D&D 3E/3.5 Thoughts of a 3E/4E powergamer on starting to play 5E

[Manbearcat]

First, I'll tackle #2. How would you feel if the GM could point to some rules, or use some ultra-super-duper mechanical combo that forced your character to do something you didn't want him/her to do? Thing is, IME, powergamers (re: munchkins) get some kind of satisfaction in being able to point to something or some things in a rule book that "trumps" what the DM is describing as happening. The powergamer says "No! See? Look, I have this class, this other class, this Feat chain, this weapon, and I just used this Spell. So no, the djinn is totally visible to me, and I can also attack once for free, and I get to do it again as a Bonus action if I hit him! So...nyaaa!" In short, the PG is removing the DM's choice of how to adjudicate a game by trotting out rules and such. If a DM tried to pull that all the time on a player? *shudder*

Now, with #1. Also IME, I've found that most PG's think they are 'good at the game' because they master the rules and memorize the specials...and then spend days trying to manipulate what those rules say in order to pull off some rule-mechanics monstrosity. Why? So that they can 'win' most of the time without thinking. Y'see...knowing rules and memorizing 'power-combos' doesn't make you good at the game. It makes you good at min/maxing. Take away min/maxing, and a PG is left with little to fall back on....take away min/maxing from someone who doesn't do it, and the person doesn't even notice the game play has changed.

From your posting history, you've been running games as long as I have (1984) or a bit longer.

Now don't get me wrong, I think grotesque, paradigm-distorting powergaming (eg dart-throwing Gatling guns in AD&D or 12 classed/PRC incoherent-archetype things in 3.x) is harmful to play. However, a fair bit of powergaming is pretty much natural (it is the course of survivors in all species of our world, afterall).

With those two covered...

When I read your post above, the absolutely striking thing about it is if you simply remove every case of the words "rules", "feat", "weapon", "power", "min/maxing" and replace it with "spell(s)", you have what GMs have dealt with since time immemorial with respect to spell-caster players that effectively know how to (a) manage their spell-loadout, (b) can effectively (sensibly, logically, fairly) leverage the open-ended/purple prose aspect of spell descriptions, (c) effectively deploy utility spells to utterly re-frame important conflicts/encounters and (because of this) dictate the way a GM has to prepare a dungeon or wilderness trek in the first place!

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Maybe its because I came from videogames but these two sentiments have always confused the hell out of me.

1. Why exactly is it bad that someone is good at the game (i.e.: Powergameing and heavy optimizing)
2. Why is it so many GM's have trouble giving up control? I mean yeesh you guys are acting like they are pulling your teeth out by trying to have fun.

1. Generally because its not usually the entire group who are min/maxing. Having one character who dominates everything devalues the efforts of the other players' attempts to contribute, and people do not enjoy feeling unable to contribute or having their efforts marginalised.
Also, the general level of threat that the presence of the powergamer's character puts the rest of the party's characters in as per:

2. The job of the DM is to entertain the players. Generally people like to be challenged, but be able to succeed through their efforts. The presence of a heavily optimised character in a system that enables them generally wrecks the balance of challenge however.
If the DM stats a threat that will provide the right level of challenge for most of the party, the min/maxer will generally roflstomp it, often mostly on their own.
If the DM stats an encounter capable of providing the right level of threat to the min/maxer, it may be overly hard or lethal to the rest of the party.
If the DM stats a mixed encounter with different elements capable of challenging both munchkin and other players, it can be viewed as railroading or similar if the toughest element of the encounter always goes for the min/maxer's character. Often the optimiser would prefer to spend their time wiping out the lesser threats designed for the rest of the party's capability rather than deal with the element scaled to their capability.
If the DM just uses the same threat elements for all the party but adds an arbitrary bonus to anything opposing the munchkin or a penalty on anything the munchkin tries to do, thats a bit of abuse of the system, and is directly removing the enjoyment of the optimiser who feels that their reason for playing (building a character to dominate everything) is being minimised.

