I need some forum therapy (AKA why do I feel entitled to powergame?)

[Magic Myrmidon]

Hi, all. Have a situation that's more or less resolved, but I'd like to discuss it (or at least have other people discuss it for me :p).

So, in my 3.5 group a few weeks ago, I recently leveled up to level 10. I'm playing a class called the Death Master out of the Dragon Compendium (I know, I know, I hate the name.) It's pretty heavily reflavored, though. No worshipping Orcus, I'm not evil, I don't sacrifice people. It's basically a necromancer with an undead companion.

Anywho, I've taken divine metamagic persist for my character. For those unfamiliar, it basically lets me make buff spells last 24 hours, when they normally last a significantly shorter time. So, at level 10, I decide that I'm going to get the spell Lesser Globe of Invulnerability. This spell makes it so that any spell of 1st to 3rd simply doesn't affect me. Normally, it lasts about 1 minute. But Persist allows it to last the entire day, effectively making me invulnerable to low level spells.

Now, I always like to think of myself as a conscientious power gamer, so I say "As a heads up, I'm going to be taking globe of invulnerability and I'll persist it". The DM immediately responds "No you're not." I immediately feel a pang of anger. I suppress and try to hide it, but I still feel it.

Me: "Why not?"

DM: "I just don't wanna deal with it. Don't make me pull out the big guns"

Me: "Well, that's what I'm preparing for."

DM: *Sigh* "Don't get into an arms race with the DM."

Me: ... "Ok, fair enough."

So, I will not be persisting the spell. The game will be continuing, and I'm sure everyone will be having fun.

But the event still bugged me. For numerous reasons.

Reason 1: I put in a LOT of time and effort to squeeze as much potential as I can out of my characters. I feel like putting in effort should be rewarded by the enjoyment of putting that knowledge to use. By being restricted like this, I feel like my work has gone to waste.

Reason 2: It felt like I was getting shut down without much consideration or discussion. There was no talk about how it might impact the game, just "No, I'll make things hard on you".

Reason 3: By researching RPGs and such, I've come to many conclusions regarding powergaming, group dynamics, and just gaming philosophy in general. It's always been my opinion that powergaming should be done responsibly, and I've felt that I have in the past. But being shut down like this makes me wonder if I've gone overboard, in this instance and others. I try to make sure that I don't ruin the game for other people. Indeed, I always kinda figured that making myself more durable and survivable was a benefit to the group, since they don't need to spend resources on keeping me alive. Now I'm second guessing myself.

Reason 4: The DM is being completely reasonable. He was upfront about his concerns, and didn't try to solve the problem in game by making my spell non-functional, because reasons. No antimagic fields. Just person-to-person "Don't do that, ok?" And I still got irritated, and it got under my skin. I've always felt that it's best to just handle stuff like that out-of-game, and to just talk about it. When it finally happens, I (internally) react unreasonably. I should just think "He was upfront, I don't wanna mess the game up, fair enough". Instead, I go and make a forum topic to figure out what my deal is.

Not sure what I want to get out of this, but I did want to see what other people think. So. What do you think?

[Kelb_Panthera]

Feelings are not rational. If you feel slighted because you got shut down there's nothing wrong with that. What's important is that you recognized point 4 in your post.

The feelings will pass in time and your DM did what he thought was best for the game as a whole. Running a game at high-op is difficult and not every DM is up to it. Yours had the good sense to recognize he wasn't up to it and was up-front about it. He did the right thing. Have you considered optimizing a non- or partial caster instead of going full CoDzilla?

[goto124]

3.5

I'm tempted to say something about this. It's DnD 3.5e right?

[Aetol]

Reason 1: I put in a LOT of time and effort to squeeze as much potential as I can out of my characters. I feel like putting in effort should be rewarded by the enjoyment of putting that knowledge to use. By being restricted like this, I feel like my work has gone to waste.

The solution to that is simple : just don't put so much effort into optimizing your character. Maybe go with a thematic build instead.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I'm tempted to say something about this. It's DnD 3.5e right?

Persist cleric dropping globe of invulnerability, yeah, it's D&D 3.5.

[Lorsa]

Hello Magic Myrmidon!

I always found the practice of powergaming to be fascinating for a number of reasons, but more on that later!


Now, I always like to think of myself as a conscientious power gamer, so I say "As a heads up, I'm going to be taking globe of invulnerability and I'll persist it". The DM immediately responds "No you're not." I immediately feel a pang of anger. I suppress and try to hide it, but I still feel it.

I am sorry to hear that you got upset. As was pointed out earlier, it is hard to control ones feelings, but you can (almost always) control your actions.

What do you mean when you say "conscientious power gamer"? If all you are doing is giving people heads up, then that does not seem all that conscientious to me. So this is one of the things I would like you to explain better.

Asking for permission and not going for the things the DM (or other players) says no to would indeed be very conscientious, and if that is the case, is it the actual no you are upset about or the way in which is what said. Those are two different things.


But the event still bugged me. For numerous reasons.

Reason 1: I put in a LOT of time and effort to squeeze as much potential as I can out of my characters. I feel like putting in effort should be rewarded by the enjoyment of putting that knowledge to use. By being restricted like this, I feel like my work has gone to waste.

This seems like an expectation you have on the game; that putting in effort should be rewarded. Did you communicate this expectation with your group before the game started? Is it something you agreed upon?

Also, you need to see this from the DMs perspective. The DM, usually, wants to create a fun, thrilling, moderately challenging game, where the dangers are of such magnitude as to get your heart pumping. By squeezing as much potential as you can out of your character, you are effectively making this job much harder for the DM, who then has to put in even more time and effort to find things that would challenge you.

So what you feel as something that should be "rewarded", a DM might see as something that simply would increase their own workload.


Reason 2: It felt like I was getting shut down without much consideration or discussion. There was no talk about how it might impact the game, just "No, I'll make things hard on you".

This is more an issue of "it's not the no, it's the way it was being said". Not everyone is a perfect communicator or relationship handler. My advice is to have a talk with your DM and say that it bothered you that there wasn't a discussion, so that you could explain matters.

However, you should also considered that you started the conversation with "I will be taking". This is a statement that does not invite for discussion. A better opener would be "what do you think about me taking". Try it next time and see if the DMs response changes!


Reason 3: By researching RPGs and such, I've come to many conclusions regarding powergaming, group dynamics, and just gaming philosophy in general. It's always been my opinion that powergaming should be done responsibly, and I've felt that I have in the past. But being shut down like this makes me wonder if I've gone overboard, in this instance and others. I try to make sure that I don't ruin the game for other people. Indeed, I always kinda figured that making myself more durable and survivable was a benefit to the group, since they don't need to spend resources on keeping me alive. Now I'm second guessing myself.

What conclusions did you reach and how is it relevant for this discussion? You say that you've always been of the same opinion regarding powergaming, so either your research didn't give you any conclusions about powergaming, or you did all research before you started playing. I'm sorry to be nitpicking like this, but usually if ones opinions are the conclusion of research, they should not be held before said research were conducted.

In any case, there is nothing wrong with second guessing yourself. Exploring the possibility that you might have gone overboard is a great first step to become the player you want to be (as in a conscientious powergamer).


Reason 4: The DM is being completely reasonable. He was upfront about his concerns, and didn't try to solve the problem in game by making my spell non-functional, because reasons. No antimagic fields. Just person-to-person "Don't do that, ok?" And I still got irritated, and it got under my skin. I've always felt that it's best to just handle stuff like that out-of-game, and to just talk about it. When it finally happens, I (internally) react unreasonably. I should just think "He was upfront, I don't wanna mess the game up, fair enough". Instead, I go and make a forum topic to figure out what my deal is.

In most social situations, how you react internally is irrelevant, what matters is how you behave externally. People can't hear your thoughts or see your emotions, but they can hear your words and see your actions. So you should be proud of the fact that you didn't ragequit, or accused the DM of being horrible etc etc. If what you say is true, you are dealing with your emotions in a rather good way. So don't forget that!


Not sure what I want to get out of this, but I did want to see what other people think. So. What do you think?

What I think is that you should drop the powergaming thing entirely. In the end, it seems to be giving you more grief than joy. For your powergamer feelings to be totally happy, you need all your ideas to get okay'ed (otherwise you did the work for nothing). However, for your conscientious self to feel good, you need the permission of the DM, and a pleasant group dynamic. Those two are never going to coincide all the time, and when they don't it causes you grief. So my advice is; drop one. And preferably powergaming (I will explain why).

The first thing you need to realise, which is why powergaming as a concept is essentially useless, is that you can NEVER win vs. the DM. You are bound by rules, while the DM is not. Even if he follows all the rules with character creation for his NPCs, and only gives them WBL equipment, there is no restriction on which level they can have, or how many they can be. No matter how much you powerlevel, the DM can always, always, always, find a way to kill you.

Therefore, in a one person campaign (one player, one DM), in theory you could powergame to your hearts desire (only caring about the verisimilitude effects on your game). However, when you have a group this causes some issues.

It is not true that one person powergaming always helps the group. In fact, the opposite is usually true. The DM usually wants to make the game enjoyable, and most people find some form of challenge to be more thrilling than facerolling all opposition. So, if you powergame, and the rest of the group does not, what will be a challenge for you will kill them horribly, and what is a challenge for them will die horribly by you. Therefore the group will either not have anything to do than to watch you fight, or almost die while they watch you fight.

I know that the above picture is overly simplistic, and it doesn't hold in a game where you deliberately give different characters different niches. Perhaps the rest of the group all play characters who can't fight at all, and they rely on your character to protect them. Then the challenge for you is no longer to beat the opposition, but rather to keep everyone else alive.

You should also consider how your powergaming can affect the enjoyment other people get from their characters, immersion wise. Suppose someone wants to create a "good warrior", probably they want the feeling of playing someone who is good in combat (using martial means). Good is a very inexact measurement, and for most people it simply means "better than average" or even "better than most". So maybe they do create a good warrior, but since your character is powergamed to a much higher degree, you will either make the character feel useless (since you raised the bar of what is good), or not better than average at all because the DM has to increase the level of opposition to your degree.

The power of any given character is always relative to the rest of the world. So many times I've heard players say "omg, I had such an awesome character, I had X,Y,Z". That statement always bugs me, because it fails to mention how many other characters in the world also had XYZ.

Therefore, you can't actually powergame. All you can do is alter the relative scale of what constitutes good or bad in the world, usually to the detriment of the rest of the group.

[Keltest]

While I can understand the DM's attitude, how he shut you down was rather rude. If nothing else, he should have been polite about it instead of invoking the DM Gavel of Shutting the Players Up.

[Fri]

While I can understand the DM's attitude, how he shut you down was rather rude. If nothing else, he should have been polite about it instead of invoking the DM Gavel of Shutting the Players Up.

I can't see how the GM can be more polite about it, to be honest.

[Nerd-o-rama]

You feel entitled because you come from an (internet) culture of entitlement where everything revolves around being as "effective" as possible in-game and that is the main presented form of enjoyment. Which makes sense in some ways, as the other ways to get enjoyment out of a game are subjective, but being as competitive as possible is a universal animal instinct.

Basically, you've been taught that making as powerful a character as you like is both your right and the main way to enjoy an RPG. That's the internet for you.

[Segev]

I cannot speak for the OP, but I know that my own powergaming tendencies stem from an enjoyment of winning.

This isn't "be better than the other PCs." This isn't "do everything without a challenge." But it does mean that I like being effective as often as possible, and that the more often I am ineffective, the less I enjoy a game. So I, personally, powergame to ensure that I am able to contribute as often as possible, and that I am failing to accomplish anything at all as little as possible.

From that perspective, it's understandable to want to always be immune to spells of 4th level or lower; it removes a lot of potential to be rendered useless.

Of course, the DM also wants to be able to challenge you, and so if he has to stop using spells of 4th level or lower, it only ramps up the lethality of the game he has to play to make it anything but, in his mind, a cakewalk. Which is why he asked you not to do that.

It's worth noting that he didn't ban globe of invulnerability. You can still use it. You just have to be a little cautious about when you apply it.

[Seto]

I can't see how the GM can be more polite about it, to be honest.

"Look, I don't feel like running a game with such high-powered tactics, so I don't think I'll allow you to persist globe of invulnerability. I'm sorry but I think it's better if I tell you straight away".

[sovin_ndore]

In response to some of the more extreme suggestions that have been made in this thread, I think this is a good point to revisit the Stormwind Fallacy (http://community.wizards.com/content/forum-topic/2861636). (Which consequentially should probably be saved from the WotC forums so that it can be referenced in such discussions.) Essentially, the fallacy makes a solid argument that Optimization and Roleplaying need not be exclusive or at the expense of one another. Powergaming is not the enemy here.

Optimization is normal, 'Powergaming' is not a symptom that needs cured. Even gaming groups that steer away from lots of splat books and which try to avoid power creep are always going to be populated by players asking questions about 'What's best for this character concept?' and making build decisions based on what they determine as the answer. I would definitely not get down on yourself for putting effort into the number-crunching, mechanical details of your character.

Meeting a DM's concept of 'reasonable optimization' can sometimes be a touchy subject. I have played with groups where acquiring more than 1d6 sneak attack per 2 levels (though items, PrCs, etc) was considered 'powergaming' and not allowed while VoP Polymorph wizards with Shivering Touch was par-for-course. Usually, extreme or disjointed concepts of game balance come from problems remembered from some bad gaming experience in past games. This could be the result of hugely incongruitous optimization between different members of the gaming group (often including the DM), but is actually usually more the result of the story being disrupted by how that optimization is used in game. One shotting a BBEG is much more disruptive than bringing up something off your character sheet in a time of need to keep the DM from having to pull out their own Deus Ex Machina. I would not overly concern yourself with trying to start an argument to beat sense into the DM if your concept of power level differs, but trying to work out what is allowed upfront can give you something to work with for optimization purposes and can let you know how to build in reserve functionality to allow you to play superhero when necessary.

