| Author |
 Topic  |
|
initiate
Learned Scribe
Canada
102 Posts |
 Posted - 10 Apr 2007 : 00:17:17
|
I know this gets talked about all the time. In fact, I was inspired to create this thread by the discussion taking place in the "Knights of Myth Drannor stats" thread, so people may well prefer to continue the discussion there. However, I thought I'd devote a thread specifically to a few broad questions about powergaming:
Why do people do it?
I believe it has been said that one must "know thy enemy". Wherefore, why do people powergame? I think this is fairly simple: because people like to "win", and while certain aspects of victory in D&D are beyond quantifiable control, creation of a character who rocks statistically is, in practice, a significant step on the road to triumph. Also, (going by the case of the "patient zero" or "control" powergamer whom I DM, who creates the standard by which I judge all powergaming), for those mathematically or statistically minded, the creation of a superior "character build", (a vile term), is really, genuinely a significant part of the enjoyment they derive from the game.
I believe that there is external stimulus to powergaming, specifically the proliferation of new source material. Don't get me wrong, I like new stuff, and would not wish the flow of content to cease for any reason. There's just an unfortunate side-effect of new stuff, specifically the creation of new possibilities for abuse of the rules. With the number of spells, abilities, ability types, feats, and prestige classes (so very many prestige classes) being produced at this point, it is becoming possible for skilled powergamers to combine things in ever more varied and devious ways to alter the basic laws of the game, such as the number of skill points a character has.
Contrary to popular belief, powergaming does not automatically rule out quality role-playing. My control powergamer, for instance, is actually one of the more talented role-players I DM, (though, admittedly, my experience is limited.) He can create and play involving characters, but he does so at one remove, since the initial concept is almost inevitably statistical, with back-story and personality added in later, rather than the other way around.
What is wrong with it?
Lots of things. To my mind, there is nothing evil in the desire to create a statistically viable character; I enjoy rolling 18s, (and 20s, if the situation calls for such) as much as anyone else. There is, however, something wrong with making that the focus of one's energies in the game. Perhaps "wrong" is not the right word. D&D is a game of possibilities, and people are free to play it however they please. Yet the most satisfying gaming, (and the way in which I believe the Realms in particular was meant to be experienced), is done when character comes before statistics.
Mechanically, there are two major, (and very obvious), problems I see with powergaming. Firstly, while I like to consider myself a non-stats-based DM, I object long and loud when players use their devious statistical creations to break my games. There is a level of powergaming, (which I have seen slipped past inexperienced DMs on more than one occasion), which truly does result in the game ceasing to be challenging or engaging in any way. Also, if there are only one or two powergamers in a larger group, the other members of which are there for the social and roleplaying aspects rather than the stats, the powergamers may well overshadow the other players and make them feel useless. I have seen this happen and, while I've never seen it break a game, it makes for a distinctly unsatisfying experience.
What is to be done about it?
This is, imo, almost entirely case dependent. Simply telling the powergamer to abandon his statistical chicanery and limiting his options is, while desirable, often not a good solution. Perhaps this number-crunching is a large part of his or her enjoyment. Perhaps he or she is, save for this tendency to fiddle with stats, an excellent player, and should not have their fun killed for them. Yet other players and DMs should not have to accomodate unreasonable powergaming. What is the happy medium? Thoughts?
I know that a lot of this is really obvious and has been talked about before many times. I just wanted to lay out as many potential points for discussion as possible.
|
|
|
KnightErrantJR
Great Reader
USA
5402 Posts |
Posted - 10 Apr 2007 : 01:04:24
|
Well, he's not "power gamed," and its Darkmeer's character, but I have a player that was a rogue/druid/daggerspell shaper/master of many forms. While he has multiple classes he definitely isn't like this to give him any kind of "advantage," just to come up with a "neat" character that could do some things that seemed interesting to him. Grim is RPed out the wazoo (and if you want to see some of the exploits of the inimitable Grim and friends, you can check out my campaign journal).
I also have a cleric of Helm that's taken a few levels of fighter, mainly because he has from time to time ended up as a front line fighter, and he thought it would be fitting, not only for the faith but for the history of the character.
Now from the other side of the screen, I've been playing a fighter in a friend's campaign and taking a lot of feats to "optimize" my armor class when wearing heavy armor. You could say its "power gaming," but he is also a body guard for another character, and he specializes in getting between the "bad guys" and his charge, so it makes sense for him to literally be a "tank."
Long story short, I think that you are right, its something that you can't just make a blanket statement on. The "tank" for example has some ranks if skills to support his background that have very little to do with his combat ability. |
 |
|
|
Darkmeer
Senior Scribe
USA
505 Posts |
Posted - 10 Apr 2007 : 01:13:05
|
quote:
Originally posted by initiate
I know this gets talked about all the time. In fact, I was inspired to create this thread by the discussion taking place in the "Knights of Myth Drannor stats" thread, so people may well prefer to continue the discussion there. However, I thought I'd devote a thread specifically to a few broad questions about powergaming:
Why do people do it?
...because people like to "win", and while certain aspects of victory in D&D are beyond quantifiable control, creation of a character who rocks statistically is, in practice, a significant step on the road to triumph. Also, (going by the case of the "patient zero" or "control" powergamer whom I DM, who creates the standard by which I judge all powergaming), for those mathematically or statistically minded, the creation of a superior "character build", (a vile term), is really, genuinely a significant part of the enjoyment they derive from the game.
I agree here about the winning. Although, the "Character Build" is not necessarily a vile term as you have stated it. I personally work with a "character build" that is far removed from a Powergamer standpoint, but it did start with "what do I want to play?" My last Realms character, one Grim Greycastle, started as something much different than he ended up being. Did he have more than 3 classes? Yep. Was he a party tank? Not until he hit level 12 (even then not bloody likely), and even then he's not really the front line fighter he needs to be (nor is he a great trapsmith by ANY stretch of the imagination). What he was and still is is a personality. I built the character to match the personality I wanted. A paranoid, slightly deranged, but ultimately good not so good guy. Think of mixing Murdoch and Face from the A-Team. Neither of them were really for the front line, but they were fairly good at what they did, especially if they were supported by their team.
quote:
Originally posted by initiate
I believe that there is external stimulus to powergaming, specifically the proliferation of new source material. Don't get me wrong, I like new stuff, and would not wish the flow of content to cease for any reason....
...With the number of spells, abilities, ability types, feats, and prestige classes (so very many prestige classes) being produced at this point, it is becoming possible for skilled powergamers to combine things in ever more varied and devious ways to alter the basic laws of the game, such as the number of skill points a character has.
Agreed. Some of the options are a bit much, but they do help create a flavor. While I would never include a Complete Warrior Samurai, I would certainly use the Rokugan Skill list, feat list for the various samurai, and some of the flavor for different schools within Shou Lung, I'd put it into a fighter type progression. This way, the Samurai doesn't get penalized by being a lackluster fighter. Why? The Rokugan Samurai actually feelslike a samurai. The Complete Warrior version is just... lacking in flavor.
As to the laws themselves, some of them needed breaking. I, personally love binders and shadowcasters from the Tome of Magic, and they even fit in the Realms, while the Truenamers (something truly Realmsian) don't fit at all. What is better is when the flavor of the class actually fits the established materials. As to feats, well we're over 1200 at last count (just WotC). I think I'm full up on them, until they came out with Reserve feats (making arcane casters useful beyond spells!). Then there are Divine feats that can probably be expanded on just a bit, but other than that, I'm happy with what we've got. I would like to see more flavor and less rules at this point.
quote:
Originally posted by initiate
Contrary to popular belief, powergaming does not automatically rule out quality role-playing. My control powergamer, for instance, is actually one of the more talented role-players I DM, (though, admittedly, my experience is limited.) He can create and play involving characters, but he does so at one remove, since the initial concept is almost inevitably statistical, with back-story and personality added in later, rather than the other way around.
I covered this earlier, but remember that having a character build is not necesscarily one that is "above optimal," but one that you as a player think will be fun to play and fun for others to interact with. Now, this doesn't include a straight 20's build, which I find abhorrent as a player and a DM. As far as statistical-then character stuff building goes: I find nothing wrong with it. I think it's okay to start with stats, and add character to them. Sometimes you pick a quirk that shouldn't fit, and make it work better than you had thought it would.
quote:
Originally posted by initiate
What is wrong with it?
Lots of things. To my mind, there is nothing evil in the desire to create a statistically viable character; I enjoy rolling 18s, (and 20s, if the situation calls for such) as much as anyone else. There is, however, something wrong with making that the focus of one's energies in the game. Perhaps "wrong" is not the right word. D&D is a game of possibilities, and people are free to play it however they please. Yet the most satisfying gaming, (and the way in which I believe the Realms in particular was meant to be experienced), is done when character comes before statistics.
Mechanically, there are two major, (and very obvious), problems I see with powergaming. Firstly, while I like to consider myself a non-stats-based DM, I object long and loud when players use their devious statistical creations to break my games. There is a level of powergaming, (which I have seen slipped past inexperienced DMs on more than one occasion), which truly does result in the game ceasing to be challenging or engaging in any way. Also, if there are only one or two powergamers in a larger group, the other members of which are there for the social and roleplaying aspects rather than the stats, the powergamers may well overshadow the other players and make them feel useless. I have seen this happen and, while I've never seen it break a game, it makes for a distinctly unsatisfying experience.
