PDA

View Full Version : "Power gamer" hate?



Pages : [1] 2

BreaktheStatue
2018-05-16, 07:19 AM
Disclaimer: I am relatively new to pen & paper RPGs, having played about two dozen sessions of 5E, total, in three different groups, although most of those are with my current group. That said, I invest a lot of "off-time" in the hobby, in reading theorycraft, designing characters, forum lurking, etc. (but I am not claiming to be an expert).

Also, this isn't intended to be a dig at "non-power gamers" disguised as a question, I am honestly curious if I am the only person who has observed this, and I'd like the opinions of more experienced gamers.

Definition: I understand "power gamer" or "munchkin" to mean someone that spends what others judge to be an inordinate amount of time optimizing their character, usually to maximize damage output in combat, while ignoring other aspects of the game - although I've noticed there are those who basically look down their nose at anyone who likes high damage in combat.

Background: I get enjoyment out of the process of building and optimizing characters. I like the game, and I like to make characters who are useful at at least one thing. I've played a grand total of 3 characters, but drawn-up probably close to 30 - not just rolling stats, but full character concepts, concise but comprehensive backstories - the whole nine. Maximizing damage is not my only concern, but unless I'm specifically trying to create a more dedicated support character, it is a strong consideration.

In my current game, my PC has pretty high nova damage output, by design. That said, I gave him a fleshed-out backstory, and as far as my DM and I (and the others in my group, as far as I know), are concerned, I've justified the mechanical workings of my character with a backstory that makes sense. I roleplay (with a voice and everything!), I enjoy out-of-combat, but yes, my character is effective in combat, and he hits hard.


TL/DR Questions:

1. I have noticed more than a few people who have this really strong disgust for "power gamers"...DnD Youtubers, forum people, randos I met at the LFGS...they hate power gamers. Am I the only one who notices this? What is the motivation behind this sentiment?

2. When does optimization become "power gaming?"

3. What is the alternative to "power gaming?"


Random Observation:

I think part of the reason people might choose to optimize for combat damage, rather than other aspects of the game, is that the rules for straight-up, combat damage (especially melee damage), seem to be the most consistently applied regardless of the group one joins, and the situation one finds oneself in, in game.

The first character I ever made was a gnome illusionist wizard with no damage spells; I read Treatmonk's guide, and wanted to make a slick, fun support caster. This guy was basically the "anti-Munchkin" - nothing but battlefield control, fun tricks for out of combat, and INT skills. I pre-cleared this with the DM (who I am no longer with), and he seemed cool with the idea. In practice, he second guessed everything I tried to do, (Why wouldn't the guard just go over and touch the rock/tree/illusion?), and I didn't stay with the group for long.

Nifft
2018-05-16, 08:05 AM
To me, the derogatory meaning of Power Gamer would be appropriate when one player's power fantasy interferes with the fun of the other players.

This power might be engineered using the game's rules -- that would be a power gamer using optimization.

Alternately, this power might be engineered using social pressure on the DM / other players -- that would still be a power gamer, but not necessarily optimized in any meaningful way.


The non-derogatory meaning would be that the player likes getting new powers, and likes the feeling of character growth, so ensure that level-ups happen without too much delay and that player will be happier. This meaning of Power Gamer is not problematic.

Quertus
2018-05-16, 08:05 AM
TL/DR Questions:

1. I have noticed more than a few people who have this really strong disgust for "power gamers"...DnD Youtubers, forum people, randos I met at the LFGS...they hate power gamers. Am I the only one who notices this? What is the motivation behind this sentiment?

2. When does optimization become "power gaming?"

3. What is the alternative to "power gaming?"

This is way too much human psychology for this early in the morning :smalltongue:

IMO, power gaming involves maximizing the capabilities of the character, and viewing the character as a playing piece rather than a person. I may be wrong on those terms.

D&D is a group game, not a competition. The goal isn't to make the singularly most powerful playing piece you can, and show it off to your friends / brag about it. The disgust is for those braggerts who cannot see past themselves to the larger picture, who have no empathy, no concern for the enjoyment of others. IME.

IMO, you want to create a character who is within the range of what your group enjoys. Now, mind you, I've literally played a sentient potted plant in a game beside a Thor-like deity, so the size of the range that your group finds fun can vary greatly. Needless to say, I like big... ranges. :smallwink: I think balance is overrated, and, in fact, an unrealistic component, and a detriment to fun. But some groups like Combat as Sport, strongly enforced balance - for them, a lack of balance is a detriment to fun.

So, know your group. Know what range of power levels is acceptable. And play something in that range. Play for fun.

Happily, with all the characters you've made, you've got options.


Random Observation:

I think part of the reason people might choose to optimize for combat damage, rather than other aspects of the game, is that the rules for straight-up, combat damage (especially melee damage), seem to be the most consistently applied regardless of the group one joins, and the situation one finds oneself in, in game.

The first character I ever made was a gnome illusionist wizard with no damage spells; I read Treatmonk's guide, and wanted to make a slick, fun support caster. This guy was basically the "anti-Munchkin" - nothing but battlefield control, fun tricks for out of combat, and INT skills. I pre-cleared this with the DM (who I am no longer with), and he seemed cool with the idea. In practice, he second guessed everything I tried to do, (Why wouldn't the guard just go over and touch the rock/tree/illusion?), and I didn't stay with the group for long.

I'm glad you left.

Pelle
2018-05-16, 09:06 AM
IMO, power gaming involves maximizing the capabilities of the character, and viewing the character as a playing piece rather than a person. I may be wrong on those terms.


Yeah, I think this describes my feelings on it. What I find fun about rpgs is representing the fiction and expressing the characters. When it is obvious that people don't care about that, and only the mechanics themselves, there's no point in playing a rpg. It's not wrong, but then I would rather play an actual good boardgame, which I have plenty of.

LibraryOgre
2018-05-16, 10:06 AM
IME, the big problem tends to come from tonal mismatch... when you have someone who is interested in power-gaming, but the rest of the group is not, then you have one person who tends to be WAY ahead of the power curve of everyone else. To make matters worse, you might have situations where some of the group is intentionally avoiding situations where the power-gamer's ability can be shown off... if I make an uber-combat character but the rest of the group made stealthy plotters, might uber-combat character is likely going to be sidelined a lot, since I can't necessarily contribute to the play-style the rest of the group wants.

When EVERYONE is power-gaming, you can have a ton of fun. The tonal match put everyone on the same page. It winds up playing out like the A-Team, where threats keep getting bigger but your characters get bigger to match them. If only one person is power-gaming, you wind up with either one person carrying the entire load, or with one person completely side-lined as the party participates in things that their character does extremely poorly.

Kaptin Keen
2018-05-16, 10:15 AM
TL/DR Questions:

1. I have noticed more than a few people who have this really strong disgust for "power gamers"...DnD Youtubers, forum people, randos I met at the LFGS...they hate power gamers. Am I the only one who notices this? What is the motivation behind this sentiment?

2. When does optimization become "power gaming?"

3. What is the alternative to "power gaming?"

I have no strong feelings either way - but it's indisbutable that I cannot play with power gamers, because I'm simply not the GM for it. Nor the player, but that's another matter.

1: When power gaming has been a notable trait in players - it has always been problematic. One example was a guy who wanted to play, if I remember correctly, a half-dragon warlock of some sort. But then, he'd really like to dispense with the rules for level adjustment. So in other words, what he really wanted was to build a character that got a bunch of powers and hitdice for free.

That's a somewhat extreme example, but it serves to illustrate the point: The guy was incapable of comprehending how being totally out of line with everyone else's character was a problem.

2: I make no real distinction.

3: I'd say 'playing as a group'. Or maybe 'playing your role'. But to me, it's really a GM job to make sure the group is functional as a whole. High or low optimizing is irrelevant - but everyone should be similarly optimized.

tensai_oni
2018-05-16, 10:47 AM
Power gaming isn't about optimization. It's about player attitude.

It's an attitude of playing a roleplaying game "to win". Rather than understanding that this type of gaming is built around everyone at the table working together to have a good time (and yes, this includes the GM too), you take on an actively antagonistic stance that assumes the whole thing is a challenge for you to beat. Of course what follows are attempts at amassing as much power/magic weapons/etc as possible, and optimizing your build as much as you can - but it's not because it makes sense for your character to do so or because you want to contribute in the game, but because you want to be the number one.

This also means every single decision made ingame is made from a meta perspective, with the assumption that less than optimal choices will be somehow punished. Sadly, that part is often a result of poor experience with past GMs.

On the other hand, not everyone who is optimizing their character is automatically a worse player or roleplayer, nor is a poorly optimized character automatically better. This kind of thinking is known as the Stormwind Fallacy, and people who believe in it are just as annoying as powergamers themselves.

kyoryu
2018-05-16, 11:17 AM
IME, the big problem tends to come from tonal mismatch... when you have someone who is interested in power-gaming, but the rest of the group is not, then you have one person who tends to be WAY ahead of the power curve of everyone else. To make matters worse, you might have situations where some of the group is intentionally avoiding situations where the power-gamer's ability can be shown off... if I make an uber-combat character but the rest of the group made stealthy plotters, might uber-combat character is likely going to be sidelined a lot, since I can't necessarily contribute to the play-style the rest of the group wants.

This, exactly.

The issue with "power gamers" (and, at a baser level, the disparity that some systems allow in character power) is that you end up with two choices:

1) Accept the imbalance, and that some characters are basically going to be extras.
2) Everyone power-games.

For people (like me) that don't really enjoy the optimization part of the game, this is basically being caught between two undesirable outcomes.

2D8HP
2018-05-16, 11:20 AM
When does optimization become "power gaming?.

I read the term "Powergamer" decades before I ever saw the term "optimization" in an article called

Aspects of Adventure Gaming (http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/theory/models/blacow.html)

by Glen Blacow

("Adventure Game was briefly a term used instead of "Wargame or "Role-playing game", I still like it better)

that appeared in

Different Worlds (http://www.diffworlds.com/dw_01-12.htm) magazine.


IME, the big problem tends to come from tonal mismatch... when you have someone who is interested in power-gaming, but the rest of the group is not....

This +1.

It just about "Different Strokes".

I think of myself as a bit of a power game, and a bit of a story teller, I'm just bad at both.

I sometimes see a rules mechanic that looks like it may be fun so it inspires a character, but to a limit.

I won't change my "not"Robin Hood to being a "not"Dr. Strange just 'cause "power".

I've never had much trouble with playing with "optimizers" except when they hassle me about playing "sub-optimal", "Why are you playing a Rogue? You rolled an 18, you must play a Wizard"!, which was annoying, but not as much as when I've been hassled about my subpar role-playing (improvisational acting abilities), which really ticks me off even and especially when it's true.

Some of us just aren't that good at it, okay?

Pleh
2018-05-16, 11:23 AM
IME, the big problem tends to come from tonal mismatch... when you have someone who is interested in power-gaming, but the rest of the group is not, then you have one person who tends to be WAY ahead of the power curve of everyone else.

This adds that the problem can swing the other way, with a power gaming group frustrated by someone throwing all the brakes down by fluff centric characters insisting on traversing the game through role play rather than executing character abilities.

It's easy to point and label "power gamers" but less easy to see when trying to make the game match a lower level of power and competitive use of rules likewise becomes disruptive to play and selfish.

tedcahill2
2018-05-16, 11:43 AM
If I had to make a distinction between optimizers and power gamers I would say it almost comes down to the difference between people using rules as written v rules as intended.

An optimizer will use all of the rules at their disposal to create a character that's as good as possible at the thing they're optimizing.

A power gamer will do the same thing as an optimizer, but will use whatever interpretation of the rules will most benefit their goal of optimization. Instead of thinking about what makes sense they simply look for every possible loophole to maximize their character.

For example, all Dragonfire Adept class guides try to find a way to obtain a breath weapon with a cool down represented in rounds (a requirement for the very powerful metabreath feats, which are arguably not intended for PCs to begin with). Optimizers/power gamers look to take advantage of the fact that, even though the feat requires a breath weapon with a cooldown, it doesn't say you can't apply it to other breathweapons you have. So after meeting the requirement they can then add the metabreath effect to their class obtained breath weapon which has no cooldown.

Anymage
2018-05-16, 11:46 AM
One of the biggest problems is when the power gamer steps on other players toes by outshining their characters. Either in their area of competence (why be a rogue when you can have Invisibility and Knock spells?), or by forcing everything into their area of expertise (if the scene isn't a combat scene, start punching people until it becomes a combat scene). Both are things most of us have experienced in our earliest days of gaming.

From a DMing perspective such outliers can make it hard to balance group encounters, and sometimes by their being able to shove the DM's plans far outside what was reasonably prepared for. Either by teleporting to a whole other continent - the rest of the party not necessarily coming along for the ride - or else behaving like the aforementioned brawl starter.

LordEntrails
2018-05-16, 12:14 PM
A lot of good points above. I will add that a lot of "hate" is always grounded in personal experience. Maybe someone who hates "power gamers" had a bad experience with one or more. Maybe they had their character or play style derided by one.

The reverse is true as well, that their are those who "hate" those who don't optimize their characters or who always want to talk to the trolls, or worry too much about backstory and character interaction.

It's just easy to label, and attack, power gamers, optimizers, and min/maxers.

I think most gamers find over time that they go through most of the types of gamers. When I was a teen, I wanted to be the story book hero. The god-killer, super hero. When I was in my twenties I did what you do, make a hundred character concepts, min/max, and see what was possible. At other times I've played the barbarian with 8 Strength and a backstory many pages long. Now, sometimes I min/max, sometimes I play fluff, sometimes I do bizarre stuff. Now I'm happy to play a hundred different ways and a hundred different character concepts. They all have potential for fun and depending upon the group, our mood, and desires, we work out something that we can all have fun with.

Talakeal
2018-05-16, 12:24 PM
I read the term "Powergamer" decades before I ever saw the term "optimization"?

