The Illusion of Powergaming

[Set]

I don't see it as an edition thing at all. I made grotequely unbalanced characters back in 2e, as thought experiments, and occasionally my group would get together and make the sickest party we could and tear through Against the Giants or something. (The Wizard was a Krynn Minotaur, and the least twinky, the Fighters included a Wemic and a 4-glaive-limbed Xixchil, the Priest was an Ogre Mage. Good times. Much giant booty was kicked, and the Wemic and Xixchil spent every combat competing for who could kill the most giants, none of which, including the chieftan, lasted through a single round against either one of them.)

Sometimes it's fun to play the D&D equivalent of Toon.

The problem is when different players are playing using different styles. If one is playing a twinked-out oversized Monkey-Gripped dual-Spiked-Chain-wielding Exotic Weapon Master Goliath, the other three are playing normal characters and the GM's special friend is playing a pacifist Bard who wants to try and use her Diplomacy skill (which she kinda forgot to buy ranks in...) to convince the Dragon to be good, the game is in for a spectacular death-spiral.

*That's* the only problem, IMO. GMs not sitting down with their players in advance and setting the guidelines. It isn't enough, as a player, to make a butt-kicking character. D&D isn't a solo experience, it's a collaborative effort, and part of making it fun is making it fun for everyone. You can't do that unless you are willing to build a character that works within the structures of the party.

Let's look at a famous adventuring party. Drow ranger. Human fighter. Another Human fighter. Dwarven fighter. The GM needed to sit down and explain to the players that someone needed to be playing a healer, someone should be playing a trapfinder / social character and the party surely wouldn't hurt having an arcane spellcaster of some sort. But no, he sat back as they generated a quartest of fighters, and then sure enough, they started dying off, being wholly unqualified to adventure together. One character immediately began to outshine the others, thanks to his TWF specialization and superior stats, and the others quickly lost interest and quit playing. Bad party design. Bob Salvatore needs to practice in front of a mirror saying, 'No.' to his players until they work together to design a party that plays well together.

'Cause if you can't pull your crap together and coordinate with the other players before the dice start falling, it's gonna be a freaking disaster when the first combat encounter begins!

This isn't Vampire or Diplomacy or Paranoia, where screwing over your fellow party-members is encouraged and rewarded, after all!

Some people actually manage to have a life beyond that of the game.

Yeah, but why the heck would they be posting to this thread, being all busy with the non-gaming-related-life-having-thing?

Gosh. I'm so depressed that some faceless stranger on a message board devoted to role-playing games has accused us of having no life for being gamers. How could I have wasted my lack-of-life in shameless pursuit of fun?

Aiiee! The shame!

[Is it true that there is a big burning thing in the sky? 'Cause, being a gamer, I've never actually been out of my parent's basement or anything...]

 

[Umbran]

This is D&D 3.x. If you want to play THAT game, then play THAT game. Otherwise, find another game.

Maine-iac, the "the game is X, it is played in only this fashion, and anythign else is wrongity-wrong-wrong, with wrong sauce, if you don't want to play that way, go elsewhere" position it not tenable - nobody here is a final arbiter about how to play D&D. Many here will find your position insulting. I'd suggest not continuing along those lines.

Some people actually manage to have a life beyond that of the game.

The implication that folks who find detailed intensive rules-play enjoyable have no other lives is equally insulting. You should also not continue this line of argument.

In general, the "Us vs Them" stuff I'm seeing here, on both sides, thoroughly fails to be constructive. A Jedi uses the Force for knowledge and defense, never for attack. So, stop attacking the other guy.

 

[el-remmen]

As someone on the simulationist end of gaming spectrum, my issue with so-called "power-gaming" (I prefer to call it meta-game optimization) is that rarely are real people's skill sets so specialized and optimized - Rarely, if ever, are people's choices in life based on some kind of objective reasoning (though a lot people think their choices are based on this)

People make a variety of choices of professions, hobbies, points of view for a million reasons in life, and I prefer (and encourage) characters that are more organically built.

For example (and this is just a quick off the cuff example): I'd prefer a rogue character that spends a skill point or three on profession (farmer) because he grew up on a farm, than if he maxed out his hide skill - because his hide only needed to be as good as it took to hide from people around the farm when he was shirking his chores.

But I understand that I probably represent a minority in this point of view.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

I disagree with your view on this issue.

Powergaming isn't just about making an effective character....it's about making a 110% optimized character that is built, sometimes using highly improbable combinations of abilities, with the express purpose of "winning"...as in, being the best character in the group, or the most mechanically powerful etc......at the expense of things like character identity. It's how we end up with combat-typhoons that are cardboard cutouts, with no redeeming factor other than that they can do 100+ dmg/round.

Except the ability to deal 100 points of damage a round doesnt prevent you from fleshing out a character.

Also, if it was a wizard doing it, no one would bat an eye. After all, they are INTENDED to be best. But a fighter? Ride the bench!

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

IMHO, powergaming is a phase.

1/ Intro -> learning the system -> focus on archtype, make stupid mistakes, learn

2/ System mastery -> exult in new power -> create combat-monsters because you can

3/ System transcendence -> realize you can use your system mastery to make the PC you want, rather than the best PC evar. roleplay a PC of your choice with the mechanics to back the concept up.

