Powergaming and the Human Psyche

[vulcan_idic]

I've been thinking a lot about so called "powergaming" lately and having a philosophical dissonance with regards to it. On the one hand it can disrupt the game and decrease the pleasure quotient of those not participating in the power grab. On the other part it is a natural outgrowth of the laws of nature... in the natural world the law is "Survival of the Fittest" and many parts of human psychology are still centered around this and it's corrolary, the flight-or-fight reponse. These may be the psychological equivalents of vestigial organs, but they are no less a part of us for that.
As Bill Gates & Co. has demonstrated in the business world, one can still apply these instincts in the modern world, though applying them to rather different arenas than the natural world - i.e. business, or even role playing games. Like Bill Gates or a successful breed of animal, the typical powergamer knows the rules of the game, and implements them to his or her best advantage, resorting to lawers (Bill Gates), rules-lawyering(Gamers), or physical combat(animals) when their interpretation of the rules are called into question.
So how does this aspect of human psychology affect our games? Does the "greed" of the natural human instinct to further ones self necesarily paint one as an "evil" character? Does supression of this instinct and striving for altruism (though some might argue whether or not altruism truly exists) define a "good" character? At what extent of a character strengthening itself as much as possible become "powergaming"? Are not successful Olympic atheletes a real world example of "min-maxing"?
So at what extent is such behaviour at the gaming table inevitable,and how much should it be curbed? If it were completely curbed then you would have a "completely equal" system probably akin to something like one segment I recall from Ursula Leguin's Lathe of Heaven, or We by Yevgeny Zamyatin, or 1984 by George Orwell. On the other hand, if left unchecked then your game devolves into a feral, dark ages type power competition. What is the proper balance? Does powergaming and it's like have it's place in the world of role playing games or is it merely a burden on the game?
I look forward to hearing the thoughts of those who might care to ruminate on this subject.

 

[Vrecknidj]

Like Bill Gates or a successful breed of animal, the typical powergamer knows the rules of the game, and implements them to his or her best advantage, resorting to lawers (Bill Gates), rules-lawyering(Gamers), or physical combat(animals) when their interpretation of the rules are called into question.
So how does this aspect of human psychology affect our games? Does the "greed" of the natural human instinct to further ones self necesarily paint one as an "evil" character? Does supression of this instinct and striving for altruism (though some might argue whether or not altruism truly exists) define a "good" character?

I'm not sure I see where you're going with this. A rules-lawyer, is, of course, a player, but I don't see how this determines the alignment of a character played by a rules-lawyer.

So at what extent is such behaviour at the gaming table inevitable,and how much should it be curbed? If it were completely curbed then you would have a "completely equal" system probably akin to something like one segment I recall from Ursula Leguin's Lathe of Heaven, or We by Yevgeny Zamyatin, or 1984 by George Orwell. On the other hand, if left unchecked then your game devolves into a feral, dark ages type power competition. What is the proper balance? Does powergaming and it's like have it's place in the world of role playing games or is it merely a burden on the game?

It's hard for anyone else to answer this for you. I think that this will vary from gaming table to gaming table. Some players and DMs, I'm sure, love the idea of powergaming. I have a few players at my table who do and who always have. I have other players who don't care so much. I have some that like to role play and others that like to roll dice. There aren't any problems though, because everyone is having a good time.

There you go, that's the bottom line. If powergaming is taking away from enjoyment, then it's bad. If powergaming is adding to enjoyment, then it's good.

Dave

 

[Numion]

I really don't agree. Powergaming is just about making an efficient character with the available means. Not good or bad, since it doesn't necessarily touch character personality or instantly ruin your game to "dark ages".

True, like everything else, powergaming taken to extremes would be bad, but so would be other things: storytelling aspect of the game (railroading), immersive roleplaying (drama queening).

Or which would you play: a commoner or a fighter given the choice? Surely taking the more powerful choice doesn't lead to any less interesting game than choosing the commoner.