It is my understanding that power-gaming is a very old term while optimization is a much more recent one which was invented to "rebrand" the same behavior with a positive spin.

martixy
2018-05-16, 01:02 PM
Rather than looking at arbitrary lines in the sand, which everyone draws in different places(read: arguing terms/semantics), I'll just address the underlying issue.

WHY does this attitude exist?

The answer is relatively simple actually.
The attitude exists in the public/group conscious. It is tribal knowledge within the D&D/TTRPG community. It persists, because in general it allows said group to operate more efficiently. Why? Because statistically power gaming in a majority of cases is a red flag and a strong indicator of other problems on the horizon. So a general stance of "hate" results in a better result for the entire group overall. It is strongly self-reinforcing in that the bad power gamers are filthy munchkins everyone should be warned about, while the good power gamers are not power gamers, but valuable party members, that you want to have in your party for those clutch moments. Social dynamics 101.

OldTrees1
2018-05-16, 01:28 PM
Overloaded Words: Like many other areas of language, several words in our gaming vocabulary end up having many different definitions even to the same person. Which meaning is being used affects the usage of the word.

For example Munchkin is a derogatory term but the precise criticism invoked changes based on context. When I first encountered the word, on a forum, it seemed to be used to indicate someone with a powerful character. Not a week later I saw it being used, in an RPG webcomic, to indicate a player that was willing to cheat in order to get enough power to always be the most powerful. Then I encountered it being used, in a boardgame, to indicate someone willing to play against and betray their comrades in order to become the most powerful.

Power Gamer also suffers from this overloading but from a different direction. As a self describing term it maintains its definition of "Gamer" modified by the modifier "Power". However the vagueness of that modifier lead to the some drift in how people used the term. Then it got more drift when the term started to include features seen to derive from those definitions. A usage indicating "A player that seeks to have a powerful character" could gain the qualifier "And ends up causing the troubles that derive from an increasing power gap in the party".

Even optimizer has some minor overloading due to preconceptions about what is being optimized and whether the speaker agrees or disagrees with the stormwind fallacy.

Players are not Archetypes: I know this goes without saying but the terms Optimizer, Power Gamer, and Munchkin in their various usages all become archetypes but the people talking about them also draw upon their own personal experiences with actual Players. When those Players don't perfectly match the speaker's original usage of the term, then the speaker tends to amend their usage of the term rather than speak in a more verbose manner.

So what is the root of this contention?: While it can be summed up as a tonal disparity, I want to examine it further.
1) Players have preferences about how powerful they want this specific character at this specific level to be in this specific campaign. Such power is measured both relatively and objectively and those preferences can differ (Ex: Bob wants this bumbling fool to be able to wield a sword well enough to hit people effectively but for their swordplay to be a laughing stock compared to even a commoner's). Obviously these preferences tend to be ranges rather than single points. Furthermore the player will certainly have these preferences differ across different facets of the character.

Consequences: It only takes two people before it becomes possible to have mutually exclusive preferences on this matter despite having different characters. Anytime there is enough discord between these preferences you will see strain. How people react/handle this strain has a big impact on the outcome.

2) Players have many different aspects they value about the RPG they are playing. The degree to which they value each aspect can vary wildly. Importantly some of those aspects are about how the other people are the table are feeling about an aspect of the game. This is where you get both "I want player X to feel weaker than my character" and "I want my character to fit the group" despite the complete opposite tone.

So how do I see these terms: (from among their many usages)
Munchkin - A player that wants to have a more powerful character than the group but does not value the feelings of the other players or values them in a negative manner ("Help me break this DM"). As a consequence they have little reason to avoid deliberate cheating in order to reach the power they want.

Power Gamer (objective) - A player that wants a powerful character.
Power Gamer (relative) - A player that wants their character to be more powerful than I want my character to be (if I am a Player) or than I want the PCs to be (if I am the DM). Then we need to talk about that and see if there is want to increase both our enjoyment.

Optimizer (naive) - A player that wants a character that is really strong in general or really strong at X. Also sometimes called minmaxer as they are either "maximizing strengths and minimizing weaknesses" or "maximizing strengths by increasing weaknesses" (yeah I know, another overloaded word).
Optimizer (mature) - A player that wants to figure out how to use the mechanics to best express their character concept. Highly likely to end up with a strong character as a consequence of both intentional inclusion and side effects "features that were bundled with the features they wanted".

Conclusion: Sometimes strain is caused through the interplay between the mixture of negative, neutral, and positive player preferences different players have. Sometimes the strain causes someone to have negative associations against a negative or neutral player preference and even create terms to better communicate their negative associations. Those terms become overloaded with many different meanings. Some describe, in a derogatory manner, a negative player preference while others describe, in a derogatory manner, a neutral player preference that the speaker happens to have had bad experiences with.

Explicit Answers to the OP's questions: (although they are answered above)
1) Yes, I have only ever seen Munchkin used in a derogatory manner and I see Power Gamer flip between being used in derogatory and neutral manners. Optimizer is overwhelmingly used in neutral or even positive (huh?) manners but is rarely also used in a derogatory manner.

2) From the definitions I listed above the Optimizer(naive) and Power Gamer(objective) definitions are really similar. Both definitions of Optimizer I listed tend towards my definition of Power Gamer(relative) depending on how much the other players optimize their characters. Although the Optimizer(mature) is less at risk for the same level of system mastery.

3) A good alternative to Power Gamer(Objective) is Optimizer(Mature) as a side effect of the more nuanced objective you seek. However there is nothing wrong with Power Gamer(Objective) as I defined it as long as you work out any problems that might arise if the players in the group want different power levels.

Quertus
2018-05-16, 01:29 PM
IME, the big problem tends to come from tonal mismatch... when you have someone who is interested in power-gaming, but the rest of the group is not, then you have one person who tends to be WAY ahead of the power curve of everyone else. To make matters worse, you might have situations where some of the group is intentionally avoiding situations where the power-gamer's ability can be shown off... if I make an uber-combat character but the rest of the group made stealthy plotters, might uber-combat character is likely going to be sidelined a lot, since I can't necessarily contribute to the play-style the rest of the group wants.

When EVERYONE is power-gaming, you can have a ton of fun. The tonal match put everyone on the same page. It winds up playing out like the A-Team, where threats keep getting bigger but your characters get bigger to match them. If only one person is power-gaming, you wind up with either one person carrying the entire load, or with one person completely side-lined as the party participates in things that their character does extremely poorly.

While you're not wrong, I must say that balance isn't required. I've played a sentient potted plant alongside "Thor", as an extreme example. In such a scenario, where the players don't care about balance, power gaming as a derogative isn't a thing.

Also, the mostly sidelined combat powerhouse in the party of stealthy plotters sounds like a fun game, IMO, regardless of which of those I was playing. Actually, I think I've played all 4 variants of [in the majority / only] cross [combat monster / stealthy planner]... Good times. Much like Shadowrun, it kinda enforces spotlight sharing.


One example was a guy who wanted to play, if I remember correctly, a half-dragon warlock of some sort.

In what version of what system is this playable, let alone good, let alone power gaming?

RazorChain
2018-05-16, 01:47 PM
For me tinkering with characters and making them powerful has never been a problem either as a player or a game master. Character that can do ton of damage isn't going to disrupt the game as combat is just one small aspect of the game. The problem is with people who think the player is disrupting the game or the GM who can't cope with the munchkin character.

I play a lot with point buy systems so the Uber munchkin combat character often will be useless in other situations. My games are maybe 10-15% combat so who cares if the uber munchkin combat character gets to shine for a few minutes.

The most boring thing IMO is when the players always want to take optimal choices. To make drama you have to expose yourself to drama and sometimes taking sub optimal choices leads to more interesting situations.

I mean...it's not like I take optimal choices during my life :smallyuk:

denthor
2018-05-16, 01:56 PM
I have slightly different take. Power gamers/optimizers tend to want to take a me first attitude.
Then they start to complain you do not do as much as they do. So they get resentful put you over your head and actively attempt to get other players killed(by going for what they are geared for). If that fails them they then generally deride you for not knowing how to play correctly.

There is another aspect you may not have considered you as a player with knowledge of the books. Have secret knowledge your character that you control would or may not have access to. Imagine you are in the game world for real life. How would you find out about all of the fears and combinations needed to complete the chain to get yourself to be that great at doing damage.

In real life opportunity is missed all the time. Ninja'ed by razor chain. And he said it better

Kaptin Keen
2018-05-16, 02:02 PM
In what version of what system is this playable, let alone good, let alone power gaming?

I didn't say it was. But I said that he wanted to play a templated character at zero LA. I believe he wanted to play a lizardman, add the halfdragon on top, for a total of +1 HD, +4 LA, +7 natural armor ... and so on, and so forth. So, while he might not have been good at it - he was certainly greedy enough.

Rhedyn
2018-05-16, 02:10 PM
Anyone who is playing for the power fantasy and only the power fantasy is a power gamer of the kind that tends to not work well in groups.

Making mechanically decent characters is just part of caring about this hobby, it doesn't make a power gamer.

Power gamer is also used as an insult directed at who ever makes stronger characters than the one throwing the insult around. Throwing such insults tends to be a sign of insecurities or a crippling fear that the game they like isn't designed or balanced well.

kyoryu
2018-05-16, 02:29 PM
Throwing such insults tends to be a sign of insecurities or a crippling fear that the game they like isn't designed or balanced well.

I was with you until this sentence.

Some people just don't like optimizing. Having differing levels of optimization in a group essentially forces everyone to either match that level of optimization or be irrelevant.

Koo Rehtorb
2018-05-16, 02:37 PM
Games that can be broken with optimization tend to be badly designed games.

Tvtyrant
2018-05-16, 02:39 PM
The tilt about optimization is part of the inherent problem/advantage of RPGs: You have to play multiple games.

Character building is often dull, takes far more nuance then playing the character, and instead of learning a sheet you learn all of the same rulebooks as the DM.

As it is not only not fun for many players and takes a lot of time and effort, that it overshadows them in actual play can be galling. Like that guy who plays fighting games on his free time at a party, it quickly changes the tone of the game and can lead to resentment.

Florian
2018-05-16, 02:46 PM
@BreakTheStatue:

The "hate" for power games and a "RAW über alles!" attitude are closely linked. D&D/PF is a very complex and rules heavy game, which can have the unfortunate side effect that you can break it by combining the "right" stuff. Now you can basically say that the split in the community is exactly along this fault line, one side understanding finding these combinations and using them as the right thing to do, the other arguing that no-one has the right to break the game. If you want, itīs like talking about glitches in Metroid and whether you should or shouldn't use them or are entitled to use them.

The main issue is, that for a game that thrives on being "balanced", a truck-load of available options are just heavily unbalanced and you can either understand that and avoid them, or target them and use them because of that.

kyoryu
2018-05-16, 02:47 PM
The tilt about optimization is part of the inherent problem/advantage of RPGs: You have to play multiple games.

Character building is often dull, takes far more nuance then playing the character, and instead of learning a sheet you learn all of the same rulebooks as the DM.

As it is not only not fun for many players and takes a lot of time and effort, that it overshadows them in actual play can be galling. Like that guy who plays fighting games on his free time at a party, it quickly changes the tone of the game and can lead to resentment.

The issue isn't that any particular level of optimization is "bad". They're not.

The issue is when people have differing ideas about what level of optimization is appropriate for the same game. Much like other types of expectation issues, the issue is not the preference itself, but incompatibility between differing preferences.

Lord Raziere
2018-05-16, 02:53 PM
I was with you until this sentence.

Some people just don't like optimizing. Having differing levels of optimization in a group essentially forces everyone to either match that level of optimization or be irrelevant.

Agreed. when I want to play a barbarian hero who risks life and limb to protect innocent people, its kind of undercut by the next guy over being a super-powerful wizard who seeks complete immortality and proceeds to destroy the foes easily before the barbarian hero gets to do anything. Just isn't fun for me.

kyoryu
2018-05-16, 03:15 PM
Agreed. when I want to play a barbarian hero who risks life and limb to protect innocent people, its kind of undercut by the next guy over being a super-powerful wizard who seeks complete immortality and proceeds to destroy the foes easily before the barbarian hero gets to do anything. Just isn't fun for me.

And if you make the foes tough enough that they're not inst-blatted, then the barbarian can't scratch them.

I mean, I also come from decades of GURPS, where the expectation is that the GM will approve characters and keep them on an even-ish keel.

tedcahill2
2018-05-16, 03:22 PM
Games that can be broken with optimization tend to be badly designed games.

I disagree. I think D&D 3.5 is a game that had a pretty good core design, but over it's 10+ years of development the core design started to evolve and you ended up with a very swingy balance scale as a result.

Tvtyrant
2018-05-16, 03:30 PM
The issue isn't that any particular level of optimization is "bad". They're not.

The issue is when people have differing ideas about what level of optimization is appropriate for the same game. Much like other types of expectation issues, the issue is not the preference itself, but incompatibility between differing preferences.

Exactly. With RPGs, like CCGs, the issue is very much about time outside of playing spent analyzing data. To people who like analyzing data this is a feature, to those who don't it is a bug.

Koo Rehtorb
2018-05-16, 03:33 PM
I disagree. I think D&D 3.5 is a game that had a pretty good core design, but over it's 10+ years of development the core design started to evolve and you ended up with a very swingy balance scale as a result.

I mean, I consider 3.X to be the most badly designed D&D edition out there so clearly I disagree.

Florian
2018-05-16, 03:35 PM
I disagree. I think D&D 3.5 is a game that had a pretty good core design, but over it's 10+ years of development the core design started to evolve and you ended up with a very swingy balance scale as a result.

Letīs put it this way:

3E has a very good and solid core, but the design decision to reference additions only to core and disregard other additions and the synergy that can create is what's killed it.

Nifft
2018-05-16, 04:18 PM
I disagree. I think D&D 3.5 is a game that had a pretty good core design, but over it's 10+ years of development the core design started to evolve and you ended up with a very swingy balance scale as a result.

