Power Gaming

[gizmo33]

However, the following parties have the SAME NUMBER OF RULES actually IN PLAY: <snip>

IMO, in any sort of campaign-type game, the number of rules in play include all potential character design options - not just those being used by the current party. And don't forget multi-classing.

'Until you understand them' I can see; there's no harm in that. However, the usual core rules advocate doesn't qualify his statement in this way.

It would seem logical that the bulk of the core rules, especially those that are largely unchanged from 3.0, are much more playtested than anything put out by any d20 publisher.

Also, I think the role that feats and prestige classes play in taking the campaign in interesting directions is way over-rated. Exhibit A: Monkey Grip. IME good players will make an interesting character out of even fairly minimal set of rules, and power gamer's characters are boring no matter how many character choices you throw at them.

Of course this attitude of mine does not sell product so I don't expect to hear it in the industry any time soon. However, IMO DnD needs good rules, DMs, and players to keep it going. If the DM is responsible for policing the rule-set of his campaign, then the amount of effort to DM well has increased by another factor and I think that there will be fewer good games and good experiences.

 

[I'm A Banana]

They aren't powergaming. It's in your head. They are having fun. You should be, too. IMHO, your fun shouldn't revolve around 3d8 points of damage.

It's not a deal. He's really effective in one area. Challenge this character in other areas. Adjust. Adapt. Evolve. Embrace the change.

If you don't care, it's not because he's powergaming, it's because you don't care. So chill out, embrace the mighty-sword man, and enjoy yourself.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

IMO, in any sort of campaign-type game, the number of rules in play include all potential character design options - not just those being used by the current party. And don't forget multi-classing.

IMO, that's absurd. How can rules that aren't in play make the gameplay more complex? They can make a nervous DM huddle in terror, fearing the possibility that one of his players may get a mechanical advantage (and seeing such an advantage where none exists), but that's pretty much the only even theoretically possible impact they have.

As for multiclassing, getting the 1st level abilities of three core classes is usually going to be less complex than have the 3rd level abilities of one, since abilities tend to increase in complexity at higher class levels. This would be less true when PrCs become available, however, so I'll give you that in theory - though not in the specific example given.

It would seem logical that the bulk of the core rules, especially those that are largely unchanged from 3.0, are much more playtested than anything put out by any d20 publisher.

You'd think so, wouldn't you? Nonetheless, the difference between a fighter and a cleric (not even a druid!) is vastly greater than the difference between a fighter and a swashbuckler, a paladin and a warlock, a ranger and an unfettered, a wizard and a magister, or a bard and a courtier.

I have no idea what was playtested more, but I know what has consistently been more balanced.

Also, I think the role that feats and prestige classes play in taking the campaign in interesting directions is way over-rated. Exhibit A: Monkey Grip. IME good players will make an interesting character out of even fairly minimal set of rules, and power gamer's characters are boring no matter how many character choices you throw at them.

Exhibit A of what? Flavorful but ultimately sub-par feats for fighters of a particular stripe? Feats that make sword and board fighters somewhat competitive with two handed weapon wielders? Help me out here. Or perhaps mathematical analysis is less important than a DM's knee-jerk assessment of the feat?

IME, good players will make an interesting character out of fairly minimal rules. Given non-core rules, powergamers (who in my experience are also better roleplayers) will also make an effective character who isn't a druid, cleric or (at higher levels) wizard.

I prefer the latter option.

Of course this attitude of mine does not sell product so I don't expect to hear it in the industry any time soon. However, IMO DnD needs good rules, DMs, and players to keep it going. If the DM is responsible for policing the rule-set of his campaign, then the amount of effort to DM well has increased by another factor and I think that there will be fewer good games and good experiences.

Fortunately, nine times out of ten the DM is NOT responsible for 'policing the rule-set' - because in the vast majority of cases, fears of powergaming are inaccurate and counterproductive, based on damage averages from older editions. For example, that's manifestly the case here.

Fortunately, your attitude doesn't sell product, so the industry will continue to provide options rather than catering to fear.

 

[Tuzenbach]

I may finally give up the game. I play with college students and have been unable to hook up with adult players and I think it is killing me. No matter how hard I try, I always seem to get a few power players in my group and they hurt the game. I just started a new campaign at 3rd level and one player bought a huge bastard sword and using feats is doing 3d8 damage way outstripping the other players. So in order for me to offer him a challenge in combat, I will have to put something together that will easily kill the other players. I will let him use this weapon for a few games and then I will sunder it to pieces, but I am tired of always fighting this. To me D&D has become about power gaming. All of the feats designed to go around the rules and create exceptions and special abilities have gone crazy. I am just not sure I have it in me to care anymore.