 

[Zweischneid]

Hmm -- some random thoughts on the subject.

Just recently, one of my players (playing a Swordmaster in a WoT campaign, quite a bit Min/Max) told me the goal for his character was to be so good with the blade (and renowned for it), that he would no longer need to actually draw his sword to settle disputes.
The mere mention of his name and a cold stare should be more than sufficient.

Me on the other hand (from a DM perspective) found this goal to be rather pointless.
Where, I asked, is the excitement in winning staredowns with NPCs who wouldn't last five seconds against you anyways? Whats the point of telling a story about a guy, when you know there is noone, or hardly noone, who could beat him anyways? Where's the fun in rolling dice when the chances of actually not hitting are so low that you might just as well safe yourself the trouble alltogether?

The very concept of adventure, infact of heroism in my mind is at the core about the underdogs going up against overwhelming odds. The "weaker" the Heroes are, the more heroic (not to mention exciting) will be the story to tell.

To use the never exhausted Tolkien as an example: If Middle Earth would have featured a few "better-than-all-the-rest-heroes" that single-handedly cut a bloody swath through Mordor, personally kick Saurons ass at the end while chewing the One Ring to little pieces bevor spitting it into the flames it would have been an awfully boring and stupid book. Frodo and Sam are Heroes precisly because one false move by them might have well been the end of it.

Every antique epic concerns itself as much with the protagonists flaws as it does with their deeds. Only be overcoming their shortcomings do their actions become heroic, become shining examples for others to strive after.

Yet, on the other hand, every RPG features the constant rewards & powerincrease of the characters (the proverbial carrot I guess) and most playes strive (to different degrees) to make their characters stronger, smarter, etc.. than the rest. Most "heroic" fantasy games like D&D already start off with characters who are quite a bit better than the normal person to beginn with.
The psychological reasons for this I leave up to others, but somewhere here is a dilemma between telling heroic stories and playing strong characters that satisfy the need for larger than life action/achievments/whatever.

If someone finds a workable solution to this paradox, please tell me. I'd really appreciate it.

 

[BiggusGeekus]

On the one hand it can disrupt the game and decrease the pleasure quotient of those not participating in the power grab.

Role-players do the same thing.

"Oh, if I had remembered X I would have said Y!"

"I think my character would betray the party at this point."

"Why do I have to put skill points in Diplomacy when I'm such an amazing role-player? I should get special bonuses."

Game disruption is not about "role vs. power"; it's about the player in general.

But about the main thrust of your point....

Powergaming is great and I encourage it in my players. Why? To help involve them in the game. Powergaming is something they can do on their own, they don't need me for it. If I found out that all my guys were obsessing over what feat to choose next, I'd be elated. That means that they are heavily involved in their characters and they want to see them suceed. That's very important.

That being said, I see it as my job to provide them with a good story along the way. And it has to be a good story! The story has to be so good that the players involve themselves of their own accord. This is where the roleplay comes in.

I don't neglect roleplay, I simply see the burden of that style of play is upon me as the DM. Powergaming is something the players can do outside of the game time.

 

[GlassJaw]

First off, a discussion like this will always be "flawed" because people's definitions of powergaming and min/maxing will vary.

That said, all RPG's at their core have a system for becoming more powerful and increasing one's abilites. In most cases this is defined by levels. Part of the fun of RPG's is developing your character and gaining these abilities. Is this powergaming? Most people would say no but it is human nature to want to succeed. I would argue that even the most ardent role-players don't want to play in a campaign where the is no chance for them to succeed.

I have no problem with players that want to create characters that are good at what they do. Playing an effective character at the table is important to most people. This is my definition of min/maxing. Min/maxers (of which there are varying degress) have no problems with character flaws or weaknesses but they want to be able to do at least one thing effectively. Again, people's definition's may vary.

I think the line gets crossed is when the desire to play an effective or powerful character gets in the way of other people's enjoyment at the table. This is the basis of my definition of powergaming. This is someone who wants their character to do it all at the expense of other's enjoyment. They want to "win" the game but having the most toys or by doing the most damage.