The most broken stuff in 3.5e tends to be in the PHB / DMG / MM1 -- stuff like candles of invocation, wish & gate, bindable Outsiders & Elementals with (Su) wish, Druids, Clerics, etc. so it's odd to call the core design less swingy than later stuff like Warlock, Shapeshift Druid, Warmage, etc.

Mr Beer
2018-05-16, 06:35 PM
One problem with power-gaming is that it's symptomatic of a childish approach to TTRPGs i.e. treating like them a video game that you can win by just being more powerful than everyone else in the game. Sooner or later most players realise that you're never the biggest badass in the multiverse and in fact it would be pretty boring if you were, at least in the standard D&D model of gaming. So they tend to explore other reasons why they game, and tend to end up as better gamers as a result.

kyoryu
2018-05-16, 06:45 PM
Throwing such insults tends to be a sign of insecurities or a crippling fear that the game they like isn't designed or balanced well.


One problem with power-gaming is that it's symptomatic of a childish approach to TTRPGs i.e. treating like them a video game that you can win by just being more powerful than everyone else in the game. Sooner or later most players realise that you're never the biggest badass in the multiverse and in fact it would be pretty boring if you were, at least in the standard D&D model of gaming. So they tend to explore other reasons why they game, and tend to end up as better gamers as a result.

Guys, stahp. STAHP.

JNAProductions
2018-05-16, 07:01 PM
One problem with power-gaming is that it's symptomatic of a childish approach to TTRPGs i.e. treating like them a video game that you can win by just being more powerful than everyone else in the game. Sooner or later most players realise that you're never the biggest badass in the multiverse and in fact it would be pretty boring if you were, at least in the standard D&D model of gaming. So they tend to explore other reasons why they game, and tend to end up as better gamers as a result.

I feel like we're working on different definitions of "Power Gamer" here.

You seem to be thinking of what, to me, is a munchkin. A munchkin will do anything to get more power, probably disregard roleplay, might very well cheat, and generally has the sole goal of MOAR POWER! at the expense of others' fun.

A power gamer is merely someone who's more mechanics first, and likes to be powerful at what they specialize in. But, some key differences are that they're willing to keep it in line with the group's genera; power level, will try to pick a niche that isn't covered, and will DEFINITELY not cheat.

I mean, at least when it comes to 5E, I tend towards more mechanics first. I still roleplay just fine, but my thoughts are not usually "I want to play this type of person. What mechanics fit that?" it's "I want to play with these mechanics. What character fits that?"

Jay R
2018-05-16, 07:23 PM
2. When does optimization become "power gaming?"

Power gaming is like driving on a one-lane country road. Anyone slower than you is a slug; anyone faster than you is a maniac.

BreaktheStatue
2018-05-16, 07:40 PM
Wow, thanks everyone for the great responses. There's no way I'll be able to address everyone, but I feel like everyone had some great insight to offer.

I don't want to misrepresent anyone, but I think this might be a useful summary of a lot of what has been said:


Above all else, keep harmony in the group
1. As with most things in tabletop RPGs, there are very few things, to include power-gaming/mechanical optimization, that are inherently bad, provided that they don't disrupt the harmony of the group. As long as you're "power gaming" while also keeping the needs of others in mind (i.e.: not being a "d*ck"), you're okay, most of the time.

2. As far as the terms themselves, "power gaming" - (the practice of mechanically optimizing PCs) - is not inherently bad (assuming it follows point 1), but "munchkining" can encompass, in addition to "power gaming," a whole different combination of behaviors, such as a willingness to (unreasonably and frequently) complain to the DM, whine, rules lawyer exclusively in one's own favor, etc., which are almost always toxic.

3. It's recommended to think of your PC as a "person," and not just a combination of scores.

(I personally think every optimizier/power gamer - including me - should have a compelling backstory justification for every weird multiclass combo/choice they make. If you can't make a convincing case for why it makes sense to have a paladin/warlock/bard/sorcerer, you probably shouldn't make one)

Mr Beer
2018-05-16, 08:04 PM
Guys, stahp. STAHP.

But I just stahed. STAHTED.


I feel like we're working on different definitions of "Power Gamer" here.

You seem to be thinking of what, to me, is a munchkin. A munchkin will do anything to get more power, probably disregard roleplay, might very well cheat, and generally has the sole goal of MOAR POWER! at the expense of others' fun.

Sure that's fine. That way, you can have a group of 'power gamers' who are playing a fun, balanced campaign with highly optimised characters, far be it from me to be Captain Badwrongfun.

I don't think there's any percentage in arguing about exact definitions...much more importantly, it's one of those things that's a problem when it's a problem whether it's called being a 'power gamer' or a 'munchkin' or 'goddamit who invited Eric again? It's always Eric.'

JNAProductions
2018-05-16, 08:12 PM
I think there's something to be gained by using common terms. To me, a power gamer is someone who is more mechanics first and into optimization, but won't disrupt (or at least, will try not to disrupt) a game. A munchkin is someone who takes optimization too far (and can quite easily take non-optimization too far, such as by cheating) and refuses to adjust to the table.

John Campbell
2018-05-16, 08:52 PM
It's an irregular noun which declines like so:

I'm an optimizer.
You're a power gamer.
They're a munchkin.

(More serious response later when I'm not on my tablet.)

Mr Beer
2018-05-16, 09:08 PM
I think there's something to be gained by using common terms.

Of course, clarity of language is useful. I'm not convinced that there is consensus on what constitutes a power-gamer vs. a munchkin in TTRPG terms but your definitions look reasonable. In this lexicon, 'power-gamer' is a neutral term whereas 'munchkin' is negative. Works for me.

RazorChain
2018-05-16, 09:41 PM
Rather than looking at arbitrary lines in the sand, which everyone draws in different places(read: arguing terms/semantics), I'll just address the underlying issue.

WHY does this attitude exist?

The answer is relatively simple actually.
The attitude exists in the public/group conscious. It is tribal knowledge within the D&D/TTRPG community. It persists, because in general it allows said group to operate more efficiently. Why? Because statistically power gaming in a majority of cases is a red flag and a strong indicator of other problems on the horizon. So a general stance of "hate" results in a better result for the entire group overall. It is strongly self-reinforcing in that the bad power gamers are filthy munchkins everyone should be warned about, while the good power gamers are not power gamers, but valuable party members, that you want to have in your party for those clutch moments. Social dynamics 101.

I think this warrants some merit because there are good power players and bad power players. Nobody minds the good powerplayer because he shares the spotlight with the group and gets the group out of trouble during these "clutch" moments. Nobody minds because he's the combat monster in a group of stealth PC's that is happy to be plan B when things fall apart. He contributes to the fun, immersion and roleplaying that the rest of the group values that he also brings a mechanically strong character.

The problem with a bad power player isn't that he's a power player, it's just he's a bad player. The bad power players I've played with had issues and the power playing was the least of their issues. Player usually become problematic when they disrupt play or make the game less fun. It's THAT GUY, he shows up with 5 eighteens and of course his STR is 18/00 because he has all the luck. He disregards the rules to make mechanicly stronger character. When a player shows up with his character who is a vampire draconic half drow and half tiefling and tells you that his last GM allowed him to play the character then you have met THAT GUY. He tries to twist the rules in insane ways and misunderstands abilities for his own benefits. He doesn't care about the rest of the group having fun and disregards teamwork....he may be playing the tankiest guy in the group but when that troll shows up he doesn't want "eat that kind of damage" and runs after a goblin. You know the guy that pockets the magical item while the group isn't looking, it's him....it's THAT GUY!.

Quertus
2018-05-16, 09:47 PM
I didn't say it was. But I said that he wanted to play a templated character at zero LA. I believe he wanted to play a lizardman, add the halfdragon on top, for a total of +1 HD, +4 LA, +7 natural armor ... and so on, and so forth. So, while he might not have been good at it - he was certainly greedy enough.

Oh. Gotcha. I played with someone like that, actually... Specifically with lizardman to boot.


The tilt about optimization is part of the inherent problem/advantage of RPGs: You have to play multiple games.

Character building is often dull, takes far more nuance then playing the character, and instead of learning a sheet you learn all of the same rulebooks as the DM.

As it is not only not fun for many players and takes a lot of time and effort, that it overshadows them in actual play can be galling. Like that guy who plays fighting games on his free time at a party, it quickly changes the tone of the game and can lead to resentment.

So, if I've spent the past 20 years in the "couch potato" lifestyle, show up for a casual game of doubles tennis, and one of the four of us is a world-class tennis champion...


The issue isn't that any particular level of optimization is "bad". They're not.

The issue is when people have differing ideas about what level of optimization is appropriate for the same game. Much like other types of expectation issues, the issue is not the preference itself, but incompatibility between differing preferences.

I strongly agree, with the caveat that, in the right group, Thor and a sentient potted plant can be fun for all. So long as people don't have an expectation of balance, balance isn't required.


Agreed. when I want to play a barbarian hero who risks life and limb to protect innocent people, its kind of undercut by the next guy over being a super-powerful wizard who seeks complete immortality and proceeds to destroy the foes easily before the barbarian hero gets to do anything. Just isn't fun for me.

Have you ever consisted how fun it is for the person playing Thor for you to bring a potted plant?

At most of my tables, the answer is "great fun", because then Thor knows I'm not stepping on his toes, but ymmv.


rules lawyer exclusively in one's own favor

Dude, you not only did a great summary, you even managed to not malign rules layering carte Blanche. Kudos!

Tvtyrant
2018-05-16, 10:42 PM
So, if I've spent the past 20 years in the "couch potato" lifestyle, show up for a casual game of doubles tennis, and one of the four of us is a world-class tennis champion...

Except no amount of actually playing an RPG makes you good at optimization. More like spending 20 years playing basketball and the other guy points out there isn't a rule about using gorillas.

BreaktheStatue
2018-05-16, 10:43 PM
Dude, you not only did a great summary, you even managed to not malign rules layering carte Blanche. Kudos!

Thanks. I think there's a big difference between "Trying, to a reasonable (therein lies the rub!) extent, to stay faithful to the rules of the game/table, so everyone has a similar expectation of what is possible in the world," and "Trying to squeeze the language and meaning of the rules to give my character an edge, while generally not caring about other's enjoyment."

Power Gamer:Munchkin :: Rules Faithful:Rules Lawyer?

Dimers
2018-05-17, 12:16 AM
Power gamer is also used as an insult directed at who ever makes stronger characters than the one throwing the insult around.

Yeah, it can be a case of "Anyone who drives slower than me is a moron, and anyone who drives faster than me is a maniac."


Power gaming is like driving on a one-lane country road. Anyone slower than you is a slug; anyone faster than you is a maniac.

....... :smallmad: Razzafrazzin' rumblemump, stealin' my lines ...


Power Gamer:Munchkin :: Rules Faithful:Rules Lawyer?

Rules Plaintiff?

Hackulator
2018-05-17, 12:48 AM
Unless everyone is a power gamer, power gaming makes the game much harder for the DM and less fun for the non-power gamers. I'm currently in a game where this is an issue. I joined a but late and made a character at a power level similar to my friends character which he described to me. However, once I joined the game I realized he was WAY more powerful than anyone else int he party, and I'm actually slightly more powerful than he is. He and I basically destroy encounters while the other players have almost no meaningful contribution in combat. If the DM makes a monster that can even hit us or can possibly avoid/resist our attacks, it is invulnerable to the other characters and can't miss them at all. If I had known the party balance beforehand, I would have made a much less powerful character because it wasn't my intention to make other people feel useless.

Basically, it's best to avoid much optimization unless the rest of the players are also optimizers. If you're playing with non-power gamers and playing on god mode is the only way you can have fun, group tabletop may not be for you. If you just enjoy squeezing every ounce of power out of a character, pick some ****ty classes and try to optimize them to be functional.

martixy
2018-05-17, 01:18 AM
I think there's something to be gained by using common terms.

And SIGNIFICANTLY more to be lost.

The time and energy spent getting to "common terms" is far and away not worth it.

Lurk enough on these boards and you'll have seen plenty of discussions that have devolved into pointless rhetoric of how one's usage of a particular term differs from another's and people bickering about insignificant crap just to one-up each other.

Things would be so much better if people avoided terminology arguments. Instead, if there is a misunderstanding be verbose about the point you're trying to convey, rather than about redefining another person's misuse of terms.


I mean, I consider 3.X to be the most badly designed D&D edition out there so clearly I disagree.
Personal opinion is fine, but the previous blanket statement doesn't contribute much.
I'm with Quertus on this one. Balance is overrated. Also, see Snowbluff axiom.

BreaktheStatue
2018-05-17, 01:58 AM
If you just enjoy squeezing every ounce of power out of a character, pick some ****ty classes and try to optimize them to be functional.

This is great advice. It'd probably result in some pretty interesting characters too, RP-wise.

Kaptin Keen
2018-05-17, 02:19 AM
Oh. Gotcha. I played with someone like that, actually... Specifically with lizardman to boot.

IKR?

And it's not even that there's anything wrong with that. But when it's completely out of line with how the rest of the group plays, it becomes a problem =)

MeimuHakurei
2018-05-17, 04:58 AM
Harsh D&D truth: Virtually every player out there is playing to win. Certainly do several players prefer story-based character options, mechanical synergies, big bursts regardless of viability or streamlining the character to be ideally suited for the campaign at hand. But once everyone sits at the table, unless someone is a massive problem player who only wants to cause trouble, everyone is working together to fulfill the campaign's objective with their given characters - in other words, win the campaign.

The main "power gamers" with strong mechanical builds are actually experienced and mature players who know how to make self-sufficient characters capable of contributing in a variety of situations and/or to effectively contribute in their intended role. As for power imbalances, I strongly favor a bottom-up approach to boost the less capable players (not just by giving them freebies that the stronger players could potentially claim, but also by encouraging the other players to help them build/play their character effectively) rather than a top-down approach to weaken the build that's being effective (most of the time, the player isn't violating any game rules and it's not exactly antisocial to try and do your best in a situation for the sake of the team).

