The Illusion of Powergaming

[nute]

Not really. Rather, good game design would allow you to decide Ragnar the Righteous grew up on a farm and knows a little something about husbandry. And then, if husbandry has no in-game benefits, not penalize you for such, or if it has in-game benefits, requiring you to spend the same resources you would on any other beneficial skill.

Which D&D does.

It's up to the DM how difficult he makes things for his PCs. If they need max ranks in any certain skill to stand a chance, then he's encouraging powergaming by making it all about the numbers. A good DM will have a reason for a PC to have a fleshed-out background, including skills.

You know what's awesome? Someone who's not a bard with the Perform skill. No, that ranger might not be Inspiring Courage, but he can provide a melody for the actual bard and effectively Aid Another if the DM allows it (which I would). Tactically superior? No. But concentrating only on what's tactically superior to the exclusion of all else is the definition of powergaming.

 

[DragonLancer]

"Powergaming" is a fine style of play if the entire group is interesting in that level of play. It only takes one powergamer in a group which doesn't play that way to ruin the entire game. Thats where my hatred for powergaming comes from.

A few years back I had a player join our group who was just such a powergamer. The rest of us like a casual game where theres plenty of RP, and every combat is a life or death struggle. When this player joined he threw the entire game out of whack, and I as DM couldn't compensate without spoiling the game for the other players who don't tweak their characters to his style. We even spoke to him on more than a few occasions and he refused to change his attitudes. His twinking ruined the end of an otherwise fantastic campaign.

A RL situation eventually took him from the game before it got to the point where the group was ready to boot him.

My point is that a game should be run IMO by the lowest common denominator. If the other players don't tweak characters or the DM doesn't want to run that style of game then the tweaker should seriously cut back. It just seems that everyone and his brother these days wants uber-characters, especially on these boards.

Just my opinion.

 

[Janaxstrus]

So if one person wants to play a lame, mange-ridden 1 eyed gnoll with a cataract, who also happens to be a deaf mute, because it will be "great to RP", everyone should play a character that has no business being an adventurer?

 

[jmucchiello]

I don't have the time to find all the posts related to my argument but from reading this thread I sort of agree with the assertion in the OP but not with the reasoning. Most of the examples in this thread of "bad" powergaming involve players who seem to be "bad" at social interaction with the gaming group.

In the example of the player who willfully disrupts non-combat situations in order to get "to the good part", well that's just rude behavior. Don't kick him out of the group because he's a powergamer, kick him out because he's rude.

If "powergamers" whine when you say it's a core only game, kick them out. Not because they disagree with you, but because they are whining about it. It's a game. I come to game to have fun. Children whine. I don't need adults whining at me too.

So called powergamers who have some social IQ and notice that others aren't playing at their level will either tone it down or leave to find a game more to their play style. It's the players who don't understand social dynamics who don't know when to leave or adjust.

So in this sense, powergaming is an illusion. Bad behavior is all too real.

 

[DragonLancer]

So if one person wants to play a lame, mange-ridden 1 eyed gnoll with a cataract, who also happens to be a deaf mute, because it will be "great to RP", everyone should play a character that has no business being an adventurer?

By the same argument, because one guy wants to effectively play a demigod of combat munchkinness, everyone else has to play a level of game that they don't like?

 

[William drake]

You know, this is a perspective I didn't think about. Of course, it's a lot more applicable in campaigns where the PCs don't start off at low level, but if you're starting them off at 9th level - it might make a bit more sense. Player really really wants to play a Master Samurai, so they plan out exactly how they can stack their levels of monk and fighter and such to get the prereqs met, and THEN fit that into the background - that encourages roleplaying.

To me, "powergaming" is not always the same thing as "munchkinning". A munchkin doesn't even bother with background. A powergamer might select things in an extremely well-thought-out background with the end result of creating a total combat machine that can dice his way through anything. If that's the problem, you have a good player with a potentially disruptive playing style - a good DM can work with that by throwing him specifically into situations that challenge him. Give that powergaming PC a reputation, so that your wandering hobgoblins will have a 13th level blackguard with them who insists on challenging this Master Samurai, while the rest of the party has to deal with the gang on their own.

Sounds good. Alot of players are older gamers, played alot of games..and most find it no longer fun to play the little guy, so, start them out at higher levles..and just make the growth slower sothe game doesnt rush into levels that get to high.

 

[William drake]

Are you serious?????