What I would suggest is to consider whether your current optimization focus is adding to the game. Think about if it will end up overshadowing other characters or if it will make your group dynamic operate better. And consider keeping some of your strongest powers on reserve until absolutely needed. X/day abilities or nova-mage philosophy that keeps you on the sidelines till absolutely necessary is a wonderful way to remain a satisfying contributor without being decried as 'broken'.

Regarding this particular point, I wouldn't sweat the DMs proclivity for banhammering one thing or another. It is why you are the 'conscientious power gamer'. Take pride in that self-given title and take the rejection as an opportunity to hit the books again to find something else fun and interesting to do. If you do aggressively optimize, you probably enjoy the pouring through sourcebooks and building your own new combos, now you get to do that again and reimagine what you want your character doing with their actions. Keep it healthy and think about the game and the party dynamic.

[Keltest]

"Look, I don't feel like running a game with such high-powered tactics, so I don't think I'll allow you to persist globe of invulnerability. I'm sorry but I think it's better if I tell you straight away".

Or heck, just "Please don't. I don't want to run a game at that level of power if I don't have to."

[Fri]

Or heck, just "Please don't. I don't want to run a game at that level of power if I don't have to."

Yeah, basically what I meant was I didn't see that interaction as rude in the slightest, and this sentence and the one above it have the same level of politeness for me.

[noob]

Put on yourself arbitrary restrictions like playing only mundanes this way you will never overpower the entire team by yourself.

[Hawkstar]

In response to some of the more extreme suggestions that have been made in this thread, I think this is a good point to revisit the Stormwind Fallacy (http://community.wizards.com/content/forum-topic/2861636). (Which consequentially should probably be saved from the WotC forums so that it can be referenced in such discussions.) Essentially, the fallacy makes a solid argument that Optimization and Roleplaying need not be exclusive or at the expense of one another. Powergaming is not the enemy here.
Yes, it is. Powergaming is the enemy in this situation. This has nothing to do with the quality of the RP at all, and everything to do with the DM and possibly other players being uncomfortable with the power level/optimization level of the OP.
Put on yourself arbitrary restrictions like playing only mundanes this way you will never overpower the entire team by yourself.
Actually, it is possible to overpower the entire team. A mundane character can still be built in a way that breaks the game in combat. Not being able to challenge the party because the Beatstick kills Dragons and Tarrasques as easily as he kills Kobolds is also a problem for DMs and groups who prefer the flow of combat to be a gradual ablation of hitpoints on both sides, as opposed to a string of special tactics/spells that end in a nuke.

[Magic Myrmidon]

Alright, big reply post time! Thanks for the thoughts, everyone.


I'm tempted to say something about this. It's DnD 3.5e right?

Yup, D&D 3.5.


Feelings are not rational. If you feel slighted because you got shut down there's nothing wrong with that. What's important is that you recognized point 4 in your post.

The feelings will pass in time and your DM did what he thought was best for the game as a whole. Running a game at high-op is difficult and not every DM is up to it. Yours had the good sense to recognize he wasn't up to it and was up-front about it. He did the right thing. Have you considered optimizing a non- or partial caster instead of going full CoDzilla?


The solution to that is simple : just don't put so much effort into optimizing your character. Maybe go with a thematic build instead.

Oh, I've done that before. I've played with this group for 5 years or so. My favorite character is a Daredevil Dervish, optimized to get as many attacks as possible, and to look as cool as possible while doing it. Thing is, I still seem to optimize those thematic builds more than most of the group, for reasons I will explain later.

As for not putting as much effort in, that's a bit of a problem. I love nearly every aspect of RPGs, from the character building, to the acting, to the storytelling, to DMing, etc. And I love to put all I have into every aspect. I truly enjoy digging through books, looking up forum threads, and figuring out how to stat my character so that they will be as effective as possible at what they should be. If I simply don't put as much effort in, it's taking a large amount of my enjoyment out of the game. The advice that sovin_ndore is good, I think, and I have already started that. Namely, I've been looking for alternative ways to use my persist. Right now, I've settled on persisting Death Ward, since it's thematic for a necromancer, and I'm pretty sure my DM doesn't really like insta-gibs anyway.


While I can understand the DM's attitude, how he shut you down was rather rude. If nothing else, he should have been polite about it instead of invoking the DM Gavel of Shutting the Players Up.

I thought that this may be part of it, as I stated in Reason #2, and I honestly would have preferred he stop at "I just don't wanna deal with it". But he did state that, so he's totally justified. Besides, the DMs a good friend, so I know him well enough to know when he doesn't mean offense. (Although, immediately being told "No you're not" after I state my plan of action is a bit of a pet peeve of mine. Likely due to the next quote!)


You feel entitled because you come from an (internet) culture of entitlement where everything revolves around being as "effective" as possible in-game and that is the main presented form of enjoyment. Which makes sense in some ways, as the other ways to get enjoyment out of a game are subjective, but being as competitive as possible is a universal animal instinct.

Basically, you've been taught that making as powerful a character as you like is both your right and the main way to enjoy an RPG. That's the internet for you.

This is pretty likely. See, I've learned most of my RPG know-how from these very boards, in combination with all of the handbooks out there. After broadening my horizons a bit, I've found that, while I still agree with the overall sentiment of these boards, there are other boards out there with a much less "player-centric" fanbase. So I admit that I sometimes have trouble looking at it from a DM perspective.

That being said, I've DMd pretty extensively in my time, for this group and others. I've tried to stick to my philosophies and principles when I DO DM, so that I'm not hypocritical. This includes letting players optimize to their heart's content, allowing players to do over-the-top, crazy things at higher levels with or without magic, and simply accounting for the rules of the game when creating my world and thinking about the consequences of the world. What I'm trying to say is that I am not incapable of seeing it from the DMs side.

What I think I struggle with is merging my gaming philosophies (DM, player, or both) with the philosophies of other DMs. For example, I don't really think challenge is necessarily important, as long as the story that is being told is interesting. Indeed, if I steamroll a few encounters, I actually end up rather satisfied, because it means my character has enough influence in the world to really make a difference, and he isn't just another small fish in a big pond. As a DM, I typically don't level encounters along with the party, so if it makes sense for a bunch of kobolds to be slaughtered by the level 15 party, I'll just let them do it. No need to run it, even. That does mean that they are spending time on small fry, when they can tackle much bigger problems, though.

Moving on...


In response to some of the more extreme suggestions that have been made in this thread, I think this is a good point to revisit the Stormwind Fallacy (http://community.wizards.com/content/forum-topic/2861636). (Which consequentially should probably be saved from the WotC forums so that it can be referenced in such discussions.) Essentially, the fallacy makes a solid argument that Optimization and Roleplaying need not be exclusive or at the expense of one another. Powergaming is not the enemy here.

Optimization is normal, 'Powergaming' is not a symptom that needs cured. Even gaming groups that steer away from lots of splat books and which try to avoid power creep are always going to be populated by players asking questions about 'What's best for this character concept?' and making build decisions based on what they determine as the answer. I would definitely not get down on yourself for putting effort into the number-crunching, mechanical details of your character.

Meeting a DM's concept of 'reasonable optimization' can sometimes be a touchy subject. I have played with groups where acquiring more than 1d6 sneak attack per 2 levels (though items, PrCs, etc) was considered 'powergaming' and not allowed while VoP Polymorph wizards with Shivering Touch was par-for-course. Usually, extreme or disjointed concepts of game balance come from problems remembered from some bad gaming experience in past games. This could be the result of hugely incongruitous optimization between different members of the gaming group (often including the DM), but is actually usually more the result of the story being disrupted by how that optimization is used in game. One shotting a BBEG is much more disruptive than bringing up something off your character sheet in a time of need to keep the DM from having to pull out their own Deus Ex Machina. I would not overly concern yourself with trying to start an argument to beat sense into the DM if your concept of power level differs, but trying to work out what is allowed upfront can give you something to work with for optimization purposes and can let you know how to build in reserve functionality to allow you to play superhero when necessary.

What I would suggest is to consider whether your current optimization focus is adding to the game. Think about if it will end up overshadowing other characters or if it will make your group dynamic operate better. And consider keeping some of your strongest powers on reserve until absolutely needed. X/day abilities or nova-mage philosophy that keeps you on the sidelines till absolutely necessary is a wonderful way to remain a satisfying contributor without being decried as 'broken'.

Regarding this particular point, I wouldn't sweat the DMs proclivity for banhammering one thing or another. It is why you are the 'conscientious power gamer'. Take pride in that self-given title and take the rejection as an opportunity to hit the books again to find something else fun and interesting to do. If you do aggressively optimize, you probably enjoy the pouring through sourcebooks and building your own new combos, now you get to do that again and reimagine what you want your character doing with their actions. Keep it healthy and think about the game and the party dynamic.

I appreciate getting both sides in the conversation. I still don't really believe that I need to stop optimizing (although maybe I need to talk with my group to readjust my optimization level). And it's not like my character is just a statblock. He's the Blackbird, the Necromancer that thinks of his undead as his children, the person who doesn't understand why people are so disturbed by undead. I could go on for a long time about his personality, his viewpoints, his adventures. But that would be digressing more from the topic than I am comfortable with.

Touching back on the thematic thing, I do optimize for thematic builds. It just so happens that I still optimize those thematic builds to be... on the powerful side. And, to be honest, I like it that way. I'll be elaborating on that in my response to Segev.


I cannot speak for the OP, but I know that my own powergaming tendencies stem from an enjoyment of winning.

This isn't "be better than the other PCs." This isn't "do everything without a challenge." But it does mean that I like being effective as often as possible, and that the more often I am ineffective, the less I enjoy a game. So I, personally, powergame to ensure that I am able to contribute as often as possible, and that I am failing to accomplish anything at all as little as possible.

From that perspective, it's understandable to want to always be immune to spells of 4th level or lower; it removes a lot of potential to be rendered useless.

Of course, the DM also wants to be able to challenge you, and so if he has to stop using spells of 4th level or lower, it only ramps up the lethality of the game he has to play to make it anything but, in his mind, a cakewalk. Which is why he asked you not to do that.

It's worth noting that he didn't ban globe of invulnerability. You can still use it. You just have to be a little cautious about when you apply it.

I am a very competitive individual. That being said, I like to think (and I've been told) that while I'm competitive, I'm not a jerk about it. I try to win, but if I do I don't gloat or insult the losers. And if I lose, I congratulate the winner, and move on.

"Winning" in an RPG, though, isn't my goal. Rather, it is to try to ensure that my character has agency. One of the biggest reasons I play RPGs is because I can actually influence the story. In my mind, the more power and abilities my character has, the more potential I have to influence the story. And I feel I'm not alone. I often read about people being disappointed in their fighter, for example, who simply doesn't have the ability to solve problems without hitting something. They can't resist magic, or they can't circumvent environmental obstacles, or they can't convince an important noble to change their mind. By optimizing, I feel that I am increasing my ability to try to change the course of the story. And, as a paraphrase of a post I've read before, "You can't roleplay when you're dead". By making myself more durable, I try to ensure that my character lives on to continue his story as part of the larger plot.


Yes, it is. Powergaming is the enemy in this situation. This has nothing to do with the quality of the RP at all, and everything to do with the DM and possibly other players being uncomfortable with the power level/optimization level of the OP.
Actually, it is possible to overpower the entire team. A mundane character can still be built in a way that breaks the game in combat. Not being able to challenge the party because the Beatstick kills Dragons and Tarrasques as easily as he kills Kobolds is also a problem for DMs and groups who prefer the flow of combat to be a gradual ablation of hitpoints on both sides, as opposed to a string of special tactics/spells that end in a nuke.

I can see where you're coming from. And yes, trying to optimize to the level that I was turned out to be problematic. And yeah, as I alluded to earlier, no matter what kind of character I play, I typically end up significantly stronger than the party. Even if I played a Truenamer, for goodness sake, I'd probably end up playing that build that lets you succeed on check to the point where you're a relatively effective caster anyway. I suppose it's just because nobody in my groups are nearly as obsessive about RPGs as I am. :p I admit that I am sometimes frustrated by that. I'd love to play in a game where everyone has the same ideas about contingency plans or power level that I do, but alas. RPG players are a diverse group.



I warned you guys I needed therapy. :p Lorsa, I'm planning on making a whole other post to reply to you, as I feel such a thorough reply deserves the same in kind.

[GPuzzle]

I've had to deal with those problems myself. I'm a heavy optimizer, really. I like thematic builds and strong builds and off-the-wall builds.

Frankly, the solution I found was switching my playstyle's philosophy. There is an interesting quote by Alexander the Great that explains more or less how I see the game and how I play it to fit my own performance: "I am not afraid of an army of lions lead by a sheep. I am afraid of army of sheep lead by a lion." Simply put, you can optimize your character to your heart's desire. But be a support fellow. You make others look good. You don't overshadow others. You can still have agency - hell, applying those buffs to you once in a while can save their skins in a pinch.

Essentially, if you optimize around raising everyone's level, it suddenly looks much better from a DM viewpoint. Because now no one really overshadows anyone.

[Magic Myrmidon]

Hello Magic Myrmidon!

I always found the practice of powergaming to be fascinating for a number of reasons, but more on that later!

Well, I find RPGs and pretty much everything surrounding them to be fascinating, so I'm glad we're on the same page!



What do you mean when you say "conscientious power gamer"? If all you are doing is giving people heads up, then that does not seem all that conscientious to me. So this is one of the things I would like you to explain better.

Asking for permission and not going for the things the DM (or other players) says no to would indeed be very conscientious, and if that is the case, is it the actual no you are upset about or the way in which is what said. Those are two different things.

Yes, I admit that I did not phrase that in the most effective way that I could. I think I said it that way because I hadn't ever been told not to do something like that before, so I didn't expect any disapproval of the idea.