"Not stepping on toes" is a more troublesome scenario where I'd consider my approach to help the weaker characters more useful. In some systems and events, a player can end up with a class that's far more powerful/versatile than the other players, forcing them to step on eggshells not to make other players feel inadequate is saying "screw you for wanting to play this class". It can also hamper your IC roleplaying since you're making your character live in a world of cardboard, always taking care not to break something; to break someone*. If you're instead helping the lesser classes by pointing to more viable options that can keep up better, your other players can do more and your power player doesn't have to compromise their character.

If complexity is an issue and your players aren't capable of playing the game at a certain degree of competence, it's probably worth considering to switch to a lighter system with less moving parts in terms of mechanics.

*not ashamed for quoting Superman

Drakevarg
2018-05-17, 05:43 AM
Harsh D&D truth: Virtually every player out there is playing to win. Certainly do several players prefer story-based character options, mechanical synergies, big bursts regardless of viability or streamlining the character to be ideally suited for the campaign at hand. But once everyone sits at the table, unless someone is a massive problem player who only wants to cause trouble, everyone is working together to fulfill the campaign's objective with their given characters - in other words, win the campaign.

I don't think that I've ever once played in a campaign that had a clear win condition. Even ones with an obvious main antagonistic force (which was far from all of them) were never obvious in how they would actually be beaten. Most people I've played with aren't intent on winning the campaign so much as they are intent on experiencing the campaign (and by logical extension, survive it). I doubt it's that unusual for players to view a campaign as a story expressed through obstacle courses rather than obstacle courses contextualized with a story.

Now obviously in the shorter term, "survive the campaign" does imply "win the encounters." But playing to not lose is a relevant philosophical distinction from playing to win. The implied onus to excel is significantly more lax, and all that's really needed is to not be actively incompetent (which really should not be that hard).

Lorsa
2018-05-17, 06:29 AM
3. It's recommended to think of your PC as a "person," and not just a combination of scores.

(I personally think every optimizier/power gamer - including me - should have a compelling backstory justification for every weird multiclass combo/choice they make. If you can't make a convincing case for why it makes sense to have a paladin/warlock/bard/sorcerer, you probably shouldn't make one)

The problem with "compelling backstory" is who decides? Also, when it is clear that the backstory is only created as a means of, as you put it, "justification" for a really weird mix of stuff that makes the character a certain power-level, has the player really thought of the PC as a person?

If it is simply up to the DM to decide what makes for a compelling backstory, many power-gamers would get very upset if they say "no". Also, a backstory can be "technically possible" even though it isn't very "plausible". It is very hard as a DM to decide where to the draw the line of exactly how plausible a character's backstory should be.

I've found that most power-gamers work with the end goal (the character build) first and comes up with the backstory second. Which is contrary to how some others like to do it, which is to start with the backstory and then see what character build makes sense for it. It is not an intrinsically wrong way to do it, but it can create group clashes.

Basically, as so many others have said, power-gaming isn't bad, not inherently. There are plenty of groups out there who are full of power-gamers.

The reason why I think you have encountered "power gamer hate", is due to an inability of many power-gamers to adapt to the theme, tone and power level of the group they come to. They'll just make their über-powerful character, without regard for the rest of the group. Which is why many people have developed an instinctive dislike for this type of player.

I personally am quite similar in mind to kyoryu. One person power-gaming either means the other characters will be overshadowed, or everyone has to power game. Since neither of these options are something I want personally when playing, they (power-gamers) match poorly with my play style.

Interestingly enough, not all power-gamers are good optimizers. I have encountered one in particular who wasn't a very good optimizer, but he was most certainly a power-gamer (though I would say, not a munchkin). I certainly have the skills to optimize, I just most often choose not to. So being a power-gamer doesn't automatically make you an optimizer, imo.

In my view, a munchkin is someone who sees their character as just a set of numerical scores. A power-gamer is someone who does think of their character as a person, but they want to be a REALLY POWERFUL PERSON (and since power is relative, it means either relative to the rest of the party or relative to the world). An optimizer is someone who uses system mastery to accomplish some goal or another.

I can be an optimizer, and sometimes I am (depending on the goal). I can optimize to power-game, but I choose not to (as it doesn't really interest me). I can, however, not see my character as just a set of numerical scores. Not even, ironically enough, when playing munchkin.

Rhedyn
2018-05-17, 07:51 AM
Agreed. when I want to play a barbarian hero who risks life and limb to protect innocent people, its kind of undercut by the next guy over being a super-powerful wizard who seeks complete immortality and proceeds to destroy the foes easily before the barbarian hero gets to do anything. Just isn't fun for me. That is more a D&D specific problem.

My other point of reference being Savage Worlds, those two kinds of players are fine to have in the party with each other. Magic is cool and melee is cool.

Games like D&D that are centered around resource management get into the problem of limited resources classes just being better than at-will classes because the at-will power is vastly over valued.

kyoryu
2018-05-17, 11:40 AM
I'm with Quertus on this one. Balance is overrated. Also, see Snowbluff axiom.

Balance is not binary. There's a wide range between "oh no, they do .2 more damage per round than me!" and "Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit".

Kaptin Keen
2018-05-17, 12:00 PM
A workable group dynamic is not overrated, however. Without it .... you quite simply cannot play.

martixy
2018-05-17, 01:55 PM
Balance is not binary. There's a wide range between "oh no, they do .2 more damage per round than me!" and "Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit".
True and...

A workable group dynamic is not overrated, however. Without it .... you quite simply cannot play.
...true(sorta).

And there's different kinds of balance too. Balance between the player and the world, balance between him and the rest of the party. The latter is where Keen's point comes in. If you'd be focusing on anything, focus on that.

But it's only sorta true, because "simply cannot" isn't true. It only makes it more difficult. Or you gotta have the right player. One who's primary incentive doesn't clash with an imbalanced party(e.g. can derive enjoyment out of the game without being numerically competitive).

Kaptin Keen
2018-05-17, 02:42 PM
But it's only sorta true, because "simply cannot" isn't true. It only makes it more difficult. Or you gotta have the right player. One who's primary incentive doesn't clash with an imbalanced party(e.g. can derive enjoyment out of the game without being numerically competitive).

Without a working group dynamic - your group doesn't work. That's ... I mean, it's a circle argument, you can't really argue against it.

Group dynamic can be a lot of things, and yes, I'm sure you can have a working group dynamic that isn't based on balance - which I'm guessing is the point you're making? And yes, I agree, in an imbalanced group it's harder to build a working dynamic.

So .. I'm not sure we disagree. You can easily have a working group dynamic with equally optimized or powered characters - high or low. Less easily with inequally built ones. The greater the disparity, the greater the difficulty. But it's not insurmountable.

Quertus
2018-05-17, 03:00 PM
Harsh D&D truth: Virtually every player out there is playing to win. Certainly do several players prefer story-based character options, mechanical synergies, big bursts regardless of viability or streamlining the character to be ideally suited for the campaign at hand. But once everyone sits at the table, unless someone is a massive problem player who only wants to cause trouble, everyone is working together to fulfill the campaign's objective with their given characters - in other words, win the campaign.

The main "power gamers" with strong mechanical builds are actually experienced and mature players who know how to make self-sufficient characters capable of contributing in a variety of situations and/or to effectively contribute in their intended role. As for power imbalances, I strongly favor a bottom-up approach to boost the less capable players (not just by giving them freebies that the stronger players could potentially claim, but also by encouraging the other players to help them build/play their character effectively) rather than a top-down approach to weaken the build that's being effective (most of the time, the player isn't violating any game rules and it's not exactly antisocial to try and do your best in a situation for the sake of the team).

"Not stepping on toes" is a more troublesome scenario where I'd consider my approach to help the weaker characters more useful. In some systems and events, a player can end up with a class that's far more powerful/versatile than the other players, forcing them to step on eggshells not to make other players feel inadequate is saying "screw you for wanting to play this class". It can also hamper your IC roleplaying since you're making your character live in a world of cardboard, always taking care not to break something; to break someone*. If you're instead helping the lesser classes by pointing to more viable options that can keep up better, your other players can do more and your power player doesn't have to compromise their character.

If complexity is an issue and your players aren't capable of playing the game at a certain degree of competence, it's probably worth considering to switch to a lighter system with less moving parts in terms of mechanics.

*not ashamed for quoting Superman

So, I very much agree with a lot of what you've said.

I've definitely felt the whole "Superman-esque having to be careful not to break things when playing with less skilled players" thing. It's like walking on eggshells, and not terribly fun. And I strongly agree with uplifting the weak* as preferable to wielding the cursed nerf bat.

However, I question your initial thesis about playing to win, and actively disagree with your last paragraph.

Some people - such as myself - enjoy the moving parts, the complexity. Your purposed solution of moving to simpler systems is a detriment to such people, without even taking that into consideration. It's especially egregious if the people who are new to the system are among the ones who enjoy complexity.

Now, having players with different levels of player skill helps keep from having a party of Determinators. So that's a good thing. And players with the correct role-playing player skills can play down their system skill when playing a less skilled character. But it's awful dang hard for an unskilled player to play a skilled character - without help.

IMO, very few GMs have the inclination or skills to provide the help necessary to let someone without the appropriate** player skills play a skilled character.

In D&D 3.x,, when I see someone pull a boneheaded maneuver, I generally*** give their character a DC 5 Wisdom check. If they make the check, I tell them why I think that their plan is questionable. This way, really wise characters don't make foolish mistakes; other characters might.

Some might say I'm a **** for not giving them more help; IME, most GMs don't even go that far.

As a software developer, I can't fault you for blaming the tools, but there's a little more to the equation than that. Personally - and I'm highly biased here, mind you - I think you'll get more mileage out of fixing the wetware (especially the bit behind the GM's screen) than changing systems.

* Heck, I even had a character ascend to be the god of just that!
** here, I am primarily referring to system mastery (plus setting lore, I suppose), and secondarily to the (related) ability to judge the effectiveness of actions / make good choices.
*** sometimes, I realize I haven't told them something relevant, and just give them the relevant information, no check required.


A power-gamer is someone who does think of their character as a person, but they want to be a REALLY POWERFUL PERSON (and since power is relative, it means either relative to the rest of the party or relative to the world).

Hmmm... What word/phrase would you use to describe someone who has a concept for a character, that happens to be powerful in one system, but they'd just as happily play that exact same concept / character in a system where they'd be under-powered?


Balance is not binary. There's a wide range between "oh no, they do .2 more damage per round than me!" and "Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit".

And the question is, what is the size of the group's acceptable range? So, find the size and position of that range, and play within it.

Dimers
2018-05-17, 07:04 PM
Also, when it is clear that the backstory is only created as a means of, as you put it, "justification" for a really weird mix of stuff that makes the character a certain power-level, has the player really thought of the PC as a person?

The answer to that is, of course, "Sometimes."

My ideal character generation is a group activity. One of its many benefits is the person-ification of what could otherwise be a page of numbers. Both inspiration and pressure for characterization are more available when five other people are going through the same process.

kyoryu
2018-05-17, 07:49 PM
And the question is, what is the size of the group's acceptable range? So, find the size and position of that range, and play within it.

Exactly. Which is fine until someone refuses to do that.

I personally prefer to play systems that have less range because it avoids the conversation entirely, and I find the optimization game actively unfun. But notice the words "personally prefer" there.

Dr paradox
2018-05-17, 10:58 PM
Speaking personally, the issue tends to be a matter of exclusive interest. The area of most games that provides the most fertile ground for power gaming is combat, so Power Gamers are almost always super interested in combat.

I've often seen power gamers grumble and nudge other players away from role-playing and towards combat, because while it's more than possible to find interesting stories and roleplaying challenges in the midst of a fight, it's IMPOSSIBLE to find a combat challenge in a role-playing scene. That kind of disparity really chafes, because I keep seeing power gamers refuse to meet other players halfway and deliberately start needless hostilities just because they haven't killed anything in the last twenty minutes.

Chaosticket
2018-05-18, 12:15 AM
Hello, I am a Power Gamer.

Im not interested in extended tedious conversations with people about mundane activities such as "Which way to go".

I am interested in having sets of goals and rewards to progress towards.

Non-linearity is appreciated. Classless game systems or ways to bypass drawbacks of classes and races are one interest. Another is multiple ways to complete goals.

Lorsa
2018-05-18, 01:27 AM
Hmmm... What word/phrase would you use to describe someone who has a concept for a character, that happens to be powerful in one system, but they'd just as happily play that exact same concept / character in a system where they'd be under-powered?

I'm not sure I have a neat category for that. It's not a type of player I have encountered very often. I guess it sounds like someone who is "married to a concept" of sorts.

Satinavian
2018-05-18, 01:43 AM
Hmmm... What word/phrase would you use to describe someone who has a concept for a character, that happens to be powerful in one system, but they'd just as happily play that exact same concept / character in a system where they'd be under-powered?According to Laws' player types http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/theory/models/robinslaws.html that is a Specialist.

Jerrykhor
2018-05-18, 03:45 AM
I have been accused of being a power gamer recently. Apparently enjoying earning XP from defeating monsters is considered as such.

This guy, who is a wargamer (surprisingly), seems to think that I am a munchkin just because I don't mind fighting a giant croc which we could hardly outrun (we were in a swamp), or talk down (its a croc, duh). I even tried intimidating it off with Speak with Animals, but failed. So we fought and killed it, and gained a lot of XP. In fact, 50% of the XP gained from the whole session was from that fight.

After the session, he was mad and would say things like 'Why don't we stay here and fight stuff until we are level 10', and 'If i wanted to play a game just for killing and leveling, I wouldn't be playing D&D.' We argued for a while, and he did confirm that he thought I was a munchkin. We would usually carpool after the session, and talk about D&D on our journey home. I would usually share my opinions on the more effective options of the game mechanics, which probably helped shape his opinion of me.