What determines these play styles in each gamer? That's very tough to say. A lot of it probably has to do with age. I know for myself as I play more and more, I'm less and less interested in crunchy stuff and more interested in creating quality adventures for my players and playing characters with interesting concepts. That's not to say that I don't enjoy the mechanical side of the game (most of the people I play with probably consider me the rules lawyer and I'm ok with that).

You background and eduation might be a factor as well. My guess would be that those with a technical background may be more inclined to min/max whereas those with a liberal arts background wouldn't. This is just a generalization and I have no real proof to support this.

I also think the amount of time you spend playing or have played is relative as well. I play with some casual gamers who know the rules but probably don't spend a lot of time outside our once a week session on reading the books or posting on message boards. Their goal in each session is to have fun, laugh at dirty jokes, each some junk food, and kill some stuff. Gaining levels and finding new items are two main goals.

I also play in a group where everyone has been playing for a long time, reads and buys rule books, and posts on the boards. There is fair amount of min/maxing in the group but it's also very cerebral and there is much more role-playing. And you know what? Both play styles are a blast.

I have no idea if this went anywhere or stayed on topic. I just kepy typing.

 

[GlassJaw]

Wow, great post BiggusGeekus. I couldn't agree more. That's actually how I strive to run my games. I give my players a lot of options in hoping that they will take advantage of them. Sometimes, they do, sometimes they don't.

 

[Henry]

Me on the other hand (from a DM perspective) found this goal to be rather pointless.
Where, I asked, is the excitement in winning staredowns with NPCs who wouldn't last five seconds against you anyways? Whats the point of telling a story about a guy, when you know there is noone, or hardly noone, who could beat him anyways? Where's the fun in rolling dice when the chances of actually not hitting are so low that you might just as well safe yourself the trouble alltogether?

Actually, I think his was a very valid goal, and a common version of fantasy to emulate. We want to create such a character because such a character is fun. It's the sort of character read about in fantasy all the time - the deadly gunslinger who only draws when he must, but he finishes fights in record time because violence is contrary to his goals. One very valid goal of RPG's is to play a character type whom you find cool on TV, movies, or in novels, and the world-renowned deadly swordsman/gunman is one of them.

Actually, such a character WOULD be pointless to challenge in melee combat; such a character would be better challenged by roleplaying situations, with circumstances that a sword would be useless in, such as a greedy merchant evicting a poor family, or a rampaging dragon who never sets foot on the ground, but strafes from above, or a corrupt noble who must be deposed legally instead of by force.

The very concept of adventure, infact of heroism in my mind is at the core about the underdogs going up against overwhelming odds. The "weaker" the Heroes are, the more heroic (not to mention exciting) will be the story to tell.

The thing is, it's not the only version of heroism, nor is it necessarily the most fun. While it's your cup of tea, the underdog story is not the only way to go, and it may not be the mold he wishes to cast a character in.

To use the never exhausted Tolkien as an example: If Middle Earth would have featured a few "better-than-all-the-rest-heroes" that single-handedly cut a bloody swath through Mordor, personally kick Saurons ass at the end while chewing the One Ring to little pieces bevor spitting it into the flames it would have been an awfully boring and stupid book. Frodo and Sam are Heroes precisly because one false move by them might have well been the end of it.

Actually, the Rings Trilogy (or more specifically the movie version) showed exactly WHY a master swordsman could not do it. Sauron was unstoppable when he had the ring; an army of master swordsmen and bowmen could not stand up to him (how many elves were killed in the opening scene I wonder?) Even without the ring, his minions were legion, and no one person could think to stand against him. The situation was not solved by force of arms, but by both cleverness, and force of determination (and an unusual helping of luck).

Every antique epic concerns itself as much with the protagonists flaws as it does with their deeds. Only be overcoming their shortcomings do their actions become heroic, become shining examples for others to strive after.

