The Illusion of Powergaming

[Ourph]

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.

Excellent post. You said exactly what I was trying to say only better (and with outside sources to back up your position no less). QFT.

 

[Pbartender]

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.

Exactly what I was getting at... Just from a different point of view.

It comes down to a balance between the character concept, the character's role and the adventure setting; making sure that the mechanical abilities of the character suit all three, without neglecting any of them to a large degree.

I think part of the problem sometimes comes from the fact that when players choose those "hobby" skills and feats -- like Profession (farmer) -- they are often seen as "wasted" skills and feats that rarely, if ever, get used. Especially in the case of feats, which can be few and far between, when it comes down to making your character better at what he's supposed to be good at, and "throwing away" feats and skills that embellish his personality, it's not hard to understand why the more optimal metagame-wise choice usually wins the day.

Any time you can make those sorts of choices matter in the game and the adventure, you'll end up with players who aren't afraid of taking those sorts of options.

 

[Reynard]

"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.

I agree ith you after a fashion. If the player desires to take a monk level because they want to qualify for a PrC, make their character more effective, etc... it is incumbant upon them to provide an in-character motivation to whatever extend is appropriate to the group and campaign. Of course, it is also the responsibility of the DM to provide opportunities to do so, if in-game actions or motivations are required.

A related issue is whether character classes are considered in-world social constructs of some sort, or merely collections of mechanical benefits to be interpreted however the player sees fit. I know some people that refuse to allow PCs to take levels in Barbarian or Sorcerer unless they do so at 1st level, because they consider those classes to be the result of background, and people that refuse to allow wizard levels without long periods of downtime because "magic takes a long time to learn". Often, it seems, these decisions are made as ways to reduce powergaming as well as ways to enforce versimilitude. To me, this is a cheap, heavy handed way to enforce either balance or setting coherence. It is better, I think, to roll with it and let the player's desires inform the world.

 

[Reynard]

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.

I completely disagree. If Bill wants to play a grapple-tastic monk, he should build a grapple-tastic monk. The, after the mechanics of the character are finalised, he can answer the 20-question character quiz in ways that make the mechanics and character info mesh.

 

[el-remmen]

Reynard's last comments made me realize that we can boil it down to this question:

Do the player characters reflect their world, or does their world reflect the kinds of player characters there are?

Personally, I prefer the former for my games, but the latter is an equally valid approach.

As I have said many times in many threads, it all comes down to a group's expectations and social contract as group of gamers. . . I myself never have a problem with so-called power gaming or unbalancing choices - but I have also formed a group of like-minded players - or at least like-minded enough that we have more agreements about approach to the game than disagreements - and the disagreements are minor enough that they don't matter.

 

[Reynard]

Reynard's last comments made me realize that we can boil it down to this question:

Do the player characters reflect their world, or does their world reflect the kinds of player characters there are?

There's another choice too: the PCs are unique, and just because the DM allows a half red dragon paladin assassin doesn't mean there are tons of those, or any, running around besides the PC. But, if the DM decides it is a cool idea, suddenly the world is richer for it: a secretive society of "sin eaters" trying to make up for millenia or terror and tyranny caused by their progenitors.

 

[Greg K]

Do the player characters reflect their world, or does their world reflect the kinds of player characters there are?

Personally, I prefer the former for my games, but the latter is an equally valid approach.

As a DM or player, I prefer the former while the latter holds no interest for me as player or DM.

 

[Greg K]

I agree ith you after a fashion. If the player desires to take a monk level because they want to qualify for a PrC, make their character more effective, etc... it is incumbant upon them to provide an in-character motivation to whatever extend is appropriate to the group and campaign. Of course, it is also the responsibility of the DM to provide opportunities to do so, if in-game actions or motivations are required.

Its only the DMs responsability if the party creates takes the in-game events in a direction that makes both access to monk training and discovering a trainer of the PrC plausible (e.g., being the right location of the setting, having the available time to train etc.), my opinion of course

A related issue is whether character classes are considered in-world social constructs of some sort, or merely collections of mechanical benefits to be interpreted however the player sees fit. I know some people that refuse to allow PCs to take levels in Barbarian or Sorcerer unless they do so at 1st level, because they consider those classes to be the result of background, and people that refuse to allow wizard levels without long periods of downtime because "magic takes a long time to learn". Often, it seems, these decisions are made as ways to reduce powergaming as well as ways to enforce versimilitude.

If you want to multiclass in the games that I run, it is treated like qualifying for a PrC with less stringent requirements. For example multiclassing into a wizard would require ranks in spellcraft and knowledge (arcana) and a feat granting 3 arcane cantrips.

To me, this is a cheap, heavy handed way to enforce either balance or setting coherence. It is better, I think, to roll with it and let the player's desires inform the world.

I disagree. Different strokes.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

If you want to multiclass in the games that I run, it is treated like qualifying for a PrC with less stringent requirements. For example multiclassing into a wizard would require ranks in spellcraft and knowledge (arcana) and a feat granting 3 arcane cantrips.

So basically you disallow multi-classing unless someone gimps themselves (uttherly worthless feat, cross class skills). Given that MCing into wizard (or any spellcaster) is generally a pretty bad choice why hose your players further, particularly given that a straight wizard, cleric or druid is going to be superior anyways?

 

[green slime]

So basically you disallow multi-classing unless someone gimps themselves (utterly worthless feat, cross class skills). Given that MCing into wizard (or any spellcaster) is generally a pretty bad choice to begin with, why hose your players further?

I don't think it is regarded as "hosing players", rather, they find, for their game, that it provides more versimilitude. YMMV. If a DM places any kind of restriction on PC's his campaign, is it automatically hosing? Hosing implies that the game is somehow incomplete and less enjoyable.