly the right representation for their character.

 

[FireLance]

"a good optimizer", that is a perfect example of the change in the game that I was talking about. The game is becoming a math problem, one where players sit and gather whatever they can to get the most powerful solution. It is not about playing tha game anymore for many players, they have their path choosen out all the way to level 20. What happens in the game does not matter, it is about obtaining some level of power and ability like you are playing Diablo. Instead of enjoying the game too many people are trying to beat it. I say OK, you win, you beat it, now what? Great you can kill a dragon in two rounds all by yourself, now what do you want to do? Want to go beat up some children? I don't get the mentality.

[OOTS]Stop oppressing my culture, you RP-centric DM![/OOTS]

D&D is the perfect combination of RPG and videogame. In my day it was not about making the biggest baddest character ever made, actually for the most part, there were not rules to support it. It was more about getting togther with friends for some fun and the game was the focus of the fun.

IMXP, it was more about getting together with friends for some fun, and the friends were the focus of the fun. The game added to the fun because it gave us some great moments and fond memories (the time the tiefling wizard fireballed the warehouse full of oil barrels and blew off the roof while the human thief was on it, or the time the minotaur fighter boasted of an abishai that he could "take it down in two rounds" and then failed a save versus poison and dropped in round one). Putting together powerful combinations of races, classes and kits was fun, too, in the same way that putting together a fantasy football or basketball team is fun. Actually being able to put your dream combo into play is thus extra fun (kind of like actually being able to field your dream team). 3e upped the fun quotient on that activity by increasing the feats, classes and prestige classes that could be played around with.

End of the day, my_fun != your_fun !=> my_fun == wrong_fun.

 

[TheGM]

I've never found optimization and roleplaying to be mutually exclusive. Quite the opposite!

This isn't directed at you, it came up on this thread, so I'll mention it.

IMXP, attempts to use the word "optimize" are thinly veiled covers of power plays.

My best players roll the dice, and if they get crappy rolls they smile and build the best character they can, and then roleplay them to success. "optimizers" can't believe anyone would play a character with stats that bad, cry about no point-buy, and must have certain "feat-chains". That's power gaming. Optimizing is making certain your character is not whimped out. Everyone does that the best they can.

 

[SweeneyTodd]

So "optimize" and "powergame" are differentiated by intent? I see some truth in that. It seems like a social contract issue, where power gamers are considered such if they either stretch optimization past the group's comfort level, or are disruptive at the table. The power gamer thinks the rules, and not the people at the table, are the arbiter of what's allowed.

And I actually kind of understand where they're coming from (well, not the rude/disruptive ones; that's unacceptable no matter what the reason.) The rules don't tell you how to create a social contract, so playing the game with people you don't know, and not setting clear ground rules on how you'd like to play, leaves this area unaddressed. The guy who comes in with the super-optimized character doesn't know he's done anything wrong until the group expresses disapproval. (Or, god forbid, doesn't but vents about it elsewhere.)

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

This isn't directed at you, it came up on this thread, so I'll mention it.

IMXP, attempts to use the word "optimize" are thinly veiled covers of power plays.

My best players roll the dice, and if they get crappy rolls they smile and build the best character they can, and then roleplay them to success. "optimizers" can't believe anyone would play a character with stats that bad, cry about no point-buy, and must have certain "feat-chains". That's power gaming. Optimizing is making certain your character is not whimped out. Everyone does that the best they can.

Well, I wouldn't use it to "cover" a power play at all. I'm not at all ashamed of making the mechanically best character I can within a concept and will do it every single time.

Don't be fooled - most of the best feats aren't in chains.

I wouldn't *cry* about point-buy, but I'd never use another system while DMing.

 

[Hussar]

I've never found optimization and roleplaying to be mutually exclusive. Quite the opposite!

My best optimizers are unquestionably my best roleplayers. I'm serious, it's a direct correlation. If I had to highlight, say, the top four players in my group for roleplaying and for character optimization, I'd have the same list, albeit not necessarily in the same order. And one of these guys, though a capable optimizer, is also a downright munchkin, dubious loopholes and all - but the characters he munchkins out are such fun in roleplay that I'm inclined to allow some of that dubiousness.