As for "conscientious power gamer", by that I mean that I do indeed try to take the other people at the table into account when I build my characters. In the past, I've actually stopped everybody before they left after a game to ask if my character was too ridiculous, or if people would prefer if I toned it back. Every time I tried to start that conversation, I've been told that it was fine, or that they appreciate having someone to get them out of tough situations. Well, nearly every time. There was this one time that another, unrelated group started a discussion of my archer's use of a flying carpet. We ended up switching game systems from Pathfinder to Savage Worlds to ensure that the rules matched the lower level of Fantasy that the rest of the group was shooting for. Although, I'm still way more powerful in that system, anyway. >_> Hm.

I also do try to draw lines of unreasonable optimization (despite the evidence to the contrary). For example, which the aforementioned Daredevil Dervish, I COULD have taken a set of weapon properties and feats to give myself another attack whenever I get a crit. While I have a 15-20 crit. And about 16 attacks in a round. Or 32 in a round (only once per day, though). I decided that that was getting a bit too ridiculous, when I can get enough attacks to kill entire armies of dragons in one round. And, of course, I've never made Pun-Pun, or an Ubercharger, or the like

The point is, I try to stop every once in a while, and discuss the topic with the other players, and the DM. I try to be open to any communication, whether it's a suggestion to tone it down, to reserve some of my tricks, or whatever. And I listen when people bring it up. The thing is, people typically don't start or maintain those conversations without prompting. But I thiiiink I've been open to the conversation, since I AM refraining from persisting the spell when I'm asked.


This seems like an expectation you have on the game; that putting in effort should be rewarded. Did you communicate this expectation with your group before the game started? Is it something you agreed upon?

Not exactly. The DM and I have been playing together for quite a while, and I kinda just felt we were on the same page regarding rules and such. That being said, I do know that he prefers low levels, precisely because these problems are avoided at low levels, and he doesn't really like characters being too powerful. So there's that.


Also, you need to see this from the DMs perspective. The DM, usually, wants to create a fun, thrilling, moderately challenging game, where the dangers are of such magnitude as to get your heart pumping. By squeezing as much potential as you can out of your character, you are effectively making this job much harder for the DM, who then has to put in even more time and effort to find things that would challenge you.

So what you feel as something that should be "rewarded", a DM might see as something that simply would increase their own workload.

As I said above, I have DMd a while. But my views on RPGs, including DMing, are a little strange. I don't necessarily worry about having challenge be an everpresent factor. In fact, as I level up, I really appreciate being given a few non-challenges to show how my character has learned and progressed. If I keep running into masterwork locks since I'm level 10, I haven't really become a much better rogue, have I?

However, I understand that DMs typically don't share this view. Nor do players. I expect that most other people would be bored by venturing in a cave, finding kobolds, and killing them all without any challenge. I'd argue that "well, yeah, if you want your 20th level fighter to be an exterminator, you'll be the best dang exterminator out there, and you'll help people out, sure. But you have the ability to move on to bigger problems, to help more people, and to make a bigger difference". Alas. Some players simply have no ambition. Or self-direction. :p


This is more an issue of "it's not the no, it's the way it was being said". Not everyone is a perfect communicator or relationship handler. My advice is to have a talk with your DM and say that it bothered you that there wasn't a discussion, so that you could explain matters.

However, you should also considered that you started the conversation with "I will be taking". This is a statement that does not invite for discussion. A better opener would be "what do you think about me taking". Try it next time and see if the DMs response changes!

You're totally right. I don't actually expect much more conversation with this particular group, to be honest, as I've tried to have some pretty lofty discussions with them that sort of go nowhere, but yeah, just stating "I'm doing this" is not really the best way to start a conversation. In the future, I'll probably try to be more inviting by taking your suggestion.


What conclusions did you reach and how is it relevant for this discussion? You say that you've always been of the same opinion regarding powergaming, so either your research didn't give you any conclusions about powergaming, or you did all research before you started playing. I'm sorry to be nitpicking like this, but usually if ones opinions are the conclusion of research, they should not be held before said research were conducted.

In any case, there is nothing wrong with second guessing yourself. Exploring the possibility that you might have gone overboard is a great first step to become the player you want to be (as in a conscientious powergamer).

When I say I did research, I meant that I've read this forum for 6 years, read a lot of different RPGs, looked into some of the more academic attempts to examine the medium (such as the big 3 player types theory that has sort of been discredited since its creation). To go along with all that, I have the 6 years of anecdotal experience of simply playing in 3 or so long term groups, and running for/playing in a University RPG club for 4 years, which had all sorts of different players.

So my conclusions have been formed as I've gone through my RPG career. My opinions have changed drastically as I've gone on, going from being a new, goofy player who dances on tables for no reason, to a player who simply enjoys telling fantastic stories with cool characters, to a player who enjoys all of that, plus picking apart RPGs, seeing what makes the rules tick, and trying to figure out how to best play RPGs.


In most social situations, how you react internally is irrelevant, what matters is how you behave externally. People can't hear your thoughts or see your emotions, but they can hear your words and see your actions. So you should be proud of the fact that you didn't ragequit, or accused the DM of being horrible etc etc. If what you say is true, you are dealing with your emotions in a rather good way. So don't forget that!

I appreciate that. I'd hate to ruin someone's fun with an RPG night by blowing up on someone.


What I think is that you should drop the powergaming thing entirely. In the end, it seems to be giving you more grief than joy. For your powergamer feelings to be totally happy, you need all your ideas to get okay'ed (otherwise you did the work for nothing). However, for your conscientious self to feel good, you need the permission of the DM, and a pleasant group dynamic. Those two are never going to coincide all the time, and when they don't it causes you grief. So my advice is; drop one. And preferably powergaming (I will explain why).

I'll be replying to the rest of the discussion, of course, but I definitely wanted to discuss this point individually. As I said in the preceding post, I get quite a bit of joy in building characters, looking through systems for the best way to make a concept reach its full potential. If I gave up powergaming, I'd give up one of the bigger reasons that I enjoy RPGs. I don't think it's worth giving up happiness to avoid grief, although I can understand why others would.


The first thing you need to realise, which is why powergaming as a concept is essentially useless, is that you can NEVER win vs. the DM. You are bound by rules, while the DM is not. Even if he follows all the rules with character creation for his NPCs, and only gives them WBL equipment, there is no restriction on which level they can have, or how many they can be. No matter how much you powerlevel, the DM can always, always, always, find a way to kill you.

Therefore, in a one person campaign (one player, one DM), in theory you could powergame to your hearts desire (only caring about the verisimilitude effects on your game). However, when you have a group this causes some issues.

You're completely right. If I raise my power level, most DMs will want to raise the challenge. Indeed, every DM but me would probably do that. :/ But I don't see it as a necessity. Challenge can enhance a game, especially if it's dramatically appropriate. But I want my Hero to be Heroic, and to be able to easily handle some problems that others would really struggle with.

Furthermore, as mentioned above, I don't really powergame to "win". I do it to try to increase my agency in the story. By having more effective options available to my character, I feel that I am more able to influence the story, which is one of the big reasons I play RPGs. It also allows my character to more effectively help the OTHER characters in influencing the story by reaching THEIR goals. Which leads into the next thing...


It is not true that one person powergaming always helps the group. In fact, the opposite is usually true. The DM usually wants to make the game enjoyable, and most people find some form of challenge to be more thrilling than facerolling all opposition. So, if you powergame, and the rest of the group does not, what will be a challenge for you will kill them horribly, and what is a challenge for them will die horribly by you. Therefore the group will either not have anything to do than to watch you fight, or almost die while they watch you fight.

I know that the above picture is overly simplistic, and it doesn't hold in a game where you deliberately give different characters different niches. Perhaps the rest of the group all play characters who can't fight at all, and they rely on your character to protect them. Then the challenge for you is no longer to beat the opposition, but rather to keep everyone else alive.

You should also consider how your powergaming can affect the enjoyment other people get from their characters, immersion wise. Suppose someone wants to create a "good warrior", probably they want the feeling of playing someone who is good in combat (using martial means). Good is a very inexact measurement, and for most people it simply means "better than average" or even "better than most". So maybe they do create a good warrior, but since your character is powergamed to a much higher degree, you will either make the character feel useless (since you raised the bar of what is good), or not better than average at all because the DM has to increase the level of opposition to your degree.

Again, you're right. A lot of what I've previously said applies here, but I do feel it's a bit of a sad state of affairs. I try to help the other players in making their characters as effective as possible as well, but it seems some people simply don't want to deal with all the rules minutiae that produces a really powerful character, because it's not fun for them. Which can be frustrating, because their diminished enjoyment from being less powerful can be easily solved. However, being in control of one's own character is of the utmost importance, and I'll never begrudge someone for making a subpar decision because it sounds like it'll be fitting, and they'll have the most fun with it. It's mainly frustrating when it results from blatant willful ignorance. :/ Which sounds pompous, I know, but I'm being pretty open right now.


The power of any given character is always relative to the rest of the world. So many times I've heard players say "omg, I had such an awesome character, I had X,Y,Z". That statement always bugs me, because it fails to mention how many other characters in the world also had XYZ.

Therefore, you can't actually powergame. All you can do is alter the relative scale of what constitutes good or bad in the world, usually to the detriment of the rest of the group.

You're kinda right. I kinda feel like the DM shouldn't change how the world works because the main characters are powerful, they should just push them towards the more difficult challenges, but that's a tough thing to do, and I know a lot of DMs simply don't like that style.

The more I think about this sort of thing, the more I realize a lot of it simply comes down to taste, but I still can't help but try to figure things out.

So. I probably lost a few thoughts or points along the way. But I do think this is helping. If nothing else, it's veeeerry engaging conversation.

[goto124]

... play a Buff Bard?

[Magic Myrmidon]

... play a Buff Bard?

I do. In my other group, at least. And I've played support characters before. It's fun. That being said, it's not what I'm playing in this campaign, because playing the same character over and over again gets a little dull. Yeah, yeah, you have a different personality and stuff, but filling a different role in the party can really rejuvenate excitement.

That being said, yes, optimizing for buffing is a GREAT way to powergame without really hurting anyone. Unless you miss a game, and the DM fails to account for that. :p

Besides, in my group, we already have a support cleric, a support marshal, and a support archivist, and someone needs to actually, you know, be supported. The players kinda shift every few months, except for me, the DM, and about 2 other players, who are stable.

...

We have a big group of about 8 people. Sometimes. The players fluctuate. We have a bit of an odd group.

[NichG]

I want to start with the statement that the exchange in the first post is pretty much the textbook ideal way to handle a situation like that on both sides - you recognized a potential issue, raised it, the DM didn't overreact or banhammer things, but instead just asked you not to do it, explained why when asked, and then you took that into account and acted differently.

So the main thing here is just coming to terms with how you felt about that exchange, not any particular thing that should have been done differently.

I think, in general, when you're excited about something and then find out that it's a no-go for any reason, you're going to feel disappointed about that. Even if things are handled with perfect grace on both sides, that won't change 'I thought this would have been cool, and now it won't happen'. The only thing I can really say there is that, eventually, you get better at recognizing ahead of time before you get invested in an idea whether or not the idea will fly at a given table, and so even this textbook exchange will not need to happen as frequently in the future.

Okay, so that's the direct comment.

That said, I think its interesting to discuss how one might have known that the DM would have shut this particular thing down, and why. You mention that you want to increase your agency, but actually an example like this is almost the opposite of that. You have a very defensive, passive ability - so it doesn't actually give you more options in a particular situation, it just gives your enemies fewer options. The DM is a player too, so what this sort of thing does is that you're effectively decreasing the DM's agency (to use enemies with low-level spells effectively against you).

To give a more direct analogy, the DM can always choose to run an adventure where the only enemies are oozes, plants, undead, etc - things immune to sneak attack. Or they could have an entire adventure happen in a natural dead magic zone, or have a lot of Magic Immunity-bearing golems or things with unbeatable SR. All of that can be done at appropriate CRs and even done completely naturally given the lore of the world and the premise of a campaign. But at the same time, it's generally considered to be bad form because it outright makes certain characters irrelevant.

All-day blanket immunity to a particular kind of thing potentially does the same kind of thing to the DM's repository of monsters. Generally a monster is not a very complex character, because design-wise they live for 3 rounds. But that also means they don't have as many built-in ways to adapt to gimmicks that need to be countered in a particular fashion. So the DM could rewrite the monster to give them more options to deal with gimmicks (but then it can set off an arms race, which doesn't create a good atmosphere at the table), or more likely they just have to stop using that monster.

That is to say, its like if the players realize 'oh, its going to be an undead-heavy campaign, I guess we can't play rogues this time'. It's decreasing the palette of options the DM has to produce an interesting array of encounters. So from their point of view, their agency is being threatened. Not in terms of 'what happens in the plot' because of course they still control that to a large degree, but in terms of their ability to create interesting and memorable experiences for the players.

[Magic Myrmidon]

Thanks for the direct comments. I appreciate the reassurance that the exchange was fine on both sides. I can tend to overthink things.

The point regarding agency is an excellent one that I've never really thought of before. It sort of reframes the agency to include what the DM can do. Because I mean, sure, he CAN throw some spell-likes at me, but he knows it'll be pointless, so it's basically a non-option, like the rogues in an undead game. Very good point.

I suppose it doesn't really increase my agency, per se. It doesn't actually give me new abilities, true. But it soooort of increases the available avenues of action. For example, I wouldn't really want to take on a vampire or something (not the best example, but I'm a bit rushed right now) without death ward. I wouldn't go out of my way to do it, unless there were some really extenuating circumstances. However, with Death Ward, I'd feel much more confident about my ability to fight the vampire, and make a difference in the game world by removing the threat without dying myself. Or losing the chance to effect future change by losing levels.

Maybe I'm just stretching logic in some form of mental self-defense. But a reckless, suicidal plan isn't a very good way to continue the story. Unless, of course, your character's a death seeker of some sort.

But maybe it's not worth the loss of agency on the DMs part. Freedom to act in ways you could never act in real life is one of the appeals of RPGs. Restricting that for anyone involved is a bit of a shame.

