The Illusion of Powergaming

[Greg K]

Some will surely say that such things should not be part of the rules, and that's a great mistake. If you want a game in which it's fun to choose a sub-optimal strategy in combat because of some "personality traits" or "character's driven goals", you need a way to make it count.

To make it fun for you! Plenty of people find it fun without any mechanical benefits.

 

[mmadsen]

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.

Right, but wouldn't a good game design let you have useless skills, for flavor, without costing you anything in terms of useful skills, which come into play regularly, in life-and-death situations that are central to the game?

 

[Greg K]

Right, but wouldn't a good game design let you have useless skills, for flavor, without costing you anything in terms of useful skills, which come into play regularly, in life-and-death situations that are central to the game?

Just out of curiousity which skills in your opinon are useless and why?

 

[Reynard]

Right, but wouldn't a good game design let you have useless skills, for flavor, without costing you anything in terms of useful skills, which come into play regularly, in life-and-death situations that are central to the game?

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.

 

[Maine-iac!]

Please understand mpov:

The problem is when a certain player either completely ignores the guidelines the DM has given them, or, fails to inform the DM. As always communication is key. It isn't a one way street (communication), and it isn't just the DM, when a player is given guidelines, and completely ignores them. The powergamer seeks to exceed campaign expectations (both that of the other players and the DM) with regards to concept, and will argue for the inclusion of rules (PrCs, races, feats, and so on) in order to achieve a level of power above and beyond what is "normal" and accepted by the group. If a group has a higher tolerance level of power in their campaigns, good for them. That isn't a problem. It all comes down to player expectations.

I agree completely. That player probably should be in a different group if 'they' can't make amends.

 

[Pbartender]

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.

Does it?

The Profession skill, for example, requires you to spend the same resources you would on any other skill, but...

You can practice your trade and make a decent living, earning about half your Profession check result in gold pieces per week of dedicated work. You know how to use the tools of your trade, how to perform the profession’s daily tasks, how to supervise helpers, and how to handle common problems.

...spending an entire week in-game doing nothing of interest, really, to gain a handful of what amounts to loose change* for an adventurer hardly seems worth the expediture of skill points.

By the RAW, you don't even get synergy bonuses from ransk in Profession. It is, in most opinions, the weakest skill on the list.

*The average 1st-level character would make something between 2 and 12 gp per week. The average 20th level character would be making between 12 and 22 gp per week. That's it... A fortune for a peasant perhaps, but chump change for an adventurer.

 

[Reynard]

Does it?

Yes. Especially since I was talking about Handle Animal, a far more appropriate skill than Profession:Farmer for an adventurer type.

The Profession skill, for example... The average 1st-level character would make something between 2 and 12 gp per week. The average 20th level character would be making between 12 and 22 gp per week. That's it... A fortune for a peasant perhaps, but chump change for an adventurer.

Um, what in the world is a D&D player-character doing spending all of his time making Profession:Whatever rolls for change? The PC's profession is adventurer -- or knight, or king's bodyguard, or savior of the world, whatever. Songs are not sung of peasants and farmers. Expecting D&D -- action adventure high fantasy -- to provide mechanical motivation and benefits for not doing anything action orderiented, adventurous or fantastic is not just silly, it is a waste of everyone's time.

My point was that there are ways to have a character background matter mechanically if one is so inclined, and it is just as easy to have a background that doesn't matter one whit, mechanically speaking, but still be part of the character. I mean, of the hundreds of thousands up suburban middle class white kids in hundreds of majors in universities across America, do you think any of them have ranks in Profession: Worked at the Mall?

 

[green slime]

Does it?

The Profession skill, for example, requires you to spend the same resources you would on any other skill, but...



...spending an entire week in-game doing nothing of interest, really, to gain a handful of what amounts to loose change* for an adventurer hardly seems worth the expediture of skill points.

By the RAW, you don't even get synergy bonuses from ransk in Profession. It is, in most opinions, the weakest skill on the list.

*The average 1st-level character would make something between 2 and 12 gp per week. The average 20th level character would be making between 12 and 22 gp per week. That's it... A fortune for a peasant perhaps, but chump change for an adventurer.

Yeah, lets chuck that skill from the game. Complete waste of space.

 

[el-remmen]

I have expanded a number of profession skills to be more like what the did with profession (Sailor) in Stormwrack, and I allow it to give increasing synergy bonuses to other skills - for example, I allow Profession (soldier) checks to be made to gain bonuses to things like staying up on watch, forced marches, etc. . .

 

[green slime]

I have expanded a number of profession skills to be more like what the did with profession (Sailor) in Stormwrack, and I allow it to give increasing synergy bonuses to other skills - for example, I allow Profession (soldier) checks to be made to gain bonuses to things like staying up on watch, forced marches, etc. . .

But that is only of any use to a professional anyway.... Adventurers don't need professionals! They just kill things and take their stuff! As the number of actual professionals decrease (we remove the skill, and decimate the rest of the professionals with errant adventurers) the cost of each indiviual item increases, therefore, the DM doesn't have to give out more treasure, as the adventurers basic kit increases in value! This in turn allows those sucky adventurer types that actual spent a skill point or two on Profession before its ban to actually earn even more gp! Its a win-win scenario!