Support Munchkins/Powerplayers?

[MichaelSomething]

I hear people don't like munckins because they end up stealing the spotlight via powergaming. But what if you were powergaming the support role? Wouldn't that be worse overall?

What if you were running a 3.5 game and the bard in the party was giving everyone +5 to hit and damage and could increase all healing spells by 6? And don't forget being hasted for the first 4 fights a day at higher levels! I actually had a character like that. I heard Bards were weak and powergamed so he wouldn't drag the party down. The DM who is a powergamer noted how much I pumped up the entire party.

Then again, I guess it could be that perusing personal glory at the expense of others is frowned upon more? Shouldn't a real powergamer known when force multiplying is the best tactic/build for a group/party? Is a whole party full of pumped up characters just easier to run for? Thoughts?

 

[happyhermit]

I have not had a ton of experience with munchkin/powergamer/optimizers but in the experience I do have, they tend to not like support roles much. My most notable memory was when one felt like they "had" to fill that role, even though the rest of the party wasn't concerned. They went on to fill the role (sporadically) but wanted constant attention and credit for whatever they did for other players. It got old quickly.

I am sure there are others that have seen a different side of it.

 

[Zhaleskra]

I think it's important to note that Power Gamers are not necessarily Munchkins, and that all Munchkins are Power Gamers. There is nothing inherently wrong with wanting to play at a higher power level. It becomes wrong when you're a dick about it.

 

[was]

Power Gamers are not necessarily Munchkins

...I think that's a very important distinction to make. Lot's of gamers seek to optimize their characters, but still play well as part of the group. IME, the munchkins try to make the whole gaming experience all about themselves, without any concern about the enjoyment of other players.

 

[kalil]

Power gaming a support role is largely a non-issue because you do not steal spotlight from other players, which is the real problem with power gaming. Turning up to opposition a few knots to match the powerful support the group gets is really easy to do.

 

[Zardnaar]

We have had powergamers take support roles. They are just very good at that support role. e had a Bard in 3.5 that could grant everyone +8 to hit and damage and she could get it up to +16 in a few levels. Mucnkins are a bit different and they can be related to a power gamer but often want to have the attention on them or ruin the game in other ways.

 

[upogsi]

I think it's best to look at it in terms of what a player wants out of the game. Some players like mechanics and figuring out the best or unique combinations from a ruleset. It's fun. It's what they do with it. And wether their behavior is in line with the group expectations that matters.

The players that want to be the hero, show off or have glory generally don't go for support roles, wether they optimize or not. This can include people who love combat and make a terrifying mechanically optimized creature, roleplayers who want to be the main character and use diplomacy and intrigue to get spotlight, mixes of the two or other variants.

Mechanically speaking, support characters usually make a huge difference. The question is more what the player is optimizing for if it's a problem.

 

[Psikerlord#]

The problem with powergamers, as I understand it, is intraparty imbalance, which tends to be followed by the campaign ending early.

Usually because either (i) an inadvertent TPK when the GM pumps up the battles to try and challenge the OP PC, and things go horribly wrong, or (ii) other players losing interest/dropping out because their PC doesn't seem to be needed/very important/etc.

I have also found, over the years, long term powergamers - especially those who take a turn GMing - tend to mellow and transition into playing more balanced characters (case in point: myself).

 

[Herobizkit]

I feel the main difference between Munchkins and Powergamers is that Powergamers will tend to work within the rules to optimize their characters; Munchkins will find and slap rules from any source together or flat out cheat in order to break and dominate the game.

Powergamers tend to out-perform non-powergamers, causing the appearance that non-optimized characters are made incorrectly and therefore inferior. Having a fighter with STR 18 and Dual Wielder feat makes that STR 14 Paladin with a warhammer and shield seem like he's not a decent warrior at all by damage output (even with Smites, because they're a limited resource).

It's okay to support Powergaming - it's never okay to support Munchkinism. :3

 

[Umbran]

Part of the issue is that you can't optimize for *everything*. You instead pick a shtick, and become the best at it.

Now, your character is a hammer, and every problem becomes a nail. And after investing the time and effort in making the the hammer, the player typically *really* wants to use it. And, if that shtick isn't what's called for, I find the player typically either "checks out" and disengages from the game until their shtick is called for, or (usually worse) tries to make as many moments as possible into uses for the shtick.

This isn't fundamentally different than what you can see with niche protection - like a party archetypal barbarian, even not optimized, tossed in with a bunch of civilized character can make everything about his or her rage issues, overshadowing whatever else the rest of the party is trying to accomplish or be. The optimizer is typically picking an even more narrow niche.

One basic effective difference between a good powergamer and an munchkin is that the powergamer understands this possible dynamic, and works to avoid it, and the munchkin doesn't.