[NichG]

Thanks for the direct comments. I appreciate the reassurance that the exchange was fine on both sides. I can tend to overthink things.

The point regarding agency is an excellent one that I've never really thought of before. It sort of reframes the agency to include what the DM can do. Because I mean, sure, he CAN throw some spell-likes at me, but he knows it'll be pointless, so it's basically a non-option, like the rogues in an undead game. Very good point.

I suppose it doesn't really increase my agency, per se. It doesn't actually give me new abilities, true. But it soooort of increases the available avenues of action. For example, I wouldn't really want to take on a vampire or something (not the best example, but I'm a bit rushed right now) without death ward. I wouldn't go out of my way to do it, unless there were some really extenuating circumstances. However, with Death Ward, I'd feel much more confident about my ability to fight the vampire, and make a difference in the game world by removing the threat without dying myself. Or losing the chance to effect future change by losing levels.

Maybe I'm just stretching logic in some form of mental self-defense. But a reckless, suicidal plan isn't a very good way to continue the story. Unless, of course, your character's a death seeker of some sort.

But maybe it's not worth the loss of agency on the DMs part. Freedom to act in ways you could never act in real life is one of the appeals of RPGs. Restricting that for anyone involved is a bit of a shame.

There's also a matter of degree - how much agency do you gain, compared to how much is lost by other people (including the DM)?

If you have Death Ward as a spell, but it isn't DMM Persisted, then the vampire can still do something from the DM point of view - it forces you to spend the action and the spell slots to put up Death Ward, and maybe you can't put Death Ward on the entire party so it means that your tactics are going to be modified. It does reduce the meaningfulness of the vampire as an enemy - e.g. rather than a primary threat, the vampire is reduced to a mook - but at the same time, there is still something meaningful about it having the energy drain attack. Namely, if it didn't have the energy drain attack, you would have had to spend those actions and resources doing something else (and maybe if it catches you by surprise, the energy drain could still come into play).

But lets say the entire party has full Death Ward coverage at all times, and the cost of that is pre-paid (e.g. via feats or items). Now, if the DM chooses to use a vampire versus not using a vampire, it makes absolutely no difference to anything. You already paid whatever that initial cost was just based on the possibility that a vampire (or similar) threat might come up some time in the future, so whether the DM actually gives you such a threat or not doesn't factor into your decision. That is to say, the DM can no longer create a meaningful decision 'how do we deal with these death effect and energy drain threats?' - the question was cut off before it was asked.

In general, a DM has lots of questions they can ask, so its not like this has to shut down the game or break things. But the consequence of this is that generally, rather than ask a non-question or a question that has already been answered like 'how do you want to deal with this energy drain threat?', the DM now is going to ask a different question that hasn't yet been answered, like 'how are you guys with figuring out how to deal with a combination of very good mundane stealth and long-range in an open space?'.

So for a party using lots of blanket immunity, their apparent experience will be that no matter what they prepare for, they're always going to be dealing with the things they haven't prepared for, and that kind of sucks. A good DM will try to use illusions to soften that apparent experience. So for example they might throw in a few things like 'in this room you encounter a nest of vampires and defeat them handily, moving on...' or even things where they add in extra threat in parallel in order for it to be negated specifically to give you a cool moment ('this room is filled with a thin layer of molten lava and a bunch of balors; oh, you guys are all fire immune? Good thing, eh?'). But that is still a bit of an illusion.

When it comes to player agency, as a DM I'm much happier when that is expressed in terms of abilities that create new meaningful directions to go in, rather than abilities that render existing directions irrelevant or meaningless or just 'strictly worse'. And that's an extremely hard line to walk - a powerful offensive ability can have the consequence of making negotiation meaningless; a teleportation ability can let you go somewhere new, but it also makes the choice to travel by airship strictly worse, and so on.

So in general, this isn't a question with a binary answer of 'yes, this ability is good and that one is bad', but rather one of degree, even down to the attitudes and styles of individual players. One player might use teleportation to do all sorts of cool new things that the party just couldn't do otherwise, but another player might just use it to fast-forward over things and not have the creativity or drive to actually replace those fast-forwarded things with something else interesting for the party to do instead. For me, the more initiative the player shows to actually use agency to enrich the game, the more agency as a DM I'm willing to give up to see where they take things. Someone who wants immunity to fire because they figured out how to get it cheaply is going to create a different atmosphere at the table than someone who wants immunity to fire so that they can detonate a handful of fireseeds at point-blank range to the enemy, or because they want to seek audience with someone on the Plane of Fire. In all cases, I can't really threaten them with fire-using enemies anymore, but in the second and third case they've added something back into the game that is cooler than what they took out, so it's a good trade.

[Forum Explorer]

Honestly, I think you are just a person who enjoys powergaming, for better or worse. Powergamers can be fun to play with (or to be more honest, against), but if caught off guard it can be a problem.

For example, fighting games. There is a certain level of enjoyment that comes from learning, and mastering, the crazy combos that allow you to devastate your opponent without letting them have a chance to fight back. But if your opponent is competitive, and doesn't know your skill level beforehand? They likely won't have fun. And eventually they'll stop playing altogether (yes, this exact thing happened to me).

3.P D&D is an even more extreme version of the above situation. Players can accidentally create a poisonous gap between each other where some players are just so much better in almost every situation then others. And while some groups can handle such a gap, it can spell death for a game in others (yes, this happened to me as well. It's why I refuse to play or DM 3.P). Throw a powergamer into the mix, and even if they are trying to hold back, the balance becomes all the more precarious. And for a DM who is aware of the problem, well they'll tend to be a lot more reluctant to approve of the powergamer's builds as a result.


What this means for you is nothing good though. You'll have to get used to having your character decisions being toned down, or even denied, despite having what seems to be a pretty chill group. While 3.P may seem to be an optimizer's paradise due to the sheer variety of options, you may continue to be frustrated, or you may start to frustrate other players/DM. Or maybe not. It's certainly possible that your friends will start to optimize more with time.


However, what you may want to look into is 5th edition D&D. It's got a lot less ability to be optimized (though not none), and most importantly, it's got a higher 'floor' of optimization. It is really hard to optimize to the point where the other players are rendered irrelevant, no matter what they choose. So you get to optimize to your heart's content, and the DM doesn't need to worry about it nearly as much. (Of course, the game might not be your or your friends cup of tea anyways)

[Fri]

Also, I agree what a lot of other people said. Feelings are often irrational, what matters is how you act. For example, I have some people that I know I just irrationally dislike. I used to try to rationalize my dislike toward them, but later I realized it's just me trying to rationalize my dislike, I just dislike them, the end (I have people that I rationally dislike, for actual reason, in comparison). Realizing that my dislike is just that, irrational, and I can have that feeling inside my head about them without any logic or without me needing to physically stab them, really make my life more peaceful.

[Lorsa]

Well, I find RPGs and pretty much everything surrounding them to be fascinating, so I'm glad we're on the same page!

Well, they are fascinating, so why shouldn't we think so? :smallsmile:


I also do try to draw lines of unreasonable optimization (despite the evidence to the contrary). For example, which the aforementioned Daredevil Dervish, I COULD have taken a set of weapon properties and feats to give myself another attack whenever I get a crit. While I have a 15-20 crit. And about 16 attacks in a round. Or 32 in a round (only once per day, though). I decided that that was getting a bit too ridiculous, when I can get enough attacks to kill entire armies of dragons in one round. And, of course, I've never made Pun-Pun, or an Ubercharger, or the like

So even to you, there is a level of power optimization (really needs to be specified as optimization can be done for many purposes) which is considered rididulous. This is good, because it gives us a starting point to understand that the line where we enter into ridiculous-land can be different from individual to indicidual. Personally, I find 16 attacks in a round to already be too ridiculous (as it means one attack per 0,375 second). Some people might find 32 to be perfectly acceptable. Ideally, this line should be discussed and agreed upon within a group.


The point is, I try to stop every once in a while, and discuss the topic with the other players, and the DM. I try to be open to any communication, whether it's a suggestion to tone it down, to reserve some of my tricks, or whatever. And I listen when people bring it up. The thing is, people typically don't start or maintain those conversations without prompting. But I thiiiink I've been open to the conversation, since I AM refraining from persisting the spell when I'm asked.

Not exactly. The DM and I have been playing together for quite a while, and I kinda just felt we were on the same page regarding rules and such. That being said, I do know that he prefers low levels, precisely because these problems are avoided at low levels, and he doesn't really like characters being too powerful. So there's that.

You get to know people better the more time you spend with them. Also, people can change. Prompting your DM again to have a more thorough discussion about his yours expectations might not be a bad idea.


As I said above, I have DMd a while. But my views on RPGs, including DMing, are a little strange. I don't necessarily worry about having challenge be an everpresent factor. In fact, as I level up, I really appreciate being given a few non-challenges to show how my character has learned and progressed. If I keep running into masterwork locks since I'm level 10, I haven't really become a much better rogue, have I?

I agree with you in your basic sentiment, and usually my players will end up with obstacles or encounters that are really easy for them, although they might not have been many levels ago. It is important to let people with good (as in skill-wise, not alignment-wise) characters actually feel good. This also ties into my point about powergaming altering the scale earlier. The DM holds the ultimate power to what counts as good or bad, depending on what sort of NPCs the characters run into.


However, I understand that DMs typically don't share this view. Nor do players. I expect that most other people would be bored by venturing in a cave, finding kobolds, and killing them all without any challenge. I'd argue that "well, yeah, if you want your 20th level fighter to be an exterminator, you'll be the best dang exterminator out there, and you'll help people out, sure. But you have the ability to move on to bigger problems, to help more people, and to make a bigger difference". Alas. Some players simply have no ambition. Or self-direction. :p

As you probably know, this is an expectation thing. I merely stated how I think many DMs (and players) think, and how your powergaming might act contrary to that expectation.

I've had a player with a character whom had a constant spell immunity to dispel magic for example, and we had a very enjoyable game.


When I say I did research, I meant that I've read this forum for 6 years, read a lot of different RPGs, looked into some of the more academic attempts to examine the medium (such as the big 3 player types theory that has sort of been discredited since its creation). To go along with all that, I have the 6 years of anecdotal experience of simply playing in 3 or so long term groups, and running for/playing in a University RPG club for 4 years, which had all sorts of different players.

So my conclusions have been formed as I've gone through my RPG career. My opinions have changed drastically as I've gone on, going from being a new, goofy player who dances on tables for no reason, to a player who simply enjoys telling fantastic stories with cool characters, to a player who enjoys all of that, plus picking apart RPGs, seeing what makes the rules tick, and trying to figure out how to best play RPGs.

Ok, so the same kind of research we've all done more or less. Still interested in what specific conclusions you have drawn, any interesting thoughts?


I appreciate that. I'd hate to ruin someone's fun with an RPG night by blowing up on someone.

I wish more people thought that way. :smallcool:


I'll be replying to the rest of the discussion, of course, but I definitely wanted to discuss this point individually. As I said in the preceding post, I get quite a bit of joy in building characters, looking through systems for the best way to make a concept reach its full potential. If I gave up powergaming, I'd give up one of the bigger reasons that I enjoy RPGs. I don't think it's worth giving up happiness to avoid grief, although I can understand why others would.

As I said before, there is a difference between optimization and powergaming. So I would ask, is it the optimization you enjoy, or the powergaming specifically?

To me, power optimization never felt difficult. You just read a lot of feat/class feature tables, look through various books and the insane combinations will appear visible bright as day. Yes, I still get a sense of enjoyment seeing how you can combine various feats (that the creators probably never thought would go together), but once I've created the combination in my head, the thought experiment is usually enough. I can enjoy coming up with the optimization idea, but I don't necessarily get much joy out of playing it.

However, I can certainly appreciate if someone gets enjoyment out of it. We all like different things.

There is a different kind of optimization I enjoy a lot more, because I find it much more difficult. It's the optimization of making my character 1) enjoyable to play, 2) with skills/powers in line with the character's personality and experience, 3) thematically fitting with the group, 4) just the 'right' amout of power to be useful but not overshadowing the rest of the group. That is an algorithm much harder to solve, which is why I usually get more pleasure from it.


You're completely right. If I raise my power level, most DMs will want to raise the challenge. Indeed, every DM but me would probably do that. :/ But I don't see it as a necessity. Challenge can enhance a game, especially if it's dramatically appropriate. But I want my Hero to be Heroic, and to be able to easily handle some problems that others would really struggle with.

I think most people want their Hero to be Heroic. My point was that you as a player can't really control that. The feeling of heroism is dependent upon the challenge level the DM gives to you. The basic D&D player character ALREADY easily handles problems others would really struggle with. So no matter how much you powergame, it is ultimately pointless, as the powerscale lies in the DM's hands. You can run a level 1 Bard and feel awesome with the right DMing.

I've had GMs (now being general as it was not in D&D) who said "this time, you can play rather powerful characters, you get some extra exp at creation", only to have almost every NPC we meet be EVEN MORE powerful. So in the end we weren't actually powerful characters, we were still newbies, he had just set a different-than-normal powerscale. Many people seem not to understand this point, which I find confusing.


Furthermore, as mentioned above, I don't really powergame to "win". I do it to try to increase my agency in the story. By having more effective options available to my character, I feel that I am more able to influence the story, which is one of the big reasons I play RPGs. It also allows my character to more effectively help the OTHER characters in influencing the story by reaching THEIR goals. Which leads into the next thing...

There is a point to be made that higher powerlevel allows for a larger number of problems to be solveable, thus increasing the potential number of stories. However, I don't really think powergaming affects agency all that much. All player agency is in the hands of the DM after all. You will only ever have so much (or so little) as they allows.

I won't go into the "getting immunity doesn't increase options" or "you are limiting the DMs agency" discussion. Those were some very good points, which I hadn't considered myself.