This is where I can't disagree. The stats make the build, but you make the character. Perhaps you have a paranoid ranger, who, while very good with the bow, can't talk to anyone (very low CHA and WIS). Another thought is someone who has those perfect 18's on all 6 stats (I've only seen one person roll 5 natural 18's in a row once ever in all my years of D&D). The thought is that this person has other issues, and needs a way to vent. The person could be very mathematically good, but not so social (one reason I've run across), the other reason is that they just want to win, as you've stated. The only way they win, in their minds, is to be able to defeat anything that comes their way. This is part of the reason I use the point buy methods for character generation in my campaigns.
quote:
Originally posted by initiate
What is to be done about it?
This is, imo, almost entirely case dependent. Simply telling the powergamer to abandon his statistical chicanery and limiting his options is, while desirable, often not a good solution. Perhaps this number-crunching is a large part of his or her enjoyment. Perhaps he or she is, save for this tendency to fiddle with stats, an excellent player, and should not have their fun killed for them. Yet other players and DMs should not have to accomodate unreasonable powergaming. What is the happy medium? Thoughts?
The happy medium is that you have a group of players that enjoys playing together, regardless of the powergamer, the "role" player, and the other player types in the game.
for my own Powergamer experience:
I had a player play a troll in a game once, even with a -3 to the already too low level adjustment. What happened was that the player ended up trying to play a paladin, failed on cruelty grounds (eating the wounded who had surrendered), and ended up as a party tank. He'd randomly off someone, and, being a 14 hd troll at the time, I said "okay you succeed" without rolling the dice. He was happy because I said he could do it, and the other players were happy because I was able to advance the storyline within about 2 minutes rather than just going through meaningless combat after meaningless combat. He got to be the star, and succeed without rolling dice, which made him extremely happy for some odd reason. Now, when it came time for me to battle him, I stocked up on enemies with improved sunder (so the items protecting him from fire and acid would be destroyed), and devoted at least 3 tanks to him.
I hope this helps,
/d |
"These people are my family, not just friends, and if you want to get to them you gotta go through ME." |
Edited by - Darkmeer on 10 Apr 2007 01:22:45 |
|
|
|
Darkmeer
Senior Scribe
USA
505 Posts |
Posted - 10 Apr 2007 : 01:15:31
|
quote:
Originally posted by KnightErrantJR
Well, he's not "power gamed," and its Darkmeer's character, but I have a player that was a rogue/druid/daggerspell shaper/master of many forms. While he has multiple classes he definitely isn't like this to give him any kind of "advantage," just to come up with a "neat" character that could do some things that seemed interesting to him. Grim is RPed out the wazoo (and if you want to see some of the exploits of the inimitable Grim and friends, you can check out my campaign journal).
I also have a cleric of Helm that's taken a few levels of fighter, mainly because he has from time to time ended up as a front line fighter, and he thought it would be fitting, not only for the faith but for the history of the character.
Now from the other side of the screen, I've been playing a fighter in a friend's campaign and taking a lot of feats to "optimize" my armor class when wearing heavy armor. You could say its "power gaming," but he is also a body guard for another character, and he specializes in getting between the "bad guys" and his charge, so it makes sense for him to literally be a "tank."
Long story short, I think that you are right, its something that you can't just make a blanket statement on. The "tank" for example has some ranks if skills to support his background that have very little to do with his combat ability.
Y'know KEJR, it's odd we both replied within minutes, and both of our first paragraphs included the ominous Grim Greycastle.  
BTW: Thanks for the RP'd out the wazoo comment, I hoped someone else would enjoy his exploits.
/d |
"These people are my family, not just friends, and if you want to get to them you gotta go through ME." |
Edited by - Darkmeer on 10 Apr 2007 01:21:38 |
|
|
|
KnightErrantJR
Great Reader
USA
5402 Posts |
Posted - 10 Apr 2007 : 01:25:25
|
| Yeah, for some reason I just assumed this one would draw you in, and Grim was just begging to be brought up. |
|
|
|
Exploit
Acolyte
Canada
47 Posts |
Posted - 10 Apr 2007 : 16:11:24
|
As an affirmed "powergamer", hence my pseudonym, perhaps I can shed some light on the motivations aspect. First off, roleplaying or not, D&D is still a game. Like any game, I want to play it to the best of my ability. There is very little fun in dumbing yourself down to play at a "lower" level. For instance as an 1800+ chess player, I really do not enjoy playing a 1200 ranked chess player. There simply is not any challenge in it and the same can be said about "powergaming".
While your assessment about being a powergamer to "win" may be true in some cases however I think most mature powergamers do it for the challenge. Creating the character build is simply the first challenge in the campaign and I think powergamers need to be challenged throughout the game.
Powergaming is also not about having all 18 stats, its about optimizing characters within whatever rules are being used for the game. I could enjoy playing a game where all characters had to start with all 10 stats but I would still powergame by doing everything to maximize my strengths and minimize my weaknesses.
As a DM, I have the inverse problem. I have trouble with players who do not at least partially powergame in their character builds. It's hard enough pulling punches to keep PCs alive, without having to bend over backwards to keep some ineffectual "roleplayer" alive.
I once had a player come in with a rogue character going into a dungeon crawl and the character had spent all of his skill points on profession accountant and similar skills and none on search, pick locks etc. Needless to say the PC died quickly.
It's awesome to DM powergamers as long as you are near the same level of skill in terms of game mechanics. You do not have to pull any punches and can play evil masterminds to their full potential using every devious trick you can think of. Powergamers also tend not to mind getting killed off, as there is always a new character build to try.
I think "powergaming" is a relative thing and in essence it refers to players who are better at game mechanics then their DMs. For DMs not interested in improving their game mechanics skills there are plenty of forums around to help with creating encounters that challenge powergamers. In a party of mixed types of roleplayers to be fair simply mix up the types of encounters proportionately. |
|
|
|
KnightErrantJR
Great Reader
USA
5402 Posts |
Posted - 10 Apr 2007 : 22:47:32
|
With all due respect, that sounds a bit more antagonistic and competitive than I like my campaigns to be. Yes, its a game, but if you have a bunch of friends sit around and tell a story and only allow each to say one sentance at a time, that is a game as well, in that its an amusing activity with rules. There doesn't have to be a competitive element to be a game, although I will grant you that if you are telling a story about heroic characters, feeling like you overcame a major threat goes a long way toward making the story feel more fulfilling to tell.
I guess I look at D&D as a means of facilitating telling a good, fun story. The fact that there are dice and random chances to do things make the story telling more unpredictable, and as such, more fun. Yes, a certain amount of "optimization" might occur, but that is mainly becuase as part of your story, you want to be able to rightly claim that your "hero" is exceptional at something. In some cases its just as much fun to have a claim of ineptitude as well, so long as it doesn't bring on a premature end to the story.
I understand that you might enjoy combining rules in new and different ways and addressing challenges in those ways. I've been playing for over twenty years, but I'll gladly cede the technical proficency to you. I'm fairly certain you are likely much better and seeing rules and exploiting them than I am. However, what you describe sounds much more like a tactical war game than a roleplaying game to me, and while I enjoy playing a game of D&D minis from time to time, its not what I do if I want to play a roleplaying game.
Honestly, I'd take a DM that is a bit under par when it comes to citing rules and maximizing monsters and traps but who has excellenct communication skills and is a great storyteller, to one that has memorized the monster manual and can create stat blocks in his head. |
|
|
|
Faraer
Great Reader
3308 Posts |
Posted - 10 Apr 2007 : 23:23:07
|
Powergaming and roleplaying aren't mutually exclusive, but given finite energy and time, inevitably the more you devote to optimizing and 'building' (which is only fun for the player) the less you have for conceiving and playing the character (which contributes to the group's fun).
Some people powergame to gain what is essentially a social advantage over their friends. Some enjoy it as mathematical subgame only peripherally connected to the characters, setting and story of the campaign. |
|
|
|
Kaladorm
Master of Realmslore
United Kingdom
1176 Posts |
Posted - 10 Apr 2007 : 23:28:28
|
In the past I always used to think of a character concept (i.e. basic history, combat style, motivations etc) and then build a character around it.
However lately, possibly due to the vast amount of character options available now, I've tended to come up with a rough idea of a statblock in my head, and then build a character around that. It seems this is an attitude which isn't very popular, seen as 'powergaming'.
My last two characters have been formed in this way (using flaws and traits from unearthed arcana) and I have to say, so long as you go to a lot of effort to justify the build entirely, you can make some really deep and interesting characters. If you build a reason, a motive, a past and a future around every feat, flaw, trait, high skill, and high/low stat, you can get some really interesting ideas.
|
|
|
|
Sanishiver
Senior Scribe
USA
476 Posts |
Posted - 11 Apr 2007 : 07:58:18
|
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
Powergaming and roleplaying aren't mutually exclusive, but given finite energy and time, inevitably the more you devote to optimizing and 'building' (which is only fun for the player) the less you have for conceiving and playing the character (which contributes to the group's fun).
I disagree with this statement, completely. So far as my six-years running/Epic Realms Campaign is concerned, the players in my game who devote time to optimization don't roleplay any less well, nor do they stop developing their characters.
Maybe I'm just blessed with players that can do both, or maybe it's because the rules allow players to effect changes in their characters that advance the player's idea of what his or her character should be like as that character moves up in levels.
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
Some people powergame to gain what is essentially a social advantage over their friends. Some enjoy it as mathematical subgame only peripherally connected to the characters, setting and story of the campaign.
This, I agree with.
J. Grenemyer |
09/20/2008: Tiger Army at the Catalyst in Santa Cruz. You wouldn’t believe how many females rode it out in the pit. Santa Cruz women are all of them beautiful. Now I know to add tough to that description.
