D&D 5E The "Powergamers (Min/maxer)" vs "Alpha Gamers" vs "Role Play Gamers" vs "GM" balance mismatch "problem(s)"

[Enevhar Aldarion]

Why did I just read through all this?

There are too many Power Posters and Pun/Maxers on these forums.



;-)

 

[ClaytonCross]

Why did I just read through all this?

There are too many Power Posters and Pun/Maxers on these forums.



;-)

I mean its my thread so I felt required, I have idea what sadistic tenancy drives you to such epic pain. ; )

 

[OB1]

I think the equivalent issue on the D&D side is more with DMs than players. There's at least two schools of DMing that seem analogous to the filmmaking approaches you describe (and of course there's a continuum between them just as there is between the Lumieres and Melies):

1) The DM sets the world up (mostly meaning a dungeon) and the players have to navigate it as best as they can. The DM statically executes the pre-conceived plan.

2) The DM responds to the players actions in the moment adjusting the challenge dynamically in order to enhance particular dramatic/narrative effect.

Just in case we wanted to open a different can of worms...

I think this is right but not quite broad enough. At it's heart I see the major split being game/story. That split informs play style for both players and GMs (as well as rule sets) and depending on which way the scale tips for you can make your enjoyment of a particular game. Let's say we fall on a 0-6 Kinsey like scale with 0 being 100% interested in Story, 6 being 100% interested in Game and 3 being equally interested in both (and instantly doubling their chance for finding a group on Saturday night ). You can see how a 6 GM and a 0 Player might have compatibility issues. Likewise, a group of 2s might have to do a lot of rewriting of a 5 ruleset to get it to their taste.

Hmmm, perhaps this should be called the Gygax scale. I feel a new poll coming on...

Because challenges that test the high end of that differential can tend to overwhelm the low end.

Well.... niche protection has been used to shore up really bad options. The classic Thief, for instance, was just awful, and to shore it up, the common-sense effort of watching out for traps was deprecated and Find/Remove Traps became a 'special' ability. And, holes in the system have become niches for the classes that plug them - the band-aid cleric was wedged into such a niche.

The other interesting thing about the classic Thief was that it could be played by anyone, almost no matter how bad your ability scores were. And as you leveled up, the powers you gained helped to overcome those low abilities. It was the classic, it doesn't matter what you were born with, work hard and network with the right people and you to can be rich and famous, class!

*That's* how players...no matter what you are...should be making characters. As a group. With the GROUP as the focus. With each player having his/her choice of class be influenced by what the GROUP needs. This is how we've generally made characters for a campaign (any setting or system, honestly).

IMHO, it's not "power gamers" or "min/MAXERS" or "role-players" that are the problem. It's that for the last two decades or so, the RPG industry has been encouraging "special snowflake" character creation as opposed to "specialist in a group" character creation. Way back in ye olden tymes, the success of a group was based on how the GROUP worked together. How the GROUP complimented each other and covered each others asses (weaknesses). But recently, especially since 3e...with all the options and add-ons a single PC can amass, the focus drifted from "A GROUP of adventurers" to "A few individuals killing monsters together".

IMNSHO, if players and DM's would get away from the "I have to be special all the time!" and back to the "WE have to work well TOGETHER!", then the players who want to focus on one particular play style (power gamer, min/max, etc) can do that and it'd be fine...because everyone at the table created their character together with the focus on covering 'roles of the group' (re: Fighter, Magic-User, Thief and Cleric; the ENTIRE BASIS FROM WHICH THE GAME WAS CREATED!...*GROUP* focused).

*sigh* I'm old and crotchety. But that's how I feel. Do I like min/maxers? Not really...but if they create a min/maxed character with the group, filling a particular role, then everyone there will not be 'surprised' when that min/maxed character does his job well. When you have players each making a PC with no (or little) consideration of the adventuring party as a whole...that's when feathers start to get ruffled. When Player A made a damage dealer, and Player B also made one, but a different class; well, that's when you see pettiness, in-fighting, and jealousy rear their ugly heads.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

I'm totally with you on the need for teamwork, but couldn't disagree with you more about your assessment of individuality. True teamwork, to me, is about working together towards common goal to the best of your abilities and the benefit of all. It's not being a special snowflake that's the issue. It's thinking that the only way you could ever have fun on the team is to be the quarterback. So go and create your special snowflake character! Then come to the table to be part of a team, tolerating everyone else and finding a way to marshal the unique combination of abilities in the group to murder things and take their stuff, even if Sally across the table is doing 144 DPR and you are doing 3. On the flip side, it doesn't matter how syngestic your group is on paper if everyone on the team is working towards their own purpose and trying to hog the spotlight.