Again, you're right. A lot of what I've previously said applies here, but I do feel it's a bit of a sad state of affairs. I try to help the other players in making their characters as effective as possible as well, but it seems some people simply don't want to deal with all the rules minutiae that produces a really powerful character, because it's not fun for them. Which can be frustrating, because their diminished enjoyment from being less powerful can be easily solved. However, being in control of one's own character is of the utmost importance, and I'll never begrudge someone for making a subpar decision because it sounds like it'll be fitting, and they'll have the most fun with it. It's mainly frustrating when it results from blatant willful ignorance. :/ Which sounds pompous, I know, but I'm being pretty open right now.

Finding a group of people that enjoys the same things you do is very important I think. There are those where powergaming is the focus, perhaps you'd be more comfortable in one of those?


You're kinda right. I kinda feel like the DM shouldn't change how the world works because the main characters are powerful, they should just push them towards the more difficult challenges, but that's a tough thing to do, and I know a lot of DMs simply don't like that style.

I agree with you that the DM shouldn't change how the world works because the main characters are powerful. But you need also to consider that a high level of powergaming might ALSO change how the world works, in that the DM (and/or other players) didn't envision a world where such characters exist. This is again about relative power scale. You, the DM, and the rest of the group needs to agree upon the range of power, what is bad, medium, good and extreme. Having players that continously go outside of the extreme can be infuriating as a DM.


The more I think about this sort of thing, the more I realize a lot of it simply comes down to taste, but I still can't help but try to figure things out.

So. I probably lost a few thoughts or points along the way. But I do think this is helping. If nothing else, it's veeeerry engaging conversation.

Most things in RPGs are a matter of taste. I'm glad you like the conversation at least!

[Psyren]

OP: As I've seen suggested a couple of times in the thread, a good way to scratch your optimization itch is to focus on powering up everyone else at the table with awesome buffs. That old saw about a good wizard being like a good bassist definitely applies.


Yeah, basically what I meant was I didn't see that interaction as rude in the slightest, and this sentence and the one above it have the same level of politeness for me.

Agreed.

[Magic Myrmidon]

.

Well, there is still some expenditure of resources, it's just not very intense. The class I'm playing only gives me 3+CHA turn attempts per day, and we haven't really found any night sticks. I also don't plan to take Extra Turning. So not only does it take a spell slot, but it also prevents me from any rebuke attempts all day. Also, I only have enough turn attempts to power one Persist, and I don't currently have high enough spell slots otherwise.

However, I see your point regarding no need for action expenditure and such. The resource expenditure is far less meaningful than action expenditure, and it tends to make monsters with unique abilities much more generic.

I like the idea of a trade off. Losing one thing, but adding new possibilities. And most defensive spells don't really do that. Well, maybe they do. You can wade into the TRAPPED HALLS OF EVERSTAB if you, say, always have DR 20 or something, when previously, you'd need a pretty well trained rogue, which not every group has. Very interesting thought to consider. Maybe it'll help in the future, when I'm trying to add new abilities.

Brief tangent: I still wonder about this a little, though. Many, many DMs I've played with have a deep hatred of spells such as Clairvoyance, prying eyes, and such, because it lets you effectively scout out an entire dungeon. I feel that that adds new possibilities, as it can almost make a dungeon more of a stealth infiltration rather than a smash and grab, but DMs are always disappointed when I use it. I've had a few situations where my spell simply didn't work, and it was pretty blatant that they just... didn't want it to work. No real discussion in that circumstance. While the idea you've proposed is likely to be useful in many situations, it's probably not universal.


...

I think you're right. I do love me some fighting games. Been in numerous tournaments even. Sadly, you're also right regarding the way that I'll probably continue to be frustrated, in this group and future groups. Alas, having a passion can really be a bummer sometimes. :p

I actually think my DM would love 5th edition. It seems to be more in line with his expectations, the optimization floors and ceilings are much better, it's easy to run. But, sadly, just as with many of us, he doesn't really like change. He's been playing 3.5 even longer than I have, and he pretty much knows the rules like the back of his hand. As I know, there can be a lot of growing pains moving on from 3.5. I don't think he's tried it yet, but maybe someday I can persuade him to give it a shot.


...

That's one of the takeaways I'm having from this topic, and it is pretty comforting, I admit. I just wanted to try to give my emotions the attention they needed so they didn't get worse with no intervention.


So even to you, there is a level of power optimization (really needs to be specified as optimization can be done for many purposes) which is considered rididulous. This is good, because it gives us a starting point to understand that the line where we enter into ridiculous-land can be different from individual to indicidual. Personally, I find 16 attacks in a round to already be too ridiculous (as it means one attack per 0,375 second). Some people might find 32 to be perfectly acceptable. Ideally, this line should be discussed and agreed upon within a group.

Yes, the level of acceptable optimization definitely differs between individuals. I admit, it can be grating to have to hold myself back, but I can still enjoy the game, and it makes the game significantly better for others when I do so.

Not really the point, I know, but I did just remember that the 16 attacks was once a day, and 8 attacks was the norm. Sure, I could move between them and all, and I had cleave, but the base was 8. I would like to point out that, while the game says it's 8 attacks (and I prefer to think of them that way), you could easily consider it to be one attack, or for both of my character's weapons to be swung at the same time, which is basically 4 attacks.

Also, my character is level 17, which is pretty well past the point of typical mortals. But again, I know that even THAT is an expectation that differs from individual to individual. Some people want high level fighters to be demigods who can create canyons with a swing of their sword (like me), and there are others who picture level 20 fighters to be Aragorn.

To be honest, I am kind of getting tired of DnD, precisely because my expectations rarely align with the expectations of others. It's a pretty uniquely DnD problem. Probably because it's such a well-known game, everyone tries to bend it to their goals. Meanwhile, if people get together to play, say, Exalted, everyone knows that characters should be massively powerful. Similarly, a game of Call of Cthulhu puts everyone on the same page of powerless characters against god-beings. Typically. But I digress.


You get to know people better the more time you spend with them. Also, people can change. Prompting your DM again to have a more thorough discussion about his yours expectations might not be a bad idea.

I agree. I should try bringing up 5th edition, or at least try to figure out what level of stuff he's comfortable with.




I agree with you in your basic sentiment, and usually my players will end up with obstacles or encounters that are really easy for them, although they might not have been many levels ago. It is important to let people with good (as in skill-wise, not alignment-wise) characters actually feel good. This also ties into my point about powergaming altering the scale earlier. The DM holds the ultimate power to what counts as good or bad, depending on what sort of NPCs the characters run into.



As you probably know, this is an expectation thing. I merely stated how I think many DMs (and players) think, and how your powergaming might act contrary to that expectation.

I've had a player with a character whom had a constant spell immunity to dispel magic for example, and we had a very enjoyable game.

Agreed on all counts. Although I may be a 18th level character, if I never interact with anyone below level 22, it's a little meaningless. And I know, my views can be a little player-centric, which is different from many other players or DMs. But as I was thinking about all of this, I did kind of come to the conclusion that I'm pretty player-centric whether I'm DM, or a player. As a player, I obviously try to figure out how to make my character interesting, what they're thinking, how I'd like their story to go. As a DM, though, I'm still pretty player-centric. I like to try to make the story revolve around their backstories, try to encourage the characters to be unique, and I love letting characters do cool, over the top things. At least, appropriate to the level. Lower levels are more or less mortal, albeit heroic mortal, but once you get double digits and higher, I really let all the inhibitors go. Wanna try climbing up the grains of sand in a desert storm? Have a +40, rolled a 10? Sounds good to me.

However, since I like to give my players so much agency, and so many capabilities, I also expect a lot out of them. When I DM, I really like to run a relatively sandbox game. Sure, I make the setting, put in plot hooks and such, but I expect the players to try to set their own goals. Restore ancient empires, overthrow corrupt governments, change the laws of nature, whatever. I just want them to DO something with all that I let them have.



[/QUOTE]Ok, so the same kind of research we've all done more or less. Still interested in what specific conclusions you have drawn, any interesting thoughts? [/QUOTE]

Yeah, I mean, my experience is hardly better or worse than others' experience, but it seems everyone comes to different conclusions regardless.

I'm not entirely sure what relevant thoughts to post here. I have an awful lot. My poor girlfriend loves RPGs, and still gets tired with how I tend to go on and on about them. I mean, some of my thoughts I've sprinkled throughout responses.

Maybe the aforementioned realization of player-centric thought processes counts?




I wish more people thought that way. :smallcool:

Me too.




As I said before, there is a difference between optimization and powergaming. So I would ask, is it the optimization you enjoy, or the powergaming specifically?

To me, power optimization never felt difficult. You just read a lot of feat/class feature tables, look through various books and the insane combinations will appear visible bright as day. Yes, I still get a sense of enjoyment seeing how you can combine various feats (that the creators probably never thought would go together), but once I've created the combination in my head, the thought experiment is usually enough. I can enjoy coming up with the optimization idea, but I don't necessarily get much joy out of playing it.

However, I can certainly appreciate if someone gets enjoyment out of it. We all like different things.

Hm... both, I guess. I can have some difficulty disentangling the two. In my experience, people often use the terms "optimize", "powergame", and "munchkin" used interchangeably, and it seems to be looked upon with some measure of disdain by those who don't participate in any.

As an example, I get SUPER excited whenever I have a reason to make a character. A new campaign, a one-shot, a PvP thing, whatever. But I need to have a reason. I've tried building characters for the sake of building characters, but it just feels hollow. I won't be able to give the character life, and it feels like I'm wasting inspiration. I'm no writer, and I'm terrible at art, so the only way I can really show off my work to other people is to play the character. Or show them the sheet. But we all know how uninteresting it can be when somebody walks up to and says "Let me tell you about how I got 300d6 sneak attack through this not-so-obscure feat chain!


There is a different kind of optimization I enjoy a lot more, because I find it much more difficult. It's the optimization of making my character 1) enjoyable to play, 2) with skills/powers in line with the character's personality and experience, 3) thematically fitting with the group, 4) just the 'right' amout of power to be useful but not overshadowing the rest of the group. That is an algorithm much harder to solve, which is why I usually get more pleasure from it.

I think I generally follow this process as well. However, for 1, I really enjoy playing powerful characters that I've put a lot of time, thought, and effort into. Mechanically and storywise. For 2, I do try to find niches that have been left unfilled in the party. I then make that niche as filled as heroically possible. For 3, I definitely find it important to try to make a character that will fit into the story that's being told. I think the only problem comes in at 4, because I have trouble pinpointing the point at which I will be perfectly in line with the group. Or I find the point, and convince myself that everything will be fine if I make myself stronger than that. Part of this is because nobody but me does a session 0, because we always want to come to the game with characters premade, and jump right into the game. The pregame conversations are really lacking in most of my groups. I hardly get the chance.




I think most people want their Hero to be Heroic. My point was that you as a player can't really control that. The feeling of heroism is dependent upon the challenge level the DM gives to you. The basic D&D player character ALREADY easily handles problems others would really struggle with. So no matter how much you powergame, it is ultimately pointless, as the powerscale lies in the DM's hands. You can run a level 1 Bard and feel awesome with the right DMing.

I've had GMs (now being general as it was not in D&D) who said "this time, you can play rather powerful characters, you get some extra exp at creation", only to have almost every NPC we meet be EVEN MORE powerful. So in the end we weren't actually powerful characters, we were still newbies, he had just set a different-than-normal powerscale. Many people seem not to understand this point, which I find confusing.

I'd be frustrated by that situation. Not sure if you were or not. But it feels kinda dishonest to have any progression at all if you never move on to bigger things, and have a clear increase in capability. Maybe that's my real source of frustration, the Bethesda problem of scaling the entire world along with the player character. I'm okay with the tradeoffs of running into things way above my paygrade if it means I can work towards reaching their level, and running across things that simply aren't a problem anymore.

Hm... then again, I also believe that being low level doesn't mean that all of your adventures have to be "street-level", so to speak... yet another contradiction in my viewpoints that I'm going to have to resolve.

Which is just another taste-based problem, I guess.


There is a point to be made that higher powerlevel allows for a larger number of problems to be solveable, thus increasing the potential number of stories. However, I don't really think powergaming affects agency all that much. All player agency is in the hands of the DM after all. You will only ever have so much (or so little) as they allows.

I won't go into the "getting immunity doesn't increase options" or "you are limiting the DMs agency" discussion. Those were some very good points, which I hadn't considered myself.

A bit GM dependent, I suppose. I have two groups right now. In one group, the DM pretty much lets all of my abilities work, although he does occasionally seem flabbergasted at what I pull out of my bag of tricks. Then again, he's running Kingmaker, so he has other monsters and such to fall back on. That, and the DM in that group is .... very VERY good DM. So I actually DO feel like my agency is increased as I get new spells, class features, etc. My other group's DM tends to do the whole "level along with you" thing. Which strains verisimilitude, and causes me some cognitive dissonance. But he's still a really good DM, and I like the plots he tends to put together, so it's worth it.


Finding a group of people that enjoys the same things you do is very important I think. There are those where powergaming is the focus, perhaps you'd be more comfortable in one of those?

It is important. It's hard to find other groups, though, especially "perfect" ones. I am sort of blowing this all out of proportion. I still enjoy the game where this whole thing came from, and I typically don't feel any real restraint. It's just that I'd like to learn from the incident, become a better, well-rounded player, and move on.


I agree with you that the DM shouldn't change how the world works because the main characters are powerful. But you need also to consider that a high level of powergaming might ALSO change how the world works, in that the DM (and/or other players) didn't envision a world where such characters exist. This is again about relative power scale. You, the DM, and the rest of the group needs to agree upon the range of power, what is bad, medium, good and extreme. Having players that continously go outside of the extreme can be infuriating as a DM.

Hm. Well, maybe I can bring up another of my quirky game beliefs, then. When I play D&D, at least, I kinda feel like I should be able to overcome any problem, as long as I put enough effort into it. Dragons, gods, kings, armies, whatever. I'm okay if it's difficult. I'm okay if it's borderline impossible. But if I play my character from level 1 to level 30 (or whatever), and I really set my character's mind to overthrowing Nerull, and removing the god of death from the pantheon, I kinda feel like I should be able to do it. I don't really mind if that ends the campaign, or maybe we stop with those characters at that point, or whatever. But making a difference in the world is one of my goals with every character I make.