6/27/2008: WALL-E is about the best damn movie Pixar has ever made. It had my heart racing and had me rooting for the good guy.
9/9/2006: Dave Mathews Band was off the hook at the Shoreline Amphitheater.
Never, ever read the game books too literally, or make such assumptions that what is omitted cannot be. Bad DM form, that.
And no matter how compelling a picture string theory paints, if it does not accurately describe our universe, it will be no more relevant than an elaborate game of Dungeons and Dragons. --paragraph 1, chapter 9, The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
12194 Posts |
Posted - 11 Apr 2007 : 19:03:38
|
There is a thin blade between powergaming and realistic character creation. I am a DM who builds NPC's who are statistically created to challenge my players. My players create characters based strongly on advantages and disadvantages within their character builds. However, they still create viable personalities to go along with these builds. For instance, if a mage takes arcane disciple as a feat, he's going to be a mage who expresses his religion almost as much as the party's cleric.
However, the industry has to put out material that people will buy. Thus, at this point, we're starting to receive stuff like Complete Mage, which is filled with prestige classes that are just horrid (for instance, abjurant champion- d10 hit dice, fighter BAB, and full spell progression, plus some other abilities thrown in). Then there are the feats in said book which let you hurl damaging spells pretty much all day if you're a wizard, plus prestige classes to mix warlock with whatever kind of other caster you can think of. The power gamers will buy this stuff and try to incorporate it into games because statistically it makes them better, and the core difference between an abjurant champion and an eldritch knight is what exactly... the need for the combat casting feat and a littler higher BAB (which you probably got in eldritch knight or spellsword or bladesinger)?
My beef isn't with the power gamers. Its with the industry who has started getting lazy in their development. I know of a DM who puts in rules like "you must take at least 3 levels in a prestige class before moving on". He's doing this because of all the slush that's starting to come out. However, in the original 3.5 books (because 3.0 DID need some heavy cleaning up), it was perfectly viable to have a character say... only go a single level into shadowdancer. The character learned only the basics of using shadows before they went on to become a dervish or somesuch.... but they had to pay a hefty price to enter the class in terms of feats/skills/alignment requirements/special strictures, etc... if the class was going to have a very nice cherry power at the beginning. I'll say, most of the Complete books seem pretty fairly balanced for this kind of thing, but now things are getting punchy again, and the stuff I've seen lately just reminds me of the end of 2e. |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
Exploit
Acolyte
Canada
47 Posts |
Posted - 11 Apr 2007 : 20:28:47
|
I admit that I prefer antagonistic styles of play over the let's-hold-hands-and-tell-a-good-story style of play both as a player and as a DM. As a DM, I've had to tone my antagonistic style down a lot, and probably still need to tone it down more, simply for my player's enjoyment. I love it when player's bring in their uber-builds, as it gives me a chance to explore the reactions and tactics of normal NPCs versus such characters. (There is something immensely satisfying about having low-level kobolds luring the high level uber-tank into a 20 foot pit trap and BBQ'ing him alive with alchemist fire.)
As a player, I find I get bored with most DM's too quickly. I'm still waiting to find the no-holds barred, my world can handle anything you can devise type of DM, who can really challenge me. I enjoy having a well thought out background and pursuing in character objectives as part of a consistent storyline thread but I admit for me it takes second place to the thrill of devising a novel tactic or strategy to overcome an obstacle. |
|
|
|
Asgetrion
Master of Realmslore
Finland
1564 Posts |
Posted - 12 Apr 2007 : 07:34:47
|
quote:
Originally posted by Exploit
I admit that I prefer antagonistic styles of play over the let's-hold-hands-and-tell-a-good-story style of play both as a player and as a DM. As a DM, I've had to tone my antagonistic style down a lot, and probably still need to tone it down more, simply for my player's enjoyment. I love it when player's bring in their uber-builds, as it gives me a chance to explore the reactions and tactics of normal NPCs versus such characters. (There is something immensely satisfying about having low-level kobolds luring the high level uber-tank into a 20 foot pit trap and BBQ'ing him alive with alchemist fire.)
As a player, I find I get bored with most DM's too quickly. I'm still waiting to find the no-holds barred, my world can handle anything you can devise type of DM, who can really challenge me. I enjoy having a well thought out background and pursuing in character objectives as part of a consistent storyline thread but I admit for me it takes second place to the thrill of devising a novel tactic or strategy to overcome an obstacle.
You make it sound like you would enjoy tactical war or board games more than conventional roleplaying games. You seem to enjoy the challenge of devising new ways to maximize your character or overcome any obstacle, which is fine. All gaming styles are equally good, whether you strive to "hold hands and tell a good story" or pursue material wealth/magic/power or even the highest attack bonus in the world. It really boils down to this question: "Is everyone having fun and enjoying the game in our group?". If your preferences and concepts of roleplaying match, the style or the system do not matter (most of the gamers fall between the categories anyway and may be comfortable with all the styles). And that, I think, is the only way to "win" in RPGs.
You also wrote that you, as DM, like to challenge your players in a tactical sense. Are all your players comfortable with this? As I wrote, if everyone finds this style of play suitable for his/her taste, it won't be a problem. However, like Knight wrote, this is perhaps a bit too competitive and antagonizing (at least to my taste), since it encourages and enhances "players vs. DM" -type of thinking ("Hey! You should have maximized your saving throws, too! Too bad you thought that Charisma would be a useful stat in my campaigns!"). I personally think that this might lead to "turtling" in your players, as they see the game as a competition to maximize their mechanical effectiveness at all costs as they *compete* against *you* (I would if I had played that poor uber-tank who became BBQ'ed). This reminds me very much of playing strategic games as all the players try to win or "break" the system as they want to make sure that no one will screw them over (which is really a pointless goal, since in D&D the DM holds absolute power over the rules and the campaign). Do you really want to (tactically) challenge your players or yourself? Do you see yourself as a "master player" or "champion" whose devious mind and tactics your players try to challenge and beat? This might be a game, but it is not Chess or Squadron Leader, and I think that the only way to "win" in it is (as I wrote above) to have a good time with your friends.
|
"What am I doing today? Ask me tomorrow - I can be sure of giving you the right answer then."
-- Askarran of Selgaunt, Master Sage, speaking to a curious merchant, Year of the Helm |
|
|
|
Exploit
Acolyte
Canada
47 Posts |
Posted - 12 Apr 2007 : 16:19:19
|
I agree that there are multiple ways to enjoy the game and to each his own. The thread was about "why people powergame" so I am simply providing my perspective.
I prefer D&D over chess and other wargames simply because it allows players to think outside of the box. There is something liberating about a game that allows players to approach a situation from any angle they can conceive of. I do not see the game in a win/lose way instead I see it as a series of challenges, like the trials of Hercules. I have no desire to win the game, I simply like solving one challenge and then moving on to the next challenge hopefully with each challenge being of a varied sort, including roleplaying encounters.
I have fun with this style and the players that return frequently to my campaigns seem to have fun although I admit most players do not enjoy this style of play as much as I do. My campaigns do have PC's turtling, which I like to a degree, however it has gone too far which is why I have toned down recently. It's frustrating for me to pull punches but the players enjoy the games more.
As a side note: charisma is highly important in my campaigns since I strictly use the diplomacy and intimidate rules for NPC interactions. I dislike the free form role-playing style campaigns which gloss over these rules and the DM arbitrarily determines NPC reactions. In those campaigns Charisma becomes useless and the game becomes more a popularity contest with DMs inevitably favoring certain players who role-play a character the DM likes. I've seen low charisma dwarves succeed in winning NPC allies where a half-eld bard specialized diplomat failed. Totally unrealistic by the rules but it happens frequently in the free-form style of games that I have participated in.
Yes I do see myself as a devious mastermind, at least compared to the players in the circle of gamers that I have had the privilege to play with. I've wiped out too many dungeons against all odds to be modest. (I'm particularly proud of using an invisible imp familiar carrying my magic-jar gem to annihilate the Return to the Giant Series without losing a single hitpoint.)
|
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
12194 Posts |
Posted - 12 Apr 2007 : 16:32:16
|
>>You also wrote that you, as DM, like to challenge your players in a tactical sense. Are all >>your players comfortable with this? As I wrote, if everyone finds this style of play >>suitable for his/her taste, it won't be a problem. However, like Knight wrote, this is >>perhaps a bit too competitive and antagonizing (at least to my taste), since it encourages >>and enhances "players vs. DM" -type of thinking ("Hey! You should have maximized your saving >>throws, too! Too bad you thought that Charisma would be a useful stat in my campaigns!"). I >>personally think that this might lead to "turtling" in your players, as they see the game as >>a competition to maximize their mechanical effectiveness at all costs as they *compete* >>against *you* (I would if I had played that poor uber-tank who became BBQ'ed). This reminds >>me very much of playing strategic games as all the players try to win or "break" the system >>as they want to make sure that no one will screw them over (which is really a pointless >>goal, since in D&D the DM holds absolute power over the rules and the campaign). Do you >>really want to (tactically) challenge your players or yourself? Do you see yourself as >>a "master player" or "champion" whose devious mind and tactics your players try to challenge >>and beat? This might be a game, but it is not Chess or Squadron Leader, and I think that the >>only way to "win" in it is (as I wrote above) to have a good time with your friends.
I've had my group fall apart as 2 people recently moved away in the past 6 months or so. However, we've had some "one-shot" adventures since then whenever they come back home to visit family. One of my old players is coming back into town for his brother's wedding (his brother lives elsewhere and is also a D&D player). So, one of the groom's wishes was that he finally get to have a game again with his brother and the friends he'd heard of over the years from his brother.
