Powergaming, who is on board?

[Sound of Azure]

For some reason I am really put off by the whole class dipping thing. It just feels wrong to me not so much having two classes but when you have 3 or more and start throwing in prestige classes etc, I find myself wondering how does it all make sense in game? Do you just throw together any old excuse for the various dippings in order to justify the build you want regardless of the logic or lack thereof? Does it not need to make sense in context of the campaign world the end justifies the means and nothing else matters? I just don't get it. Does Bill the fighter/mage just wake up one morning after a harrowing adventure and suddenly he has a level of rogue? Then he can wake up a few weeks later and add a level of Ranger just because he has accumulated x amount of exp... where does the madness end?
Am I saying its WBF nope just that I don't understand the appeal or the flavor of such choices.

What you described above, the fighter/mage picking up a rogue level, then a ranger level... that seems more haphazard to me. It could make sense in character, however. A rogue level could represent learning more social niceties, or a specific tactical fighting style. A ranger level could represent a sudden hatred for a particular foe the party has just encountered, or training in the elven Mistwood with their finest foresters.

Or... the player may have just decided to change directions with their character. It happens.

How I look at is this: every time I create a character, I tend to have an overall theme in mind. Sometimes it's possible to do this in only one or two classes, but often there are prestige classes involved. What I like about D&D's most recent iteration is that I can use the existing tools (Classes) to create my themed character- sometimes through "dipping".

What I'm essentially doing is creating an entirely new class just for my PC. It's made up of bits of different base classes (and sometimes prestige classes), but what I've done is realise my concept/ideal with existing mechanics and rules bits. In character, this is what the character has always been striving for.

One of my favourite recent PCs had "16 levels" of the "Singing Assassin" base class. In raw D&D terms, he was a "Bard 1/Rogue 4/Assassin 5/ Sublime Chord 2/ Arcane Trickster 4", but he was always the "Singing Assassin" in character.

I create "new" character classes almost every time one of my PCs advances in some class combo or another. Usually I have a goal in mind, but other times I'm going through uncharted territory.

I can't speak for anyone else, but for me, a character class has always been a codified way of explaining what a PC can do. Dipping merely writes a new class table for each and every PC who multiclasses. For me, that's perfectly fine, and I wouldn't have it any other way.

 

[FireLance]

First off, general thoughts on powergaming:

It isn't a binary, yes or no, on or off, black or white label. Rather, different DMs, players, and groups will have different ideas of what is an acceptable character, and what can or can not be done to achieve that character. Some don't like characters that are too powerful, or too powerful in comparison to the rest of the party. Some don't like characters with too many classes and prestige classes, or with specific classes or prestige classes, or specific combinations of classes and prestige classes. Some don't like characters (or players that want to play characters) that are well-defined mechanically, but are either generic or ill-defined in terms of personality and motivation. However, when the term "powergamer" is loosely used for any or all of the above behavior, it loses its meaning and simply becomes a generic term for "playstyle that I don't like".

Now, if you are willing to define the specific powergaming behaviors that you don't like, and communicate this to the other players, it may be possible to come to some mutually satisfactory solution. Alternatively, you could just write them off as "powergamers" and never have anything to do with them again. Ever.

And now, the Edition Wars section:

It is a fact that 3e gives players far more opportunity to make character choices during character advancement than previous editions of the game, where the most significant choices were usually made during character creation (notably, race and class). The consequence of more choice is the potential for greater disparity between those who have made mostly poor or merely average choices, and those who have made mostly good choices.

Of course, the actual disparity between choices (how much better Choice A is compared to Choice B or Choice C) is a matter of the rules, not player ability. Here, there can be a tension between restricting the scope for powergaming by making each choice as close to equal as possible, and rewarding "system mastery" or making good choices on the part of the player. I believe the current design philosophy has shifted to the former from the latter, which was more prevalent during the early days of 3e.

