The Illusion of Powergaming

[Reynard]

Recent threads have gotten me thinking about "powergaming", "munchkinism" and related issues. The conculsion -- epiphany, almost -- I came to was that such things aren't really there, or at least they aren't there exclusively, nor nearly as often as the charges are made.

Let's take the common grognard argument that D&D 3.x is a blight upon the gaming world because it destroys role-playing and turns players into munchkins and D&D into a video game/CCG/minis battle game/etc... Bull cocky. The concept of the "build" is not inherently linked to the presence or quality of the role-play, the story or the immersion of a given game, 3.x included. Coherent mechanics that synergize with one another, in fact, can greatly enhance those parts of role-playing games. Hand-waving things to get a desired effect -- whether it be a character background or a particular setting or adventure element -- weakens the system as a whole and creats cracks in the foundation of the game. Handwaving is, IMO, a bad thing.

However, consistent rules allow for the creation of new materials that are more likely to be balanced and otherwise mesh with the rest of the rules set. D&D does what it does(high fantasy action adventure) very well, but sometimes people want a different kind of fantasy game. The presence of feats and skills and prestige classes and consistent saves and stats and spell effects allows the publisher, game master, or player to create a different feel without having to craft a whole "fantasy heartbreaker" to reach a desired effect. obviously, the farther one strays from the core D&D rules and implied setting, the more work is required, but nothing changes the fact that feats (generally speaking) are woth X and spells have Y effects and Z levels.

To take a ubiquitous example, imagine trying to run the Lord of the Rings straight out of the D&D 3.5 core books. Impossible, I'd contend. However, a few tweaks here, a few variants there, and a smidge of UA or 3rd party products and you'd have a workable game -- and it would still be recognizable as D&D. Even if all the elf PCs were munchkin powergamers because their raes was immensely more powerful than the rest of the party.

I've strayed a little off topic. Anyway, what i mean is that isues of new rules, character builds and optimization and not inherently connected to the other aspects of the activity that is playinga role-playing game. In D&D 3.x in particular, those activities are a sub- or mini-game that informs the rest of the game. But just because your half orc barbarian is a master of the spiked chain doesn't mean he isn't a 3 dimensional character with complex motivations and a complete personality: that's all on you. Moreover, that that complex, multi-faceted character can also pull his weight in combat is a *good* thing and not something to be sneered at because it isn't "real roleplaying".

 

[green slime]

Powergaming isn't about merely creating a character that can "pull his own weight in combat".

 

[Reynard]

Powergaming isn't about merely creating a character that can "pull his own weight in combat".

Maybe. However, that's the definition used by a lot of people that level criticism not just against powergamers, but 3.x in general. And, to be fully clear, by "pull his weight in combat" I also meant the PC that really, really pulled his weight in combat.

As a DM most of the time, optimized characters don't bother me much. There's always bigger and badder monsters. There's always ways to optimize NPCs. Unless a player thoroughly outclasses you, the worst case scenario is a game in whcih the definition of "Average Challenge" is different than what's expected in the books.

The only real problem with "munchkinism" is when one player engages in it and does not "share the wealth" because they want to be special. That falls outside the scope of pure powergaming -- that's being a self indulgent jerk. But then, powergaming or munchkinism aren't the only ways there can be incongruities between players, yet so often those are the only things brought up by (usually old school, but often very "new school" people as well).

One important factor is that, no matter how your campaign runs otherwise, it is still a game, and as a game there's a sense of competition there. players versusu the DM, players versus the environment, and players versus the one another. That's good and healthy and labelling anyone who indulges that aspect of the game as a powergamer fails to see the big picture.

No one can make rules for how fun a game is, how immersed the players are, or how many years a particular scene is talked about and fondly recalled. Those things happen independent of the rules, and are a function of what we do as role-players. Bob being able to do 50 points of damage with his 1st level barbarian has no impact on that -- unless you let it.