Anyway, we're building characters, and we're going through the character design together. I can see that we're all (well, I don't know what the groom is doing other than its a priest) basically designing characters that will excel within certain fields, but we all see the flaws in our builds. For instance, one player is making a rogue, and he's building himself to be able to get hide in plain sight from the shadowdancer class. He made the comment to me that his halfling's going to do horrid for damage against undead and constructs. I told him not to worry about it, my character is a hybrid warrior mage with power attack and an adamantine two-handed weapon whose spells are all about buffs and defenses (well, and cures from arcane disciple and divinations since he's a diviner). I pointed out that with the build I'm doing that even though I'm a mage I'm not artilerry, but another character is making a pure mage with the argent savant build. We then talked about incorporeal/ethereal attackers, and I pointed out I was carrying the spells ectoplasmic armor and decastave on scrolls just in case we encountered such. So, sometimes power gaming is intentional in that you want to build a team that works together to encounter problems and work past them. Sure, some things that rogue may be able to talk us past, but a ghost guardian isn't going to let you roleplay past them to the tomb of X if his orders were "let noone pass". I've seen groups that got overwhelmed quite simply because they hadn't taken into account some simple precautions (for instance, noone having a silver weapon when they're facing a lyncanthrope... everyone playing a lightly armored character against giants.... etc....). |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
Asgetrion
Master of Realmslore
Finland
1564 Posts |
Posted - 16 Apr 2007 : 01:15:19
|
Yes, I agree that powergaming suits some campaigns very well. It really depends on what both DM and players want from each campaign, and I think this should be openly discussed even before a single character is rolled. Actually, one of the gaming groups I play with concentrates heavily on powergaming.
Speaking of ultimate character builds... I think that very few combos could beat a dwarven Cleric/Pious Templar/Craftmaster/Hammer of Moradin purely in terms of dealing damage in combat. |
"What am I doing today? Ask me tomorrow - I can be sure of giving you the right answer then."
-- Askarran of Selgaunt, Master Sage, speaking to a curious merchant, Year of the Helm |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
12194 Posts |
Posted - 17 Apr 2007 : 14:30:12
|
| hmmm, I'll have to look at that, sounds like it would be a nasty hammer wielder/blacksmith. Perfect for a dwarf. Give him the feats to get craft construct (if he doesn't get them in his classes somehow) and sounds like a very interesting fellow. |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
EytanBernstein
Forgotten Realms Designer
USA
704 Posts |
Posted - 17 Apr 2007 : 22:54:45
|
Perhaps because of my job, I spend hours a week tossing around both character concepts and builds. I suppose I fall somewhere in between Exploit and some of the pure roleplayers. I want people to have a good time and experience a challenge, but I do get somewhat miffed when I see people playing level 8 aristocrats with ranks only in Profession and Craft skills. To me, that's as much of as disconnect as a player trying to weasel his way into using millions of new things when the game is completely RP intensive.I love to hang on to characters for years, hence I tend to make characters who are very good at a few things, but rarely in such a way that the game breaks. I see nothing wrong with making a viable, powerful build, but only if that build compliments, enhances, and refreshes the concept.
Perhaps we can see the concept as being like a rough gemstone. The core is already there, but it is not defined, polished, refined, or developed. The build (along with the game itself) is there to cut this rough stone into a workable piece of art that can evolve and change with new developments. If the gemstone is too big (or too much bigger than the other stones in the treasure), it can seem fake, having lost any sense of wonder or proportion. If it's too small, it gets lost in the pile, unworthy of the space it takes up. The best stones are ones that compliment each other, creating a myriad of colors, shapes, and sizes. None of the stones are so striking or so large that they dominate the collection. Each is appreciated for what it brings and all should be beautiful, well crafted, and lovingly rendered. |
http://eytanbernstein.com - the official website of Eytan Bernstein |
Edited by - EytanBernstein on 17 Apr 2007 22:56:26 |
|
|
|
Asgetrion
Master of Realmslore
Finland
1564 Posts |
Posted - 17 Apr 2007 : 23:33:07
|
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
hmmm, I'll have to look at that, sounds like it would be a nasty hammer wielder/blacksmith. Perfect for a dwarf. Give him the feats to get craft construct (if he doesn't get them in his classes somehow) and sounds like a very interesting fellow.
Actually I estimated that you could eventually dish out something like 1d8+30 points of damage with each blow (using a warhammer two-handed) and even more with Power Attack. However, you may need some enhancement bonuses to Wisdom and Strength to get there, but it is possible. Add the formidable powers of the Hammer of Moradin (Power Throw, Bane abilities, etc.) to this and you'll truly be a dangerous combatant. PLUS you get the mojo to craft artifact/epic hammers as a 25th level caster! |
"What am I doing today? Ask me tomorrow - I can be sure of giving you the right answer then."
-- Askarran of Selgaunt, Master Sage, speaking to a curious merchant, Year of the Helm |
|
|
|
Asgetrion
Master of Realmslore
Finland
1564 Posts |
Posted - 18 Apr 2007 : 01:27:47
|
quote:
Originally posted by Exploit
I agree that there are multiple ways to enjoy the game and to each his own. The thread was about "why people powergame" so I am simply providing my perspective.
I apologise if my comments seemed like a personal attack or critique towards you and your perspective - that was not what I intended or meant. What I meant was that I personally do not wish to encourage my to maximize their characters purely for the sake of survival. Neither do I want to see them trying to constantly outwit me and my "devilish" plans. However, I *do* enjoy powergaming, as a player, in other gaming groups and campaigns (and only if everyone else does that and the DM approves).
quote:
I have fun with this style and the players that return frequently to my campaigns seem to have fun although I admit most players do not enjoy this style of play as much as I do. My campaigns do have PC's turtling, which I like to a degree, however it has gone too far which is why I have toned down recently. It's frustrating for me to pull punches but the players enjoy the games more.
And that is a very important point - you should keep in mind that you're not writing a mystery novel that keeps the reader in the dark until the last chapter while most of the action happens in the background the whole time. Neither are you designing adventures or campaigns to amuse yourself. You do it for your players, and if you don't, they'll eventually stop playing with you. Ask them what they want, and try to give it to them, even if you don't always enjoy it as much as they do.
I must confess that I often forget this and end up with players who do not enjoy the game as they try to keep up with an endless number of plot twists, clues/hand-outs, mysterious NPCs and confusing events. They won't even learn about most of what is going on in the background.
This became painfully evident during our last D&D session as I asked them what they had thought about the adventure that I considered the best I had ever written (a very roleplaying-heavy "Twin Peaks"-style of mystery module, set in a small urban village in Sembia). One of the players said that he had bee bored as hell and *hated* it... he had considered starting to kill the strangely acting villagers just to get some combat action (he is a self-confessed powergamer). Another player said that he had absolutely loved it, as the whole session had consisted of unraveling the mystery in the village through intensive roleplaying.
What to do? I knew the problem existed, but had thought it a bit less significant that it now appeared to be. I have planned the next session to start with a bang, then some "free-form roleplaying" and another combat encounter. Perhaps if I at least *try* to give them all what they want in each session, we'll end up with all of us enjoying the game to some degree, if not all the time?
quote:
As a side note: charisma is highly important in my campaigns since I strictly use the diplomacy and intimidate rules for NPC interactions. I dislike the free form role-playing style campaigns which gloss over these rules and the DM arbitrarily determines NPC reactions. In those campaigns Charisma becomes useless and the game becomes more a popularity contest with DMs inevitably favoring certain players who role-play a character the DM likes. I've seen low charisma dwarves succeed in winning NPC allies where a half-eld bard specialized diplomat failed. Totally unrealistic by the rules but it happens frequently in the free-form style of games that I have participated in.
I disagree with you there. I tend to use the "free-form role-playing" method in my campaigns because it encourages roleplaying in general. To me it seems a bit bland to just announce (after meeting an NPC) that I'm using either Diplomacy or Intimidate - whichever gives me bigger bonuses for my roll ("Oh, I'll intimidate him - you know, growl angrily and stuff. Okay, now I'll roll."). This is more typical in "conflict resolution" systems (and D&D is by definition a "task resolution" system) but the difference lies in narration rights - you, as DM, always get to describe my character's actions and the consequences of my roll. This way you might eliminate most of the social interaction and actual roleplaying from your campaigns, except between player characters. The way I see it, you and your players are missing a lot of the fun.
I always use every character's Charisma and social skill ranks as a *guideline* or *reference* to how others might react to him (sort of like "taking 10" and applying all the modifiers to it). No matter how eloquently you (as player) roleplay the situation, if your character sucks at them, you don't usually succeed (and it doesn't matter how I feel about you). In fact, I won't even tolerate such behaviour, and we would probably "rewind" as many times as needed until the player roleplayed it properly "in character". I also pay attention to all the characters' other aspects, too (such as interests, passions, demeanor, etc.)
This way I see myself eliminating the "extreme results" of very fortunate or unfortunate rolls. Of course, you can always try to "push" things and roll if you *really* care about the issue or something very important is at stake (and I might demand it on such occasions, too, especially if I feel that even a charismatic individual has a reasonable chance to fail). It is also equally okay if you're tired or don't come up with anything reasonable to say but your character is eloquent, witty and highly charismatic - I just don't wish to make a habit out of it.
quote:
I've wiped out too many dungeons against all odds to be modest. (I'm particularly proud of using an invisible imp familiar carrying my magic-jar gem to annihilate the Return to the Giant Series without losing a single hitpoint.)