 

[Ovinomancer]

2. I said GM are ALWAYS control TPK and that some people would say they don't its on the players when they make bad decisions because the possibility of player character death builds fun. They did. I then went on to say, that a GM makes decisions to make life or death encounters and to go with the role and provides the players the information to make those choices, so IT IS on the GM. I also said, that player death is not always bad, one or to players die as a result of ignoring warning signs and not taking the way out sure. My primary point in that topic was not about tension or telling people how to play their group. I am just suggesting that if the GM lets the kills a players character because the had ways out but decided to stand in a room full of poison gas, the GM still kills a player character but not because the character build or balance but because he felt it was a reasonable out come to player role playing choices. So again, I stand by not blaming character min/max builds, sub-optimal builds, or balance in general for player death or TPK. It is a result of the GM allowing consequences for character role playing decisions. That does mean the GM killed the player but that doesn't mean it was wrong to do so. Its just part of the GMs job which needs to be done in a reasonable way.

Saying this means that your also saying the players have no agency at all. If the players can't make a meaningful choice that has bad consequences because all bad consequences are really the DM's fault, then the players don't really have meaningful choices.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Mephista]

The part I disagree on is that its a dichotomy between game and story. Its like, what about the third side, hm?

 

[Tony Vargas]

Right, that's why you make dedicated challenges. The super-DPR barbarian isn't going to do a very good job in social challenges.

Sure. Taken to the logical conclusion, you could, in essence, run one game for each player. The DPR type plays a dueling game. The skirimisher a tactical game. The diplomancer a negotiation strategy game. The trapfinder a treasure-hunting game. Etc... Meanwhile the other players fiddle with their mobile devices.

I meant "better" as in "what improves the fun at the table".

Lots of things can. One of them is having everyone participating & engaged, or at least interested, in as much of the game as possible.

While I've seen boatloads of D&D-related arguments within our crew over the years regarding all sorts of things, I have never in my life seen an argument over DPR, mostly because as a concept it's utterly foreign to us and the way we play.

It's just a generation-gap in jargon. Back in the day, I'd've never said "so-and-so's TWF build exhibits statistically excessive DPR" I'd've said "so-and-so's double-specialist is gross."

I will still say many and perhaps most are the result of GM decisions. I thing not recognizing that GMs control most of the game and even largely guide player characters means that any failure to gauge there strength or failure provide them with enough information for them to act with the correct level of caution does fall under the GM. ...

In 5e & the classic game, if you include rulings, options, & variants in 'GM decisions,' sure.

We don't use that term and honestly its always the GM that says a player is an "over powered" "min/maxer" "rules layer"

I've heard those complaints from players about other players plenty of times.

The other interesting thing about the classic Thief was that it could be played by anyone, almost no matter how bad your ability scores were. And as you leveled up, the powers you gained helped to overcome those low abilities.

What? You gained levels a bit faster than everyone else, but that hardly helped, all your advancement tables sucked, your 'special' abilities weren't. And it wasn't the low-score dumping ground, either, all the 'big 4' tied for lowest stat requirements - a 9 in primary, and one 'dump stat' that could be less than 6. (Fighter it was STR & INT, cleric WIS & DEX - MU & Thief the reverse, respectively). You could become an MU with terrible stats, but it'd hurt your whole career - unable to learn the higher level spells, terrible know spell %, etc, not to mention abysmal AC & hps. As a cleric, bad stats would hurt you at the start, particularly due to lack of bonus spells, and spell failure would also plague you. As a Thief your special abilities would be even less special, your AC & hps would suck, and you'd probably stay terrible - but, there was one magic item that'd up and give you an 18 DEX, so if you ever found it, you were saved, sorta.

