Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="mvincent" data-source="post: 3697530" data-attributes="member: 27034">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.</blockquote>

Verification