D&D 5E Reducing Power Gaming

[GothmogIV]

Yeah, we all tend to prefer a lower-powered fantasy with a grimdark vibe. I think I said somewhere in this thread, the Free League LotR game is great: it has the 5e mechanics, but the power gaming stuff is sanded off. Of course, PC magic is sanded off,too, so...

 

[OptionalRule]

Talking with PCs about expectations is always sage advice. With D&D though - it's an uphill battle. The book, which gets conflated with the game, tells PCs, "at level X, Y, and Z you get these awesome powers!" So if the DM comes along and says, "well no, you don't," then the DM is just out to ruin everyone's fun. So yes, tell the players what you're thinking, but don't be surprised when they revolt because you're doing something that seems less fun than what the rule book promised them.

Yeah. I think there's a lot to that. At best, talking things out adjusts things in small increments so a group that is close enough can get in alignment. Sometimes individuals in a group are just so missaligned in terms of taste, expectations, playstyle, what they find fun, etc that there is no way to align them.

We act like people in groups are interchangeable. They are not. Getting a group together with at least similar mindsets is incredibly important and no amount of discussion can overcome opposing mindsets.

 

[Guest 7037866]

I'm not following this one. How do the PCs get more stuff than what's in the rule book, unless the DM gives it to them?

I am referring to game design and what happens when DMs escalate monsters and encounters because (by the rules) PCs are so powerful. Then the next iteration comes out with more powerful PCs (power creep), and DMs once again have to escalate creature power to match, and so on.

Compare classes from AD&D with the WotC counterparts. There are simply more "stuff" power and feature-wise for PCs to do. Instead of just playing your character, you are playing more a set of features.

Unless a table is fine with playing a "simpler way", the players will revolt against a DM who tells them, "Oh, subclasses? No, I am not using subclasses this time around."

Most new players, after experiencing 5E (with all the toys and knobs) who try AD&D, for example, or B/X, will find it novel 9 out of 10 times, but not what to play it long-term IME. They are interested in trying the roots of the hobby, but find it less interesting because of the lack of toys and knobs. Yet for decades people played earlier editions and had a blast doing so, despite the lack of toys and knbos.

We laughed at the idea of 5E being a "simple game to learn". It is far from it IMO for most new players. And the fact classes are front-loaded with features coupled with how quickly you advance through levels 1-3 only makes it worse IME. Sure, I can change things, but I'm talking about how the game is written, not optional play styles.

 

[overgeeked]

That'll work - the DM's tool bag always has a bigger tool in it. I don't ramp up the monsters. I just use a different game. Problem (D&D) solved.

Right. Which is the other half of my first post on the topic back on page 1.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I think fundamentally, most of the time what people call powergaming is dissonance between what some players and at least the GM want in terms of game difficulty; it may also be dissonance between the kind of game being pictured by the GM and the players (i.e. the players want high powered fantasy, whether they're above the background or not but the GM wants gritty fantasy).

Either way, its fundamentally about expectation clash and most of the time trying to "reduce" it is just another way of trying to force some players to play the way the GM wants, whether its what they want or not.

 

[Guest 7037866]

I think fundamentally, most of the time what people call powergaming is dissonance between what some players and at least the GM want in terms of game difficulty; it may also be dissonance between the kind of game being pictured by the GM and the players (i.e. the players want high powered fantasy, whether they're above the background or not but the GM wants gritty fantasy).

Either way, its fundamentally about expectation clash and most of the time trying to "reduce" it is just another way of trying to force some players to play the way the GM wants, whether its what they want or not.

This is a good point and one I know, personally, I don't specify enough when I comment about the direction D&D is going and saying things like "MOAR POWER", etc. I hope people understand this is simply my preference, and I understand for some groups, what players get even in 5E might not be "enough" for them to really enjoy playing and they want more.

As others have said before, when DM and players want different things, either both compromise, one side gives in, or they part ways and find others who share their preferences. Frankly, I don't blame either side if a compromise can't be reached, but thankfully usually it can be found and the game can go on.

For myself, in my current game I allowed a player to try the Rune Knight. I find it OP and way more powerful than previous fighter subclasses... the natural result of power creep. So, I won't be allowing it in further games.

 

[jasper]

Reduce power gaming. PHB ONLY. Multiclass has to be 16 in current class and 16 is new class. Change the leveling change. Steal the wizard leveling chart from 1E.

 

[Thomas Shey]

This is a good point and one I know, personally, I don't specify enough when I comment about the direction D&D is going and saying things like "MOAR POWER", etc. I hope people understand this is simply my preference, and I understand for some groups, what players get even in 5E might not be "enough" for them to really enjoy playing and they want more.

To make it clear, there's nothing wrong with lower powered fantasy. I've run quite a lot of it over the years in the form of RQ derivatives.

As others have said before, when DM and players want different things, either both compromise, one side gives in, or they part ways and find others who share their preferences. Frankly, I don't blame either side if a compromise can't be reached, but thankfully usually it can be found and the game can go on.

The problem, of course, is often it isn't reached; instead what happens there's an invisible tug-of-war where neither side acknowledges that's what's happening (and to be clear, it can be about more than two parts in a gaming group, where some of the players are with the GM in what they want and some aren't, or there's more than two positions going on where the GM wants gritty fantasy, some players want high-powered fantasy, and some players want lower powered than that but more than the GM wants).

For myself, in my current game I allowed a player to try the Rune Knight. I find it OP and way more powerful than previous fighter subclasses... the natural result of power creep. So, I won't be allowing it in further games.

And I have to note you can have your situation with multiples of these; if some player options are intrinsically more powerful than others, you can have players that might want similar power levels but some are willing to game the system and/or use options the others won't to get it.

The real issue is that "power gaming" can describe a number of things, some of which are at least somewhat malignant, and some of which are just a description of dissonance between what two or more sets of people in a gaming group want, without the "power gamers" being clearly the ones in the wrong.

 

[DrJawaPhD]

For myself, in my current game I allowed a player to try the Rune Knight. I find it OP and way more powerful than previous fighter subclasses... the natural result of power creep. So, I won't be allowing it in further games.

Rune Knight or Echo Knight? Rune Knight is ok but it's not any more powerful than most Fighter subclasses. I've never heard of anyone banning Rune Knight, that's crazy

Now if you meant Echo Knight then yeah, the Critical Role subclasses are not balanced very well and are often banned

 

[Horwath]

Talking with PCs about expectations is always sage advice. With D&D though - it's an uphill battle. The book, which gets conflated with the game, tells PCs, "at level X, Y, and Z you get these awesome powers!" So if the DM comes along and says, "well no, you don't," then the DM is just out to ruin everyone's fun. So yes, tell the players what you're thinking, but don't be surprised when they revolt because you're doing something that seems less fun than what the rule book promised them.

This is why, I always say that it's better in 99% of the time to buff low powered features than to nerf high powered features.
Except Twilight cleric, that thing is off the scale.

and in the end as a DM you are in control how powerful monsters are, so players think that they got something and are happy for it, but in the end they got absolutely nothing as the world scaled with them if needed.