Power Gaming

[Tuzenbach]

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."

And the powergamer is prevented from obtaining a replacement bastard sword by.......?

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.

No. Using your brain to make things more interesting involves using your brain to make things more interesting! This *could* entail EITHER my ideas OR yours. Or someone elses. Regardless, simply telling a player "no" is NEVER the way to go! If the player has used his brain to a level where the DM's challenges are no longer sufficient, then it's high time the DM put his brain to the same effect the powergamer's brain has had.

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.

Agreed.

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.

I agree to a point. I would never take steps to put into a player's mind that s/he now has to create a whole new character simply due to balance.

 

[delericho]

As someone who would much rather play HERO or SilCore (or d20 Modern) than D&D anyway, and who is blessed to live in a region rich with RPG groups, I'd never bother with a core-only game. I'd assume that either the DM was, fair enough, just learning the ropes, or that having learned them he'd become stuck in an inaccurate and arbitrary mindset that the D&D core rules are in some way superior or better balanced.

Or, such a DM could take the view that the core rules have been playtested extensively, with thousands of man-hours of testing effort from hundreds of players. The same cannot be said of any rules brought in from any supplementary source. The likelihood is, therefore, that the core rules are better balanced, or at least no worse balanced.

Additionally, while is relatively easy to check that any given game element is itself balanced, we're long since past the point where it's possible to check that these things are balanced when combined. Moreover, if you say "core rules only" is arbitrary, you have to acknowledge that "core rules + Complete X", or "any WotC", or "just these books" is also arbitrary. Essentially, the only non-arbitrary restriction level possible is the one where the DM goes through every rulebook available, and vets each and every element for balance before deciding what is and is not appropriate. I think I'm not unreasonable in choosing to make arbitrary restrictions, and spending the time on my campaign instead. And, as a player, I think I would prefer the DM to make the same choice.

Of course, all this is just my opinion.

 

[delericho]

Dealing with Power-gamers

I see three factors required to deal with a power-gamer:

1) Know the rules. The DM has to know the rules at least as well as the player. In particular, if the DM doesn't know the specifics of a rule (be it in the form of a feat, spell, or whatever), the DM either needs to veto its use, or educate himself in the rules. He must not ask the player for the details of the rule, nor study that rule in isolation: the player is likely to give an interpretation that is favourable to his character (deliberately or through misinterpretation), and rules are presented in a context that might severely alter their use.

2) Maintain a conservative interpretation of the rules. It was pointed out earlier in the thread that Monkey Grip can't be used to grant a Medium character the use of a Huge sword. You might, however, interpret the rule differently, especially when combined with the Exotic Weapon Proficiency (bastard sword) feat. The power gamer will advocate a ruling that favours his character, of course. However, the DM is in charge of the game, and makes the interpretations of the rules. So, when a player presents an interpretation of the rules that seems broken, be sure to check it carefully, rather than just allowing it in. (That's not to say you should nerf PC abilities. But you should always check that an interpretation of the rules is sensible, and consistent with other things that are allowed.)

And, most importantly:

3) Vary the challenges. So, your player has created a heavy-hitting melee combat machine? Fine, allow him his chance to shine. But, be sure to also include encounters with a dozen kobolds, that will take him time to get through, or encounters with clerics and wizards who can attack his weaknesses. Include opponents who start at distance, and use missile weapons, or flying creatures, or monks with Spring Attack, or role-playing encounters, or traps...

The DM's role is not to destroy the fun of the players (or a specific player), it is to facilitate it. By maintaining a vibrant and well-rounded game, and challenging the characters on all fronts, you'll find it easier to fulfil that role.

One more thing: Power-gaming is fine, provided everyone in the group is playing the same game. D&D is quite cleverly built - there is no "one true build" that exceeds any other in capabilities, and you can't build a character who is the best at everything (at any given level). One upshot from this is that if you have one power-gamer who optimises his characters beyond the abilities of the rest of the group, you should maybe look at the way the rest of the group put together their characters. By moving a few feats/spells/skills around, they may quickly come to equal the power-gamer in capabilities. And the game as a whole will benefit from this - your other players will expand their knowledge of the rules, which should make the whole thing run more quickly, and any bad feeling generated by this one uber-character should be dispelled.

 

[Doctor Bomb]

And from that day forth, they were arch-enemies...

This was the characters second choice because I lowered the starting level. I know there are dozens of ways to challenge the character but it always puts all of the other characters at greater risk.