Again you make it sound (from my perspective) like you played a "glorified" boardgame or that roleplaying is about "beating the system". Aren't you glad that you didn't meet any powerful spellcasters or Anti-Magic areas during the series? I see no harm in my players using clever "tricks" occasionally, but I never let them become a point of pride or hubris (or a "contest" between myself and the players).
We had a psionicist (in AD&D rules) that frequently killed Great Wyrms and even an Avatar of Iyachtu Xvim with his 'Kinetic Control'-power. He didn't lose a single hit point ever, since he was created as a 12th level character (and thus had the power from the beginning) in the middle of our high-level campaign. He did lose it when we converted our characters into 3rd edition rules (now it is an Epic Spell, if I recall correctly). We never considered him to be a devious mastermind, although it was a pretty clever trick. |
"What am I doing today? Ask me tomorrow - I can be sure of giving you the right answer then."
-- Askarran of Selgaunt, Master Sage, speaking to a curious merchant, Year of the Helm |
Edited by - Asgetrion on 18 Apr 2007 01:28:22 |
|
|
|
WalkerNinja
Senior Scribe
USA
577 Posts |
Posted - 18 Apr 2007 : 13:40:56
|
Just wanted to add my two cents:
I am in a group of seven of which I and one other are the DM's (its currently my turn). Both of us tend to favor heavy roleplay and story based gaming. He tends to favor the fantastic aspects of fantasy (a mix of Tolkien and Anime) while I tend to favor a grittier realistic style. Our players have remained basically happy with us, but there are at least two that are happier with lots of action and one other that while he likes roleplay isn't terribly good at it. That would leave the last two that I like to think of as wholistic players.
This other DM and I have established sort of a happy medium. In either of our games we may go 3-6 sessions where there are virtually no dice rolled followed up by 3-6 sessions of endless violence so that even the most avowed hack and slasher can get their fix.
In both cases we try to balance our own likes and dislikes with the will of the group. Both of us see servicing the group as our primary job, and we both tend to do this in different ways.
Ultimately, however, our group (we believe) stays generally happy all of the time. By the way, we've had basically the same players for the last three years or so. |
*** A Forgotten Realms Addict since 1990 ***
Treasures of the Past, a Second Edition Play-by-Post game for and by Candlekeep Sages--http://www.rpol.net/game.cgi?gi=52011 |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
12194 Posts |
Posted - 18 Apr 2007 : 20:41:05
|
>>Speaking of ultimate character builds... I think that very few combos could beat a dwarven >>Cleric/Pious Templar/Craftmaster/Hammer of Moradin purely in terms of dealing damage in >>combat.
LOL, now this is funny. The groom just e-mailed us yesterday with a very brief synopsis of his build. He's playing a dwarven priest of Moradin. Not sure what else he's doing, but thought this was interesting. |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
Aimie
Acolyte
France
3 Posts |
Posted - 25 Apr 2007 : 03:25:55
|
Initiate ; the fact is that as the question is well asked so i think you can find the answer in your development.
The problem is centerd on the part took by "what can be win in RPG games ?". You are right when you say, powergaming is similar to "how to win" but you are wrong (i think) when you join this idea with "having a quantifiable control" on the game. Having a quantifiable control on game with what you have is roleplaying, looking for "victory" (in all senses) with all the game proposes is powergaming. That makes a slight difference.
Do not make this difference leads in a sense to do a little mistake. You, and some other interventions here, say that "powergamers can be good roleplayers" : powergaming is not exclusive of roleplaying. In fact it is. Why ? because mecanisms of the game practises are totaly different :
> Roleplaying is always based on what you are or what you have in RPG games. Roleplaying is a form of optimization : do the better you can with what you are/have. This optimization take place in present time for the character even if sometimes it is based for part on the past (a personnal history, influence of game backround, all some of constraints (positive) coming from the DM...etc...).
> Powergaming is always anticipation. When a gamer "powergames" ; he is always placed in the future, trying to anticipate "to win", trying to be able to face all sorts of problems, in fact all the problems the DM could bring to him/her. For an basic exemple, the process of mini-maxisation of characteritics of the PC ; it is only anticipation of what will be require in the future to reach the goal.
A powegamer is "in jail", a jail he builded himself ; he always plays on a thin road from which he cannot diverge if he wants to keep optimization effective.
The fact is powergamers are not always bad roleplayers because they are unable to be active in game of imaginative or what you put in the idea of a good roleplay ; they are never good roleplayers cause they are on a road and nothing in the game (others characters, universe, all sorts of constraints...etc) could lead them to change that. A game session (short or long) can be resume in one thing, the influence on characters from the universe they live in and the reaction they can generate.
You are entirely right when you advance that game material have a large responsability in powergaming but, if i can precise this point, not because this material is a good source for powergamers. I think that whatever you come with, it can be used by powergamers to optimize in their game vision. No, the problem is for players who are not familiar of the powergaming approach of the game. For them it is catastrophic and on this point D&D is actualy guilty. In almost all the recent D&D material (not to say all the recent material) the player is placed in the necessity of anticipation. The character are no more the result of a story, of what happen in game, of the constraint who come from behind DM screen, in fact of all the gaming process but they are what they will be. Even a player who does not think of anticipation and optimization is led to anticipate ; some feats here who will be require to access prestige classes, some characteristic level require to activate a future feat... etc... The recent D&D game material insist always on one thing : if you want (being) something you need to anticipate it and optimize your character for. I dont say here that DMs cannot try to to something about that, just that they have to fight against the game material mecanic not with ; the probability to obtain powergaming in place of roleplaying is more (more) important.
The fact you note is the difficulty to organize a game with powergaming and roleplaying is important. You note the fact that you have to (for a DM) face with the impossibility to ensure a good balance between roleplayers (and only roleplayers) and powergamers (even if you give them good roleplay qualities) show, in my point of view, that powergaming and roleplaying are exclusive way of playing the game (i precise that i am not in a restricive definition of roleplay ; if you consider roleplay = only good character interpretation, you can roleplay and powergame that's true, but roleplay is not "only" that).
What is be done about it ?
Damn the big question, THE question...
For the first part of the answer : dont insist. If you are facing (as DM) a powergamer dont even think you can change his mind quick. It will be a long and hard work. The problem is not that there is a neccessity to operate a change in his/her vision of practise the game. Not at all. Some people say that there is not a good way to play the game and a wrong play to play the game. That is true. A group of powergamers find fun in game and a group of roleplayers find fun too ; just not on the same bases. The problem is for mixed groups.
If you want to change a roleplayer in powergamer or lead a new player on the way of powergaming; it is not a problem. Just put recent D&D game material on the table it will work fine(quite a joke... or perhaps not in fact). So, probably, the question is for lead a powergamer to put more and more roleplay component in his/her game.
First thing dont be afraid about what a DM can do with the powergame attitude. The important thing is to have a good point of view on what is roleplay and what is not enough to be considered as roleplay. If, as DM, you can think a player can be a roleplayer and a powergamer, you have to enlarge your defintion of roleplay cause you are not on the good way. You reach the goal when you can see that what you consider as roleplay push out powergaming away from a player like in sort of exorcism .
It is easy to check if you are on the good way. You are not on the good way if you consider your (power)player to handle well with his/her character cause he/she performs well his/her 3 CHA and 42 WIS multimulti-classed alien from outer space. You are on the good way when you can see your powergamer playing in the present, when no attention is particularly paid on the future (future = prestige class number 6878 ; "hey why not another point in this lore, it could be fun to play and usefull and you have learn some important things today no ?" " Ya but i need only 6 in lore to be an alien from outer space... *bong*).
Roleplaying and powergaming are exclusive, each time a DM gain (if needed) a little roleplay component it is a success cause it pushes away powergaming. So in fact the question is : how to obtain roleplay ? Because when you get roleplay you reduce powergaming. Here the work is hard for a DM, for all DM, that include paticularly those who think they are experienced, who practise for a long time. It is not the way you control the game that lead to obtain good result on powergaming, it is the way you not control the game.
In two words ; be imprevesible and versatile, be an exact image of the universe you masterize. A powergamer play only by anticipation to obtain "victory", to obtain control over potential situations. More a DM is previsible, more he is easy to "powergame". A player does not powergame a game in general, in fact he/she powergame your game in particular. It is always hard work and long one to reduce powergaming cause, even if he/she has not direct responsability in player attitude, a DM is in fact responsable of the capacity of players to anticipate the game and handle it in a way they could be efficient with it. That is why it is hard, a DM need, i think, to understand that he/she is implicate in powergaming even if he just think the game in term of obtain roleplaying.
Being versatile and imprevisible create some sort of fog ; it will be harder and harder for a player to anticipe you and your game. Anticipation is the base for powergaming optimization, without anticipation you become impossible to optimize, you become like a wet piece of soap. You will win when you obtain players playing the present of your game, in fact when you obtain that players optimize the present of the game with what they are/have presently. I think it is important to note that this victory is not definitive, thinking that and you become previsible another time, and so powergamed another time ; it is a forever fight.
[my apologies for my terrific english] |
Edited by - Aimie on 25 Apr 2007 03:46:44 |
|
|
|
Kaladorm
Master of Realmslore
United Kingdom
1176 Posts |
Posted - 25 Apr 2007 : 03:41:39
|
I think perhaps part of the reason that powergaming and roleplaying tend not to go hand in hand is due to two things.
The first is that, generally, when someone makes an 'awesome build', it is usually combat related in some way. I have yet to see a 'check out my awesome ambassador type character! He could talk a dragon into giving up it's teeth' or a 'This build is designed for people wanting to be the ultimate sage recluse 'type of thread.
