Powergaming, who is on board?

[ThePublic]

Hey folks,

So as not to step on anymore toes, I got a question to have an issue with.

Since this is not in response to anyone's direct post, hopefully I will not die in Moderator Hell. (looking for real thoughts and I feel fine is anyone wants to bash me on this, as it is a sensitve topic)

Powergaming, the act of creating a PC for the pure ability to get the highest hit/magic/ whatever, has been an issue since the start of the game (deomnstrated by even comment of our benevolent creator of the game, way back inthe day). Is it more socially acceptable now in the later versions of D&D (3,3.5) to do this?

So the Questions are:

Are GMs looking for players who build bonus monsters without regard to the campaign's focus/storyline? (And if so, do these GMs actually have a storyline or is it just videogame style hack and slash?)

Are players more interested in building Stat-mosnters rather than giving full run to a personality-monster (Roll-playing rather than RolePlaying)?

What are we doing to encourage powergaming? (tips and tricks for rules lawyering etc)

What are we doing to stifle Powergaming? (Calling a B.S. on it, pulling the battle-moster into a city of varying power and draconian law. etc)

I personally interview gamers before entering my group and weed out the powergamers beforehand (we are a heavy roleplay, low number-crunch group and if you can't get in character, then you can't expect to hang out here long enough for pizza for example). I find Powergaming to cheapen the gaming experience as a whole and should be limited to those that just want to walk around and kill things (and hopefully just doing that in a LAN or MMORPG setting) and be quashed and beaten out of new players at every chance a good group gets (powergamers can be converted folks, I have 14 to my credit so far!)

But it goes out to you, the members of the LARGEST gaming board on the net (yeah that is a heck of a big sample set). What do you think, and let it be heard so as to help with others and their opinions on the games we take our time to play.

The Public

 

[Nail]

Are GMs looking for players who build bonus monsters without regard to the campaign's focus/storyline? (And if so, do these GMs actually have a storyline or is it just videogame style hack and slash?)

I'm happy to accept all types of players. The players in my group who build effective PCs provide me with as much fun as those that go out of their way to role-play.

My campaign has a detailed storyline, even for those PCs who you might term "bonus monster".

Are players more interested in building Stat-mosnters rather than giving full run to a personality-monster (Roll-playing rather than RolePlaying)?

I find most players can do both. I'm sorry you haven't found such in your area.

What are we doing to encourage powergaming? (tips and tricks for rules lawyering etc)

Having rules that even the DM must follow encourages powergaming. It also - perhaps incidentally - encourages good gaming.

What are we doing to stifle Powergaming? (Calling a B.S. on it, pulling the battle-moster into a city of varying power and draconian law. etc)

Not following the rules generally does it.

I personally interview gamers before entering my group and weed out the powergamers beforehand ....

That's too bad. You're missing out on a lot of great gamers. Well....good gaming anyway!

 

[Nifft]

My game is about the PCs. They are the storyline.

I want them to be roughly balanced against each other, but that's about it. And the only reason I care about that is so the players don't feel left out.

If the players want to kick butt and neglect to take names, that's what the game will be about. In my experience, my players want some of both, but the ratio varies from game to game.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Doug McCrae]

To get invited to our group you've got to be both a good powergamer and a good roleplayer.

 

[ThePublic]

Thanks for the Reply Nail.

Yes, I have seen a well tuned PC played well (having done this for a long long time) but I have also seen folks focused on the bonuses too much and not their character too.

The best stories, in retrospect, have been when the party just barely got away- or had a low stat or roll really blow it up in their faces. Challenge brings flavor in other words. The most fun i have had, for example, has been playing a low level Magic-User (yeah before the mage thing) that kept getting the love dished out to him, hence barely staying alive. It allowed me to be crafty and beguiliing in my words and work with NPCs, monsters and the like. If I had feated myslef up in HP, or power, it would have all been lost.

it is just the issue of folks creating for effect instead of cool player concept that I see all too much in the various games that I have attended once, shook my head and said tothe DM that I feel I would be a poor fit (I still like to narrate how a good hit goes through flesh, go figure)

As the rules change (with the addition of the newest hot book) how are DMs letting the role come through instead of the new rule come out. I knew there was a reason why some folks say just PH and DMG now that I am trying to take up the old Dm hat again (sat down at the fall of first ed) in 3.5 and make it work.