Not necessarily. That's the "role playing" part of it. If your player want's to be a BBGG, let him run rampant over the local fodder (rats, goblins, kobolds, etc.). Then let him bask in the glory that is appreciative townsfolk.

Then, as his reputation spreads (4th, 5th level) begin introducing your BBEG's. Troll Barbarian is an excellent foe - very hard to kill without help from a flamethrower or a bunch of acid flasks.

Lather, rinse, and repeat, adding foes appropriate for your other party members. Each gets a chance to shine (or fail, if solo combat becomes a factor), and if (come on, is there really an IF?) the NPC's survive, level them up and improve them so they are not so easy to overcome next time. Role-play that bad guy - if the Fighter single-handedly bested him, is he really going to come back without some serious training (like a Gladiator prestige class!)?

I use these tactics nearly every campaign, since there is always one guy (and once, a girl!) that just HAS to be a half-silver dragon half-celestial Paladin. The bad guys get beat, come back with re-inforcements and dirty tricks (ah, the Aasimar blackguard courtesan, how I miss you) and a good time is had by all.

Of course, if you have one POWERGAMER TIMMY!! and the rest of the party consists of halfling bards with Skill Focus (perform) for every feat, you might still have a problem....

Hope this column gives you some good ideas! Don't give up on the power gamers, you CAN trick them into having a character background and caring about the plot.

 

[Mark Chance]

Just to re-iterate a point that seems to be getting lost: This is not an example of a powergamer unbalancing a 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.

Rather, it is less-than-maximized-effect, one-trick pony character, especially one takes into consideration the when misapplication of the Monkey Grip feat and downgrades the weapon to its appropriate, rule-allowed size. It might result from some sort of power-gaming scheme, but it is an "amateurish" scheme at best.

As shown by this post, the character's damage output, even allowing the misapplied Monkey Grip feat to stand, are hardly overwhelming.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

Or, such a DM could take the view that the core rules have been playtested extensively, with thousands of man-hours of testing effort from hundreds of players. The same cannot be said of any rules brought in from any supplementary source. The likelihood is, therefore, that the core rules are better balanced, or at least no worse balanced.

Additionally, while is relatively easy to check that any given game element is itself balanced, we're long since past the point where it's possible to check that these things are balanced when combined. Moreover, if you say "core rules only" is arbitrary, you have to acknowledge that "core rules + Complete X", or "any WotC", or "just these books" is also arbitrary. Essentially, the only non-arbitrary restriction level possible is the one where the DM goes through every rulebook available, and vets each and every element for balance before deciding what is and is not appropriate. I think I'm not unreasonable in choosing to make arbitrary restrictions, and spending the time on my campaign instead. And, as a player, I think I would prefer the DM to make the same choice.

Of course, all this is just my opinion.

Whatever the likelihood may be, the core rules AREN'T better balanced, at least beyond about 7th level. Why that should be, I don't know, but I'm not interested in what 'should be,' only what all the actual evidence indicates is the case.

You're right - "core rules + x" or "any WotC" or "just these books*" IS arbitrary. So, I don't ban any book. Simple as that. If I can find a way to work around the rules differences, I'll allow Mutants & Masterminds material, much less any standard d20.

Now, I've banned specific classes, feats and spells (mostly from the aforementioned core + Complete and FR, and a lot of the 1st-generation 3.0 material from Wizards, Mongoose, and the like), but not the entire books they came from. Some books may eventually be gutted in this way, but often there's a gem here and there.

Discovering whether a combination of WotC-only material is balanced is as simple as running a Search on Wizard's very helpful character optimization board. As its regulars regularly point out, one of their main goals is to provide GMs with a head's-up, equivalent to the stop signs on certain powers in the HERO rules. They usually respond to questions about d20 material, too.

Again, why does the GM have to know this stuff before it comes up? If a player comes to him with an option, he reviews it and determines if it's horribly unbalanced, or allows it in play with the caveat that he may later judge it too powerful and reduce it's effectiveness somewhat. At worst, the dread power gamer may get one good shot off with his much-feared power before the GM nerfs it (which is usually not the same as booting it outright).

* Just these books (for example, PHB + Dragonlance Campaign Setting + War of the Lance, or Arcana Evolved + Diamond Throne, or OGL Conan + Aquilonia) is a valid restriction for flavor purposes. While I'm inclined to work races and especially classes in from other sources, I can understand restricting it to just those specifically designed to exemplify the flavor of the setting.