Powergaming, who is on board?

[Mort]

I don't like people who powergame with no respect for the other players. See, I tend to play in groups that are comprised of both newbies and old hats. Those of us that have been playing for a while can generally manipulate the system until our PCs are immensely more powerful than the PCs of the newbies, if we wish to do so. Doing this, however, tends to make the newbies feel like they aren't useful to the group, so we discourage this. When there is an experience gap between the players, then powergaming can make the game significantly less fun for those who are not adept at it.

Shouldn't the "old hats" help the newbies become more proficient with the system and catch up and thus eliminate this imbalance? Besides, here powergaming is only part of the issue, most experienced players can get more mileage out of a build, even a sub optimal one, than an inexperienced player (or IOW - tactics and knowledge do matter).

 

[preacher]

Hence, after interviewing over 25 applicants I came up with 8 gamers that will fit the bill

Ah, this is very different to my experience, and to some extent it explains where your questions are coming from.

I've never played with anyone who wasn't either already a friend, or was the friend of one of the other players. People get invited to games because we like each other, and then we get to find out what kind of gamers we are once things get going. Since we all know some or all of the other players before we sit down, we know what to expect from each other. I've been gaming with some of the people in my regular group for nearly 20 years, most of them for more than 10, and a couple for about a year. And some of us are roleplayers, some are powergamers, some both, but most of us just call ourselves "gamers".

The main problem I have with powergaming is that every player that I've had that is a powergamer cares nothing for roleplaying.

Maybe my understanding of the term "powergamer" in this thread is flawed. I believe that I roleplay fairly well, and I also sometimes "powergame" - in that I get what I can out of the character, using the rules available. However that doesn't stop me deliberately taking something sub-optimal if it has the right flavour, and I won't take something for its bonuses if it doesn't fit the concept. But it sounds as if many of you are using "powergame" to mean something a bit more narrow - squeezing every last drop out of the rules to have the best character possible. Which I see as exploiting the rules rather than playing within them, and isn't something I've really come up against.

 

[wolfpunk]

As a writer, I create monsters that will be worthy advesaries to even "powergamers". So my monsters tend to be very efficient at a particular tactic. It is up the the GM to then use them appropriately.

As a GM, I want the characters to shine, but I want them to feel a sense of satisfaction for what they accomplish. I think my players do a great job of maxxing out their characters, in fact we probably tease players that create characters that are poorly built. We have great battles, good interaction, and usually more than a little bit of humor.

As a player, I am totally a powergamer, but I like to roleplay, and I usually build my characters to the best of their ability without bending the rules, I don't want to be the guy who always plays the broken characters. I leave it to the GM to find a way to challenge my character.

 

[Patlin]

Perhaps then it is your definition of powergaming which is the root of our disagreement. To me powergaming is better defined as a person who chooses character abilities with the intention of building a character who routinely achieves results above the expected norm for that level. We are in agreement that powergaming and roleplaying can be quite seperate issues, however, I cannot accept that not powergaming equals incompetent characters.

In that case, I think we more or less agree once you get beyond the words and into the meanings. It's bad when one character is significantly stronger or weaker than others. We seem to prefer different solutions, though. I prefer to have a group of characters who are each powerfull, and feel that those with less skill in character design should be assisted. If half my group is powerfull and the other half is weak, I'd rather make the weak strong than the other war around. Let me drastically oversimplify to make my point:

Two players, each playing Barbarians with greataxes, each percieving themselves as a melee combatant. They have mediocre stats, but with one high stat and one low stat each: an 18 and a 4. The first player places the 18 in strength and the 4 in Charisma. The second does the opposite. I think most would agree that the first player, to one degree or another, is 'powergaming.' The second is definitely not, but his decision will have a major impact on his ability to succeed in combat. The characters are othewise equal, but that one decision will cause the powergamer to gain a +7 attack bonus and a +9 damage bonus on each melee attack roll.

Is it the powergamer that's causing the power disparity in the party? I agree that a power disparity can cause a headache for the DM, and is therefore bad. I don't agree that powergaming is bad in and of itself.

 

[mvincent]

1) D&D is a gamist system. The style is popular and people enjoy it, so looking down on those that endeaver to do it well doesn't seem constructive. It's part of the game (and for many players, it is the game).

2) I avoid much of the powergaming by strictly limiting character generation to the core SRD. Almost any character concept can be created with the core rules, while all those additional rules seem mainly useful optimizing (and selling books).

3) I've found that players that devote time to optimizing their characters are also the most likely to spend time with other aspects (like fleshing out their background).

4) Players that want to powergame, but don't spend time or effort on it (i.e to get the rules right and such), are typically called "munchkin's" instead.

5) Having been in real combat, I personally feel that a true "role" player would do everything he could to optimize his own (and his allies') chance of survival. I respect a player that (in character) does everything he can to "win". Unfortunately: our characters sense things we don't, and vise-verse. Our interface to their world is often via numbers, so if a player is carefully crunching numbers and analuzing the stacking of buffs, I figure this represents similar diligence on the part of character.

6) I often find that those that call themselves "role" players are actually more like theater majors than have no concept of the seriousness of being in a lethal profession (like that of an adventurer). If they were actually immersed in the typical life-or-death situation of an adventurer, they would likely not be acting frivolously. I'm not saying that their style is wrong, just possibly not correctly named. "Dramatists" or "Narrativists" might be more semantically correct.

 

[The Thayan Menace]

Roleplaying Powergamers, Unite!

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

We're also of the same mindset.

-Samir

 

[Oryan77]

The main problem I have with threads that pick on powergaming is that every poster that I've seen pick on powergaming cares nothing for making sweeping generalizations.

The main problem I have with giving an opinion when an OP asks for it is that the people you are criticizing are too quick to respond with smart aleck replies rather than reading what I write.

Ah, you came close to making me look like the fool...but read my post again...it says "every player that I've had that is a powergamer".

I'm sure there's some great roleplaying powergamers out there. I've just never met any.

 

[Shadeydm]

In that case, I think we more or less agree once you get beyond the words and into the meanings. It's bad when one character is significantly stronger or weaker than others. We seem to prefer different solutions, though. I prefer to have a group of characters who are each powerfull, and feel that those with less skill in character design should be assisted. If half my group is powerfull and the other half is weak, I'd rather make the weak strong than the other war around. Let me drastically oversimplify to make my point:

Two players, each playing Barbarians with greataxes, each percieving themselves as a melee combatant. They have mediocre stats, but with one high stat and one low stat each: an 18 and a 4. The first player places the 18 in strength and the 4 in Charisma. The second does the opposite. I think most would agree that the first player, to one degree or another, is 'powergaming.' The second is definitely not, but his decision will have a major impact on his ability to succeed in combat. The characters are othewise equal, but that one decision will cause the powergamer to gain a +7 attack bonus and a +9 damage bonus on each melee attack roll.

Is it the powergamer that's causing the power disparity in the party? I agree that a power disparity can cause a headache for the DM, and is therefore bad. I don't agree that powergaming is bad in and of itself.

Again I think we are seeing things quite differently to me only the powergamer is going to buy an 18 at the cost of having a 4 ability score.

 

[Patlin]

Again I think we are seeing things quite differently to me only the powergamer is going to buy an 18 at the cost of having a 4 ability score.

I didn't say anything about a point buy system, for the sake of the example assume the DM insists an 4d6 and arange, and that's what the two players got.

 

[Shadeydm]

I don't think putting 4 into strength for a barbarian has anything to do with this discussion.