Also, consequences are TOTALLY expected. Even if I know it's a terrible idea OUT of character to have no god of death, my character doesn't. And if killing the god of death causes terrible overpopulation, famine, etc, then, well, it adds a new problem for my character to solve, doesn't impinge on agency, and still creates a cool story.

On the other hand, if I go up to Nerull at level 2, and I just solve the problem, I feel like I haven't earned it, it doesn't make sense, and that the world just bends to what's metagame convenient. Yet another (semi)contradiction! :D




Most things in RPGs are a matter of taste. I'm glad you like the conversation at least!

I certainly do.

[NichG]

Well, there is still some expenditure of resources, it's just not very intense. The class I'm playing only gives me 3+CHA turn attempts per day, and we haven't really found any night sticks. I also don't plan to take Extra Turning. So not only does it take a spell slot, but it also prevents me from any rebuke attempts all day. Also, I only have enough turn attempts to power one Persist, and I don't currently have high enough spell slots otherwise.

However, I see your point regarding no need for action expenditure and such. The resource expenditure is far less meaningful than action expenditure, and it tends to make monsters with unique abilities much more generic.

I like the idea of a trade off. Losing one thing, but adding new possibilities. And most defensive spells don't really do that. Well, maybe they do. You can wade into the TRAPPED HALLS OF EVERSTAB if you, say, always have DR 20 or something, when previously, you'd need a pretty well trained rogue, which not every group has. Very interesting thought to consider. Maybe it'll help in the future, when I'm trying to add new abilities.

Brief tangent: I still wonder about this a little, though. Many, many DMs I've played with have a deep hatred of spells such as Clairvoyance, prying eyes, and such, because it lets you effectively scout out an entire dungeon. I feel that that adds new possibilities, as it can almost make a dungeon more of a stealth infiltration rather than a smash and grab, but DMs are always disappointed when I use it. I've had a few situations where my spell simply didn't work, and it was pretty blatant that they just... didn't want it to work. No real discussion in that circumstance. While the idea you've proposed is likely to be useful in many situations, it's probably not universal.


For me, information gathering spells walk a fine line. Some information gathering spells have limitations which make them interesting, whereas others are just too broad as written and so have a tendency to reduce entire segments of game into 'cast the usual spells'. For example, if you absolutely need a personal possession of a target to scry on them (as opposed to D&D style where the personal possession just providing a bonus to the save DC, when you can just keep casting scry over downtime until they roll a 1), it creates plot as much as it bypasses plot - 'I want to use Scry to solve this, but to do so we need to steal a possession of theirs first'. So it basically just transforms one segment of gameplay from one type into another, without really reducing things.

I think Clairvoyance and Prying Eyes are completely fine. I'm not so happy about Divination, Contact Other Plane, Commune, and Find the Path, because they allow for a sort of armchair information gathering where you don't have to have any contact whatsoever with the thing you're investigating, so it shuts down adventuring in favor of preparing lists of questions. If Contact Other Plane wasn't 'powerful outsiders generally know everything, here's a random chance' but actually put you in contact with a specific outsider, with (whatever their) specific knowledge was, and made it so you could bargain with or cajole them for their knowledge, that'd be more interesting - now, you've replaced investigation with figuring out the correct outsiders to contact and maintaining a working relationship with them or cutting a deal. The point being, it adds interesting options and gameplay in proportion to what it removed.

In my games, figuring out what's going on is a large component of the gameplay (maybe 50-60%). If you consider the sorts of activities that arise because of a need to figure out things, it could be larger (why even bother going to this location to investigate if you can just Contact Other Plane and get deities to just tell you?). So if you can replace that information gathering with a one-shot spell, either I have to replace that 50% of the gameplay that just went missing, or the PCs have to replace it.

It's true that it allows you to do things you couldn't have done before, but this is what I meant about it even being player-specific. Will you use it to just make all information-gathering challenges obsolete, or will you use it to add more to the game than you took away? Are there really so many places the party is afraid of going because of traps that being able to ignore traps will create more opportunities than it removes, or is it really that even if you didn't have the trap immunity the party would still have gone there, but they would have had to come up with a more clever and complicated plan to deal with the traps, and now that section of gameplay is just being cut out?

It also depends a lot on how good the players are at providing stuff for themselves to do. If the players are all scheming against each-other and hatching their own plans, then it doesn't matter what gets cut out because they're all generating the momentum for the game. If they just made all my content irrelevant, thats fine, because I can just sit back and watch them do whatever and adjudicate when needed. But if the group stalls out without an external push or pull, abilities that take more than they give are a severe problem, because the players are simultaneously asking me to fill time and removing my ability to do it effectively.

[goto124]

Many, many DMs I've played with have a deep hatred of spells such as Clairvoyance, prying eyes, and such, because it lets you effectively scout out an entire dungeon. I feel that that adds new possibilities, as it can almost make a dungeon more of a stealth infiltration rather than a smash and grab, but DMs are always disappointed when I use it.

I'll bring in a quote from these very forums:


I apologise for this, but I do not plan these dungeons out and so, once again, PC1's scanning is useless. I know the layout of upstairs- four three-room apartments, with a large living space, a bedroom and a bathroom- but I don't know specifics of furniture nor inhabitants yet.

I don't know how the scrying spells work though.


Part of this is because nobody but me does a session 0, because we always want to come to the game with characters premade, and jump right into the game. The pregame conversations are really lacking in most of my groups. I hardly get the chance.

What the...? I think think explains a lot...

[CombatBunny]

You should talk to the DM and tell him something like this:

I just wanted to tell you that I’m sorry for what I tried to do with my character. At first I felt angry for not being able to use my knowledge of the game to give my character more chances of survival, but as I spoke with other people at a RPG forum I realized that not every DM has what it takes to handle the rules included in the core manual.

It takes a real DM to have a good grip of the system and adapt to situations of this nature and it also takes years of DM skills perfecting, which not everyone is willing to spend. I’m sorry because I was being unfair by giving you such a challenging task that now I realize is beyond your capabilities, at least for now.

I humbly accept your conditions and will try to adapt to whatever little or null understanding you have of the rules; Even if you haven’t ever read the rules, I’m okay with that as well, in any case the books have very funny and inspiring drawings that summarize everything you need to know.

===

Grrr! You can send this message to your DM from me.

And tell him that he has lost the right to say “The life of your character is in your hands”, as it’s obvious that he is taking away that control from the players.

[Aetol]

And tell him that he has lost the right to say “The life of your character is in your hands”, as it’s obvious that he is taking away that control from the players.

I don't think it's fair to tell it like that. The players also have a social contract to respect, and it includes not making the other characters irrelevant through powergaming.

[Lorsa]

Yes, the level of acceptable optimization definitely differs between individuals. I admit, it can be grating to have to hold myself back, but I can still enjoy the game, and it makes the game significantly better for others when I do so.

Not really the point, I know, but I did just remember that the 16 attacks was once a day, and 8 attacks was the norm. Sure, I could move between them and all, and I had cleave, but the base was 8. I would like to point out that, while the game says it's 8 attacks (and I prefer to think of them that way), you could easily consider it to be one attack, or for both of my character's weapons to be swung at the same time, which is basically 4 attacks.

Also, my character is level 17, which is pretty well past the point of typical mortals. But again, I know that even THAT is an expectation that differs from individual to individual. Some people want high level fighters to be demigods who can create canyons with a swing of their sword (like me), and there are others who picture level 20 fighters to be Aragorn.

8 attacks seem perfectly normal for any dual-wield linear BAB progression D&D class at lvl 16+. So nothing extraordinary there. Having some special ability that doubles them once per day is just one of those magical powers that exist in D&D. Would it also double Haste attacks, so you could get 18+potential Cleave? That's an annoying amount of dice to roll. :smalltongue:


To be honest, I am kind of getting tired of DnD, precisely because my expectations rarely align with the expectations of others. It's a pretty uniquely DnD problem. Probably because it's such a well-known game, everyone tries to bend it to their goals. Meanwhile, if people get together to play, say, Exalted, everyone knows that characters should be massively powerful. Similarly, a game of Call of Cthulhu puts everyone on the same page of powerless characters against god-beings. Typically. But I digress.

Yes. D&D is made to be a very "generic fantasy" RPG, with its target player base being basically "everyone". Thus, you can't really use your own expectations of the game, you need to discuss it with the group (especially the DM). Some games, as you said, are much better at describing the expected power level. D&D does not really, and even if one could extrapolate based on the rules, most people will still go with their own expectations of "generic fantasy".

So it's less of a problem with that everyone tries to bend it to their goals, and more a problem that D&D tries to bend itself to fit everyone's goals.


Agreed on all counts. Although I may be a 18th level character, if I never interact with anyone below level 22, it's a little meaningless. And I know, my views can be a little player-centric, which is different from many other players or DMs. But as I was thinking about all of this, I did kind of come to the conclusion that I'm pretty player-centric whether I'm DM, or a player. As a player, I obviously try to figure out how to make my character interesting, what they're thinking, how I'd like their story to go. As a DM, though, I'm still pretty player-centric. I like to try to make the story revolve around their backstories, try to encourage the characters to be unique, and I love letting characters do cool, over the top things. At least, appropriate to the level. Lower levels are more or less mortal, albeit heroic mortal, but once you get double digits and higher, I really let all the inhibitors go. Wanna try climbing up the grains of sand in a desert storm? Have a +40, rolled a 10? Sounds good to me.

However, since I like to give my players so much agency, and so many capabilities, I also expect a lot out of them. When I DM, I really like to run a relatively sandbox game. Sure, I make the setting, put in plot hooks and such, but I expect the players to try to set their own goals. Restore ancient empires, overthrow corrupt governments, change the laws of nature, whatever. I just want them to DO something with all that I let them have.

I also try to let the characters do cool things (within reason and somewhat rules dependent), and generally give them very high agency. However, I won't be upset if they don't change the laws of nature. Most players will want to make a difference, one way or another, but I should not fault them for wanting a lower power game.


Yeah, I mean, my experience is hardly better or worse than others' experience, but it seems everyone comes to different conclusions regardless.

That's the problem with inductive reasoning. :smallsmile:


I'm not entirely sure what relevant thoughts to post here. I have an awful lot. My poor girlfriend loves RPGs, and still gets tired with how I tend to go on and on about them. I mean, some of my thoughts I've sprinkled throughout responses.

Maybe the aforementioned realization of player-centric thought processes counts?

I also feel the players should be the focus of the game. So at least in the general, we are in agreement there.


Hm... both, I guess. I can have some difficulty disentangling the two. In my experience, people often use the terms "optimize", "powergame", and "munchkin" used interchangeably, and it seems to be looked upon with some measure of disdain by those who don't participate in any.

People use many terms wrong.

Granted, I am a physicist, so my idea of "optimization" is that it's always done towards a specific purpose. There is nothing intrinsically that says this purpose has to be to increase power, which is what I feel powergaming is. I know a few powergamers who are horrible optimizers, and sometimes after years of playing come up with ideas like "omg! look at this awesome combo I just found!", and I'm like "uh, yeah, I saw that the first time I read the rule book, I just decided it wasn't fitting for this campaign". So I like to make a distinction between "powergaming" and "optimization".

Munchkins are a whole other matter. I'm not sure what they are exactly, but again I'm sure it's different to strict powergaming.


As an example, I get SUPER excited whenever I have a reason to make a character. A new campaign, a one-shot, a PvP thing, whatever. But I need to have a reason. I've tried building characters for the sake of building characters, but it just feels hollow. I won't be able to give the character life, and it feels like I'm wasting inspiration. I'm no writer, and I'm terrible at art, so the only way I can really show off my work to other people is to play the character. Or show them the sheet. But we all know how uninteresting it can be when somebody walks up to and says "Let me tell you about how I got 300d6 sneak attack through this not-so-obscure feat chain!

You are right. Building characters on paper just for building them isn't the same as making a character you will play. But I still find it enough to know how I could optimize a character, if I wanted to. Somehow, having figure it out in my head is enough, I don't actually have to do it.


I think I generally follow this process as well. However, for 1, I really enjoy playing powerful characters that I've put a lot of time, thought, and effort into. Mechanically and storywise. For 2, I do try to find niches that have been left unfilled in the party. I then make that niche as filled as heroically possible. For 3, I definitely find it important to try to make a character that will fit into the story that's being told. I think the only problem comes in at 4, because I have trouble pinpointing the point at which I will be perfectly in line with the group. Or I find the point, and convince myself that everything will be fine if I make myself stronger than that. Part of this is because nobody but me does a session 0, because we always want to come to the game with characters premade, and jump right into the game. The pregame conversations are really lacking in most of my groups. I hardly get the chance.

My anecdotal experience have made me form the theory that a pregame conversation, or "session 0" as you call it, really increases the chance of long term success of a campaign, and happiness of the group. To my knowledge, this claim has not yet been falsified. Could be that this is the source of your problem.


I'd be frustrated by that situation. Not sure if you were or not. But it feels kinda dishonest to have any progression at all if you never move on to bigger things, and have a clear increase in capability. Maybe that's my real source of frustration, the Bethesda problem of scaling the entire world along with the player character. I'm okay with the tradeoffs of running into things way above my paygrade if it means I can work towards reaching their level, and running across things that simply aren't a problem anymore.

Yes, it was really frustrating. It felt like certain expectations were set "you will be powerful", but not fulfilled (the rest of the world was even more powerful).

I agree that the Bethesda problem has no place in a RPG. Whatever higher level challenges the players run into, they should've been there to begin with, and hopefully avoided by the non-suicidal players.


Hm... then again, I also believe that being low level doesn't mean that all of your adventures have to be "street-level", so to speak... yet another contradiction in my viewpoints that I'm going to have to resolve.

