Powergaming, who is on board?

[ThePublic]

Hey folks,

Checking in. For those that say I am not responding by responding with full opinion, Ha Ha, made you think and share! I value the dissent the most since it is a view that is counter to mine (therefore new-ish).

and now the responses, Danzig138, no I wouldn't let you in. As my group is one of need for quality (which you very well may have) AND logistic parity (which the other questions would cover) you probaly wouldn't make it past the interview. I am too the primary caregiver for my darling little girl (19m and full of beans like her father), so I can sympathize with the work you do (alot harder than work in the outside realm) Am I full of , well maybe in your eyes, which is again why we wouldn't see eye to eye and may never get there. Fine with you it sounds like and fine with me, but thanks for the reply!

Knowing the rules and filling out your PC well is a far cry from powergaming. I would never begrudge a person that knows the rules and fills out their sheet accordingly as long as they had:

A) a good concept of their character (history, what they did, family, reason for adventuring)

B) a good sense of who their character is (moral standing, actual feel for alignment/religion etc)

C)as Always, ability to play in the bookset that is provided w/o much dissent (for the Core book folks and in my cases, the books that I use and omissions that I state during interview- as I like new equipment, spells and even <gasp> classes and feats that make sense

D) ability to talk with their PCs general mindsets in mind (I currently have a NG PC that is being run by a gent that has played an Evil align of one sort or another for the last 10 yrs, and he is having a hoot doing it)

Storyline is what makes the transition of module to module work for a group for many years. If you never play with the same group for more than 4 yrs, you miss this and think it firvilous. If you do and have no set idea of where the party is going, your campaign loses steam. Of course the PCs should be the major part of their storyline, but there should not be a vacuum around them in which nothing else happens. When secondary things change the outcomes of things primary to the PCs it allows for feel and flavor of your realm (I am currently using the birthright world, but has use home-made worlds as well as the classic Greyhawk type setting that many oldtimers grew up on).

Trolling for hits, no. and thanks for noticing that this isn't that kind of thing. Willingness to take a hit (personal or rules dynamic wise- you betcha! jsut don't cry if I give it back, OK?)

Still happy on the progress, and happy to not be banned for some silliness!

The Public

 

[Counterspin]

Given that the OP ranks the ability to chip in for Coke over ability to RP, I find that I don't find his dedication to RP particularly impressive.

 

[Patlin]

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?

No, not at all. Roleplaying and Powergaming are seperate Axis. Giving your Barbarian a 4 Strength and an 18 Charisma instead of the other way around would be lousy powergaming, but wouldn't influence how well the character was roleplayed one bit.

The point of my example was that different character creation decisions can lead to different power levels, and that the powergaming player isn't the only one making those decisions. If you've got players making highly suboptimal choices, the powergamer is going to be out of wack in power level compared to those players, even without an unusually powerfull PC. If you want a party that's balanced power-wise, you need to take as hard a look at the weak as at the strong.

As others have said, I prefer a game where all players are strong to one where all players are weak. I'd agree it's undesirable to have a power disparity to the extent that 4 out of 5 players seem like sidekicks to the 5th!

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

To emphasize RP aspects I make all the players wear puffy shirts and only take levels in commoner.

 

[Elethiomel]

I am also one of those who see roleplaying and powergaming as different axes.

And I *so* don't get the importance of driving. WTF? I am a grown man with a job, and I have never owned a car. I have always been able to show up where I'm required, when I'm required to be there.

 

[questbreaker]

I am also one of those who see roleplaying and powergaming as different axes.

And I *so* don't get the importance of driving. WTF? I am a grown man with a job, and I have never owned a car. I have always been able to show up where I'm required, when I'm required to be there.

hear, hear! lets start a guild of people who dont have cars yet technomagically end up where they need to be, on time, more often than people with cars! "no fair, my car got a flat tire..." "your legs arent broken, are they?"

