D&D 5E Reducing Power Gaming

[Bae'zel]

I’m not a powergamer on the rare times I get a chance to actually play (forever DM here), but I want to portray a character who is reasonably competent. I’ll make sure that my stats, skills and chosen abilities reinforce those areas that I want my PC to do well in. An Archer will have high Dex and skills to let them do archer-sniper stuff.

I despise it when another DM gets annoyed that my PC is good at what they’re made to do. Especially when they see me roll a 1 and use it as an opportunity to describe my character as an incompetent buffoon, to the point that they encourage the other PCs to start ongoing jokes about that incompetence (ie, bad luck).

Basically I’ve experienced DMs who interpret failed skill checks as comical farce and failed attack rolls as ludicrous whiffing (“your character swings wildly, swooshing in the air and your opponent laughs at your inaccuracy”). I can understand why some players power game: to battle asshat DMs who give the impression that they are, in fact, their opponent.

 

[Horwath]

I’m not a powergamer on the rare times I get a chance to actually play (forever DM here), but I want to portray a character who is reasonably competent. I’ll make sure that my stats, skills and chosen abilities reinforce those areas that I want my PC to do well in. An Archer will have high Dex and skills to let them do archer-sniper stuff.

I despise it when another DM gets annoyed that my PC is good at what they’re made to do. Especially when they see me roll a 1 and use it as an opportunity to describe my character as an incompetent buffoon, to the point that they encourage the other PCs to start ongoing jokes about that incompetence (ie, bad luck).

Basically I’ve experienced DMs who interpret failed skill checks as comical farce and failed attack rolls as ludicrous whiffing (“your character swings wildly, swooshing in the air and your opponent laughs at your inaccuracy”). I can understand why some players power game: to battle asshat DMs who give the impression that they are, in fact, their opponent.

Yeah, I've seen that.
If you put anything above 14 in your primary ability, you are powergaming...
while I have seen a barbarian(half elf) with 13+2,13+1,13+1,12,12,12 array with skill expert as "bonus" 1st level feat, and that was a viable character, no one expected that character to excel in it's primary role.

it will be good all around character but it will never be excellent at anything.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Basically I’ve experienced DMs who interpret failed skill checks as comical farce and failed attack rolls as ludicrous whiffing (“your character swings wildly, swooshing in the air and your opponent laughs at your inaccuracy”). I can understand why some players power game: to battle asshat DMs who give the impression that they are, in fact, their opponent.

If anything, I try to frame things so that misses and fumbles in games are more about outside events the PC has limited control over ("As you swing a rock rolls under your foot, throwing off your aim"). Players tend to feel too strongly about perceived failure as-is; I don't need to be feeding into it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

If anything, I try to frame things so that misses and fumbles in games are more about outside events the PC has limited control over ("As you swing a rock rolls under your foot, throwing off your aim"). Players tend to feel too strongly about perceived failure as-is; I don't need to be feeding into it.

That's fair. I like to narrate failure, especially if the PC in question is quite constant, as basically bad luck. Someone turns at the wrong moment, a sound draws attention, a mechanical defect foils the lockpicking attempt, and so on.

 

[Bae'zel]

If anything, I try to frame things so that misses and fumbles in games are more about outside events the PC has limited control over ("As you swing a rock rolls under your foot, throwing off your aim"). Players tend to feel too strongly about perceived failure as-is; I don't need to be feeding into it.

Agreed. Also, I feel that a lot of people misunderstand what AC represents. If you fail to meet the AC of a target, it can also legitimately mean that your blow was parried, dodged, sidestepped, or bounced off of their armor.

Most DMs I've played with will say: "you miss your target, flailing about, OOPS haha" while I'll typically say: "the orc parries your blow / the goblin ducks under your swipe / your sword slashes the creature but only superficially scratches it's armored hide" etc...

Makes players feel a BIT less bad about missing, and frames their character's actions as OPPOSED vs PASSIVE. Sure, failing to hit can just mean that 'oops, you misjudged things and hit empty air", but AC doesn't just represent your weapon skills failing for some reason.

 

[ezo]

FWIW many times it doesn't make narrative sense for the PC to actually "miss" their target, so in those cases I say they "hit but fail to affect the target" (a glancing blow or whatever that has no impact on the combat effectiveness---what HP really are).

Sometimes it's okay to say the PC just missed however. People should, IMO, be able to accept outright failure at times. We all fail---nothing wrong with that.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Sometimes it's okay to say the PC just missed however. People should, IMO, be able to accept outright failure at times. We all fail---nothing wrong with that.

"Should" and "can" are different things, and I don't feel a need to feed my players' pessimism, thanks.

 

[Micah Sweet]

"Should" and "can" are different things, and I don't feel a need to feed my players' pessimism, thanks.

I admit I personally would have a hard time dealing with players who outright can't accept true failure. My narration is based on what makes logical sense to me. If you roll badly (or what you attempted was unlikely to work anyway), then just having failed makes sense to me.

 

[TwoSix]

Assuming you play with these people, what sort of narration is best to use you'll generally pick up quick just by observing them. Some players like to narrate their own failures, some players like when I (as the DM) narrate something funny or farcical, and others prefer to just gloss over 1s and treat them like any other missed roll.

 

[ezo]

"Should" and "can" are different things, and I don't feel a need to feed my players' pessimism, thanks.

Hey, do whatever you want... and I'll do the same, thanks.