There is nothing strange with that sentiment. I agree with you. While you shouldn't go out of your way to kill your PCs, or have them be jumped by a group of lvl 8 evil thugs at lvl 1 because "verisimilitude", the world should be the world. Let the characters interact with it, both the powerful and the lowly.


Which is just another taste-based problem, I guess.

Taste-based difference makes up for a majority of the RPG problems I find.


Hm. Well, maybe I can bring up another of my quirky game beliefs, then. When I play D&D, at least, I kinda feel like I should be able to overcome any problem, as long as I put enough effort into it. Dragons, gods, kings, armies, whatever. I'm okay if it's difficult. I'm okay if it's borderline impossible. But if I play my character from level 1 to level 30 (or whatever), and I really set my character's mind to overthrowing Nerull, and removing the god of death from the pantheon, I kinda feel like I should be able to do it. I don't really mind if that ends the campaign, or maybe we stop with those characters at that point, or whatever. But making a difference in the world is one of my goals with every character I make.

Also, consequences are TOTALLY expected. Even if I know it's a terrible idea OUT of character to have no god of death, my character doesn't. And if killing the god of death causes terrible overpopulation, famine, etc, then, well, it adds a new problem for my character to solve, doesn't impinge on agency, and still creates a cool story.

I wouldn't assume to be able to overcome any problem, but again it depends on the game. This is why you label yourself "powergamer", and as your topic title so accurately stated, isn't something you should feel entitled to. It's your expectation, now you have to work it out with the rest of the group to see if you can agree on something.


On the other hand, if I go up to Nerull at level 2, and I just solve the problem, I feel like I haven't earned it, it doesn't make sense, and that the world just bends to what's metagame convenient. Yet another (semi)contradiction! :D

No contradiction at all. You enjoy the feeling of hard work being rewarded with great accomplishment. If no effort is needed, it could hardly be a great accomplishment, could it?

[Berenger]

You should talk to the DM and tell him something like this:

-snip-

Yeah, that will totally not go horribly wrong.

[Fri]

You should talk to the DM and tell him something like this:

I just wanted to tell you that I’m sorry for what I tried to do with my character. At first I felt angry for not being able to use my knowledge of the game to give my character more chances of survival, but as I spoke with other people at a RPG forum I realized that not every DM has what it takes to handle the rules included in the core manual.

It takes a real DM to have a good grip of the system and adapt to situations of this nature and it also takes years of DM skills perfecting, which not everyone is willing to spend. I’m sorry because I was being unfair by giving you such a challenging task that now I realize is beyond your capabilities, at least for now.

I humbly accept your conditions and will try to adapt to whatever little or null understanding you have of the rules; Even if you haven’t ever read the rules, I’m okay with that as well, in any case the books have very funny and inspiring drawings that summarize everything you need to know.

===

Grrr! You can send this message to your DM from me.

And tell him that he has lost the right to say “The life of your character is in your hands”, as it’s obvious that he is taking away that control from the players.

What, did a GM killed your cat once?

[CombatBunny]

What, did a GM killed your cat once?

Ha ha ha... No, I'm not that grumpy. Is just that I didn't like at all that arrogant way the GM responded to this fellow gamer.

I like to be very friendly, but when someone gets cocky my combat mode automatically turns on.

[Deophaun]

I feel compelled to mention this, as no one else seems to have (sorry, I only skimmed)


An immobile, faintly shimmering magical sphere surrounds you and excludes all spell effects of 3rd level or lower.

Really, all the DM had to do to defeat your Persisted lesser globe of invulnerability was require you to move more than ten feet away from where you cast it. I would have thanked you for wasting your turn attempts, a fourth level spell slot, and, if this was a habit, a feat choice. Your DM isn't being mean. He saved your character's resources from you. :smallbiggrin:

[Hawkstar]

Ha ha ha... No, I'm not that grumpy. Is just that I didn't like at all that arrogant way the GM responded to this fellow gamer.

I like to be very friendly, but when someone gets cocky my combat mode automatically turns on.

Then I take it you don't have many friends?

"I'm gonna DO THE THING!"
"... No you won't."

is a very common dialogue.

[Boci]

I feel compelled to mention this, as no one else seems to have (sorry, I only skimmed)



Really, all the DM had to do to defeat your Persisted lesser globe of invulnerability was require you to move more than ten feet away from where you cast it. I would have thanked you for wasting your turn attempts, a fourth level spell slot, and, if this was a habit, a feat choice. Your DM isn't being mean. He saved your character's resources from you. :smallbiggrin:

Interesting. Given the rest of the spell, it seems that one word wasn't intended to apply, but direct word beats implication I guess. Nope, that was actually how the spell was intended to be used. Weird, I would have expected slightly more emphasis on the whole, it does not move thing, but its there.


Then I take it you don't have many friends?

"I'm gonna DO THE THING!"
"... No you won't."

is a very common dialogue.

For a child yes. For a friend you say "Please don't". Big difference.

[Deophaun]

Interesting. Given the rest of the spell, it seems that one word wasn't intended to apply, but direct word beats implication I guess.

It's more than one word (although it's nice that it is right there in the second word in the description):


You can leave and return to the globe without penalty.

If the globe wasn't immobile, but followed the caster, how would the above be possible?

[Boci]

Beat you to it with my edit. I still feel it could have been formatted better, but the meaning is clear now.

[CombatBunny]

Then I take it you don't have many friends?

"I'm gonna DO THE THING!"
"... No you won't."

is a very common dialogue.

Yeah, you can take it as that if that gives you some sense of accomplishment :-3

What other lightning-bolt fast conclusions can you take from what I've said? You got me interested.

[Lorsa]

Ha ha ha... No, I'm not that grumpy. Is just that I didn't like at all that arrogant way the GM responded to this fellow gamer.

I like to be very friendly, but when someone gets cocky my combat mode automatically turns on.

As I pointed out previously, the reply from the DM most likely follows from the statement by the OP. There was arrogance coming both ways.

If Magic Myrmidon takes my advice of starting the conversation with a question, and the DM still reponds in a similar fashion, then I believe there is cause for outrage.

[Fri]

Yeah, you can take it as that if that gives you some sense of accomplishment :-3

What other lightning-bolt fast conclusions can you take from what I've said? You got me interested.

Well, since you're asking, you're a passive agressive person, and you would fit very well with GitP crowds?

But we're diverting the topic now :smalltongue:

Anyway, if you're into optimizing, another thing you can do is of course help your group optimize. I'm not very good at maths (and reading comprehension) for example, so I often ask my more system inclined friend, "hey, if I want to make this concept, what stuff and stuff should I take? Is this stuff good or actually a trap?" etc.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Yeah, you can take it as that if that gives you some sense of accomplishment :-3

What other lightning-bolt fast conclusions can you take from what I've said? You got me interested.

I feel inexplicably compelled to point out the irony of someone making a snap judgement about the OP's DM complaining about another making a similar snap judgement about them.

[NichG]

As I pointed out previously, the reply from the DM most likely follows from the statement by the OP. There was arrogance coming both ways.

If Magic Myrmidon takes my advice of starting the conversation with a question, and the DM still reponds in a similar fashion, then I believe there is cause for outrage.

I really don't get the perception that somehow this conversation was full of arrogance, or could be cause for outrage, or anything like that. This is pretty much crystal clear textbook communication - potential conflict was foreseen, raised, confirmed as a real worry, reasons explained, and an understanding was reached on both sides, even if it was a bit of an uncomfortable one.

Just because two people don't perfectly agree and feel perfectly great about it afterwards doesn't mean that the best way to discuss what happened is to make it about 'so which of them was wrong?'.

[Hawkstar]

Yeah, you can take it as that if that gives you some sense of accomplishment :-3

What other lightning-bolt fast conclusions can you take from what I've said? You got me interested.It mostly came out wrong, but it does imply a lack of close interpersonal experience.



For a child yes. For a friend you say "Please don't". Big difference.
"Please don't" is for acquaintances. Friends don't need to pull ego-punches around friends, because they know each other well enough to roll with them, and get payback later.

[Nerd-o-rama]

Just because two people don't perfectly agree and feel perfectly great about it afterwards doesn't mean that the best way to discuss what happened is to make it about 'so which of them was wrong?'.

But this is the internet. How can we have any discussion without a winner and a loser?

(Another facet of my assessment of internet culture from earlier: every damn thing is a fight to the death between Right and Wrong.)

[sovin_ndore]

But this is the internet. How can we have any discussion without a winner and a loser?

(Another facet of my assessment of internet culture from earlier: every damn thing is a fight to the death between Right and Wrong.)
And on that note: I dibs winner!

[Boci]

"Please don't" is for acquaintances. Friends don't need to pull ego-punches around friends, because they know each other well enough to roll with them, and get payback later.

I don't think that's always true. The fact is "Please don't" won't bother a friend but "No you won't" may. I don't use the latter with my friends, and I probably wouldn't respond well if they did. Please feel free to analyse me as well based on that.

[Pex]

Powergaming is not inherently a bad thing, but it has potential to break the tolerance level of the DM dealing with that power. Persistent Spell is something that can cause headaches. Some spells that are very nice to have for a combat can be an unfun nuisance when it's on all the time. It's a nice idea on paper but in practice potentially game breaking.

Offer a compromise with the DM. Change Persistent Spell to Quicken Spell. The DM will have less of a headache to deal with your power. Your character will have almost the same effect as you would get with Persistent because it's only a swift action to put up your buff spell. What you lose in overall power not having many buff spells active all game day you gain in versatility since you have no restriction on what spells you can Quicken.

[chainer1216]

I'm gonna sum up the thread so far here: You put thought into your build, you should feel SHAAAAAAAAAAME!!!

power gaming generally comes from one of two places, someone looking for a power fantasy kind of experience, and as I find much more common, a fear of failure and burdening your playmates. Failure is not fun, it can be dramatic, but not fun. Dying to a random kobald because your dice aren't rolling well isn't fun, forcing your friends to spend their time and resources healing you because of forces not entirely out of your control, is not fun, the guilt from slowing things down, of being a burden to your friends, both in game and at the table, can be surprisingly powerful for just a game.

But as with all things there are lines that shouldn't be crossed, you took an "I win" button, and in doing so made yourself a burden both in game and at the table.

[Deophaun]

But as with all things there are lines that shouldn't be crossed, you took an "I win" button, and in doing so made yourself a burden both in game and at the table.

There was no "I win" button. The button actually said "Irwin," but he misread it.

[Nerd-o-rama]

I'm gonna sum up the thread so far here: You put thought into your build, you should feel SHAAAAAAAAAAME!!!

Don't forget the strawman arguments that were played out in 2008!

[ClockShock]

I don't think that's always true. The fact is "Please don't" won't bother a friend but "No you won't" may. I don't use the latter with my friends, and I probably wouldn't respond well if they did. Please feel free to analyse me as well based on that.

Could it be that different people have slightly different relationships with their respective friends!?!
How will we judge the minutiae of their verbal exchanges if we need to know context as well!?!
Surely every single person in the world weighs up every possible response to a situation and selects the one that most accurately portrays their very character to such an extent that two dozen random people on the internet can interpret them correctly. I know I do!

Were I in the DM's situation, the biggest factor determining whether I said "Please don't", or "No you won't" would be the length of time since my last cup of coffee. My intent would be no different in either case.

[Boci]

Could it be that different people have slightly different relationships with their respective friends!?!
How will we judge the minutiae of their verbal exchanges if we need to know context as well!?!
Surely every single person in the world weighs up every possible response to a situation and selects the one that most accurately portrays their very character to such an extent that two dozen random people on the internet can interpret them correctly. I know I do!

Quite possibly yes. And as such, we cannot rule out the DMs tone and choice of words contributing to the OPs problem.

[CombatBunny]

I agree =)

But the OP also said "I need some forum therapy" and he said "I'd like to discuss it (or at least have other people discuss it for me)", and I believe that’s what we are doing. The first thing that occurred to me to help him (as I'm no therapist), was to give him a cathartic moment and rant to the GM all the things that I would think if I was the one feeling offended or unfairly treated.

I don’t have the heart to tell him “Nah, we need more context to give you therapy, seek someone else”. So I'll just imagine his GM is the worst villain to ever have walked the earth.

[Hanuman]

Communicate with your DM more, if you are think you are powergaming simply ask.

"Can I be immune to spells? No? Ok."
"This is kinda what I was going for though, how can my CONCEPT be worked in? What limitations does it need to become balanced at my level in this setting?"

So, focus on balance and/or narrative and your inner powergamer will be silenced eventually, unless you deny other people's points of view that is.

[oxybe]

Am I the only one here who saw "character leveled to 10" and went "this is the area of play where level 5-6 spells come into effect, right?"

At that point in the game spells of level 3 and under are generally kept as buff or utility by casters worth their salt or used to chip off HP by way of level 5 wizard mooks.

at level 10-11 you do not use your standard action to directly effect someone with a level 3 or under spell unless it's a really creative use or insanely powerful spell.

It's kinda like the fighter class: a lot of feats looks awesome on paper, but unless you align your stars right it's actually kinda underwhelming.

[Raimun]

What even is powergaming? Going outside of the expected level of power? Isn't that kind of the shtick of most main characters in works of fiction that feature lots of fighting? Wouldn't you ever want to play the best damn swordsman of the land, heavily armored cyborg policeman or the master of psychokinesis and telepathy? Why settle for mediocore heroic abilities (an oxymoron) all around when you could achieve the peak in something specific and awesome? In the end, all tricks and techniques have a counter or even several, even if it is: "Don't play "the game" your opponent has mastered." Everyone has a weak point or several and no one can do everything.

In this case, all Persisted Globe of Invulnerability would accomplish is wasting the Standard Action of one bad guy per fight. That's assuming they don't start with spells of level 4 or above, use supernatural abilities, bash w/Power Attack or use any of the other attacks that aren't spells of level 3 or below.

It's all a big game of "Rock-Paper-Scissors", expect there's more hand gestures than three. Sometimes situations arise where one side can't win because they pick Scissors every time they go against Rock. And sometimes Rock counters nothing it goes against. I expect this to happen, because as I see this, it's kind of like in many works of fiction. Of course, the random chance plays always some part and when you meet your equal (or close enough) it plays a bigger part.