Its quite frustrating that having good knowledge of the mechanics (but not necessary acting on it) is usually seen as a sign of munchkinry. My longest played character in my main group took Actor and Dual Wielder, two feats that no self-respecting munchkin would take.

martixy
2018-05-18, 05:26 AM
Possible your friend had an off day. That has been known to seep into otherwise pleasant activities.

Pelle
2018-05-18, 06:39 AM
Harsh D&D truth: Virtually every player out there is playing to win. Certainly do several players prefer story-based character options, mechanical synergies, big bursts regardless of viability or streamlining the character to be ideally suited for the campaign at hand. But once everyone sits at the table, unless someone is a massive problem player who only wants to cause trouble, everyone is working together to fulfill the campaign's objective with their given characters - in other words, win the campaign.

IMO, actually winning the campaign isn't what is important. What makes the game fun is the act of trying to win, whether you succeed or not. So yes, every player/character should try to work toward the goal, fulfilling the campaign's objective. But bringing a character that makes it much more likely to succeed doesn't neccessarily make it more fun!

It's like playing a chess game: It is important that both players are trying their best to win for the game to be fun. But actually winning isn't important, it's that you tried your best and was challenged, making for an enjoyable game. Powergaming is like only playing chess against people with lower ratings than yourself so that you can enjoy winning, instead of finding an opponent with equal skill so you are challenged.

To me powergaming and "carrying your weight in the party" is pointless. At best you can take on some different challenges (fight orcs instead of goblins, you can make a frontal assault instead of having to stealth), but I have equal fun in the process either way. At worst you make the challenges obsolete, and the game is boring. Winning against a specific challenge is not what the game is about to me, but rather seeing what choices the characters make when challenged. If you find it fun to play a character that is competent at something that's great though, and a good reason in itself to have powerful character. But you can have that without the attitude of winning itself is what is important.

Chaosticket
2018-05-18, 08:31 AM
I cant speak for ever campaign. I can say if someone finds a campaign boring then they will most likely latch onto what they actually care about. How many times have you played with Orcs Always Evil? Is that supposed to be interesting? Can you speed it up at least so people actually have adrenaline?

Different settings are a big difference to how that works, but people dont use them enough. I like Black Sun, Eberron, Planescape, Starjammer, and so on because they arent the basic Tolkienesque fantasy people play into the ground.

Even without that remember EVERYTHING is based on a dice roll. Its not like you can just say "I pick his pocket.", and then move on. So actually succeeding involves altering your character and using abilities that removes the risk and instead makes things about choice not luck. Instead of failed pick pocket rolls, have the person realize they dont have their money and alert the guards or something.

And then you still have what people actually can play as. Im not a Bard in real life. I do play tactical and strategy games so I both like combat, plans, and just characters such as Wizards rather than characters that talk a lot.

PhoenixPhyre
2018-05-18, 08:45 AM
For me, the concept of "playing to win" in a TTRPG is foreign. I can't find any coherent "win condition" in anything I've every played. Sometimes failing at a goal can be more interesting than succeeding.

Real Life example:

I had the goal to be a college professor. Got a PhD, started looking for post docs. Failed. Miserably. For many reasons. I ended up as a teacher at an independent high school*, and the more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that I'd be miserable as a professor having to publish-or-perish and worry about research, etc.

* 3 things I thought growing up.
1) I hated high school with a burning passion.
2) I wasn't fond of chemistry.
3) I preferred cold places to hot places.

So now I'm teaching chemistry and physics in high school in Florida.

In game terms, it's the journey. It's seeing what people do with the world (or what my character sees, learns, does, or how they change). That's what draws me in.

Guizonde
2018-05-18, 09:51 AM
@breakthestatue: here's the breakdown i've always found to be useful.

optimizer: "how can i squeeze out the most power/utility out of my build?" this gives you unchained rogues, dungeoncrasher fighters, batman wizards, diplomancers, and other "peak" archetypes. little to no "fluff" choices, everything has a purpose. basically, a very strong character, without delving into too much cheese or rules-abuse.

power-gamer: "how can i solo tomb of horrors while leaving my party in the dust?" your de facto "screw the story, i play to win" player. story is secondary, so's the team. expect severe optimization with no regards for fluff, coherence, or roleplaying. those guys "play math", if you will. expect cheese and rules abuse, but on top of that, tantrums if their character gets hard-countered. i've played with some, and nothing annoys them more than spheres of anti-magic.

munchkin: "how much cheating or abuse can i get away with?": unless you're playing the card game, get away from these whackos, and check your pockets to see if you still have your wallet. don't expect anything but the strongest stilton and a court summons for assault and battery on rule-books.

as you can see, the end goal is the main difference. an optimizer will use the rules, a power gamer will abuse the rules, a munchkin will break the rules.

i'm currently playing in 3 games, one i've optimized an arch-militant to be as brutally effective in combat as the rest of my team combined. that was a choice made with the team's blessing, since they're playing non-combattants.

the second, i'm an inquisitor, specced as a skill-monkey. unoptimized choice, but lends versatility to the group who's lacking in that regard. they rage against the character's personnality, not against his value to the team's potential.

the last was designed to be part of a high-op game. i'm talking borderline game-breaking levels of optimization at the dm's insistence. i play a giant rabbit and am currently pushing the cohorts and leadership mechanics to their limit to guarantee the group has as much money and items as they will need. i've got 44hp at level 7, which is roughly 1/4 of the next lowest hp character (a half-naga vampire kineticist... yeah, we went overboard on "broken"). it evens out when i throw out 40 culverin shots a turn.

the motivations of the characters are what set them apart: the first wants to make sure the team survives. the second makes sure the team never has to worry about alignment. the last is an arms dealer and screw you if you touch his 299 family members or his teammates. notice how "winning" never comes close to their motivations? unless i'm playing deadpool or a character that has "knowledge: 4th wall", that character doesn't know what it means to "win an rpg", hell, even i don't know what that means.

just talk to your group and figure out what's allowed, what's expected, and what is banned so everyone can have fun. there's nothing wrong with optimizing or even stomping across your dm's scenario, but there's a time and place for everything.

Chaosticket
2018-05-18, 11:00 AM
Its more simple than that.

Logic or no? I can say a Power-gamer is being logical, or more specifically practical. Should I have Money, equipment, become stronger to defeat greater threats? Be Crazy-Prepared to deal with problems.

The other way, well I cant understand someone that apparently never gets bored of the same thing and is always happy to follow cliches and or something like being poor.

Its like a Worker Vs an Artist. One works for monetary reward. The other does it just for fun. In Theory they should be able to work together but they dont. I want to do a quest because there is a bounty, the other person wants to save someone because its in their Character's personality.

I type that and really it should work...until people start insulting me for actually carrying about rewards. Thats not just ingame, its actually personally insulting me.

2D8HP
2018-05-18, 01:27 PM
Classless game systems


Chaosticket, glad to see you back.

I think you'd really enjoy

Champions (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Champions_(role-playing_game)),


Fantasy Hero (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fantasy_Hero)


Star Hero (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Hero),

and the rest of the

HERO System (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Hero_System_Products) RPG's

You may also like

Mutants & Masterminds (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutants_%26_Masterminds)

for a more "gritty" classless system,

GURPS (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/GURPS)

may appeal to you.

It doesn't have as much potential for "optimization", but my personal favorite "classless" RPG rules system is Chaosium's:

Basic Role-Playing*(BRP) (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Role-Playing)

Rhedyn
2018-05-18, 02:21 PM
Chaosticket, glad to see you back.

I think you'd really enjoy
I would throw Savage Worlds in the mix too.

Munchkins have to be cheating.

A rules lawyer is a stickler for rules even when they get in the way of everyone's fun. Someone legalistically bending the rules is a munchkin.

A rules resource is merely one who knows the rules and can rattle then off without having to look anything up. They can also be people who less rules savy GMs ask for an interpretation because they only the response will be fair and well thought out.

An optimizer is anyone that builds their character to be effective. Any basic level of caring about the game makes you an optimizer to some extent.

An actor is anyone who likes role-playing.

A power gamer plays for the power fantasy. Most players don't want to lose, a power gamer wants to win.

A "good roleplayer" tends to be the guy in the group that assumes any effort spent to make a mechanically viable character makes you a power gamer and an object of derision. I personally find this last group to only be slightly better than a munchkin. These are anti-munchkins. Not only do they need to be weak, everyone does.
You don't play with munchkins or anti-munchkins. Rules Lawyers work at any table with a firm GM that can't be rule bullied. Power gamers tend to be fine at tables that use a balanced system if they are also actors and the GM is firm for when the dice do upset the Power gamer.

vasilidor
2018-05-18, 06:22 PM
one thing all of my characters had in common, is that no matter what there goal in life they wanted to live long enough to achieve it, and long long after. in the course of this a lot of games involve high danger, so with that in mind they will grab at any advantage they can get a hold of in order to live out the day within the limits of whatever morality I have given them.
so yeah, power gamer here. I also double sometimes as a rules encyclopedia, pending system.

Quertus
2018-05-18, 08:43 PM
I'm not sure I have a neat category for that. It's not a type of player I have encountered very often. I guess it sounds like someone who is "married to a concept" of sorts.

Makes sense.


According to Laws' player types http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/theory/models/robinslaws.html that is a Specialist.

Hmmm... I'll have to look at this in more detail...


What makes the game fun is the act of trying to win, whether you succeed or not. So yes, every player/character should try to work toward the goal, fulfilling the campaign's objective. But bringing a character that makes it much more likely to succeed doesn't neccessarily make it more fun! Winning against a specific challenge is not what the game is about to me, but rather seeing what choices the characters make when challenged. If you find it fun to play a character that is competent at something that's great though, and a good reason in itself to have powerful character. But you can have that without the attitude of winning itself is what is important.


For me, the concept of "playing to win" in a TTRPG is foreign. I can't find any coherent "win condition" in anything I've every played. Sometimes failing at a goal can be more interesting than succeeding.

Pretty much, yeah. The character is likely playing to win, but, as a player, I'm here for the ride. And, sometimes, I've all but set my character up to fail. At that point, it's the question of how they'll fail that's fun, and provides the tension.


Its more simple than that.

Logic or no? I can say a Power-gamer is being logical, or more specifically practical. Should I have Money, equipment, become stronger to defeat greater threats? Be Crazy-Prepared to deal with problems.

The other way, well I cant understand someone that apparently never gets bored of the same thing and is always happy to follow cliches and or something like being poor.

Its like a Worker Vs an Artist. One works for monetary reward. The other does it just for fun. In Theory they should be able to work together but they dont. I want to do a quest because there is a bounty, the other person wants to save someone because its in their Character's personality.

I type that and really it should work...until people start insulting me for actually carrying about rewards. Thats not just ingame, its actually personally insulting me.

The game provides incentives to encourage certain behaviors. You are responding to those incentives, while ignoring the intended behaviors. Clearly, you're having Badwrongfun, and must be punished.


A rules lawyer is a stickler for rules even when they get in the way of everyone's fun. Rules Lawyers work at any table with a firm good GM that can't be rule bullied already knows the rules, and wants to play by them.

FTFY. :smallwink: No, seriously, why would you pair a Rules Lawyer with a **** who insists that Park Place is free today, because it's a holiday? What possible reason would you have for thinking that Rules Lawyer + Calvin ball is a good match? :smallconfused:

Lord Raziere
2018-05-18, 11:07 PM
Munchkins have to be cheating.

A rules lawyer is a stickler for rules even when they get in the way of everyone's fun. Someone legalistically bending the rules is a munchkin.

An optimizer is anyone that builds their character to be effective. Any basic level of caring about the game makes you an optimizer to some extent.

An actor is anyone who likes role-playing.

A power gamer plays for the power fantasy. Most players don't want to lose, a power gamer wants to win.

A "good roleplayer" tends to be the guy in the group that assumes any effort spent to make a mechanically viable character makes you a power gamer and an object of derision. I personally find this last group to only be slightly better than a munchkin. These are anti-munchkins. Not only do they need to be weak, everyone does.
You don't play with munchkins or anti-munchkins. Rules Lawyers work at any table with a firm GM that can't be rule bullied. Power gamers tend to be fine at tables that use a balanced system if they are also actors and the GM is firm for when the dice do upset the Power gamer.

I don't identify as an optimizer and screw anyone who calls me one. I care about anything mechanical only because other people and the systems make me do that. In a perfect world I would not need to care, there would be no optimal build for anything, and I'd just play whatever I want and be good. Mechanics are necessary evil at best. I reject your narrow definitions of what I am.

melvinmelon123
2018-05-19, 12:47 AM
I don't identify as an optimizer and screw anyone who calls me one. I care about anything mechanical only because other people and the systems make me do that. In a perfect world I would not need to care, there would be no optimal build for anything, and I'd just play whatever I want and be good. Mechanics are necessary evil at best. I reject your narrow definitions of what I am.

I think you are being overly aggressive here. If you don't like systems with mechanics then just get a group to do improv theatre to match your pace. Due to the nature of games something is always going to be better than something else. I suggest you actually just play whatever you want and stop caring about what others think.

JoeJ
2018-05-19, 12:55 AM
I don't identify as an optimizer and screw anyone who calls me one. I care about anything mechanical only because other people and the systems make me do that. In a perfect world I would not need to care, there would be no optimal build for anything, and I'd just play whatever I want and be good. Mechanics are necessary evil at best. I reject your narrow definitions of what I am.

You might want to check out Mongoose Traveller. With the way character creation works, it would be pretty darn hard to optimize, and impossible not to at least sketch out the character's life history up to that point.

Chaosticket
2018-05-19, 09:44 AM
The game provides incentives to encourage certain behaviors. You are responding to those incentives, while ignoring the intended behaviors. Clearly, you're having Badwrongfun, and must be punished.



I love that line as it just makes you look like a Game-Nazi.