Secondly, a major part of roleplaying is playing your character, with all the good and bad things thrown in. Sometimes your character will make mistakes, or get into trouble, or have unpleasant habits, and its these quirks that make the character who they are. With the attitude that you have to 'win' then how can any character be anything other than a shining hero / darkest of villains?
I'd also like to say I'm glad this thread didn't turn into a RP vs powergaming fight, there's always potential for it, but its been very interesting so far |
|
|
|
Asgetrion
Master of Realmslore
Finland
1564 Posts |
Posted - 26 Apr 2007 : 01:06:36
|
First of all, Aimie: Well Met and welcome to Candlekeep!
quote:
Originally posted by Aimie
Initiate ; the fact is that as the question is well asked so i think you can find the answer in your development.
The problem is centerd on the part took by "what can be win in RPG games ?". You are right when you say, powergaming is similar to "how to win" but you are wrong (i think) when you join this idea with "having a quantifiable control" on the game. Having a quantifiable control on game with what you have is roleplaying, looking for "victory" (in all senses) with all the game proposes is powergaming. That makes a slight difference.
Actually, I think that the only way to “win” in role-playing games is that everybody in your gaming group (DM included) is having *fun*, while enjoying their characters and the campaign/story. Your gaming style or the system do not really matter. If all of you enjoy powergaming, why not do it? Nobody can claim that they’re role-playing the “right” way, because there is no right or wrong way to do it. Simply put, you’re doing it right if you all enjoy the game. We both agree on this, and like you wrote, it only becomes a problem when you have mixed interests in your group.
I am not sure if I understood you correctly, but I think that powergaming *can* be about leverage and social “control”. Maybe you want to maximize your character to feel superior to the other players and their characters? You might even seek to wield/abuse power because you feel inferior or powerless in the real world. You might even use social, mental, magical or physical violence in the game against other PCs to push towards your own goals or to achieve more power or leverage.
quote:
Do not make this difference leads in a sense to do a little mistake. You, and some other interventions here, say that "powergamers can be good roleplayers" : powergaming is not exclusive of roleplaying. In fact it is. Why ? because mecanisms of the game practises are totaly different :
> Roleplaying is always based on what you are or what you have in RPG games. Roleplaying is a form of optimization : do the better you can with what you are/have. This optimization take place in present time for the character even if sometimes it is based for part on the past (a personnal history, influence of game backround, all some of constraints (positive) coming from the DM...etc...).
> Powergaming is always anticipation. When a gamer "powergames" ; he is always placed in the future, trying to anticipate "to win", trying to be able to face all sorts of problems, in fact all the problems the DM could bring to him/her. For an basic exemple, the process of mini-maxisation of characteritics of the PC ; it is only anticipation of what will be require in the future to reach the goal.
A powegamer is "in jail", a jail he builded himself ; he always plays on a thin road from which he cannot diverge if he wants to keep optimization effective.
The fact is powergamers are not always bad roleplayers because they are unable to be active in game of imaginative or what you put in the idea of a good roleplay ; they are never good roleplayers cause they are on a road and nothing in the game (others characters, universe, all sorts of constraints...etc) could lead them to change that. A game session (short or long) can be resume in one thing, the influence on characters from the universe they live in and the reaction they can generate.
In my humble opinion this is not entirely true, and I find your definition to be very stereotypical. This is not a black-and-white issue, and I think most gamers (myself included) tend to fall in between these categories and some may even enjoy all gaming styles equally.
While some players may only pursue the “tactical challenge” of maximizing (e.g. building those uber-combos that nobody has yet seen) powergaming has nothing to do with being unimaginative or incapable of role-playing. I personally know many powergamers who are very good role-players. You see, some of them might maximize their characters for “survival reasons” and protection (against monsters, other PCs, NPCs) and to be as self-sufficient as they only can (so that they can handle any situation by themselves). This is known as “turtling”, which means that you wish to make sure that no one (especially your DM) can “screw over”/mess with your character. Actually, many of them may be excellent roleplayers and concentrate on the campaign and playing their characters *if* they feel that their characters are truly “safe” (dangerous/efficient/powerful) from potential abuse.
Besides, building a mechanically efficient character has never prevented anyone from writing him/her an elaborate or complex background and personality.
quote:
You are entirely right when you advance that game material have a large responsability in powergaming but, if i can precise this point, not because this material is a good source for powergamers. I think that whatever you come with, it can be used by powergamers to optimize in their game vision. No, the problem is for players who are not familiar of the powergaming approach of the game. For them it is catastrophic and on this point D&D is actualy guilty. In almost all the recent D&D material (not to say all the recent material) the player is placed in the necessity of anticipation. The character are no more the result of a story, of what happen in game, of the constraint who come from behind DM screen, in fact of all the gaming process but they are what they will be. Even a player who does not think of anticipation and optimization is led to anticipate ; some feats here who will be require to access prestige classes, some characteristic level require to activate a future feat... etc... The recent D&D game material insist always on one thing : if you want (being) something you need to anticipate it and optimize your character for. I dont say here that DMs cannot try to to something about that, just that they have to fight against the game material mecanic not with ; the probability to obtain powergaming in place of roleplaying is more (more) important.
There any many (mostly “indie”) role-playing games out there that approach gaming and game mechanics from a different angle. I personally like “conflict resolution” systems more than the traditional “task resolution” systems (such as D&D) because the focus is on how to weave a meaningful story around the protagonists (PCs). There is no mechanical reason to maximize your character or to seek bonuses/tactical advantages in every situation because they do not exist within the game rules and environment.
It is also possible to play D&D and similar “gamist” systems with a different approach or style. Even if you create more “traditional” or even maximized adventurers, it is possible that you might wish to emphasize tragedy, drama and moral issues as much as combat and “delving” in your game. Or if everyone in your gaming group wants to try a different kind of campaign with less combat/violence and more emphasis on social, romantical or political content (and more XP and other rewards for it) – why couldn’t you do it? Why couldn’t you decide to spend your skills points and feats approbriately? You (as DM) don't have to "fight" against your players, their wishes or the gaming material if you all decide on a common Creative Agenda. It is not that playing a “gamist” system “forces” you to maximize, hey?
quote:
The fact you note is the difficulty to organize a game with powergaming and roleplaying is important. You note the fact that you have to (for a DM) face with the impossibility to ensure a good balance between roleplayers (and only roleplayers) and powergamers (even if you give them good roleplay qualities) show, in my point of view, that powergaming and roleplaying are exclusive way of playing the game (i precise that i am not in a restricive definition of roleplay ; if you consider roleplay = only good character interpretation, you can roleplay and powergame that's true, but roleplay is not "only" that).
You seem to separate role-playing from powergaming, while these two things that are, in fact, one and the same (or powergaming is actually an aspect of role-playing, which [role-playing] is to me synonymous to a “hobby”). They are not exclusive, and I have tried to prove just that above. |
"What am I doing today? Ask me tomorrow - I can be sure of giving you the right answer then."
-- Askarran of Selgaunt, Master Sage, speaking to a curious merchant, Year of the Helm |
|
|
|
Sian
Senior Scribe
Denmark
596 Posts |
Posted - 26 Apr 2007 : 05:09:45
|
| Well Kala ... my most loved build at the moment is a person that could easily talk herself in and out of everything ... but unable to deal damage even if her life depended on it (against undeads and construts even worse) ... Beguiler is an evil character for anything but damage |
what happened to the queen? she's much more hysterical than usual
She's a women, it happens once a month |
|
|
|
Kaladorm
Master of Realmslore
United Kingdom
1176 Posts |
Posted - 26 Apr 2007 : 09:29:09
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sian
Well Kala ... my most loved build at the moment is a person that could easily talk herself in and out of everything ... but unable to deal damage even if her life depended on it (against undeads and construts even worse) ... Beguiler is an evil character for anything but damage
Funny you should mention that, my favourite character I've ever made was a Drow Beguiler |
|
|
|
Sian
Senior Scribe
Denmark
596 Posts |
Posted - 26 Apr 2007 : 10:28:48
|
| and yeah ... i'm Powergaming and roleplaying on that person ... even though she can do zip in battle my DM hate her due to her abilities to evade basicly everything he throw at her ... either by skill or spell *grins* |
what happened to the queen? she's much more hysterical than usual
She's a women, it happens once a month |
|
|
|
Kaladorm
Master of Realmslore
United Kingdom
1176 Posts |
Posted - 26 Apr 2007 : 11:26:14
|
I never got to test mine out, but it was the first evil character I made. You're right, they may not be able to actually kill anything, but the ability to avoid or trick your way through anything is just fantastic  . My first 'real' character I ever played was a rogue with a level or two in a spellcasting class, and I was trying to emulate what would later be released as a beguiler. |
|
|
|
Aimie
Acolyte
France
3 Posts |
Posted - 26 Apr 2007 : 15:53:53
|
[Asgetrion, thanks for your welcome]
Asgetrion, some of the points you develop come from misunderstand, i think. It is not your fault il all cases, are guilty first my terrific english and second my capacity to expose clearly my point of view in a short response (was long bug the question is big and probably would require a book ).
Two things that i can note nevertheless.
First, powergaming dont concern only "combat skills". Powergaming is a way you can play RPGs from all their angles. You can powergame social skill if you want, you can powergame arts, in fact you can powergame all you can play in a RPG, so it is a very large way of gaming. Ya, that's true, in a general point of view, powergaming combat skills is the most common way, but powergaming can't be resume in combat skills.