 

[green slime]

No one can make rules for how fun a game is, how immersed the players are, or how many years a particular scene is talked about and fondly recalled. Those things happen independent of the rules, and are a function of what we do as role-players. Bob being able to do 50 points of damage with his 1st level barbarian has no impact on that -- unless you let it.

True. But as I have always stated, the problem with powergaming isn't the level of power presented by the character per se in isolation, nor neccessarily even in the group, but of the expectation of the group as a whole on the way the game is played. Of course it is perfectly feasible to play a game where one character is nigh omnipotent, and the others mere toy-things, and still have fun. The question is whether the players at the table have come to play such a game.

Power gaming is a problem when it hampers the ability of the DM to adequately provide a game that all players find entertaining. It is a problem, when other players see their characters as unsatisfying, because someone has to try and squeeze out an illusory advantage.

 

[Reynard]

Power gaming is a problem when it hampers the ability of the DM to adequately provide a game that all players find entertaining. It is a problem, when other players see their characters as unsatisfying, because someone has to try and squeeze out an illusory advantage.

I agree with you. but what I am contending is that it isn't the powergaming that's the problem -- the problem is a basic lack of respect and "plays well with others" on the part of the player, and that is totally independent of powergaming. I mean, the guy who creates the absolutely useless PC because he's "got a great concept for a leper jester" or the one that decides she is going to kill the half orc paladin "because my character hates all orcs and orc like things" is just as much at fault and damaging to everyone else's fun.

 

[green slime]

I agree with you. but what I am contending is that it isn't the powergaming that's the problem -- the problem is a basic lack of respect and "plays well with others" on the part of the player, and that is totally independent of powergaming. I mean, the guy who creates the absolutely useless PC because he's "got a great concept for a leper jester" or the one that decides she is going to kill the half orc paladin "because my character hates all orcs and orc like things" is just as much at fault and damaging to everyone else's fun.

True. But these things are less of a problem, or rather, occur far less often, in my experience. As a DM, I have no problem engaging the "leper jester", or ratcheting up his power level, so the character actually manages to acheive something/has perceived value for the group.

As I play only in a group of out-of-game friends, killing each other's characters is really a no-no, unless agreed upon at the start of the campaign. Stealing/withholding minor treasure items, is fair game, if in character, and just causes laughter.

 

[Maine-iac!]

I'd say if all rules and house rules are followed, each player has the same advantages and disadvantages (with exception.) Maybe use the point buy system or max hit points for the first three levels, etc. If adventurers (the characters of the players) don't take every advantage they can to survive, and thrive, then why adventure? Add that with the first sentence of this paragraph.

 

[green slime]

I'd say if all rules and house rules are followed, each player has the same advantages and disadvantages (with exception.)

But they don't. Not everyone will spend a mind-numbing amount of hours trying to tweek out advantages by scouring all the books. Some people actually manage to have a life beyond that of the game.

 

[Banshee16]

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.

I've got another thread open in this forum regarding my own experiences, and how an unchecked powergamer can damage a gaming group. It's fine if all the players are like that, but throw one in with roleplayers, and it gets messy.

I also can't agree with the idea that handwaving is always bad. That's one of the things that Rule 0 is about, and at the end of the day, it's sometimes necessary, particularly in cases where a character has been made in such a manner that it's disruptive to the campaign, or in instances where getting so caught up in a minute rule might slow a game to a crawl over a relatively unimportant part of a game.

Plenty of games exist that are less mechanically complete than D&D, and as long as everyone is on the same playing field, they work fine.

Sometimes I find that 3.x is *too* engineered/designed. It feels *too* openly artificial at points....like that they spent so much effort trying to attain the Holy Grail of balance that they sucked some of the colour out of it.

Banshee

 

[Aus_Snow]

Sometimes I find that 3.x is *too* engineered/designed. It feels *too* openly artificial at points....like that they spent so much effort trying to attain the Holy Grail of balance that they sucked some of the colour out of it.

Interesting. Not the first time I've heard something along those lines, re: 3e.

I've found that the system actually needed further balancing, and that colour is more a quality of setting than of system. Well, that's the way I prefer things anyway.