The Illusion of Powergaming

[molonel]

I love 3rd Edition D&D, but powergaming is as real now as it ever was in 1st or 2nd Edition.

It's not an illusion.

 

[Ourph]

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.

IMO that's a strawman. The problem with powergaming isn't the effect is has on non-gamist aspects of the game, it the effect is has on gamist aspects of the game when everyone else doesn't want to engage in powergaming on the same level. A powergaming player in a group means that the DM has to become a powergamer to some extent by default, just to keep challenging the player. Players can feel the same burden to "keep up" or feel useless and left out. By providing a rules framework that allows a wide range of "powergame-ability" the D&D rules exacerbate problems in some groups that might be irrelevant with a different set of rules.

If you say the problem lies with the individual player, not the rules, you are essentially saying that powergaming isn't a problem if all powergamers decide NOT to be powergamers.... a circular argument. Players should be responsible for their own actions to the extent that they should play by the game rules and by the golden rule. But powergaming doesn't violate either of those codes. It's a legitimate playstyle choice that causes problems in some situations. There is nothing inherently wrong, immature or rude about powergaming.

D&D doesn't have to be all things to all people in order to be a good game. It's not "bull cocky" for some people to point out a design element in the game (i.e. a wide range of character effectiveness dependant upon how much effort a player invests in min/maxing his character) and say "I don't like that. It doesn't work for me and my group.".

 

[greywulf]

Surely the big balancing factor in all this is not the books, the rules or the players, but the DM.

I can tell the players that this is a street-level campaign, and expect them to build to type. Maybe I'll give a low stat array (8,10,11,12,13,14, say) and a set of class/race combo restrictions, etc, and they're away.

Conversely, I might say it's heroic cinematic gaming, give them a higher starting stat array (10,12,13,14,15,16 is usual for this) and give them more leeway on class/race combos.

If you set the power levels from the start, you're on to a winner. That's up to you, not any rulebook.

Sure, the players are going to pick the best toys either way. They're going to cherry pick the feats, allocate the highest number to their most important stat and probably dump stat CHA or WIS. That's cool by me, because I'm doing exactly the same thing with the bad guys. Whether it's street-level, heroic or whatever, the players are the centre of the game. I expect them to be bigger and better than the rest, because it's their game. For it to be otherwise would be like Robin consistently out-performing Batman, or Superman always being floored by a common thug. These guys are the heroes, and should be built as such. I expect no less.

My job as DM is to rise to their challenge, to provide foes that give them a run for their money and make the players sweat a little. If the party is combat weak (yeh, right) then I adjust accordingly. Similarly, if they are combat monsters, I find their weaknesses and play on them. It's all a part of the game, and the DM holds all the cards in this respect.

Where players optimise, the DM should equalise. That's the name of the game, whatever the rules.

 

[jgbrowning]

I love 3rd Edition D&D, but powergaming is as real now as it ever was in 1st or 2nd Edition.

It's not an illusion.

Everything is an illusion.

joe "one hand clapping" b.

 

[rowport]

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.

That is a really silly argument. Essentially, you are saying that each ofl the players should lower themselves to their lowest common denominator to avoid being 'better' than anybody else in the group-- even if that is because the others in the group (or even just one of them!) are too lazy to read their books.

You imply that making an effective character takes "hours" of "scouring all the books" and having no "life beyond that of the game". Frankly, you are just wrong. Maybe *you* are incapable of making effective characters except under such conditions, but that is not generally reflective of most players' experiences that I have witnessed. Put another way, perhaps you define "powergamers" as anybody who can design a more effective character than you can?

Wow. :\

 

[FireLance]

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.

The problem with powergaming isn't the effect is has on non-gamist aspects of the game, it the effect is has on gamist aspects of the game when everyone else doesn't want to engage in powergaming on the same level. A powergaming player in a group means that the DM has to become a powergamer to some extent by default, just to keep challenging the player. Players can feel the same burden to "keep up" or feel useless and left out. By providing a rules framework that allows a wide range of "powergame-ability" the D&D rules exacerbate problems in some groups that might be irrelevant with a different set of rules.

Perhaps the real problem with powergaming is that all gamers have a little bit of powergamer in them, and they just get jealous when they encounter someone who's a lot better at it than they are.

Think about it: if you get all your role-playing jollies from playing a role, why should you care about your character's mechanical effectiveness? Your *character* might resent the fact that's he's always playing second fiddle to his vastly more capable companion, but wouldn't that just be another facet of his personality to explore?