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

I am also one of those who see roleplaying and powergaming as different axes.

And I *so* don't get the importance of driving. WTF? I am a grown man with a job, and I have never owned a car. I have always been able to show up where I'm required, when I'm required to be there.

Yeah but you had to leave 2 hours before I did.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

I am also one of those who see roleplaying and powergaming as different axes.

And I *so* don't get the importance of driving. WTF? I am a grown man with a job, and I have never owned a car. I have always been able to show up where I'm required, when I'm required to be there.

You live in the big city, then, don't you? Where you have a reasonable chance to get where you want to go by bus, train, subway or other modes of public transit, one going past every 10 minutes or so.

Try this in a small village where you'd end up taking more time getting to work than working.

 

[mvincent]

And I *so* don't get the importance of driving. WTF? I am a grown man with a job, and I have never owned a car. I have always been able to show up where I'm required, when I'm required to be there.

Possessing a reliable car can merely be a good indicator (same with age, familiarity with the system, etc.). This likely isn't you (or anyone in this forum), but a car-less person is often more likely to:
1) be unreliable
2) need rides from other players
3) be facing economic challenges
4) not hold a steady job
5) have less education
6) be unable to make a pizza run
7) have poor social skills
8) have to walk a long ways to reach the game (and then complain about it).
etc.

Some groups might prefer not to take this risk (even though the person might well be a good player). Similarly, some groups won't take a chance on say, an underage player.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Possessing a reliable car can merely be a good indicator (same with age, familiarity with the system, etc.). This likely isn't you (or anyone in this forum), but a car-less person is often more likely to:
1) be unreliable
2) need rides from other players
3) be facing economic challenges
4) not hold a steady job
5) have less education
6) be unable to make a pizza run
7) have poor social skills
8) have to walk a long ways to reach the game (and then complain about it).
etc.

Some groups might prefer not to take this risk (even though the person might well be a good player). Similarly, some groups won't take a chance on say, an underage player.

Why not take a chance, or give it someone?

I've had carless players, and underage players. Sometimes the person was not your model of a good player, but most of the time, they were. We had more jerks with cars than without, more adult than minor ones.

About things you say people without cars are:

1) be unreliable: Can be, if he is dependant on people driving him, or if the bus schedule is tight. Otherwise, persons with cars can be just as unreliable

2) need rides from other players: Not exactly that bad a thing, I'd say, as long as it's not too far off the way of said players and he's not ungrateful about it (had that once. He not even asked to be driven home, he just stated that he had to get back, it was 10km per way, and he'd never say "thank you")

3) be facing economic challenges: So we're discriminating against the poor now? Why? So he can't afford to buy 3 books a month or 2 new dice sets a month. Not a problem - DMs like players that don't have libraries and come up with obscure stuff they themselves can't check, and people with too many dice are lunatics. I know what I'm talking about: I have 800 or so dice and I'm quite unconfortable when I'm in the same room as me!

4) not hold a steady job: Same as 3. I have no problem playing with unemployed people. I was that player on occasion. In fact, those guys have so much time, there aren't any problem when it comes to agree on a gaming date

5) have less education: Drivers' education? Again, I have no problem when someone's "stupid" (to exaggerate here), as long as they're decent people. Some are redneck poster children, but then again, some poeple with education are pretentious, arrogant a-holes.

6) be unable to make a pizza run: They don't deliver where you live? I live in a village of less than 800 souls, and I can afford to snub places after one bad delivery because there's almost a dozen choices around here.

7) have poor social skills: Okay, you have to explain that one to me. Do you mean that they don't have a car because they can't even have a conversation long enough to buy one? Reminds me of the guy who wants to buy a Lamborghini, but can't pronounce it and ends up with a dodge.

8) have to walk a long ways to reach the game (and then complain about it): They should be used to walking, shouldn't they? If not, let them complain about it for a minute or two. If they take more time complaining about it, them not having a car is the least of your problems.