 

[Patlin]

I like to wear this shirt to my games.

I'd define powergaming as building a PC that is able to perform a given task or tasks (frequently but not always involving combat) effectively within the rules. In terms of the "not always" Rystil Arden's mentioned some scary diplomacy based PCs.

Since I generally prefer to play the role of the hero, a complete absense of powergaming (creating totally incompetent characters) would, in my opinion, interfere with the progress of the story more than powergaming ever could. If you're playing Conan, you've done something horribly wrong if your character can't hold his own in melee.

I think the most common error in logic in this argument is thinking that "powergaming" and "roleplaying" are different extremes on the same axis. They really have little to do with one another.

 

[Eldragon]

Powergaming and roleplaying are completely separate concepts. You can have a player who is good at both, just as much as you can have a player that is good at neither.

What is more important is that the DM offers a game that is both fun and challenging for the players, regardless if they are playing a Bard or playing Pun-Pun. IMO it is the the DM who sets the tenor of the gameplay. If power gamers are ruining the game, the DM needs to adapt and offer greater challenges to the party.

Now, someone who is bad at roleplaying in a role-play heavy group, thats another problem entirely....

 

[Patlin]

Another important bit: Powergaming is mostly a problem, in my experience, when some people are good at it and others are not... unless the better powergamer helps out the other members of the group, such as by saying "Have you looked at feat y in book x? That'd be really great for the way your playing your character." The idea is that all members of the party should be balanced compared to one another. Then the DM can better balance encounters.

 

[Mort]

Thanks for the Reply Nail.

Yes, I have seen a well tuned PC played well (having done this for a long long time) but I have also seen folks focused on the bonuses too much and not their character too.

This is only a problem if the "bonus focused" character outshines the other characters. Otherwise, if the bonus focused guy is having fun because he's kicking butt and the roleplayer is having fun because he's getting into character - both win (and it's not like roleplaying and powergaming are exclusive anyway).

The best stories, in retrospect, have been when the party just barely got away- or had a low stat or roll really blow it up in their faces. Challenge brings flavor in other words. The most fun i have had, for example, has been playing a low level Magic-User (yeah before the mage thing) that kept getting the love dished out to him, hence barely staying alive. It allowed me to be crafty and beguiliing in my words and work with NPCs, monsters and the like. If I had feated myslef up in HP, or power, it would have all been lost.

As long as the players are roughly equal in power level it doesn't matter how powerful they are, the DM can provide an appropriate challenge. For me it's much more fun to have a powerful PC challenged than a mediocre one because with the mediocre one it's not that I'm being challenged, it's that I'm limiting myself.

it is just the issue of folks creating for effect instead of cool player concept that I see all too much in the various games that I have attended once, shook my head and said tothe DM that I feel I would be a poor fit (I still like to narrate how a good hit goes through flesh, go figure).

Again good roleplaying and powergaming are far from exclusive. From this paragraph, your hangup (and please correct me if I'm wrong) is with people who don't get into the narrative of the game and the combats as much as you do - this has little to do with powergaming and much more to do with play style.

As the rules change (with the addition of the newest hot book) how are DMs letting the role come through instead of the new rule come out. I knew there was a reason why some folks say just PH and DMG now that I am trying to take up the old Dm hat again (sat down at the fall of first ed) in 3.5 and make it work.

I make sure that all PC's have a viable shtick and that they have an opportunity to logically contribute to the group - seems to be working so far.

 

[Shadeydm]

Since I generally prefer to play the role of the hero, a complete absense of powergaming (creating totally incompetent characters) would, in my opinion, interfere with the progress of the story more than powergaming ever could.

I think the most common error in logic in this argument is thinking that "powergaming" and "roleplaying" are different extremes on the same axis. They really have little to do with one another.

Speaking of error in logic the notion that not powergaming somehow equals "incompetent characters" seems quite egregious to me.