Solution A: The bastard sword gets stolen in the night! This actually serves two purposes: 1) A scenario is developed where the characters have to chase the thief(s) who took the sword and 2) no more (at least for the duration!) uneven fighting abilities within the party.

Solution B: Unbeknowest to the character, what s/he *actually* purchased was a CURSED bastard sword of "Intermittent Paralyzation". And, geez, look at that.... the effects haven't begun to kick in until....... FROM NOW ON! LoL! Here's how it works: In a combat scenario, when the character rolls a 1 (or maybe a 1 OR a 2 or BOTH), the character becomes paralyzed for as many rounds as points of damage done had the character hit. In other words, that 3d8 isn't applied to damage, but amount of time paralyzed. That *should*; 1)even things out 2)get the party to ask questions about either the curse or the merchant who sold the sword, thus adding directions for party movement & motivation 3)create levity benefitting the DM!

 

[delericho]

Solution A: The bastard sword gets stolen in the night! This actually serves two purposes: 1) A scenario is developed where the characters have to chase the thief(s) who took the sword and 2) no more (at least for the duration!) uneven fighting abilities within the party.

Solution B: Unbeknowest to the character, what s/he *actually* purchased was a CURSED bastard sword of "Intermittent Paralyzation". And, geez, look at that.... the effects haven't begun to kick in until....... FROM NOW ON! LoL! Here's how it works: In a combat scenario, when the character rolls a 1 (or maybe a 1 OR a 2 or BOTH), the character becomes paralyzed for as many rounds as points of damage done had the character hit. In other words, that 3d8 isn't applied to damage, but amount of time paralyzed. That *should*; 1)even things out 2)get the party to ask questions about either the curse or the merchant who sold the sword, thus adding directions for party movement & motivation 3)create levity benefitting the DM!

That's outrageous. You're suggesting that a DM who doesn't like his player's style should deliberately victimise that player to get him back onto the 'straight-and-narrow'. The player finds a clever work-around in the rules (leaving aside for a moment that fact that it's not actually that good), so rather than applaud his cleverness, or at the very least asking the player not to go along that route, the DM launches arbitrary attacks at the character, with no chance of defending himself.

Any DM who did that to me would find himself down one player.

 

[DM_Matt]

Solution A: The bastard sword gets stolen in the night! This actually serves two purposes: 1) A scenario is developed where the characters have to chase the thief(s) who took the sword and 2) no more (at least for the duration!) uneven fighting abilities within the party.

Solution B: Unbeknowest to the character, what s/he *actually* purchased was a CURSED bastard sword of "Intermittent Paralyzation". And, geez, look at that.... the effects haven't begun to kick in until....... FROM NOW ON! LoL! Here's how it works: In a combat scenario, when the character rolls a 1 (or maybe a 1 OR a 2 or BOTH), the character becomes paralyzed for as many rounds as points of damage done had the character hit. In other words, that 3d8 isn't applied to damage, but amount of time paralyzed. That *should*; 1)even things out 2)get the party to ask questions about either the curse or the merchant who sold the sword, thus adding directions for party movement & motivation 3)create levity benefitting the DM!

Now that's just abuse of power.

What I see among the "anti-power" crowd is a collection of emotional responses and epithets. Many, many, literary/dramatic genres and most heroic ones include characters that are good at things. In fact, heroes tend to be exceptionally good at a small number of things (or great at everything, but that doesn't' fit the group-play aspect of dnd). The anti-power types seem to think that ones stats are based on a narrative of his life up until that point "and here is where I lived on a ranch for a few years - I guess I should take Skill Focus (Riding)." The optimizer says "I want a character who can do the following things, based on his history and character concept," and then uses the rule set to generate a character that can do that. The former method tends to create ludicrously weak characters because the system is not designed for it...relative costs and benefits cannot simply be ignored to create a statistical narrative, because hose relative costs and benefits will distort the results of that narrative.

 

[Tuzenbach]

To all those who absolutely despise powergamers: are you trying to say, then, that you would greatly prefer having players whose thought processes run something like this?