You do know different people AND characters have different motivations? The "Money hungry Mercenary/thief" a Cliche but its actually a believable, a lot more than "I must save the world!", but its something realistic working against drama. Roleplaying Games want the Drama to be a big story rather than realistic. Its fair but that Actors are held in higher regard than pragmatic people just makes dedicated roleplayers look like jerks if they actually use derogatory terms and ostracize people that do different..

Youre playing a game for FUN so you are yourself working towards a goal so really its splitting hairs about someone looking for it in a different activity that you yourself partake in.

Its highly hypocritical and Holier-than-thou attitude that I just confuses me, but then contradictory behavior usually does confuse people.

I dont hate roleplayers. I hate hypocritical bigots that treat me like crap because I dont treat every game like a Play and/or novel and I play like a human being not a a Character. ooh, and just to make it worse There are apparently there are people that even regard ACTING in character as not enough, you have you have a big backstory and Angst about everything.

The "hate" for Power Gamers, which is derogatory itself, is that its the same as a Munchkin. If you look for rewards it means you want a Lightsaber than can kill gods, infinite money, invulnerability, and so on.

Quertus
2018-05-19, 12:33 PM
I love that line as it just makes you look like a Game-Nazi.

You do know different people AND characters have different motivations?

... You do know the Playground convention that blue is for sarcasm, right?

Rhedyn
2018-05-20, 12:28 PM
I don't identify as an optimizer and screw anyone who calls me one. I care about anything mechanical only because other people and the systems make me do that. In a perfect world I would not need to care, there would be no optimal build for anything, and I'd just play whatever I want and be good. Mechanics are necessary evil at best. I reject your narrow definitions of what I am.
Well too bad. If you care or put any effort into your mechanical build, you are too some degree an optimizer.

It's not a dirty word. If you don't care about game mechanics, then you don't care about RPGs. You only care about roleplaying, which is only a part of RPGs.

Solaris
2018-05-20, 12:51 PM
I don't identify as an optimizer and screw anyone who calls me one. I care about anything mechanical only because other people and the systems make me do that. In a perfect world I would not need to care, there would be no optimal build for anything, and I'd just play whatever I want and be good. Mechanics are necessary evil at best. I reject your narrow definitions of what I am.

So you build your characters entirely at random, then?

Cluedrew
2018-05-20, 01:14 PM
Optimizer is funny, because it doesn't actually say what you are optimizing for. Most of the time the default is power, utility or some combination of the two. But then we get cases of starting with a weaker class and making that powerful. Or dealing as much damage with <obscure weapon or spell type>. Which is still technically optimizing for power, but within constraints that show that actually being powerful (or versatile) is not the goal. And there are other cases I have seen people optimize base movement speed and other things that I don't understand how it is supposed to win a combat. As a personal example, I once went out of my way to make a bard good with blow-darts, even though I had access to other weapons that did more damage at greater range and the same fire rate after I had put all that effort into the blow-darts.

I'm not sure if that makes me an optimizer, but I was definitely optimizing some strange value there. But as far as I can tell optimizers are just people who put an above average amount of work into the mechanical side of character creation. That's it.

Talakeal
2018-05-20, 01:15 PM
So you build your characters entirely at random, then?

I am not seeing that.

IMO what she is saying is that he plays what he feels like playing for fluff/storyline/RP reasons and does that absolute minimum mechanical optimization he is able to do and still play his character.

I feel much the same way, although I actually like the mechanical "optimization" aspect of RPGs, I just do it to try and get as close as possible to the character concept I have in my head rather than some concept of power or utility.

Chaosticket
2018-05-20, 02:28 PM
Optimizing takes ideas and makes then useful. Some people instead want it to be junk so they dont have to put more effort in to ideas.
I think its meant to be noncompetitive.

Lord Raziere
2018-05-20, 02:48 PM
I am not seeing that.

IMO what she is saying is that he plays what he feels like playing for fluff/storyline/RP reasons and does that absolute minimum mechanical optimization he is able to do and still play his character.


Exactly.

I don't want to do anything more than that. I am not an idiot that is deliberately "suboptimal" :smallyuk:
but nor am I apart of this stupid "optimizer culture" :smallyuk::smallyuk: that creates elitism and stupid terms I don't want anything to be apart of. in my view optimizing ruins a lot of things I enjoy by making it all about the metagame rather than the game itself. I don't want to play the metagame. I want to play the GAME. not the completely different thing that people turn it into that changes all the rules and calls what I enjoy suboptimal and stupid. not that I can even see any metagame at all, because metagames are invisible things that I cannot grasp and only frustrate me when they come up and say "hey screw you for not playing to me!" and screw me over. I just want to play my characters and things that I WANT, optimizing and metagames are just things that get in the way.

Tvtyrant
2018-05-20, 03:45 PM
Optimizing takes ideas and makes then useful. Some people instead want it to be junk so they dont have to put more effort in to ideas.

Optimizing takes an idea for a character and translates it through game mechanics. These game mechanics often require understanding elaborate rules and searching through multiple books for exploits that would never otherwise come up in a game.

I enjoy doing that, and so I gather do you. I have also spent far more time doing it then actually playing RPGs, which is prohibitive if someone just want to play the game and not minor in RPG mechanics. Optimizing versus not optimizing is not about superior effort, it is about whether or not you enjoy mechanics.

JNAProductions
2018-05-20, 03:53 PM
Optimizing takes an idea for a character and translates it through game mechanics. These game mechanics often require understanding elaborate rules and searching through multiple books for exploits that would never otherwise come up in a game.

I enjoy doing that, and so I gather do you. I have also spent far more time doing it then actually playing RPGs, which is prohibitive if someone just want to play the game and not minor in RPG mechanics. Optimizing versus not optimizing is not about superior effort, it is about whether or not you enjoy mechanics.

Yeah, that makes sense. And not every game is hard to optimize-let's take a theoretical game that has three stats, Combat, Social, and Exploration. You get 10 points to distribute between the three stats, at a one-to-one ratio.

Want a combat monster? Combat 8, Social 1, Exploration 1.
Social magician? Combat 1, Social 8, Exploration 1.
Balanced, but with a slight exploration emphasis? Combat 3, Social 3, Exploration 4.

Each time you select your stats, you're optimizing for your concept, unless you're picking stats that actively work against your concept. Which, if you are... Why?

Now, for a game like D&D 3.5, optimization varies IMMENSELY in how deep you can go. You can do the bare minimum (stats in the right places, feats that don't suck, and a few good magic items) or go hog-wild (see: Iron Chef), but if you have a concept and you build towards it, that's optimizing for your concept.

Kami2awa
2018-05-20, 04:11 PM
A single powergamer in a group makes the experience less fun for the other players by overshadowing them. It also makes life very hard for the GM who has to scale the difficulty of encounters to the powergamer's level, making them near-impossible for the other players.

Chaosticket
2018-05-20, 05:20 PM
Optimizing takes an idea for a character and translates it through game mechanics. These game mechanics often require understanding elaborate rules and searching through multiple books for exploits that would never otherwise come up in a game.

I enjoy doing that, and so I gather do you. I have also spent far more time doing it then actually playing RPGs, which is prohibitive if someone just want to play the game and not minor in RPG mechanics. Optimizing versus not optimizing is not about superior effort, it is about whether or not you enjoy mechanics.

I have ideas for characters, put them down and work them like an engineer to make fun into effective. For example someone good at throwing things and eventually those things being boulders.

Now from what people say I have to be dumb, blind, and clumsy to be fair.

Drawbacks are a good determinator. Do you fix them and/or take minor ones or do you take severe ones just for the story value?

kyoryu
2018-05-20, 06:17 PM
Want a combat monster? Combat 8, Social 1, Exploration 1.
Social magician? Combat 1, Social 8, Exploration 1.
Balanced, but with a slight exploration emphasis? Combat 3, Social 3, Exploration 4.

Each time you select your stats, you're optimizing for your concept, unless you're picking stats that actively work against your concept. Which, if you are... Why?

Now, for a game like D&D 3.5, optimization varies IMMENSELY in how deep you can go. You can do the bare minimum (stats in the right places, feats that don't suck, and a few good magic items) or go hog-wild (see: Iron Chef), but if you have a concept and you build towards it, that's optimizing for your concept.

The problem with D&D is that two players that want "combat monsters" could end up with:

Player 1: Combat 8, Social 1, Exploration 1
Player 2: Combat 25, Social 1, Exploration 1

and you have combos that end up looking like:

Player 3: Combat 10, Social 10, Exploration 10

or

Player 4: Combat [use Social score], Social 15, Exploration [use Social score]

Even the simplistic system you've described can lead to problems as somebody who wants to be combat focused but not utterly stupid in combat (6/2/2) may find themselves completely and utterly overshadowed by someone with the 8/1/1 build, while still being utterly ineffective in social/exploration. So even the system you've suggested can quickly be in a position where it prefers certain "builds" to others - most notably it can lead to hyper-specialization as a default.

JNAProductions
2018-05-20, 06:34 PM
The problem with D&D is that two players that want "combat monsters" could end up with:

Player 1: Combat 8, Social 1, Exploration 1
Player 2: Combat 25, Social 1, Exploration 1

and you have combos that end up looking like:

Player 3: Combat 10, Social 10, Exploration 10

or

Player 4: Combat [use Social score], Social 15, Exploration [use Social score]

Even the simplistic system you've described can lead to problems as somebody who wants to be combat focused but not utterly stupid in combat (6/2/2) may find themselves completely and utterly overshadowed by someone with the 8/1/1 build, while still being utterly ineffective in social/exploration. So even the system you've suggested can quickly be in a position where it prefers certain "builds" to others - most notably it can lead to hyper-specialization as a default.

I wasn't saying it's a GOOD system. I was just using it as an example of ridiculously easy to optimize. Moreover, I think you're getting more hung up on the details than the point.

But yes, 3.5 has issues where there's an immensely variable power range.

Rhedyn
2018-05-20, 08:40 PM
Exactly.

I don't want to do anything more than that. I am not an idiot that is deliberately "suboptimal" :smallyuk:
but nor am I apart of this stupid "optimizer culture" :smallyuk::smallyuk: that creates elitism and stupid terms I don't want anything to be apart of. in my view optimizing ruins a lot of things I enjoy by making it all about the metagame rather than the game itself. I don't want to play the metagame. I want to play the GAME. not the completely different thing that people turn it into that changes all the rules and calls what I enjoy suboptimal and stupid. not that I can even see any metagame at all, because metagames are invisible things that I cannot grasp and only frustrate me when they come up and say "hey screw you for not playing to me!" and screw me over. I just want to play my characters and things that I WANT, optimizing and metagames are just things that get in the way.

Suggestion: Play more balanced games. That way you won't need advance system mastery to just make an OK character.

People putting the correct bricks together to realize a concept is not a flaw in their playstyles.

Quertus
2018-05-20, 08:41 PM
as far as I can tell optimizers are just people who put an above average amount of work into the mechanical side of character creation. That's it.

Runners may do more running than most people, but most people run.


Exactly.

I don't want to do anything more than that. I am not an idiot that is deliberately "suboptimal" :smallyuk:
but nor am I apart of this stupid "optimizer culture" :smallyuk::smallyuk: that creates elitism and stupid terms I don't want anything to be apart of. in my view optimizing ruins a lot of things I enjoy by making it all about the metagame rather than the game itself. I don't want to play the metagame. I want to play the GAME. not the completely different thing that people turn it into that changes all the rules and calls what I enjoy suboptimal and stupid. not that I can even see any metagame at all, because metagames are invisible things that I cannot grasp and only frustrate me when they come up and say "hey screw you for not playing to me!" and screw me over. I just want to play my characters and things that I WANT, optimizing and metagames are just things that get in the way.

As I understand it, "My Guy" Syndrome* is not playing the metagame. Party imbalance is not playing the metagame. I'm struggling to understand the notion of glorifying not playing the metagame. It really feels like both you and the faction you oppose are using the whole "anyone driving slower than me is a slug / anyone diving faster than me is a maniac" logic. Whereas someone playing the metagame might note that people are driving at different speeds / trying to play Thor and a potted plant in the same party, and wonder whether that's cool with the group (my general preference is for groups that say "yes").

I won't deny that "just playing the game" is more fun. In many ways, I used to have more fun in the way I was taught to play the game, where role-playing was Good, and metagaming was Evil. Where My Guy Syndrome was good role-playing, and, when it occurred, determining fault was easy: if anyone failed to built characters in accordance with session 0, they were at fault; otherwise, the GM was at fault for not properly defining what characters were acceptable in session 0. The players were only responsible for playing the game; the GM was responsible for the metagame. That level of immersive roleplay, of just playing the GAME, and not the metagame, was the best.

However, optimization - as I understand it - typically doesn't occur at the game level, but during the character creation minigame. It feels completely orthogonal to the game / metagame distinction, as I'm accustomed to discussing it.

So, I'm going to keep poking at this for a bit. Thinking out loud, rambling.

I loved playing in a group with Thor and a sentient potted plant. I was the potted plant. And it was great. Because I knew going in what I was. I knew going in what I was going to contribute. I knew going in that Thor was a possible character, what Thor was, and what he could contribute. I chose to play a sentient potted plant, and I got exactly what I signed up for. It was great.

You complain that optimizing changes all the rules, changes the game. What exactly does that mean? Suppose you take something that works just fine, exactly like you expect it to out of the box - like a brand new car from the dealership. Then someone else takes something horrible, and optimizes it to get roughly similar performance to you - like, say, strapping low-power jet engines to a riding lawnmower. I'm assuming that you don't have a problem with optimization in this instance.

So what do you have problems with? Other players strapping turbo boosters / jet engines on the same car that you just drive stock off the dealer's lot - who are playing the same game with "better" / more optimized playing pieces? Players who take jet airplanes, and change the game / ignore your roads? Players who make optimal tactical Determinator choices in combat (I guess, to continue the analogy, that would be players who are professional drivers, and do more with the same car than you can?)?

What, exactly, makes you so upset that you can't stand to admit that, by virtue of not just being lol random or intentionally suboptimal, that you, too, engage in optimization, even if not to the extent of a dedicated optimizer?

