D&D 5E Reducing Power Gaming

[Thomas Shey]

We have to engage our problems was my point.
The OP was asking for ways to mitigate a problem. If people are power gaming and that's not your thing...say so.
If people are treating you in a way that you don't like...say so. But tell the offending parties don't just shout into the void about it. That's my advice about how to deal with aspects of your game that make you unhappy.

it goes beyond that. As I've said, I think power gaming is often a derogatory term applied to cases where there's simply a class of expectations between the GM and the players, and think they should be honest that's what's going on rather than trying to frame it as players being bad and needing to be manipulated. If that clash is one you're having trouble resolving (and that isn't uncommon) there may be ways to approach it, or there may not, but I'm not going to say I think trying to manipulate or force people is a good one.

(This also doesn't say there aren't cases where people are doing things as players that are annoying other players or are competitive in ways that aren't helpful to the game as a whole, but again, that seems like a game contract problem and trying to deal with it while not just, you know, talking to them is perverse. And that's true even if talking to them won't work.)

 

[Thomas Shey]

Even if your hit rate is 90%, you still roll a 1 5% of the time.

Also "PCs miss so rarely" seems to be thinking of specific incarnations of D&D that are not in the above header.

 

[Mort]

You're conflating the issue. It is not 1 being a "critical fumble" of any sort. It is a 1 being a miss and occasionally being described comicly for relief. If the DM does this, hopefully they do the same for creatures under their control when they roll a 1 (or miss in general if that is the issue).

And yes, I know all the maths behind the more attacks == more chances for disaster argument concerning games who play with actual critical fumbles. So, let's not waste time going there? It isn't the issue I've been discussing, at least.

Yeah, this seems more a respect issue than a mechanics issue.

If a DM is actually disrespecting the players (and the other way around as well) that is an out of game issue and needs to be addressed as such.

 

[KYRON45]

it goes beyond that. As I've said, I think power gaming is often a derogatory term applied to cases where there's simply a class of expectations between the GM and the players, and think they should be honest that's what's going on rather than trying to frame it as players being bad and needing to be manipulated. If that clash is one you're having trouble resolving (and that isn't uncommon) there may be ways to approach it, or there may not, but I'm not going to say I think trying to manipulate or force people is a good one.

(This also doesn't say there aren't cases where people are doing things as players that are annoying other players or are competitive in ways that aren't helpful to the game as a whole, but again, that seems like a game contract problem and trying to deal with it while not just, you know, talking to them is perverse. And that's true even if talking to them won't work.)

My post was in response to someone commenting on being mocked for rolling 1s.

Play whatever game you want how you want. If what you’re doing is part of the rules set then it’s just gaming. If the system allows for it it’s a power system. A lot of people complain about (insert game here). There are so many other games out there. Play one you actually like.

 

[Thomas Shey]

My post was in response to someone commenting on being mocked for rolling 1s.

Ah, I thought it was in regard to the general thread question. I've already expressed my opinion that emphasis placed on failure in die rolls is a luxury item, and should only be used with groups who aren't going to be bothered by it, anything past that is just me belaboring the point.

 

[Hriston]

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”).

Narrating the effects of PC failure is something I enjoy doing when I DM. However, I don't try for a farcical tone in my games. For ability checks, a failure result is going to follow from the established fiction which has put something at stake leading up to the roll. For failed attack rolls, I like to narrate according to the following system:

If the result (roll + mods) is 1-9, the attack misses the target entirely.​

​

If the result is 10 or more, I go down this list of factors that might contribute to the target's AC:​

1. If the target has cover, and the amount of the miss is within the cover's contribution to AC, the attack hits the cover.
2. If the target has a shield, and the amount of the miss is within 2 points, the shield is interposed between the attack and the target.
3. If the target has a Dex bonus that contributes to AC, and the amount of the miss is within the amount the target's Dex bonus contributes, the target sidesteps, dodges, or otherwise avoids the attack.
4. If the target is wearing armor, and the amount of the miss is within the armor's base AC minus 10, the armor absorbs the attack.
5. If the target has natural armor, and the amount of the miss is within the amount of target's natural armor bonus, the natural armor absorbs the attack.

I also avoid narrating the PC"s actions, focusing on external factors, although I do enjoy having the monsters taunt the PCs for their failures from time to time because I think a little competition can be fun.

 

[Retros_x]

IMO the failure of a roll should rarely be attributed to the character himself in the narration. The dice represent the random factors that influence every situation. The ability and prowess of the character are represented by the ability scores and proficiency scores. They are static. When a character misses an attack for example, I would never narrate it as "you hit completely off the air next to your enemy" thats nonsense and slapstick. I assume a competent hero is always targeting the core or the head with intents of killing (if not declared otherwise). A failed roll is caused by bad luck, circumstances, underestimating the enemy etc..

I had one DM who would interpret fails as completely comical and it drove me crazy. Same DM later complained that the campaign had not the serious tone he was aiming for (Tomb of Annihilation). The irony was lost on him.

 

[GothmogIV]

Just played our first session of Castles&Crusades. Really, really fun. 4th level characters felt robust, and had meaningful choices to make regarding their class and racial abilities. Combat was smooth and felt dangerous. Great gaming session!

 

[Golden age Superhero]

I think instead of killing yourself trying to house rule the game then just a play a different game.

 

[toucanbuzz]

It's not a sin to run one campaign with one game system and then return to your favorite. I think it's actually healthy to try other game systems along with D&D.