Second, the fact that you can oppose roleplaying with powergaming or not depend exclusively of how you define roleplaying and powergaming. As i said in my post, if you define roleplaying as the capacity for the player to "perform" the character ; you can powergame and roleplay the game with no problem. The fact is, roleplaying is not only "perform a character" ; the concept is more vast and complex than that. It includes notably, "function" in some way : what and where your character is in game. Or, this point is not only dependant of the player will (instead of performing the character) ; yes a player choose what he wants to do in the game in a general way, but the influence of the universe (DM constraints, other PCs, NPCs, events, history..etc...) is great here too.
For my point of view, here it is what we can define as "roleplay" in the large sense (and not only perform which is just too restrictive). And there, powergaming is exclusive to roleplay cause when you powergame a character you have a goal, a well defined goal, in fact an ultra-precise goal. If you want to be ready to get the famous "alien form outer space template" you necessarily have to reduce to zero the influence of the universe on your role (function). You define something by anticipation and you have to stay on the way you drew. To take a little ridiculous exemple of that just for illustration, it will look like a multi-ridiculous-classed character (all DM have seen that sort of things some times) ; sure very efficient with game mecanics but totally absurd in terms of function.
This exemple is just a caricature, but placing skill point in the only way possible to obtain this prestige class at the good time is in fact totaly similar. The player here dont care of what happen in game, he/she will get his points in this skills only to reach the goal define by game mecanic. At this time, he/she no more roleplay (large definition) his/her character even if he/she continues to perform it well (restricitve definition).
Are powergaming and roleplaying exclusive way to practise the game ?
Yes they are, not if you have a restricted definition of roleplay, as i said you can perform and powergame in a restrictive definition, but if you consider the large definition : they are oposite way of gaming, something like that :
Powergame <-------|-------> Roleplay.
The two conceptions are not exclusive in the sense of you cannot obtain roleplay and powergame in a form of ratio, they are exclusive cause one drive away the other. More you roleplay, more you consider the importance of the influence of game content on your character, more the character will become the result of what happen to him/her in game, more your consider that your character is the result of what in and by the story and not in the game mecanics book. When you consider that the in game-influences "make" in part your character you can powergame no more. You (your character) are now what you are and no more what you anticipate you will be. A point in a skill ? This point go somewhere your character can have gain in a skill, no more in the skill require to obtain the feat to obtain the prestige class and so on... You now play the present of the game (roleplay) and you no more anticipate the efficacity of the template. Powergamers use terms to define the center of interest of their way of gaming "build" or "template" ; or the only thing that a roleplayer consider, is what happen in game. What define his/her character is the result of what happen in game. A roleplayer never "build" a character, the in game content make his/her character.
The fact is, and i totaly agree with you on this point : there is not a good way and a bad way, there are not bad boys (powergamers) and good boys (roleplayers). If a player can be a mix of powergaming and roleplaying, the fact is in my point of view he/she cannot improve the two aspects. Better roleplay ? Powergame is drive away. Better template build ? Roleplay is pushed away. There is only one way of play : fun. Yes that's sure, but every experienced DM will know that when you have said that in fact you said nothnig. The probability you get 5 powergamers or 5 roleplayers is low. The question : "what can i do with a mixed group ?" have a sense. I dont think it is important to talk here of group of players who play together for a very very long time. They are close each other because they share their way of gaming ; because sharing that is fundamental. It seems that having roleplayers and powergamers in the same box may lead to problems.
I never say that powergamers cannot be imaginative or creative players, i just say a thing : if a powerplayer have a good imagination and a good creativity he/she will be a powergamer who make roleplay. But he/she can be a terrific roleplayer only without powergaming. Be a terrific roleplayer is not a medal for someone in RPG game, we dont care of that, good roleplay is a bonus for the game of everybody cause as you know, in RPGs players are making the game for part and especially the game for the others.
As DM, i am not hard against all powergamers, i am just hard against those who are imaginative and creative. Not only because i want to change their way of gaming to just obtain a change, no, just because i need them on roleplaying for increase fun for everybody and the story. Roleplay is, in my point of view, added valor for all the other players and the game. Roleplaying consist in share something ; that's way is harder to get than powergaming. Powergaming share nothing, it is an individual way of gaming : ok I can handle all alone with my alien from outer space and i am looking for that. Roleplaying need the others and a story, without them he/she is nothing; powergame need only a mecanics book and a character sheet, nothing more, it is designed to handle and face the game alone, it is, by definition, self-sufficient.
Another time, i am not saying here that one way is better than the other but just trying to insist on the fact that powergaming a game or roleplay a game have consequences on game itself. This consequences are not identical because roleplaying and powergaming do not use the same game mecanisms ; and they are by nature, exclusive.
Why it is so important ? I dont want to give the impression that i am hard against powergaming cause that's not true. As DM, be powergamed don't cause me any problems, i can (no i have to) adapt myself ; it is my "job" ; trying to create fun.
Asgetrion, you say that we are not in "a black-and-white issue" and you are right. But you are right only in precise perspective : everybody at your table share the same ratio (or quite) between powergame/roleplay. When it is not the case, trust me, you fall in a a black-and-white issue. You powergame a little and roleplay a little too (as better as you can) ? Not a problem. If you have to face to a strict powergamer you will probably cry a lot You want some roleplay in the game but perhaps the player just sit near you need level zero roleplay and then we will obtain a clash (that is why in fact the question don't concern old and coherent group of players). That's why it is important to have a precise definition of what is what. If you think only one second that powergame and roleplay are not exclusive, it is easy. You just have to add little roleplaying dose in a strict powergamer and you win the challenge. Good luck, you will never success  You can success if you input roleplay and reduce powergame, it is a pure communicating vessels system. If you consider that a strict powergamer have just to perform a little more his character (like playing better is 42 in INT stat) to avoid the disturbance and unbalance for the player just sit near him ; i think you are in an idealistic point of view (i am often idealistic too  ).
When i read what i wrote in the precedent post, i realise that it was not enough (at all) specific and, on one point particularly, Kaladorn help to understand better what i consider to be a good solution if you want to reduce powergaming in your game. I said be more versatile and unpredictable, that was too general. One thing is particularly important with that : it is the way, as DM, you consider success and failure. For a big part, powergame rise from here.
Today, i am more experienced in DMing a game, and i am still astounding by the way i considered failure management ; something like : Ya great ! Success ! or by opposite *Bong* failure that's hard ! What do you think did happen ? Yes my players want to get success, and only success and they did not want to deal with any (even one) failure att all. Now, i consider myself experimented, i never more manage success/failure like that. Now i am more versatile and unpredictable, it is something like the player can realise that this failure save his/her life and this success lead to a catastrophic chain of events. (My) Players know no more if success is the only way to "win", they no more create or build "winning/obtain-successes machines", they create characters to deal with the ambient fog. In some way they powergame me , but i have no more "alien form outer space multi-classed things with tentacles" but just characters, living characters, no more shining golems builded to win the game.
|
Edited by - Aimie on 26 Apr 2007 21:08:30 |
|
|
|
Asgetrion
Master of Realmslore
Finland
1564 Posts |
Posted - 28 Apr 2007 : 15:30:06
|
quote:
Originally posted by Aimie
[Asgetrion, thanks for your welcome]
Asgetrion, some of the points you develop come from misunderstand, i think. It is not your fault il all cases, are guilty first my terrific english and second my capacity to expose clearly my point of view in a short response (was long bug the question is big and probably would require a book ).
Two things that i can note nevertheless.
First, powergaming dont concern only "combat skills". Powergaming is a way you can play RPGs from all their angles. You can powergame social skill if you want, you can powergame arts, in fact you can powergame all you can play in a RPG, so it is a very large way of gaming. Ya, that's true, in a general point of view, powergaming combat skills is the most common way, but powergaming can't be resume in combat skills.
Second, the fact that you can oppose roleplaying with powergaming or not depend exclusively of how you define roleplaying and powergaming. As i said in my post, if you define roleplaying as the capacity for the player to "perform" the character ; you can powergame and roleplay the game with no problem. The fact is, roleplaying is not only "perform a character" ; the concept is more vast and complex than that. It includes notably, "function" in some way : what and where your character is in game. Or, this point is not only dependant of the player will (instead of performing the character) ; yes a player choose what he wants to do in the game in a general way, but the influence of the universe (DM constraints, other PCs, NPCs, events, history..etc...) is great here too.
For my point of view, here it is what we can define as "roleplay" in the large sense (and not only perform which is just too restrictive). And there, powergaming is exclusive to roleplay cause when you powergame a character you have a goal, a well defined goal, in fact an ultra-precise goal. If you want to be ready to get the famous "alien form outer space template" you necessarily have to reduce to zero the influence of the universe on your role (function). You define something by anticipation and you have to stay on the way you drew. To take a little ridiculous exemple of that just for illustration, it will look like a multi-ridiculous-classed character (all DM have seen that sort of things some times) ; sure very efficient with game mecanics but totally absurd in terms of function.
This exemple is just a caricature, but placing skill point in the only way possible to obtain this prestige class at the good time is in fact totaly similar. The player here dont care of what happen in game, he/she will get his points in this skills only to reach the goal define by game mecanic. At this time, he/she no more roleplay (large definition) his/her character even if he/she continues to perform it well (restricitve definition).
Are powergaming and roleplaying exclusive way to practise the game ?
Yes they are, not if you have a restricted definition of roleplay, as i said you can perform and powergame in a restrictive definition, but if you consider the large definition : they are oposite way of gaming, something like that :
Powergame <-------|-------> Roleplay.