Lastly, if the DM is trying to create an atmosphere during the adventure, often of fear, it can be wrecked by an optimiser strolling through and refusing to take the atmosphere seriously because the player knows that they can beat up anything that the DM would dare throw at the rest of the group. This attitude will often be reflected in the optimiser's portrayal of their character.

 

[JonnyP71]

Not a fan of power gaming. It's a disruptive behaviour that affects the fun of other people at the table, making them feel less effective, forcing the DM into an arm race and impacting their enjoyment, and having a negative impact on the balance of the game.

If any other behaviour was half as disruptive as power gaming we'd be tripping over ourselves to condem it.
But because it's how someone people have fun and people don't want be be accused to telling people they're having WrongBadFun power gaming gets a pass.

Heck, there's even a euphemism treadmill at work, with the description evolving from "munchkin" to "power gamer" to "optimizer" as ardents try and shake the negative stereotypes.

5e isn't attractive to power games? Big freakin' selling point. For me and other DMs.
And as DMs likely have disproportunate influence in picking the system, I attribute this to the success of 5e.

Yes, is agree that the Stormwind Fallacy is a fallacy and that you can be a power gamer and an excellent roleplayer. But it's foolish to believe that thinking that your character is tougher than the game expects and is a complete badass won't affect you decision making and how you both roleplay and decide to act. It changes the tone of the roleplaying. More confidence, less fear, and increased bravado. Which just makes the DM feel less in control.

This is probably the best post I have read this forum.

It seems to be indicative of society in general that we have moved to a state where people try their best not to offend other people. The great Stephen Fry said it best in my opinion (google his quote on taking offense if you don't know it).

I am happy (and proud!) to play and DM at 3 regular tables where a powergamer would feel out of place. In fact, all of our DMs are strong enough people to be confident of telling them that 'This is probably not an ideal game for you, and you do not fit in with us' as soon as their playing style became apparent.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

There's a lot to reply to, so bear with me. This may take several posts.

Yeah, I think I follow you. And I think while 5e has a few elements of that, it does cater to it MUCH less than 3e and 4e did, tossing out pixel-perfect granularity and character building minigames in favor of interesting in-the-moment decisions and fast-paced, dynamic combat that folks new to the game (or folks without much free time to play) respond to more.

For someone who mostly plays D&D to dominate via character building, 5e is going to not deliver on that experience as strongly as 3e or 4e do (4e's probably THE BEST at that).

For me, that's OK - that was never a kind of fun I really sought out in D&D (and, frankly, found it a bit annoying when 4e made it feel like I had to, sometimes). For you, that's a blow. Until/unless someone releases some OGL / 5e-compatible alternate-universe PHB with granular character building and the like, you'd likely be better-suited to inhabiting 4e-land.

Which I guess brings us to: why are you joining a Curse of Strahd game if you're not going to have much fun in it?

I don't seek to dominate the game through character building. I seek to kick ass, and powergaming is the means to that end. Dominating the table isn't necessary for that, though at times it has happened. It happens less often because I often help the rest of the players at the table powergame their characters as well.

As for why I'm joining Curse of Strahd, I've more or less committed to driving my ex-wife's son(it's complicated) to the game at the local FLGS, and it isn't worth me coming home than going back to pick him up. I've tried for the past few weeks to wargame or board game with other people there who aren't playing 5E, or working on gaming or life stuff on my tablet, but that hasn't really worked out so well, so I'm kind of joining because there really isn't anything else to do.

Sir...

I am going to have to disagree with your observations.... 5E is not as random as you may have witnessed. In fact, a well built character should hit its target practically 100% of the time due to the enormous amount of tools available to characters. Advantage, Precision from the Battle Master Class, the spell Bless are just a few of the ways a character can almost guaranteeing hitting each round.

1. It feels too random to the point that it bothers me
2. It feels more random than 1E/2E, 3E, or 4E

These are both subjective.