So if one person wants to play a lame, mange-ridden 1 eyed gnoll with a cataract, who also happens to be a deaf mute, because it will be "great to RP", everyone should play a character that has no business being an adventurer?

If you think that’s what everyone who’s saying “power gaming is bad” then your miss reading it. And, to pull out the most extreme inept creature as an example of what DM’s want their players to be, is totally unnecessary and wrong.

 

[Maine-iac!]

By the same argument, because one guy wants to effectively play a demigod of combat munchkinness, everyone else has to play a level of game that they don't like?

If by following the rules, set by the DM for the campaign, the guy makes a character optimized for combat, it becomes the DM's prerogative to give the other characters, who are equally optimized (I would think) in non-combat situations, moments to shine. I just don't see punishing optimization as a good DM tool. Make all of your players happy by giving them equal time. If you really aren't running a combat oriented campaign, wouldn't you really be hampering that 'combat munchkin' by minimizing his 'tweaks' with fewer combat situations? It's the DM's campaign. The DM should have a handle on this, plain and simple. Granted, not every DM is a seasoned veteran or can always expect the unexpected from his players. In this case, try something new; start over; learn; evolve; whatever. But retropunishment (not what you said; what others said) isn't fun and comes off looking like favoritism. Use the same yardstick to measure everyone.

The bottom line is, these are adventurers, the cream of the crop, the heroes of the saga unfolding. They should be doing everything in their power to maximize their chances to survive and thrive, be it on the battlefield, or in front of the King in dae Caestle.

 

[DragonLancer]

If by following the rules, set by the DM for the campaign, the guy makes a character optimized for combat, it becomes the DM's prerogative to give the other characters, who are equally optimized (I would think) in non-combat situations, moments to shine. I just don't see punishing optimization as a good DM tool. Make all of your players happy by giving them equal time. If you really aren't running a combat oriented campaign, wouldn't you really be hampering that 'combat munchkin' by minimizing his 'tweaks' with fewer combat situations? It's the DM's campaign. The DM should have a handle on this, plain and simple. Granted, not every DM is a seasoned veteran or can always expect the unexpected from his players. In this case, try something new; start over; learn; evolve; whatever. But retropunishment (not what you said; what others said) isn't fun and comes off looking like favoritism. Use the same yardstick to measure everyone.

The bottom line is, these are adventurers, the cream of the crop, the heroes of the saga unfolding. They should be doing everything in their power to maximize their chances to survive and thrive, be it on the battlefield, or in front of the King in dae Caestle.

I don't think you are quite grasping what I am saying. I agree with what you are saying here but its a different discussion.

What I was talking about was the example about my play group. Its difficult to compare to other people's games but I would say that we like to play an "average" level game. That means that the characters arn't lame, venerable aged, one eyed and 1st level. They also arn't the optimised characters that are fairly prevalent by reading these forums. They fall into a middle ground.
When you have a group of players and DM (myself) who enjoy that level of game as opposed to the fully optimised variety, but have a powergamer who really wants to go the whole hog, its not fair on the rest of the group to have to compromise to the powergamer. He should be the one coming down to the level of the others, or respectfully, looking for a group that plays to his style.

I'm referring to my group not anyone else's, but my points earlier are still valid across the board I think.

 

[Gothmog]

So if one person wants to play a lame, mange-ridden 1 eyed gnoll with a cataract, who also happens to be a deaf mute, because it will be "great to RP", everyone should play a character that has no business being an adventurer?

Nope, nobody said anything like that. The point is if a powergamer or a gimper wants to play in a group and insists on playing in his own style without regard to the likes of the group, he's a jerk and should be kicked out. You just find a LOT more powergamers that are disruptive than gimpers.

Plus, sometimes gimped characters can be a lot of fun for the gorup, unlike munchkinized overpowered characters. Once a guy I knew played a kobold expert skilled in trapmaking and locksmithing. Poor little guy didn't have any rogue levels, but was a whiz with anything mechanical. The other PCs in the group went out of their way to protect him and help him be accepted by society, and he eventually ended up being knighted by the king for construction of a war machine that broke a seige and saved the kingdom. I'll remember that character for the rest of my life, while the twinked-out demigod characters some munchkins have played were completely forgettable and ended up with the person being kicked out of the group. Besides, weren't Frodo, Sam, Merry, and Pippin gimped characters who in the final analysis, were much more interesting than Gandalf?