The same applies to DMs. Why should a DM care if the powergaming player is challenged or not? In fact, given the amount of time and effort he put into tuning his character, he probably wants to be able to defeat all the challenges he faces easily. So why not just let him do it? It's less work for the DM and the player will probably enjoy the game more because the easy victories validate his character tuning skills.

I think the real problem is not powergamer vs roleplayer, or powergamer vs DM, but good powergamers vs poor powergamers, especially poor powergamers who claim to be roleplayers, or who happen to be the DM.

 

[Slife]

Anyone heard of the "Stormwind Fallacy"? It's big on the WoTC boards.

 

[Gothmog]

That is a really silly argument. Essentially, you are saying that each ofl the players should lower themselves to their lowest common denominator to avoid being 'better' than anybody else in the group-- even if that is because the others in the group (or even just one of them!) are too lazy to read their books.

You imply that making an effective character takes "hours" of "scouring all the books" and having no "life beyond that of the game". Frankly, you are just wrong. Maybe *you* are incapable of making effective characters except under such conditions, but that is not generally reflective of most players' experiences that I have witnessed. Put another way, perhaps you define "powergamers" as anybody who can design a more effective character than you can?

Wow. :\

I could easily turn this arguement around on those players who insist on using social skills rather than actually roleplaying a situation. If that player would spend some time on social interaction in real life, they wouldn't suck or feel as uncomfortable doing it at the gaming table. Shouldn't the person who is good at social interaction be rewarded for it in game? Its just as valid of an arguement as saying the guy who spends his free time cherry-picking and optomizing his characters such that the overshadow everyone else's characters is rewarded for it too. By relying on social skill rolls, we're also playing to the "lowest common denomenator" as well.

But yes, the guy who spends 10 hours on character creation (especially if the campaign starts past 1st level) tweaking every possibly aspect of his character and consulting every book for the perfect feat or PrC IS a problem unless everyone else does it too. And yes, I've seen this done MUCH more than someone always insisting on playing in character with dialog, etc. Unless everyone powergames like he dos, he's killing the other player's fun much more than someone who roleplays out character dialog does to those who prefer skill rolls for Diplomacy. There is a happy middle ground to be found by trying to accomodate all types of players, but if the player still insists on being disruptive to the group, then the player is WRONG.

 

[Reynard]

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.

You're equating 2 things that, IMO, aren't the same. Creating a monstrously effective character (powergaming) is not inherently connected to whether or not that character has role-playing/setting/group value. That's a player/play-style/expectation issue.

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've read your thread and I'd say that your "powergamer problem" is about as mild as it gets. Making arrows? Come on, man.

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.

I didn't say that the DM never has to make arbitrary decisions -- hopefully ones informed by the existing ruleset. But handwavery is different altogether -- and tangential to my main point. Handwaving is DM laziness to the Nth degree: if you want to include something, exclude something, alter the game to meet a setting specific mood, etc..., then do the work to actually make a decision and understand its implications.

And, besides, Rules Lawyering is an entirely different problem than Powergaming, and one that deserves its own thread.

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.

The reverse is also true. Also, don't believe for a second that less mechanically complex games can't be powergamed.

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.

I am of the opinion that D&D is better than it has ever been, largely due to the fact that it has added one element it always lacked: rules consistency.

 

[Reynard]

IMO that's a strawman. The problem with powergaming isn't the effect is has on non-gamist aspects of the game, it the effect is has on gamist aspects of the game when everyone else doesn't want to engage in powergaming on the same level. A powergaming player in a group means that the DM has to become a powergamer to some extent by default, just to keep challenging the player. Players can feel the same burden to "keep up" or feel useless and left out. By providing a rules framework that allows a wide range of "powergame-ability" the D&D rules exacerbate problems in some groups that might be irrelevant with a different set of rules.
....
D&D doesn't have to be all things to all people in order to be a good game. It's not "bull cocky" for some people to point out a design element in the game (i.e. a wide range of character effectiveness dependant upon how much effort a player invests in min/maxing his character) and say "I don't like that. It doesn't work for me and my group.".

This is mostly a social contract issue. And just to be clear, I am not saying that such issues don't exist. I am saying that the problem of powergaming is *not* the issue -- it's differing expectations and preferences. No one is wrong, even the powergamer. It ust is. in a perfect world, we'd be able to play with a group that suited our desires perfectly. This being what it is (the East Coast) you kind of have to stick with what you've got.