The players who come in with one class and a half-dozen randomly chosen PHB feats are the ones who haven't invested thought into their characters and expect them to die in one or two sessions (as they generally do ). They play them like stereotypes (or pseudo-archetypes) and always have more ready, since they're practically pregenerated by D&D.

The players who come in with detailed backstories and interesting personalities also have tightly and effectively selected combinations of feats, skills and classes to get exactly the right representation for their character.

I have pretty much the exact same experience. My best role players are the ones who take the time outside of the game to contemplate where they want their characters to go and how they want to get there. They have clear goals and benchmarks and pick and choose the feats and classes that best arrive at that goal.

The so-called "High RP" players that I've seen are far more disruptive at the table than any decent optimizer or powergamer. They're the ones who figure that it's okay to play that "special needs" character all in the name of RP. They're the ones who seem to think that a character is defined by his or her flaws. Sure, flaws are great. They ADD to the character. However, when the flaws ARE the character, then they're no use to anyone.

I minimize power creep by keeping my game to the core rules. I'm very, very leery of adding in new classes or PrC's or feats. I take my time to really figure out whether or not something will unbalance my game and frequently I'll err on the side of caution.

That being said, I also expect my players to create characters who are the best at whatever concept they choose. I expect my players to think tactically if they are going into a dungeon crawl. Non-tactical thinkers have the life expectancy usually reserved for small buzzing insects lingering near the top of still water. If the situation calls for lots of talking and interaction with NPC's, then I expect them to act appropriately - not spitting on the Baron and things like that.

It's interesting. If I made a character that walked up and spit on the king for no reason other than "it would be fun", I would be a bad role player. I'm not acting appropriately for the situation. But, if a player decides to take a character who is deliberately weaker into a dangerous combat situation, he's rewarded as a "good roleplayer" despite the fact that the character is inappropriate for the situation.

When did playing a wimp become equated with "good roleplaying"?

 

[Timeboxer]

My best optimizers are unquestionably my best roleplayers. I'm serious, it's a direct correlation.

I think this makes a lot of sense, mostly because both elements actually share a common trait: Deep interest in and willingness to spend out-of-session time on the game.

By the way, about dipping into multiple prestige classes -- I had this really nifty idea for a changeling wizard who obsesses over the concept of change and transmutation, and as a result ends up taking four (admittedly five-level) prestige classes to obtain various abilities with the theme of "change and flexibility," to further explore her heritage. As a result, a friend of mine said that I was "powergaming" because I took too many prestige classes. Just an interesting note.

 

[Barendd Nobeard]

I think the problem is that you're playing with poor optimizers, not that you're playing with optimizers at all. A good optimizer will do all the odd prestige class dips and character optimization tricks, but will do it unoptrusively. He'll whip major butt, but also defer to other characters when their strengths come into play. Sure, he's amazing in combat/certain skill checks/certain situations (depending on the build), but he doesn't try to be everything. I think what you're dealing with is inexperianced, immature optimizers. Don't dismiss them because they haven't had enough practice to learn how to do it unobtrusively, but push them along toward that. After all, don't your other players hold up the game to look up rules and double check their rolls?

Hey, I never thought of it that way! I guess my friends are just not the subtle type.

Also - no optimizer who cares enough about his power attack mod won't have a graphing calculator ready with the formula to figure it out

LOL! I believe this person did, but that wasn't advanced enough to require whipping out the calculator!

I think this makes a lot of sense, mostly because both elements actually share a common trait: Deep interest in and willingness to spend out-of-session time on the game.

That's certainly the "good" side of this coin. It's nice to play with effective characters. But for some, as one mutual acquaintence pointed out, "it's all about battlefield control." And that's a paradigm that just spills over into everything your character does--he controls the battlefield, he controls the non-battle encounters, he controls the.....

I minimize power creep by keeping my game to the core rules. I'm very, very leery of adding in new classes or PrC's or feats. I take my time to really figure out whether or not something will unbalance my game and frequently I'll err on the side of caution.

So do I. My "1e classcis in 3.5" home game is Core books only. I made the mistake of hinting that maybe I'd allow some other stuff later (around 9th level; they're 6th level now) and my son (player an archer with all fighter levels) is already complaining that he can't cherry pick feats and prestige classes to max out his archery damage. And he's only 10. Ah well, at least there's time to refine his playing style!