On the contrary, such a character could have numerous flaws, hubris being one of them. Such a character is due for both a comeuppance and an epiphany as much as anyone.

The psychological reasons for this I leave up to others, but somewhere here is a dilemma between telling heroic stories and playing strong characters that satisfy the need for larger than life action/achievments/whatever.

If someone finds a workable solution to this paradox, please tell me. I'd really appreciate it.

Examples of stories of powerful heroes and their journeys:

Beowulf (strangles a monster bare-handed)
The Norse Legends (misadventures) of Thor & Loki
Heracles (no man could stand against him, but in the end his pride and a poisoned coat did him in)
Samson (slew a thousand men in a manner that would make a Dark Sun Fan proud; in the end, he failed his god, and redeemed himself with his dying act)

To show more modern examples - how about Martin Riggs from the Lethal Weapon movies? Here's a guy who is the macho cop from Hell - yet contemplates suicide every day, until his partner and their family begin him back on the path to find a reason to live. There's a lot of heroic drama in someone who HAS the skills - but hates themselves for it. There's also drama in having the skills, but not being able to do a darned thing with them, and needing to "walk a different path" to accomplish the goal.

 

[Insight]

I agree to a certain extent about drawing a line between Power-Gaming and Min/Maxing. There is a difference, albeit a slight one, and I think the main difference comes in character selection and creation vs. choices made in character advancement.

To me, Min/Maxing happens in the character creation/selection process. The player creates a character and makes ability score/class/skill/feat selections based on what the player perceives will lead to an invincible character. Typically, players who go this route believe a certain race/class combination to be the 'best' at something right off the bat, and have certain advantages over other race/class combos. They make choices based completely on what will be the most dominant, and have little to no concern about what will be interesting to roleplay (now, ROLL-playing is another matter entirely, at which this character will of course excel).

Power-Gaming occurs after the character has been created, and involves the advancement process. The player makes advancement choices based solely on continuing to increase the sheer power of the character and his/her ability to defeat foes (usually), and again, none of these choices have been based on what would be interesting to roleplay.

Knowing whether someone is Power-Gaming is as simple as asking the player who their character is. If the answer involves race, character class, and their most bad-ass abilities, and nothing about personality or background, you probably have a Power-Gamer on your hands.

That said, I want the player characters in my games to be powerful. I want them to be able to take on threats that are powerful, since I like to run an epic game. But I also like the characters to be more than just their stats, and Power-Gamers tend to break the fourth wall too much for me, and make it difficult to run an involved roleplaying game, turning it into more of a tactical wargame.

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

Just recently, one of my players (playing a Swordmaster in a WoT campaign, quite a bit Min/Max) told me the goal for his character was to be so good with the blade (and renowned for it), that he would no longer need to actually draw his sword to settle disputes. The mere mention of his name and a cold stare should be more than sufficient. Me on the other hand (from a DM perspective) found this goal to be rather pointless.

Why? Sounds like a very valid goal, unless you never plan on playing a high-level game. Anyone with at least 10 or 11 character levels is very likely to have some kind of reputation, and a 12th level master of the sword should be a terrible opponent. If he reaches 12th level, give him the credit.

Where, I asked, is the excitement in winning staredowns with NPCs who wouldn't last five seconds against you anyways? Whats the point of telling a story about a guy, when you know there is noone, or hardly noone, who could beat him anyways? Where's the fun in rolling dice when the chances of actually not hitting are so low that you might just as well safe yourself the trouble alltogether?

Not all challenges can be solved by the sword. What would the character do about a drunken buffoon that and challenges him? You can't just slaughter that kind of person. What about other kinds of dice rolls besides attacking? What about multiple opponents in combat?

Sounds like a great character in which your player's invested a lot of time and thought. That's great. Encourage that, however it's done.

Powergaming is, as BG said, a sign that your players are involved in their characters. No one is completely innocent when it comes to powergaming. It's just part of the game.