Finally, on a personal note:

I probably have a higher tolerance for powergaming than most people. My group tends to focus more on the mechanical aspects of their characters, and I'm quite free with respect to multiclassing, access to new races, classes, feats, spells, etc. and equipment selection (basically, whenever a character gains a level, he can select whatever equipment and magic items he wants, up to the standard wealth guidelines for a PC of his new level).

That said, I also ensure that the challenges I have in my games can be overcome by characters that are not powergamed to the hilt. Nothing encourages players to powergame more than a continuous stream of tough challenges that push their characters' abilities to the limit. Once the players realize that their characters do not need to be fully optimized to succeed, some will spend less time trying to eke out another minor mechanical bonus, and start spending more time on the other aspects of their characters.

 

[questbreaker]

1) Why is he higher level than everyone else? Of course he will be outshining everyone with that disparity, but this situation shouldn't happen in normal D&D i.e. XP is shared to begin with, and lower level characters get more XP than higher levels ones anyway.
2) Trying to kill his character (without discussing it with him first) seems an excellent way to get everyone to hate each other (regardless of the outcome). Is that your goal?

we are getting EXP by PARTY level (as a lv9 he is bringing this level above the actual character levels of the rest of us), which happens to be lv6. and adding to the level disparity is the fact that he has killed other PCs (and also sat idly by as other PCs were killed [the DM makes encounters challenging for the lv9 character, thus entirely deadly to the rest of us]) because our party disagreed on how the task at hand was to be solved. he has killed other PC's, so im feeling no remorse when we kill him. ingame our characters have witnessed his evil, and how the consequences reflect on our party. maybe we are making him a scapegoat but it should be an interestingly roleplayed out situation in any event.

 

[danzig138]

I guess I couldn't play in your games.

Work: do you have income? income is important as I require to be bought and snacks and such to be contributed equally by all players.

I don't have a paying job, and most of our income is dedicated to other things, like electricity, mortgage, gas, food, clothes for the kids, you know, unimportant things. Personally, I'm too busy goofing off during the day to have a paying job. Plus, I don't think McDonald's would let me bring the one-year for whom I am the, oh what's the phrase woman uses? Oh, right. Primary caregiver for.

If I'm a player, and I have some extra cash (around tax refund time for example), I have no problem pitching in for a few pizzas or something. Not every player will have the same economic status. At the same time, I don't leech off the other players' snacks either. If possible, I will pitch in to buy the DM some food, soda, or smokes, because he's the guy putting the work into the game. And I treat it the same when I GM. When we game, I prefer for at least a couple of the guys to bring me a pack of smokes or pick me up a hamburger when they do a food run as slight compensation for both the time I put into the game, and the little bit of cash that goes into things like character sheets and handouts.

Motation: do you drive? is it reliable and are you prompt.

Nope. I haven't driven a car since 1991, when I wrecked mine (a '72 Galaxie, split the engine block), plus two others, and landed 3 people in the hospital (one with a broken back, my best friend, unfortunately). But somehow, I've always managed to be where I need to be.

Hygene: do you smell?

Everyone smells. But I like to think I smell somewhere between roses and steak.

Character concept: Do you have one? Do you have a backstory?

Nope. When I play a game, I rarely come to the table with a concept. It's not how I build characters. I first talk the DM into letting me roll 3d6 in order, see what I get, and then go from there. If he doesn't then I just put my rolls down in the order they come anyway (point buy really screws up my character building method). And if I want to, I can optimize/powergame the crap out of that character (although not like the pros on the WoTC optimization boards. Man, are those guys good, and my skills are super rusty since I don't have all the books, and I only get to run games these days). In the time I've been playing (about 19 years now), I've met one person who could out optimize me, and he cheated. At the same time, I've always been one of the better roleplayers in the groups too.

Is it more socially acceptable now in the later versions of D&D (3,3.5) to do this?

Nope. It's just as socially acceptable now as ever I think. Possibly less so now that so many players are online and exposed to all the storytellers out there.

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 don't know what Gm's are looking for. I'm looking for warm bodies that I get along with. Of course, I don't really roll with GM's who are worried about their storylines, although I appreciate the idea here that story and H/S are an either/or kind of thing.