OP claims to be a 'selfish powergamer'. Argues that 5E doesnt really support this kind of thing.

Thank you for giving me another reason to love 5E.

Badwrongfun eh? 5E is a better game for not supporting the tastes of people you don't like?

 

[thecasualoblivion]

No, defence does not require spending resources. A Barbarian for one gets it for free with his
class powers. Control IME does require spending resources on feats or choosing the appropriate
Fighter fighting style.

Barbarian seems to get it for free, it's true. Barbarian doesn't get any free control though, and has to spend feats or levels in other classes. Focusing on defense and control will sacrifice a Barbarian's offense. Other classes can get it for the cost of three Barbarian levels, which is a cost. Getting above 20 AC without magic items requires resources however.

Thanks for sharing the interesting thoughts TCO.
Have you tried walking around in magical darkness with a Warlock's Devil's Sight as a starter for optimization?

I'm aware of it, and I considered it. Curse of Strahd however starts at level 1 and you need at least five levels to get that concept off the ground, so I more or less passed on it.

1. Generally because its not usually the entire group who are min/maxing. Having one character who dominates everything devalues the efforts of the other players' attempts to contribute, and people do not enjoy feeling unable to contribute or having their efforts marginalised.
Also, the general level of threat that the presence of the powergamer's character puts the rest of the party's characters in as per:

2. The job of the DM is to entertain the players. Generally people like to be challenged, but be able to succeed through their efforts. The presence of a heavily optimised character in a system that enables them generally wrecks the balance of challenge however.
If the DM stats a threat that will provide the right level of challenge for most of the party, the min/maxer will generally roflstomp it, often mostly on their own.
If the DM stats an encounter capable of providing the right level of threat to the min/maxer, it may be overly hard or lethal to the rest of the party.
If the DM stats a mixed encounter with different elements capable of challenging both munchkin and other players, it can be viewed as railroading or similar if the toughest element of the encounter always goes for the min/maxer's character. Often the optimiser would prefer to spend their time wiping out the lesser threats designed for the rest of the party's capability rather than deal with the element scaled to their capability.
If the DM just uses the same threat elements for all the party but adds an arbitrary bonus to anything opposing the munchkin or a penalty on anything the munchkin tries to do, thats a bit of abuse of the system, and is directly removing the enjoyment of the optimiser who feels that their reason for playing (building a character to dominate everything) is being minimised.

Lastly, if the DM is trying to create an atmosphere during the adventure, often of fear, it can be wrecked by an optimiser strolling through and refusing to take the atmosphere seriously because the player knows that they can beat up anything that the DM would dare throw at the rest of the group. This attitude will often be reflected in the optimiser's portrayal of their character.

Not powergaming at a table I'm at is a choice. I'm perfectly happy to share my game mastery with everyone else at the table during character creation and leveling up, and often do. I'd say over the years that I tend to have a hand in creating 50-75% of the characters at the table. People see what my characters can do and want something like it. People play a powergamed character I've build and often enjoy the game more due to having more success in play.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Not a fan of power gaming. It's a disruptive behaviour that affects the fun of other people at the table, making them feel less effective, forcing the DM into an arm race and impacting their enjoyment, and having a negative impact on the balance of the game.

If any other behaviour was half as disruptive as power gaming we'd be tripping over ourselves to condem it.
But because it's how someone people have fun and people don't want be be accused to telling people they're having WrongBadFun power gaming gets a pass.

Heck, there's even a euphemism treadmill at work, with the description evolving from "munchkin" to "power gamer" to "optimizer" as ardents try and shake the negative stereotypes.

5e isn't attractive to power games? Big freakin' selling point. For me and other DMs.
And as DMs likely have disproportunate influence in picking the system, I attribute this to the success of 5e.

Yes, is agree that the Stormwind Fallacy is a fallacy and that you can be a power gamer and an excellent roleplayer. But it's foolish to believe that thinking that your character is tougher than the game expects and is a complete badass won't affect you decision making and how you both roleplay and decide to act. It changes the tone of the roleplaying. More confidence, less fear, and increased bravado. Which just makes the DM feel less in control.