"Boy, that [feat/prc/whatever] looks like it would be just perfect for making my character better at [fighting/casting/talking/whatever]. I better not take it."

Or alternatively,

"Those supplements might have stuff that'd go really well with my character. Maybe I'll check them out... on second thought, meh.. that sounds like work."

I mean, seriously. A good optimizer (and by 'good' I mean 'not a cheater') is a joy to play with, if you don't have casual players with unusually weak characters causing the problems with group balance that you cite.

--Impeesa--

I'm with you on this one, but I fear we're in the vast minority! Yes, the *powergamer* has put a great deal of mental energy into crafting his/her character. However, when DMs have to deal with powergamers, which of the following is the most likely outcome?

1) Applying a similar amount of mental energy to the dungeon/encounters/story in an effort to counterbalance the powergamer's ambitions.

2) Telling the powergamer *no*.

3) Venting on a message board.


Two of the above three are a lot easier to do. However, is it right to reward the powergamer with penalties (i.e., "punish") for using his/her brain? From a holistic point of view, persons who point their fingers at *powergamers* and exclaim "bad!" are really doing one or more of the following things:

1) Telling the powergamer that thinking is a waste of time, and thus, discourageing future potential brain development.

2) Telling them that by thinking, the *powergamer* has actually HURT either the DM or the other players or BOTH! In other words, "because you've used your brain and the rest of us have not, you're in a class that is threatening to us. For us to continue to have fun, we are now FORCED to use our brains. What gives you the right to do that to us?"

3) Any DM who tells a *powergamer* "no" is insulting their intelligence. In effect, it's basically counter-acting hours and hours and perhaps days and weeks of thought (i.e., "mental energy") with an amount of mental energy that was created in two or three seconds (i.e., saying "no").


Basically, I've never had a problem with powergamers. HOWEVER, those DMs that INSIST that I *act* out scenarios and use funny voices, they've gotta go!

 

[Tuzenbach]

That's outrageous. You're suggesting that a DM who doesn't like his player's style should deliberately victimise that player to get him back onto the 'straight-and-narrow'. The player finds a clever work-around in the rules (leaving aside for a moment that fact that it's not actually that good), so rather than applaud his cleverness, or at the very least asking the player not to go along that route, the DM launches arbitrary attacks at the character, with no chance of defending himself.

Any DM who did that to me would find himself down one player.

No, none of what you said. It's simply making the game more challenging/interesting/balanced for all involved. And it's actually rewarding the *powergamer's* thoughts with similar thoughts. In my view, it's a lot more appropriate than simply saying "no" and it's far more creative than having the sword break after a bit. It's counterbalancing brain activity with brain activity. And it's creating atmosphere. And suspense. And drama. And intrigue. You know, things that are fun?

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

No, none of what you said. It's simply making the game more challenging/interesting/balanced for all involved. And it's actually rewarding the *powergamer's* thoughts with similar thoughts. In my view, it's a lot more appropriate than simply saying "no" and it's far more creative than having the sword break after a bit. It's counterbalancing brain activity with brain activity. And it's creating atmosphere. And suspense. And drama. And intrigue. You know, things that are fun?

I disagree. It's saying "You are good at using this ONE weapon? Good. The weapon now sucks, your abilities are useless. Now you will be just as useless as the other characters in the group and I don't have to worry about you."

Using your brain to make things more interesting involves making opponents where the one thing he's good at will have a lesser effect and he'll have to rely on his party members with other strengths to get through. It involves using challenges that require skills to pass, just not his. It involves at least making sure the character understands his weaknesses as well as his strengths.

I've had a couple Large Brute type characters who could hit for 50 damage a round and kill most things in a couple of hits scared when they saw what could be a cleric because they knew they were likely held, charmed, dominated, etc within the first round. People are often proud of the ONE thing they can do well. Just point out the things they don't do well. Either they'll make up a new character who is more well rounded or they won't mind the trade off and can have fun even if they aren't always victorious.

 

[Tuzenbach]

They aren't powergaming. It's in your head. They are having fun. You should be, too. IMHO, your fun shouldn't revolve around 3d8 points of damage.

It's not a deal. He's really effective in one area. Challenge this character in other areas. Adjust. Adapt. Evolve. Embrace the change.

If you don't care, it's not because he's powergaming, it's because you don't care. So chill out, embrace the mighty-sword man, and enjoy yourself.

What he said!