The fighter, OTOH, deriving it's AC from the best armor, and having a nice big HD, actually could endure poor stats, and it had Gauntlets of Ogre Power or a Girdle of Giant Strength waiting for it at higher levels.

I'm totally with you on the need for teamwork, but couldn't disagree with you more about your assessment of individuality. True teamwork, to me, is about working together towards common goal to the best of your abilities and the benefit of all. It's not being a special snowflake that's the issue. It's thinking that the only way you could ever have fun on the team is to be the quarterback.

Some team endeavors have glory positions that really are more important and drive the success of the whole team. Some pretend to, because it's just more exciting to have a source of inspiration like that. And, most have un-sung positions that are actually more important than the glory position.

But those are team sports, not RPGs. In a cooperative boardgame or an RPG the point isn't giving the spectators one name to chant for and idolize to drive ticket sales, or one player to inspire the other players with his greatness, or even an 'anchor' to keep the team solid - the point is for everyone to contribute to success, or, in the case of the boardgame, everyone to have a fair shot at it.

So go and create your special snowflake character! Then come to the table to be part of a team, tolerating everyone else and finding a way to marshal the unique combination of abilities in the group to murder things and take their stuff,

That's fair.

even if Sally across the table is doing 144 DPR and you are doing 3.

Not s'much, if that's all you're doing.

I don't recall many posts starting with the premise, "Yo, optimization is terrible and y'all need to roleplay and care about the fluff, story, and hanging out with friends more."

Not starting with it. The structure is usually more along the lines of debunking a criticism of a system.

So: thread starts: "Such and such game system/element sucks like a super-massive black hole, because [insert mathematical proof]."
Followed by multiple posts along the lines of: "That's only if you optimize, because you used math, so it must be optimization. Optimization is terrible and y'all need to roleplay and care about the fluff, story, and hanging out with friends more, and you'll see the game is perfect."
That then degenerate as you describe - successfully deflecting attention away from the metaphorical super-massive black-hole.

 

[OB1]

The fighter, OTOH, deriving it's AC from the best armor, and having a nice big HD, actually could endure poor stats, and it had Gauntlets of Ogre Power or a Girdle of Giant Strength waiting for it at higher levels.

Yes but was always on the front line getting hit! Whereas the tricksy thief skulked in the darkness, waiting for the right moment to strike and steal the kill from the fighter. Much higher survivor rate to those higher levels that way

Some team endeavors have glory positions that really are more important and drive the success of the whole team. Some pretend to, because it's just more exciting to have a source of inspiration like that. And, most have un-sung positions that are actually more important than the glory position.

But those are team sports, not RPGs. In a cooperative boardgame or an RPG the point isn't giving the spectators one name to chant for and idolize to drive ticket sales, or one player to inspire the other players with his greatness, or even an 'anchor' to keep the team solid - the point is for everyone to contribute to success, or, in the case of the boardgame, everyone to have a fair shot at it.

*Bold added for emphasis

And my point is that as long as everyone is contributing (and not working against the team) then what your DPR is doesn't matter. If it's truly the case that the group would have a better chance against the same number and type of opponents in a fight and is never useful in any other type of challenge in the other pillars, than I could maybe kind of see why the rest of the group might be annoyed with the PC, but I'm not sure that character is even possible to create in 5e.

I'd also say that TTRPGs have a lot more in common with team sports than board games.

 

[Satyrn]

The part I disagree on is that its a dichotomy between game and story. Its like, what about the third side, hm?

You mean the drinking?


. . . And the monty python quotes. The best side of D&D by far! Socialization.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Yes but was always on the front line getting hit! Whereas the tricksy thief skulked in the darkness, waiting for the right moment to strike and steal the kill from the fighter. Much higher survivor rate to those higher levels that way

When skulking about in darkness, /quietly/ required passing two ~25% checks, and finding and disarming that trap (the only reason the party's even putting up with you), without getting killed by the poison needle (or whatever), had a similarly high likelihood of failure, the front line - and ready healing from the bandaid cleric - doesn't look so bad. ;P

And my point is that as long as everyone is contributing then what your DPR is doesn't matter.

Your contribution matters, and it matters in each pillar and each challenge. DPR is one kind of contribution in one pillar. It's just the easiest one to measure.