* I don't actually remember the name for sure - Doing something anti-social because "it's what my character would do".

Lord Raziere
2018-05-20, 09:40 PM
As I understand it, "My Guy" Syndrome* is not playing the metagame. Party imbalance is not playing the metagame. I'm struggling to understand the notion of glorifying not playing the metagame. It really feels like both you and the faction you oppose are using the whole "anyone driving slower than me is a slug / anyone diving faster than me is a maniac" logic. Whereas someone playing the metagame might note that people are driving at different speeds / trying to play Thor and a potted plant in the same party, and wonder whether that's cool with the group (my general preference is for groups that say "yes").

I won't deny that "just playing the game" is more fun. In many ways, I used to have more fun in the way I was taught to play the game, where role-playing was Good, and metagaming was Evil. Where My Guy Syndrome was good role-playing, and, when it occurred, determining fault was easy: if anyone failed to built characters in accordance with session 0, they were at fault; otherwise, the GM was at fault for not properly defining what characters were acceptable in session 0. The players were only responsible for playing the game; the GM was responsible for the metagame. That level of immersive roleplay, of just playing the GAME, and not the metagame, was the best.

However, optimization - as I understand it - typically doesn't occur at the game level, but during the character creation minigame. It feels completely orthogonal to the game / metagame distinction, as I'm accustomed to discussing it.

So, I'm going to keep poking at this for a bit. Thinking out loud, rambling.

I loved playing in a group with Thor and a sentient potted plant. I was the potted plant. And it was great. Because I knew going in what I was. I knew going in what I was going to contribute. I knew going in that Thor was a possible character, what Thor was, and what he could contribute. I chose to play a sentient potted plant, and I got exactly what I signed up for. It was great.

You complain that optimizing changes all the rules, changes the game. What exactly does that mean? Suppose you take something that works just fine, exactly like you expect it to out of the box - like a brand new car from the dealership. Then someone else takes something horrible, and optimizes it to get roughly similar performance to you - like, say, strapping low-power jet engines to a riding lawnmower. I'm assuming that you don't have a problem with optimization in this instance.

So what do you have problems with? Other players strapping turbo boosters / jet engines on the same car that you just drive stock off the dealer's lot - who are playing the same game with "better" / more optimized playing pieces? Players who take jet airplanes, and change the game / ignore your roads? Players who make optimal tactical Determinator choices in combat (I guess, to continue the analogy, that would be players who are professional drivers, and do more with the same car than you can?)?

What, exactly, makes you so upset that you can't stand to admit that, by virtue of not just being lol random or intentionally suboptimal, that you, too, engage in optimization, even if not to the extent of a dedicated optimizer?

* I don't actually remember the name for sure - Doing something anti-social because "it's what my character would do".

ok 1. Don't lump me in with Those Guys Who take the Chaotic Neutral Alignment and claim "i'm just roleplaying my character" when they be a jerk. because I don't do that. that was uncalled for

2. screw your driver metaphor. its bad. actual driving is about adhering to rules that are important and can get people killed if not followed. there is no subjectivity to it. drive under the speed limit and all your doing is asking for someone from behind to crash into you, drive over it and your asking to crash into someone else. either way, someone's day is going to be ruined

3. let me tell you how it REALLY is: there are casual players who play the actual game, it can be whatever game you can picture from roleplaying game to a videogame. then there are people who decide to look at it and say "lets break it, who cares about the consequences?" just to see what happens and the result is them telling everyone how its broken and then everyone decides to do the same to break it forever, and the great experience that was once there, is now gone. they BROKE IT. its ruined. pandoras box opened, now all people can talk about is the broken remains left behind. there are things better left unopened. things better left unbroken. its like someone playing the game normally up against someone with all the cheat codes, its never a fair comparison and it ruins the immersion with video-game logic. finding a bug and exploiting it isn't playing the game, its abusing it. because its all fun until somebody finds that Pun-Pun or Shudderwock combo and completely screws everyone else over just because its there because when you break the game- thats all the game becomes: the shards you broke it into, with no one caring about anything else anymore. thus leading to people ruining perfectly good fluff to make a broken tippyverse world or something like that and screw everyone who just wants to play a fantasy game, screw the people who don't care to exploit any of this and just want to play this out in y'know they they want to. because once the exploits that, combos are out there, you imprison people with them, you screw over any archetype, design or thing that can't stand up to it even if they'd be perfectly good if they weren't there! Its frustrating! you think its bad that someone personally is against your thing? well try your thing being shunned by an entire communities because someone random jerk somewhere else made some combo you didn't know or care about and now everyone constantly references it as if your supposed to care and saying that their exploitative hack is better than whatever you came up with just because its "optimized"! try never winning at entire videogames against other people just because of some preparation done long before you could ever do anything about it! all because you decide you actually want to play and discover and have fun rather than obsessively reading up all this or reading videogame guides and spending endless hours honing that some stupid trick thats not going to be useful any time else!

this optimizing mindset? all it has done is screw me over every time it happens in anything! the fact that these optimizers whether they be hearthstone players, DnD players or whatever, so often stop trying to win just they can start playing with something less than optimal so they can have fun playing whatever they want anyways just proves my point: I don't see any reason to start optimizing if its just going to eventually lead me right back to where I am now. I already play whatever I want and have fun, I am already free to do create whatever I want. I don't need some fancy mechanics and exploits for that.

melvinmelon123
2018-05-20, 11:15 PM
I think a lot of problems people have with power gamers is actually a problem with bad players. Many of the experiences I see posted about involves people being jerks and them being an optimized character is the least of the issue. There is a big difference between a character being more effective mechanically and that player making others feel bad outside the mechanics of the game. I honestly think that if Billy is upset that his Wizard does less damage with Fireball than Timmy's Wizard, that it is not Timmy's fault for having an effective character. Billy can either get over it, make his character better, or find a different table to play at. Complaining that Timmy's Wizard is better just means that the person with an issue about "winning" the game is Billy. I have DM'd for characters of all different power levels and it has not been hard. As long as there are no issues with the person being a jerk, they can play as strong or weak characters as they want and if someone has a problem with that then it is on them.

Mechalich
2018-05-20, 11:59 PM
As I understand it, "My Guy" Syndrome* is not playing the metagame. Party imbalance is not playing the metagame. I'm struggling to understand the notion of glorifying not playing the metagame. It really feels like both you and the faction you oppose are using the whole "anyone driving slower than me is a slug / anyone diving faster than me is a maniac" logic. Whereas someone playing the metagame might note that people are driving at different speeds / trying to play Thor and a potted plant in the same party, and wonder whether that's cool with the group (my general preference is for groups that say "yes").


Tabletop should not have a metagame. It's not a MOBA or MtG. It's not even a single-player RPG where combat is mostly an obstacle and making your character nigh-invincible for the purpose of more easily accessing the story makes logical sense (a common approach in games like Skyrim). Insofar as you need to play the metagame in order to make the game work - whether it's a GM doing so in terms of bans/hand-holding/fudging or the players by agreeing to certain builds only - that's bad design.

An RPG offers various concepts to PCs and all the concepts the game supports should have roughly even levels of viability in play as part of the base design. If your game is about adventurers, than the types of adventurers you're allowed to play should all be able to contribute roughly equally. If your game is about superheroes or vampires this still holds.

A huge number of TTRPGs have massive conceptual imbalances built into the game design, almost always to the detriment of the resulting gameplay. Generally this happens when conceptual options aren't valued equally - for instance 'hurting people' is generally valued too high in design while abilities like 'mind control' aren't valued highly enough, because designers fail to connect the dots that mind-control may well provide limitless amounts of hurting people in addition to all its other functions (and this isn't even a principle D&D problem, VtM has this out the wazoo).

Now, any game with any real rules complexity is going to throw out some emergent scenario that the designers couldn't anticipate that will, if chosen, break the game. This happens in competitive games that have highly managed metagames all the time. It's a problem in those games just as it is a problem in table-top. It's worth noting the OP formulations that break the meta in competitive video games get nerfed. Games like Overwatch constantly reformulate balance, MtG bans certain cards and rotates out the entire set periodically in order to keep the combos manageable. TTRPGs can't do this very effectively due to the absence of active management, but that doesn't mean using those exploits is a good thing. People who exploit in MOBAs and MMOs eventually get banned. In tabletop GMs who know what they're dealing with ban broken combinations, but this is harder for a lot of reasons - notably a GM working with five people has a lot less leverage than, Blizzard, and also can only spot things as they occur with one sample group as opposed to thousands.

Chaosticket
2018-05-21, 01:41 AM
Not PowerGamer, but munchkin behavior includes slang terms such as "killstealing", "lootNinja". Toxic behavior often irrational and self destruction.

Now I dont understand how carefully choosing something like a Crafting feat is considered toxic.

A large number of problems are based on the move between single and team based games.

For Dungeons and Dragons as well as Pathfinder I ask groups I meet how people feel about, in order, the Leadership feat, item Crafting Feats, and Spells. These are touchy subjects.

Rhedyn
2018-05-21, 08:20 AM
ok 1. Don't lump me in with Those Guys Who take the Chaotic Neutral Alignment and claim "i'm just roleplaying my character" when they be a jerk. because I don't do that. that was uncalled for

2. screw your driver metaphor. its bad. actual driving is about adhering to rules that are important and can get people killed if not followed. there is no subjectivity to it. drive under the speed limit and all your doing is asking for someone from behind to crash into you, drive over it and your asking to crash into someone else. either way, someone's day is going to be ruined

3. let me tell you how it REALLY is: there are casual players who play the actual game, it can be whatever game you can picture from roleplaying game to a videogame. then there are people who decide to look at it and say "lets break it, who cares about the consequences?" just to see what happens and the result is them telling everyone how its broken and then everyone decides to do the same to break it forever, and the great experience that was once there, is now gone. they BROKE IT. its ruined. pandoras box opened, now all people can talk about is the broken remains left behind. there are things better left unopened. things better left unbroken. its like someone playing the game normally up against someone with all the cheat codes, its never a fair comparison and it ruins the immersion with video-game logic. finding a bug and exploiting it isn't playing the game, its abusing it. because its all fun until somebody finds that Pun-Pun or Shudderwock combo and completely screws everyone else over just because its there because when you break the game- thats all the game becomes: the shards you broke it into, with no one caring about anything else anymore. thus leading to people ruining perfectly good fluff to make a broken tippyverse world or something like that and screw everyone who just wants to play a fantasy game, screw the people who don't care to exploit any of this and just want to play this out in y'know they they want to. because once the exploits that, combos are out there, you imprison people with them, you screw over any archetype, design or thing that can't stand up to it even if they'd be perfectly good if they weren't there! Its frustrating! you think its bad that someone personally is against your thing? well try your thing being shunned by an entire communities because someone random jerk somewhere else made some combo you didn't know or care about and now everyone constantly references it as if your supposed to care and saying that their exploitative hack is better than whatever you came up with just because its "optimized"! try never winning at entire videogames against other people just because of some preparation done long before you could ever do anything about it! all because you decide you actually want to play and discover and have fun rather than obsessively reading up all this or reading videogame guides and spending endless hours honing that some stupid trick thats not going to be useful any time else!

this optimizing mindset? all it has done is screw me over every time it happens in anything! the fact that these optimizers whether they be hearthstone players, DnD players or whatever, so often stop trying to win just they can start playing with something less than optimal so they can have fun playing whatever they want anyways just proves my point: I don't see any reason to start optimizing if its just going to eventually lead me right back to where I am now. I already play whatever I want and have fun, I am already free to do create whatever I want. I don't need some fancy mechanics and exploits for that.
Meanwhile, I find anti-munchkins to be far worse to play with than power gamers.

Anti-munchkins tends to disrupt the game to complain at anyone who bothered to care about the game enough to make their character.

Caring about the game should never be a bad thing. If it causes bad results, that is the game's fault and you can just go play a better game and not have that problem.

But yes, it is rude for someone to come into a group and snap the game everyone thought was fine until you showed up. For example, D&D 5e is such a mess that I have to actively build unoptimized characters just to not ruin the game for people. Me knowing how to break it is not a flaw with my approach to these games, it's a flaw of that system.
But, me wanting to play a point-buy human champion fighter with 5 14s and remarkable Athlete to make a skill monkey fighter is still me optimizing pointless skills on a fighter but not optimizing combat or anything that actually matters.

Quertus
2018-05-21, 10:04 AM
ok 1. Don't lump me in with Those Guys Who take the Chaotic Neutral Alignment and claim "i'm just roleplaying my character" when they be a jerk. because I don't do that. that was uncalled for

I wasn't actually referring to the idiot who chooses Chaotic Neutral and does whatever stupid thing crosses his mind and calls it "role-playing". This was more, eh, the Thief stealing from the party. Because Thief. Or the Holy Knight killing the PC Necromancer, because it's what his character would do. Or the (insert racist archetype here) verbally abusing the PC (and, by extension, player) of the chosen race, because it's what the character would do. Or the Wizard of Lloth summoning spiders, even though one of the players has a petrifying fear of spiders, because it's what the character would do.


2. screw your driver metaphor. its bad. actual driving is about adhering to rules that are important and can get people killed if not followed. there is no subjectivity to it. drive under the speed limit and all your doing is asking for someone from behind to crash into you, drive over it and your asking to crash into someone else. either way, someone's day is going to be ruined

I mean, personally, I tend to follow a "posted speed limit" style of balance - my first step to analyzing potential balance is to compare against expected opposition / challenges. But, by your speed limit logic, if someone optimizes more than you, you have no grounds to complain so long as they're obeying the speed limit. Do you agree with this?