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

Frankly, my players are more interested in pre-gen characters half the time, because they never know what they're going to get. Otherwise, they. . . oh wait, that's right. It's not an either/or thing either. And sadly, I completely quit taking this even remotely seriously with your use of the ever-so-lame role-playing/roll-playing (again, not mutually exclusive).

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'm not doing a darned thing either way. I don't care how anyone outside of my group does it, and really, as long as they're having a good time, I don't care how the people inside the group are doing it.

if you can't get in character, then you can't expect to hang out here long enough for pizza for example).

So what do you do with folks like me, who can both powergame a character and get into character?

I find Powergaming to cheapen the gaming experience as a whole

And I'm perfectly fine with you feeling that way even if you're wrong.

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!)

And I think people should get to play the game however they enjoy it, and the more styles in play, the better. I also don't think a "good group" ignores the powergaming aspect if some of them are interested in it, and yes, a "good group" can be interested in it.

So basically, I think you're full of it, but being full of it works perfectly well for some people, and if it does so for you, then more power to you and yours.

 

[robberbaron]

In our group we have Powergamers (optimisers) and Flavourgamers (make sub-optimal choices for characterisation). The Optimisers aren't always the worst role-players (sometimes they are the best) and the Flavourgamers aren't always the best (sometimes they come up with off-the-wall ideas with no conception of how they are going to play their crap character).

As long as they do their optimisation within the rules I have no problem with Optimisers. I optimise my characters so why shouldn't they?

The people with whom I take issue are the ones who want to work outside the rules (often call Cheaters).
I say "My game is Core, so PHB, DMG and EPH" and they instantly go "I'd like this weapon from this book and this feat from this other book and I want to use this spell from book Z but I want to have it last longer and I want to go for this PrC from book X".
Rules are rules and if you can't stay within them then I don't care how good a roleplayer you are, you go down a lot in my estimation.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

I'm a roleplaying powergamer. My characters will be able to do something, and do it well (I call that "be heroes"), but they're not one-dimensional.

 

[Seeten]

I'm also a roleplaying powergamer. I always have a concept of my character, and that concept is never, "Worthless loser who adventures because he was too stupid to tend bar".

For some people, apparently, 'role'playing means being a tavern wench who picked up her frying pan and headed off with the adventuring group, but she's just a tavern wench with a 6 str and only levels in warrior, and that makes them a good roleplayer.

I reject your OP, I reject the topic, and I further reject playing a character capable of fighting is somehow inimical to plot.

Conan is one of the best fighters in his world.
Elric is both an amazing swordsman, has an artifact sword, and is one of the greatest wizards in his world.
Gandalf is a demigod.
Rand Al'Thor is the most powerful person in his world, and fought a God to a standstill.

These apparently bad stories, centred around "Powergamer" characters, all seem to have generated enough popularity to be on best seller lists, and one of them was named best literature of the 20th century.

So, my answer to you is:

No.

 

[mvincent]

For some people, apparently, 'role'playing means being a tavern wench who picked up her frying pan and headed off with the adventuring group, but she's just a tavern wench with a 6 str and only levels in warrior, and that makes them a good roleplayer.

I've noticed that ineffective, frivolous players tend to slow the game down considerable and can hinder the party from ever completing quests and adventures. 'I hate those guys'

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Power gaming... I love it. It's just so much fun getting into a combat situation and take out the big evil monsters. Or see how your comrades do it with your help.

Role playing... I love it. It's great to see how your characters get into the storyline and make friends and foes. I love good stories, too (I am not sure if this actually belongs to Role playing or is a 3rd "part" of me...)

Admittedly, my group does power gaming more than role playing, though most of us power game within their character (Though I know one guy whose characters don't really have character, but that doesn't matter, as the rest of the group makes up for it...).

 

[Drowbane]

...but the reasons for prefering the 18 in strength and the 4 in charisma for a Barbarian character instead of the other way around seem to be what you describe in your definition.

Eh... what now?

So are you saying you think it would be good roleplay (over rollplay) to have a Barbarian character with a 4 Str and 18 Cha?