Its interesting to note that the WOTC designers have admitted that system mastery was a bad concept. They still want you to make meaningful choices, just to tone down the hidden combos and bad choices that look ok (toughness, alertness, other crappy crunch). IE, the level of power difference between someone who puts a lot of "work" into a leisure activity and the guy who just shows up to play is lessened. IMO, a better design goal.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

"Hey, I want Cheeto the Fighter to take his next level in monk."

"Interesting, Steve. Why would he do that?"

"Because I need the ki strike ability to qualify for the Cosmic Badass PrC!"

BZZZZT! DISALLOWED! Try again, Steve.

"Hey, I want Cheeto the Fighter to take his next level in monk."

"Interesting, Steve. Why would he do that?"

"Because he saw how much those gnoll monks kicked butt in combat despite being primitive screwheads, and he wants to try and learn that kind of discipline so he can kick butt better."

Okay, it's still the "because I want to kick more butt!" reason, but at least Steve's got an in-character rationale behind it.

So you arent allowed to go to college because you want to be a doctor? You have to instead want to be a college student? Sorry, I cant agree.

People know rangers can track, fighters use tower shields, and barbarians can rage. Wanting one of those abilities is a perfectly valud reason for training to do so, you dont need an "my father was killed because he only had large shield proficiency... if only he had a tower shield to provide cover! I vow, for the sake of my children, this shall not happen to me!" rationale behind it.

 

[green slime]

Not all characters are brought up through the levels.

Sometimes a campaign will start at a higher level than first. Sometimes, a new PC is needed to replace a character that has fallen by the way (whether through Barghest's munching or whatever).

It is at these times, the powergamers really get on my nerves. Especially ones that have participated in my previous games. Because they always come over with a cheesed out character. Because even when I ask them to email their idea prior to game day, they either don't bother, or do, and I spend too much time explaining (again!) why undead-ninja-cowboy-monks of death are unsuitable for the campaign, explaining, once again, the rules for character generation, and point out explicit abilities that are not kosher. to no avail.

Playing with a small group of friends, it isn't just me (the DM) that gets annoyed at this behaviour. But let's all blame this on the DM.

 

[Pbartender]

People make a variety of choices of professions, hobbies, points of view for a million reasons in life, and I prefer (and encourage) characters that are more organically built.

For example (and this is just a quick off the cuff example): I'd prefer a rogue character that spends a skill point or three on profession (farmer) because he grew up on a farm, than if he maxed out his hide skill - because his hide only needed to be as good as it took to hide from people around the farm when he was shirking his chores.

Sure, but at the same time, you have to recognize that practically every character in every RPG party fulfills a certain role in that party... The characters are or quickly become, essentially, professional adventurers and professional heroes. It's their job, and it would be silly of them to not take advantage of skills and training that makes them better at it.

It reasonable to assume that certain character, by dint of their background, start out with talents and skills that pre-determine their role in the group. While others, end up falling into a role that they didn't foresee. In either case, a modest amount of "meta-game optimization" should be expected to stay good, or become good at your chosen job. To a certain degree, it can even make perfect sense in-character.

When it's taken to a ridiculous extreme, or when the skill and feat choices don't match the personality-background of the character -- when it starts affecting the verisimilitude of the game -- however, is when it really starts to be a problem. At least in my games, that's where I draw the line... "Sorry, this game is set in a Dark Ages pseudo-Europe. A spiked chain weilding ninja just wouldn't make sense. I can't allow it. Your raging, power-attacking, greatsword swinging Norse barbarian, however, would fit in just fine, so long as you can come up with a really good reason for him being in this setting's equivalent of Rome."

 

[el-remmen]

Sure, but at the same time, you have to recognize that practically every character in every RPG party fulfills a certain role in that party... The characters are or quickly become, essentially, professional adventurers and professional heroes. It's their job, and it would be silly of them to not take advantage of skills and training that makes them better at it.

It reasonable to assume that certain character, by dint of their background, start out with talents and skills that pre-determine their role in the group. While others, end up falling into a role that they didn't foresee. In either case, a modest amount of "meta-game optimization" should be expected to stay good, or become good at your chosen job. To a certain degree, it can even make perfect sense in-character.

Everything in moderation, including moderation. . .

Essentially, I am saying I rather see characters develop as a holistic reaction to the game setting and the events of the campaign.

 

[Aust Diamondew]

IMHO, powergaming is a phase.

1/ Intro -> learning the system -> focus on archtype, make stupid mistakes, learn

2/ System mastery -> exult in new power -> create combat-monsters because you can

3/ System transcendence -> realize you can use your system mastery to make the PC you want, rather than the best PC evar. roleplay a PC of your choice with the mechanics to back the concept up.

This is sorta how I see it, almost exactly.

Ideally understanding the rules should allow you to make whatever character you want.

In fact thats what I try to do when I make a character.
I come with an idea and then I use the rules to turn the idea into numbers on a page.
What can be bad with this approach is if a player doesn't know how to use the rules to make their character they want and have no one help them or will not except help.

Going the other way is potentially bad, that is coming up with the meachanics and only after doing so coming with a character if at all (by character I mean goals, back ground, personality, appearance etc). This is why PRCs (and some other mechanics to a lesser extent) can be bad as they encourage this approach.

Usually the process of creating a character is somewhere between the two, usually its fine as long as both get accomplished.