... Of course, if you design a character with the sole purpose of never losing the giant game of "Rock-Paper-Scissors", you're just a freakin' munchkin.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I feel compelled to mention this, as no one else seems to have (sorry, I only skimmed)



Really, all the DM had to do to defeat your Persisted lesser globe of invulnerability was require you to move more than ten feet away from where you cast it. I would have thanked you for wasting your turn attempts, a fourth level spell slot, and, if this was a habit, a feat choice. Your DM isn't being mean. He saved your character's resources from you. :smallbiggrin:

That would work if it weren't an emenation centered on the caster.


Burst, Emanation, or Spread
Most spells that affect an area function as a burst, an emanation, or a spread. In each case, you select the spell’s point of origin and measure its effect from that point.

A burst spell affects whatever it catches in its area, even including creatures that you can’t see. It can’t affect creatures with total cover from its point of origin (in other words, its effects don’t extend around corners). The default shape for a burst effect is a sphere, but some burst spells are specifically described as cone-shaped. A burst’s area defines how far from the point of origin the spell’s effect extends.

An emanation spell functions like a burst spell, except that the effect continues to radiate from the point of origin for the duration of the spell. Most emanations are cones or spheres.

Since an emanation radiates from the point of origin each round and the point of origin is the caster, there's a window of vulnearability if he moves out of the sphere during his turn but at the beginning of his next turn, he'll be right in the center of the AoE again.

[Deophaun]

That would work if it weren't an emenation centered on the caster.

That would be true if the table trumped the text. But, as text trumps table, the sphere is immobile. If it moved to be on top of the caster each round, that would make it mobile, which would make the text wrong.

Also, if it was true that "in each case, you select the spell's point of origin," then you must concede that the spell's table is wrong anyway, because it doesn't let you choose where the point of origin is.

[Kelb_Panthera]

That would be true if the table trumped the text. But, as text trumps table, the sphere is immobile. If it moved to be on top of the caster each round, that would make it mobile, which would make the text wrong.

Also, if it was true that "in each case, you select the spell's point of origin," then you must concede that the spell's table is wrong anyway, because it doesn't let you choose where the point of origin is.

Specific trumps general, the table in the spell description is more specific than the general rules regarding emanations. The sphere being immobile does not conflict with the general emanation rules because the sphere is not moving. Its point of origin is moving and it is emanating from a different location each time the caster moves. Because of this he is vulnerable during the period between leaving the sphere and it emanating from him just before the beginning of his next turn.

[Deophaun]

Its point of origin is moving and it is emanating from a different location each time the caster moves.
You aren't over level 20 and you need an epic level knife to split a hair that fine.

[Kelb_Panthera]

You aren't over level 20 and you need an epic level knife to split a hair that fine.

Bah, such rules semantics and hair-splitting are par for the course in the 3.5 subforum, nevermind places like BG or the minmax boards. Besides, you don't have to be epic to buy an epic knife, it'll just put a real hurt on your WBL. :smalltongue:

[Lorsa]

I really don't get the perception that somehow this conversation was full of arrogance, or could be cause for outrage, or anything like that. This is pretty much crystal clear textbook communication - potential conflict was foreseen, raised, confirmed as a real worry, reasons explained, and an understanding was reached on both sides, even if it was a bit of an uncomfortable one.

Just because two people don't perfectly agree and feel perfectly great about it afterwards doesn't mean that the best way to discuss what happened is to make it about 'so which of them was wrong?'.

You are right. But as someone started attacking the DM for being arrogant, I just wanted to point out that juding by that, both sides can be seen as arrogant.

Even if they communication was crystal clear, I believe it could be done in a way that would involve less hurt feelings.

[Magic Myrmidon]

I feel compelled to mention this, as no one else seems to have (sorry, I only skimmed)



Really, all the DM had to do to defeat your Persisted lesser globe of invulnerability was require you to move more than ten feet away from where you cast it. I would have thanked you for wasting your turn attempts, a fourth level spell slot, and, if this was a habit, a feat choice. Your DM isn't being mean. He saved your character's resources from you. :smallbiggrin:

Haaaah. This is fantastic. Actually makes me feel a heck of a lot better about the situation, because I shouldn't actually be able to do it, even if the DM allowed it. Funny, huh? As far as the emanation description vs. specific spell, I'm not really sure which I'd fall on, but it seems like both sides have some good evidence.


On the whole phrasing of the conflict, I think both of us could have done a little better, but I don't feel either of us were particularly rude.


Thanks to my fellow powergamers who are coming in to defend the philosophy. :p I haven't quite been turned against it, myself, but it has given me more tools and ideas with which I can "powergame responsibly".


About the whole level 10 thing, that's one of the reasons I though it might be an ok thing to do. It's basically an insurance against stuff like fireballs. But hey, there it is.


8 attacks seem perfectly normal for any dual-wield linear BAB progression D&D class at lvl 16+. So nothing extraordinary there. Having some special ability that doubles them once per day is just one of those magical powers that exist in D&D. Would it also double Haste attacks, so you could get 18+potential Cleave? That's an annoying amount of dice to roll. :smalltongue:

I'm not sure. I'm pretty sure it would. I love me some fast, lots-of-attacks characters, though.




Yes. D&D is made to be a very "generic fantasy" RPG, with its target player base being basically "everyone". Thus, you can't really use your own expectations of the game, you need to discuss it with the group (especially the DM). Some games, as you said, are much better at describing the expected power level. D&D does not really, and even if one could extrapolate based on the rules, most people will still go with their own expectations of "generic fantasy".

So it's less of a problem with that everyone tries to bend it to their goals, and more a problem that D&D tries to bend itself to fit everyone's goals.

That seems about right. I'm glad both of my groups are at least open to trying other games. Bit of a shame that we always come back to DnD, though.


I also try to let the characters do cool things (within reason and somewhat rules dependent), and generally give them very high agency. However, I won't be upset if they don't change the laws of nature. Most players will want to make a difference, one way or another, but I should not fault them for wanting a lower power game.

Sure, if a player doesn't want to have big plans, that's fine. Player agency is a big deal after all, even if they use that agency to... well... ignore that. But my DM style is typically pretty dependent on player plans/backstories/other such things, so it can slow the game down when no one has anything. Perhaps I'm engaging in hyperbole, though.






People use many terms wrong.

Granted, I am a physicist, so my idea of "optimization" is that it's always done towards a specific purpose. There is nothing intrinsically that says this purpose has to be to increase power, which is what I feel powergaming is. I know a few powergamers who are horrible optimizers, and sometimes after years of playing come up with ideas like "omg! look at this awesome combo I just found!", and I'm like "uh, yeah, I saw that the first time I read the rule book, I just decided it wasn't fitting for this campaign". So I like to make a distinction between "powergaming" and "optimization".

Munchkins are a whole other matter. I'm not sure what they are exactly, but again I'm sure it's different to strict powergaming.

Shame there isn't really an official dictionary for RPGs. Shame there's kind of a lack of academic study in general. Outside of forum topics like this, of course.


My anecdotal experience have made me form the theory that a pregame conversation, or "session 0" as you call it, really increases the chance of long term success of a campaign, and happiness of the group. To my knowledge, this claim has not yet been falsified. Could be that this is the source of your problem.

Our group is... far from organized. Sadly. We're lucky when we have a stable group of players, let alone a plan before playing.




Also, sorry for lateness of response. Also, sorry for lack of thoroughness of response. Homework and such, you know?


Edit: I had a conversation with my group. Seems everyone's okay with my power level. Apparently, they're happy that I'm really strong, since about 4 members of the party are relatively "useless in combat". Their words, not mine. They're hardly useless. Most of them.

[Deophaun]

Haaaah. This is fantastic. Actually makes me feel a heck of a lot better about the situation, because I shouldn't actually be able to do it, even if the DM allowed it.
But, to assuage your powergaming needs, I give you Otiluke's suppressing field (Complete Mage). It's basically what you want if you're worried about the occasional Evocation spell. Nice duration, too.

[Quertus]

I fully understand the desire to optimize characters - that's part of the fun of playing. Some of my builds I never actually play (at least not in "normal" games). One of my friends probably has more fun building characters than playing characters. So I would never endorse you not pursuing your character creation goals.

IIRC, you said you tried creating characters on par with your own for other characters, and this didn't go over well? Let's flip that - how would you feel if the other players (or DM) built you a character on par with the rest of the party?

A better plan would be to build the party buff - which I believe you said you did.

You may want to try having different character creation goals. One plan (which may or may not work for you, but was a lot of fun for me) was to try to build something terrible - the worst character you can build, the best you can do with X Y or Z restrictions, (Tier 5 classes, 5 racial levels, no more than 1 level in any given class), etc. Then see what you can build, and what you can do with this build.

This touches on another point - you have this build, which can do something "broken" (persist Globe of Invulnerability), then do something lesser with it instead (persist some other spell). The most broken thing is not the most broken build, it is the good build in the hands of a good tactician. One of my favorite characters is statistically overpowering, but he is tactically inept - most players never realize that I have brought a powerhouse to the game, and as such do not get upset, because he is - tactically - a bumbling idiot. One of my other characters is statistically terrible, but, because I played him as a tactical genius, I had to "retire" him. So there are more things to potentially adjust than just how optimized of a build you create.


as a conscientious power gamer, so I say "As a heads up, I'm going to be taking globe of invulnerability and I'll persist it".


DM: *Sigh* "Don't get into an arms race with the DM."

Queue me losing my suspension of disbelief in a game. If the DM changes the world because of your character, the world is less believable. I personally don't like telling the DM what I am doing, so that I can experience the world "honestly". Of all the things someone can do, persisting Globe of Invulnerability seems pretty trivial. It helps almost exclusively in combat, and only against spellcasters - not even against most of the supernatural effects monsters can create. Unless this is "mage war" campaign, it isn't even terribly powerful - situational at best, and prevents your healer from using 1st-3rd level healing spells on you.

[Lorsa]

Queue me losing my suspension of disbelief in a game. If the DM changes the world because of your character, the world is less believable. I personally don't like telling the DM what I am doing, so that I can experience the world "honestly". Of all the things someone can do, persisting Globe of Invulnerability seems pretty trivial. It helps almost exclusively in combat, and only against spellcasters - not even against most of the supernatural effects monsters can create. Unless this is "mage war" campaign, it isn't even terribly powerful - situational at best, and prevents your healer from using 1st-3rd level healing spells on you.

What about the reverse then? When a player changes the world because of their character? That is, when the DM has an idea about the world and the power capabilities of individuals, and a certain build falls outside of it?

[Milodiah]

I came here to post my sentiments rant on this type of thing from both the GM and player point of view...because I'm dealing with it a lot in one of my groups.

We've got two players who are avowedly in it for fun, we've got one of the type who's not involved unless his character is involved (kinda a pet peeve of mine, but whatever), and then...then there's the fourth guy, we'll call him I.D.

I.D. is no doubt the biggest, most unapologetic powergamer I've ever encountered. For example, he takes pride in the fact that in either 4e or 3.5e D&D (I don't remember which) he built a party of 4 that could not only kill Empowered Orcus after going through the semi-hypothetical ultra-dungeon he was placed in by the writers, but could have a fair chance of solo-ing him in case one or more members did die in the dungeon. I've never played anything other than 2e AD&D with him, but I have a feeling it'd be terrifying, since he has a habit of designing characters that are the epitome of powergaming, including a few that get arbitrarily large damage dice numbers from abuse of various dice-rolling modification feats.

The worst part is he seems to have recently forgotten that these types of characters are, by gentleman's agreement, not to actually be played.


We play Rifts a lot.


He usually GMs, but we've begun to notice the insane power creep he's starting to throw in. The last two "boss monsters" he's thrown us up against were actual deities, each with over 1800MDC, which far more health than almost any published creature has, and ridiculous abilities like twenty-nine attacks per round (in a game where the average is four) and the ability to quarter any damage automatically just because. Given that the most powerful weapons we're packing do something along the lines of 3d6x10MD, it's just a dull, drawn-out slugfest of the worst type, since as he's begun to put so much work into his precious enemies his design of the environment and setting has atrophied. There's no using the terrain, because there really isn't any terrain. There's no finding a creative solution to avoid the fight, because he wants it to happen, mostly just so he can playtest his latest creation. They've even begun to slip in terms of logical placement - first we fought a godling on a backwater planet who was its guardian. Ok, that's fine.

Then we fight one of the hundred-handed ones of Greek mythology, who happened to be working as the foreman in a ****ing low-grade shipyard. Sure, this is Rifts, but seriously.



Even worse, I made the mistake of GMing for this group, and allowing one of these characters in as a PC. 1,450MDC, when the closest in the party is 400 and 400 is somewhat unusual for a player character. Fifty-eight feet tall gargoyle lord with magic/genetic augmentation, an extra pair of arms just to exploit Rifts' odd rules for it, etc. etc. He also offhandedly suggested as "minor optimization" to a player considering playing a Mystic Knight, "Why not make it a Mystic/Mystic Knight Demigod", and didn't see the issue with the sentence he had said.

I cannot design a "balanced" encounter for this party, because I know that anything that could endanger this thing would easily be a TPK for anybody else. And this is the real issue here, when you have one character like this and the rest are average, all it takes is an enemy designed to threaten him reallocating their fire for one round to kill anybody else there. All it takes is me dropping one mind-control ability, and he shreds the other PCs in thirty seconds. All it takes is one wrong move from him, and I have to call in a Coalition strike force the book explicitly states is a "rocks fall everyone dies" device for the average party because it's what would happen to this beast.

This is what it means to have an arms race with the GM. It's not just that it makes him do more work to "counter" you, it's also that you're pushing the line towards a TPK because the GM has to use such apocalyptic force to make it even so much as "fair" against you that the collateral damage will usually end the campaign, because nobody is alive to continue it.