This is probably the best post I have read this forum.

It seems to be indicative of society in general that we have moved to a state where people try their best not to offend other people. The great Stephen Fry said it best in my opinion (google his quote on taking offense if you don't know it).

I am happy (and proud!) to play and DM at 3 regular tables where a powergamer would feel out of place. In fact, all of our DMs are strong enough people to be confident of telling them that 'This is probably not an ideal game for you, and you do not fit in with us' as soon as their playing style became apparent.

This sort of attitude baffles and saddens me to no end.

 

[DEFCON 1]

This sort of attitude baffles and saddens me to no end.

It really shouldn't... but at the same time, we should be removing "power gamer" specifically out of the post and replace it with ANY playstyle that runs counter to the rest of the table.

- Power gaming at a table that isn't focused on that tends to disrupt a game because either the power gamer feels out of place, or the rest of the table are constantly irritated.

- Storytelling at a table that isn't focused on that tends to disrupt a game because the character will usually be woefully under-powered and the rest of the table will need to pick up the PC's slack. Sure, playing that Fighter with a 14 STR would make an interesting RP challenge... but the rest of the table will grow to hate the character.

- Silent players who only act when combat starts tend to disrupt a game with a table of roleplayers because either the DM wastes the table's time trying engage the player (unsuccessfully), or the DM adds in more combats just to give that player something to do (even if the rest of the table doesn't feel those combats are necessary.)

The point is... if you join a table, the nicest thing you can do for the game is for YOU to adapt and adjust to the table's dynamic, rather than deciding to play your own way because it's how you get your fun-- the table's fun be damned. Because at the end of the day... inevitably NO ONE ends up having fun.

So to the OP... I think your best solution to your problem is this-- in order to power game at an Encounters table that most likely WON'T be power gaming to any extent, and do so without actually causing issues or problems... give yourself a really difficult mechanical issue to start with, and then power-game the crap out of everything else to try and compensate for that liability.

Make that melee Fighter with a 14 STR. Then once you have that in place... do everything else in your power to game the system to make up for that liability. How can you kick ass with that 14 STR? Prove it to yourself that you CAN do it even with that liability. Because even if you do... your damage potential will still be a bit more on the level of the rest of the table who isn't.

 

[FarBeyondC]

Sure, playing that Fighter with a 14 STR would make an interesting RP challenge... but the rest of the table will grow to hate the character.

Make that melee Fighter with a 14 STR. Then once you have that in place... do everything else in your power to game the system to make up for that liability. How can you kick ass with that 14 STR? Prove it to yourself that you CAN do it even with that liability. Because even if you do... your damage potential will still be a bit more on the level of the rest of the table who isn't.

Somewhat off-topic, but what's wrong with a melee fighter with a 14 in their attack stat, exactly?

 

[JonnyP71]

This sort of attitude baffles and saddens me to no end.

Why? It avoids potential intra-group arguments - better that a group of like-minded people have the style of game they want, rather than watering it down to accommodate one other player who would be better suited to another group.

We played a 4 hour session on Friday evening, it contained 3 fights, which lasted a total of 4 rounds (less than 10 minutes in total), the rest of the time was roleplaying, planning and exploring... the group did everything they could to avoid direct conflict where possible. Afterwards they all told me it was the best session of D&D they'd ever played. All 4 players were fully engaged in the plot, and due to playing characters with weaknesses, they were constantly on edge, aware of their frailties and the danger they were in.

Add an optimised character played by a powergamer whose aim was to dominate battle and the whole dynamic of the session would be changed - lost - broken.

We do not subscribe to the character 'roles' put forward by 4E, so if someone came to our table and started asking about tanking, defense, control etc, or started referring to a character as a 'build', they simply would not fit in.

 

[JonnyP71]

Oops double