The two conceptions are not exclusive in the sense of you cannot obtain roleplay and powergame in a form of ratio, they are exclusive cause one drive away the other. More you roleplay, more you consider the importance of the influence of game content on your character, more the character will become the result of what happen to him/her in game, more your consider that your character is the result of what in and by the story and not in the game mecanics book. When you consider that the in game-influences "make" in part your character you can powergame no more. You (your character) are now what you are and no more what you anticipate you will be. A point in a skill ? This point go somewhere your character can have gain in a skill, no more in the skill require to obtain the feat to obtain the prestige class and so on... You now play the present of the game (roleplay) and you no more anticipate the efficacity of the template. Powergamers use terms to define the center of interest of their way of gaming "build" or "template" ; or the only thing that a roleplayer consider, is what happen in game. What define his/her character is the result of what happen in game. A roleplayer never "build" a character, the in game content make his/her character.
The fact is, and i totaly agree with you on this point : there is not a good way and a bad way, there are not bad boys (powergamers) and good boys (roleplayers). If a player can be a mix of powergaming and roleplaying, the fact is in my point of view he/she cannot improve the two aspects. Better roleplay ? Powergame is drive away. Better template build ? Roleplay is pushed away. There is only one way of play : fun. Yes that's sure, but every experienced DM will know that when you have said that in fact you said nothnig. The probability you get 5 powergamers or 5 roleplayers is low. The question : "what can i do with a mixed group ?" have a sense. I dont think it is important to talk here of group of players who play together for a very very long time. They are close each other because they share their way of gaming ; because sharing that is fundamental. It seems that having roleplayers and powergamers in the same box may lead to problems.
I never say that powergamers cannot be imaginative or creative players, i just say a thing : if a powerplayer have a good imagination and a good creativity he/she will be a powergamer who make roleplay. But he/she can be a terrific roleplayer only without powergaming. Be a terrific roleplayer is not a medal for someone in RPG game, we dont care of that, good roleplay is a bonus for the game of everybody cause as you know, in RPGs players are making the game for part and especially the game for the others.
As DM, i am not hard against all powergamers, i am just hard against those who are imaginative and creative. Not only because i want to change their way of gaming to just obtain a change, no, just because i need them on roleplaying for increase fun for everybody and the story. Roleplay is, in my point of view, added valor for all the other players and the game. Roleplaying consist in share something ; that's way is harder to get than powergaming. Powergaming share nothing, it is an individual way of gaming : ok I can handle all alone with my alien from outer space and i am looking for that. Roleplaying need the others and a story, without them he/she is nothing; powergame need only a mecanics book and a character sheet, nothing more, it is designed to handle and face the game alone, it is, by definition, self-sufficient.
Another time, i am not saying here that one way is better than the other but just trying to insist on the fact that powergaming a game or roleplay a game have consequences on game itself. This consequences are not identical because roleplaying and powergaming do not use the same game mecanisms ; and they are by nature, exclusive.
Why it is so important ? I dont want to give the impression that i am hard against powergaming cause that's not true. As DM, be powergamed don't cause me any problems, i can (no i have to) adapt myself ; it is my "job" ; trying to create fun.
Asgetrion, you say that we are not in "a black-and-white issue" and you are right. But you are right only in precise perspective : everybody at your table share the same ratio (or quite) between powergame/roleplay. When it is not the case, trust me, you fall in a a black-and-white issue. You powergame a little and roleplay a little too (as better as you can) ? Not a problem. If you have to face to a strict powergamer you will probably cry a lot You want some roleplay in the game but perhaps the player just sit near you need level zero roleplay and then we will obtain a clash (that is why in fact the question don't concern old and coherent group of players). That's why it is important to have a precise definition of what is what. If you think only one second that powergame and roleplay are not exclusive, it is easy. You just have to add little roleplaying dose in a strict powergamer and you win the challenge. Good luck, you will never success You can success if you input roleplay and reduce powergame, it is a pure communicating vessels system. If you consider that a strict powergamer have just to perform a little more his character (like playing better is 42 in INT stat) to avoid the disturbance and unbalance for the player just sit near him ; i think you are in an idealistic point of view (i am often idealistic too ).
When i read what i wrote in the precedent post, i realise that it was not enough (at all) specific and, on one point particularly, Kaladorn help to understand better what i consider to be a good solution if you want to reduce powergaming in your game. I said be more versatile and unpredictable, that was too general. One thing is particularly important with that : it is the way, as DM, you consider success and failure. For a big part, powergame rise from here.
Today, i am more experienced in DMing a game, and i am still astounding by the way i considered failure management ; something like : Ya great ! Success ! or by opposite *Bong* failure that's hard ! What do you think did happen ? Yes my players want to get success, and only success and they did not want to deal with any (even one) failure att all. Now, i consider myself experimented, i never more manage success/failure like that. Now i am more versatile and unpredictable, it is something like the player can realise that this failure save his/her life and this success lead to a catastrophic chain of events. (My) Players know no more if success is the only way to "win", they no more create or build "winning/obtain-successes machines", they create characters to deal with the ambient fog. In some way they powergame me , but i have no more "alien form outer space multi-classed things with tentacles" but just characters, living characters, no more shining golems builded to win the game.
Well met again, Aimie!
A quick and general response to your post, since you touch on the same subjects throughtout your post.
Actually, yes, I am an idealistic person. And I have gamed with many “strict” powergamers (and still do). This is what I understand by Creative Agenda and applying different Techniques at the table – I may be more “immersionism-oriented” than the others but I may play my way and perhaps tone it down a bit if it upsets everybody. This is rarely an issue, as I happen to enjoy powergaming, too. Note that I wrote (in my previous post) about how you could at least *try* to solve these kind of problems. More about it at the end of this post.
Like I wrote before, powergaming may also happen for general “leverage” or power in the campaign (e.g. political ambitions or because you just want to have on impact on things). It might also happen because you want to protect your character from everything and everybody – especially from your DM’s “abuse” (“turtling”). You might also do it to have social/physical power over other PCs or even players.
I still do not understand how pursuing mechanical ambitions/goals would *restrict* or exclude “roleplaying” (as you define it) in any way? Some people do it, and roleplay their characters as well.
Let me offer you an example. Ten years ago I wanted to create a nobleman character (a fighter) in Waterdeep. I had a clear picture of him in my mind – sort of like Liam Neeson in ‘Rob Roy’, but in a “medival” setting. I developed an elaborate background and demeanor for him, including a large range of interests/goals/dreams/aspirations etc. I never took a proficiency that he could not have learned for in-game reasons, and as I converted him to 3rd edition D&D, I assigned all his feats and skill points according to his non-weapon proficiencies (which resulted in “wasting” them into cross-class skills, mostly). At least I think I role-play him well, immersing myself in his thoughts and dreams and feelings, BUT I also want him to be as good as he only can in melee combat. Thus, I have maximized some of his stats, in every session I always suggest that our spellcasters “boost” him with spells, I have tried my best to acquire some magic items that would enhance his abilities and so on. I have done things that would classify me, at least to some extent, as a powergamer. Yet, none of the things I have mentioned above has taken the central part in our (mostly tragic) story. Never have we spent a full session looking for mechanical advantages, but we *have* spent many sessions without rolling a single die. Personally, I think it is all very balanced, and I don’t see myself, in any way, as being either a a “lesser role-player” or a “better role-player” because of it. To conclude: yes, I love immersing myself in my character and role-playing my heart out, but I also love it when he’s hacking through a veritable army of orcs and I get to enjoy his maximized, combat-oriented skills, abilities and feats (which are an essential part of him, and how *I* see my character - note that he has many feats and skills that might be considered "bad" or "poor" choices for a fighter).
How do you feel - does this make me, in any way, either a “lesser role-player” or a “lesser powergamer”?
I think you are confused about some concepts and definitions. Why would I have a “restricted” definition of role-playing, when I say that there are people who are powergamers, but despite this fact can actually role-play their characters well and enjoy the “story”? You, on the other hand, are making very black-and-white statements about the nature of roleplaying. This is the difficulty with explicit categories in theoretic or philophical matters – they are pretty hard to define, and tend to overlap, at least a bit.
IMHO when you write about “roleplaying”, you are actually talking about “immersionism”. Immersionism (or even “deep immersion), as *I* understand this concept, is about getting under your character’s skin. This may be a bit oversimplified, but practically it means that you immerse yourself in your character’s mind, personality and his role in the society, trying to react in every in-game situation as your character would. It is rather a “technique” than some “all-encompassing” definition or object/goal of role-playing.
You also talk about how people stop powergaming as they become more “enlightened” and “understand” that also the world and the campaign in general have on impact on their characters. Note that you display hints of a “superior attitude” here, talking about how you’d wish to “change their ways” to “have more fun” and advance the story. Let’s remember that not everyone wishes to use (or feels comfortable with) immersion, as a technique, which is just fine.
Then you write about how problems arise if there is a mixed amount of powergamers and people who do not like powergaming in the same group. This falls under Creative Agenda, I think. It is important to discuss this among your gaming group. What do you all want of out of *this* campaign with *these* characters. There is no problem if you all share the same “vision”, but typically some compromises have to be made (also by your DM). Every DM should take care of this, since it is basicly about coming to terms about how could everyone have more fun in the campaign. It is a social agreement.
You might also familiarize yourself with the GNS-theory (by Ron Edwards) which, I think, made me understand a bit more about gaming and role-playing in general (especially how to deal with a wide range of problematic issues/situations). |
"What am I doing today? Ask me tomorrow - I can be sure of giving you the right answer then."
-- Askarran of Selgaunt, Master Sage, speaking to a curious merchant, Year of the Helm |
Edited by - Asgetrion on 28 Apr 2007 15:31:56 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
powergaming: some basic points for discussion
