Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="rushlight" data-source="post: 1552036" data-attributes="member: 3801">I believe I know why power-gamers are continually at odds with role-players.&nbsp; If you have a group of role-players, their characters will not be &quot;maxed out&quot; for fighting only - they will usually have attempted to duplicate a &quot;real&quot; person.&nbsp; Some fighty, some knowledge, some resources just spent on character &quot;flavor&quot;. If you then add a power-gamer to that mix, he almost instantly takes over the game on whatever aspect he's maxed out.&nbsp; That causes problems for the role-players.&nbsp;If you have a group of power-gamers and you add a role-player, then the role-player really doesn't usually have much chance of affecting the other players' enjoyment of the game.&nbsp; He won't be the best at diplomasizing (is that a word?) or the best at fighting.&nbsp; He won't step on anyones toes.&nbsp; No problems for the power-gamers.&nbsp;So the problem is obviously the mix of players.&nbsp; However, power-gamers are predisposed to take over the game - while role-players are not.&nbsp; It's not that one is better than the other - they can both be fun to play.&nbsp; The problem is that a single power-gamer can ruin the fun for a group of role-players, while the opposite is not true.&nbsp; &nbsp;For what it's worth, my biggest problem with the book at hand is that it actively discourages less effective (but potentially more flavorful) skill and feat selections.&nbsp; It also encourages identical characters (for &quot;max&quot; effectiveness).&nbsp; Neither of those belong in my game world.&nbsp; I'm trying to craft a world with realism, and this book discourages it.&nbsp; I should add that this is my personal tastes for my game.&nbsp; For another person, these conditions may not even register on his / her radar.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="rushlight, post: 1552036, member: 3801"] I believe I know why power-gamers are continually at odds with role-players. If you have a group of role-players, their characters will not be "maxed out" for fighting only - they will usually have attempted to duplicate a "real" person. Some fighty, some knowledge, some resources just spent on character "flavor". If you then add a power-gamer to that mix, he almost instantly takes over the game on whatever aspect he's maxed out. That causes problems for the role-players. If you have a group of power-gamers and you add a role-player, then the role-player really doesn't usually have much chance of affecting the other players' enjoyment of the game. He won't be the best at diplomasizing (is that a word?) or the best at fighting. He won't step on anyones toes. No problems for the power-gamers. So the problem is obviously the mix of players. However, power-gamers are predisposed to take over the game - while role-players are not. It's not that one is better than the other - they can both be fun to play. The problem is that a single power-gamer can ruin the fun for a group of role-players, while the opposite is not true. For what it's worth, my biggest problem with the book at hand is that it actively discourages less effective (but potentially more flavorful) skill and feat selections. It also encourages identical characters (for "max" effectiveness). Neither of those belong in my game world. I'm trying to craft a world with realism, and this book discourages it. I should add that this is my [i]personal[/i] tastes for [i]my game[/i]. For another person, these conditions may not even register on his / her radar. [/QUOTE]

Verification