3. let me tell you how it REALLY is: there are casual players who play the actual game, it can be whatever game you can picture from roleplaying game to a videogame. then there are people who decide to look at it and say "lets break it, who cares about the consequences?" just to see what happens and the result is them telling everyone how its broken and then everyone decides to do the same to break it forever, and the great experience that was once there, is now gone. they BROKE IT. its ruined. pandoras box opened, now all people can talk about is the broken remains left behind. there are things better left unopened. things better left unbroken. its like someone playing the game normally up against someone with all the cheat codes, its never a fair comparison and it ruins the immersion with video-game logic. finding a bug and exploiting it isn't playing the game, its abusing it. because its all fun until somebody finds that Pun-Pun or Shudderwock combo and completely screws everyone else over just because its there because when you break the game- thats all the game becomes: the shards you broke it into, with no one caring about anything else anymore. thus leading to people ruining perfectly good fluff to make a broken tippyverse world or something like that and screw everyone who just wants to play a fantasy game, screw the people who don't care to exploit any of this and just want to play this out in y'know they they want to. because once the exploits that, combos are out there, you imprison people with them, you screw over any archetype, design or thing that can't stand up to it even if they'd be perfectly good if they weren't there! Its frustrating! you think its bad that someone personally is against your thing? well try your thing being shunned by an entire communities because someone random jerk somewhere else made some combo you didn't know or care about and now everyone constantly references it as if your supposed to care and saying that their exploitative hack is better than whatever you came up with just because its "optimized"! try never winning at entire videogames against other people just because of some preparation done long before you could ever do anything about it! all because you decide you actually want to play and discover and have fun rather than obsessively reading up all this or reading videogame guides and spending endless hours honing that some stupid trick thats not going to be useful any time else!

this optimizing mindset? all it has done is screw me over every time it happens in anything! the fact that these optimizers whether they be hearthstone players, DnD players or whatever, so often stop trying to win just they can start playing with something less than optimal so they can have fun playing whatever they want anyways just proves my point: I don't see any reason to start optimizing if its just going to eventually lead me right back to where I am now. I already play whatever I want and have fun, I am already free to do create whatever I want. I don't need some fancy mechanics and exploits for that.

Hmmm... You may be conflating optimization and cheat codes. So let's poke at this a bit.

The first time I ever played Warcraft, I was playing against people who actually owned the game.

I got attacked before I had built any soldiers.

I knew that it was "game over"... But then I noticed that my workers had a non-zero attack value. I had them mob the soldiers, and I actually won the defense of my town!

Not wanting to die before I'd even gotten to play, I sent workers to the far corners of the map, and built expansions everywhere, taking in gold from at least a half a dozen mines.

I climbed the tech tree to paladins, and built... Whatever their spawn point was... scattered across the map. Then I built paladins. Lots and lots of paladins.

I found an enemy base, surrounded it, and sent in a diversionary force. Once they had engaged, I sent in the two real task forces. Utterly obliterated my opponent.

Then I found my other opponent, and didn't bother with subtlety - I just sent the flood of holy vengeance through his gates, while constantly spawning reinforcements.

No cheat codes, just careful observation of a) the rules - peons can fight, too; b) simple strategy - all things being equal, the side with greater numbers has the advantage; c) human behavior - my opponent wasn't psychologically prepared for a war on three fronts.

Still, I think I see where you're coming from (maybe?). On LoL, I'm a very casual player. People have all kinds of cool words, like "support" and "jungling". They have all these optimized strategies, and try to suss out my intended role. Me, I just hit stuff. Because that's what I find fun.

What I don't understand about your stance is where pun-pun fits in - unless such builds actually show up in play at your tables. :smalleek:


Tabletop should not have a metagame. It's not a MOBA or MtG. It's not even a single-player RPG where combat is mostly an obstacle and making your character nigh-invincible for the purpose of more easily accessing the story makes logical sense (a common approach in games like Skyrim). Insofar as you need to play the metagame in order to make the game work - whether it's a GM doing so in terms of bans/hand-holding/fudging or the players by agreeing to certain builds only - that's bad design.

An RPG offers various concepts to PCs and all the concepts the game supports should have roughly even levels of viability in play as part of the base design. If your game is about adventurers, than the types of adventurers you're allowed to play should all be able to contribute roughly equally. If your game is about superheroes or vampires this still holds.

A huge number of TTRPGs have massive conceptual imbalances built into the game design, almost always to the detriment of the resulting gameplay. Generally this happens when conceptual options aren't valued equally - for instance 'hurting people' is generally valued too high in design while abilities like 'mind control' aren't valued highly enough, because designers fail to connect the dots that mind-control may well provide limitless amounts of hurting people in addition to all its other functions (and this isn't even a principle D&D problem, VtM has this out the wazoo).

Now, any game with any real rules complexity is going to throw out some emergent scenario that the designers couldn't anticipate that will, if chosen, break the game. This happens in competitive games that have highly managed metagames all the time. It's a problem in those games just as it is a problem in table-top. It's worth noting the OP formulations that break the meta in competitive video games get nerfed. Games like Overwatch constantly reformulate balance, MtG bans certain cards and rotates out the entire set periodically in order to keep the combos manageable. TTRPGs can't do this very effectively due to the absence of active management, but that doesn't mean using those exploits is a good thing. People who exploit in MOBAs and MMOs eventually get banned. In tabletop GMs who know what they're dealing with ban broken combinations, but this is harder for a lot of reasons - notably a GM working with five people has a lot less leverage than, Blizzard, and also can only spot things as they occur with one sample group as opposed to thousands.

Thor and the sentient potted plant were both completely viable in play. They offered radically different levels and types of contribution, yes, but you knew that when you signed up to play. There were no trap options. If, however, Thor's player had failed to play the metagame, and (switching systems here) had taken "genocidal hatred of all plant life (uncommon, total)", the game would have failed. I see no way to not play the metagame in character creation.

So I'll take the opposite stance here: MtG should not have a metagame; RPGs should. Because in an RPG, you care about the other players; whereas in MtG, it's acceptable - and almost expected - for the player to just field the most efficient playing piece that they can build (although I personally prefer to play the game more casually).

Kami2awa
2018-05-21, 11:44 AM
My dislike of powergaming comes the team nature of RPGs. The player party is supposed to work together to overcome obstacles. A powergamer in such a group can easily become a one-man team, leaving the rest of the group wondering why they are even present.

To take an example, would your average school football team, playing for fun, want David Beckham to join them? Once the novelty wore off, probably not. It wouldn't be fun for them or their opponents to have such a massive imbalance of skill.

Koo Rehtorb
2018-05-21, 11:47 AM
To take an example, would your average school football team, playing for fun, want David Beckham to join them? Once the novelty wore off, probably not. It wouldn't be fun for them or their opponents to have such a massive imbalance of skill.

I think it'd be manageable, considering he's a soccer player.

Knaight
2018-05-21, 11:50 AM
Yeah, that makes sense. And not every game is hard to optimize-let's take a theoretical game that has three stats, Combat, Social, and Exploration. You get 10 points to distribute between the three stats, at a one-to-one ratio.

Want a combat monster? Combat 8, Social 1, Exploration 1.
Social magician? Combat 1, Social 8, Exploration 1.
Balanced, but with a slight exploration emphasis? Combat 3, Social 3, Exploration 4.

Each time you select your stats, you're optimizing for your concept, unless you're picking stats that actively work against your concept. Which, if you are... Why?

Now, for a game like D&D 3.5, optimization varies IMMENSELY in how deep you can go. You can do the bare minimum (stats in the right places, feats that don't suck, and a few good magic items) or go hog-wild (see: Iron Chef), but if you have a concept and you build towards it, that's optimizing for your concept.

The definition of optimization used tends to slide a fair bit though - just picking very basic mechanical representation isn't generally considered optimization, and tends to only slide into that definition when useful to defend optimization from people criticizing it. Then, once that criticism is gone it reverts to a different definition which isn't about mechanically representing a character so much as refining a mechanical representation such that it becomes more powerful - and that's without getting into TO.

Talakeal
2018-05-21, 12:08 PM
I think it might be prudent to point out that meta-gaming has at least two very different definitions.

In games like RPGs it typically means acting on information your character wouldnt know.

In games like LoL it typically means modifying your strategy based on the psychology of other players or the community as a whole.

Rhedyn
2018-05-21, 12:41 PM
My dislike of powergaming comes the team nature of RPGs. The player party is supposed to work together to overcome obstacles. A powergamer in such a group can easily become a one-man team, leaving the rest of the group wondering why they are even present.

Nah, that really really depends on the system. Sure what you are saying is true for 3.5 and Pathfinder for even equal level parties. But that is an exception not the general rule.

I guess Savage Worlds with high power point Super Powers from the super powers companion can also get into that territory. If you combine shape change and duplicate, you can end up playing a flight of Dragons which is far stronger than someone who spent 40 points on super skills.

LudicSavant
2018-05-21, 12:59 PM
2. When does optimization become "power gaming?"

To be brutally honest?

At least half the time it's whenever you do something in-game better than someone with a giant ego, who can't stand to see someone else do something significantly better than them, and then try to rationalize why it's offensive that someone outperformed them. Compare derogatory terms like "tryhard" in videogames. A similar case also occurs with DMs, when they see players overcome a challenge in an unexpected way and, rather than adapt or blame the game, they choose to blame the players for the crime of resourcefulness.

That's also why this opinion is heard so often, even though many gamers don't share it. It's because the kind of people who do it are often very petty and very loud. And if you repeat a lie often enough, people will start to believe it. And then people will try to rationalize why they believed it, so they start redefining words to make them hateful (which is why you see so many incompatible definitions of what "powergaming" means in this thread and others, separate from simply being a pejorative term for optimization). Conflating things with these redefinitions is roughly the other half of the time.

The rationalizations for the hatred are often remarkably flimsy, or even outright fallacious. For instance, a common one is the false dilemma fallacy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma) (also known in some D&D circles as the Stormwind Fallacy (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/22250/what-is-the-stormwind-fallacy) when talking about powergaming in particular), where people wrongly assume that you can be good at mechanics OR good at roleplaying, but not both.

Another equally silly rationalization is denying that D&D is or has any elements of a turn-based strategy game (despite that being the bulk of what takes up space in the books), and claiming that players should not engage with the core gameplay loop of turn-based strategy games (evaluating choices and choosing the one you think is most likely to advance your goals). It's fine if you, personally, do not want to engage with the strategy aspect of the game, as there are other aspects to enjoy as well, but that's no reason to hate people who do.

kyoryu
2018-05-21, 01:30 PM
Meanwhile, I find anti-munchkins to be far worse to play with than power gamers.


....




So much BadWrongFun in one post.

Drakevarg
2018-05-21, 02:14 PM
To be brutally honest?

At least half the time it's whenever you do something in-game better than someone with a giant ego, who can't stand to see someone else do something significantly better than them, and then try to rationalize why it's offensive that someone outperformed them. Compare derogatory terms like "tryhard" in videogames. A similar case also occurs with DMs, when they see players overcome a challenge in an unexpected way and, rather than adapt or blame the game, they choose to blame the players for the crime of resourcefulness.

That's also why this opinion is heard so often, even though many gamers don't share it. It's because the kind of people who do it are often very petty and very loud. And if you repeat a lie often enough, people will start to believe it. And then people will try to rationalize why they believed it, so they start redefining words to make them hateful (which is why you see so many incompatible definitions of what "powergaming" means in this thread and others, separate from simply being a pejorative term for optimization). Conflating things with these redefinitions is roughly the other half of the time.

The rationalizations for the hatred are often remarkably flimsy, or even outright fallacious. For instance, a common one is the false dilemma fallacy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma) (also known in some D&D circles as the Stormwind Fallacy (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/22250/what-is-the-stormwind-fallacy) when talking about powergaming in particular), where people wrongly assume that you can be good at mechanics OR good at roleplaying, but not both.

Another equally silly rationalization is denying that D&D is or has any elements of a turn-based strategy game (despite that being the bulk of what takes up space in the books), and claiming that players should not engage with the core gameplay loop of turn-based strategy games (evaluating choices and choosing the one you think is most likely to advance your goals). It's fine if you, personally, do not want to engage with the strategy aspect of the game, as there are other aspects to enjoy as well, but that's no reason to hate people who do.

"To be brutally honest, everyone who disagrees with me is just lying to themselves and if they had any sense they'd hold my opinions."

Resentment towards optimization may be the result of fragile egos sometimes (though that can easily be on either side of the question - maybe the complainer has a fragile ego and can't stand someone being better than them, or maybe the power gamer is the one with the fragile ego and that's why they insist on being the ubermensch right out of the gate), but I think far more often the problem is that people have different definitions of "fun."

For some, winning = fun, and so fun = winning. If they (or someone else in their party) effortlessly resolves an encounter with their extensive familiarity of the mechanics (or just has overpowered toys, whichever), that's great! We win, winning is fun, what's to complain about? These people, if not power gamers themselves, generally do not have any problem with power gamers unless it proves a distraction for whatever reason.

For others, fun comes from the experience. If their character decides to rob a bank, having the money isn't nearly as important to them as doing the heist. So if Jim the Wizard singlehandedly teleports into the vault and robs it empty with two or three well-selected spells then yeah they won, but they didn't get to do the part that was actually important to them. Similarly, if Ted the Barbarian is totally psyched to have an epic showdown with the dragon, it's similarly disappointing when his buddy Sara the Assassin kills it in its sleep, even if that technically was more efficient and got the job done.

I'm decidedly in the latter camp, but I'm also aware that I have absolutely no comprehension of competitive spirit. I legitimately do not understand the mindset of having an overwhelming drive to win. I don't watch sports, I don't understand people who care about victory for its own sake. Call it a personal failing. But I'm not going to tell them they're having Badwrongfun, I just don't necessarily want to put up with it at the expense of my own enjoyment.

LudicSavant
2018-05-21, 02:20 PM
"To be brutally honest, everyone who disagrees with me is just lying to themselves and if they had any sense they'd hold my opinions."

That was awfully rude, stuffing words I didn't say in my mouth.

In fact, your paraphrasing directly contradicts my post. For example, I very explicitly did not refer to everyone. I said some people did something. You know, just like you did in the very next line.


Resentment towards optimization may be the result of fragile egos sometimes

Also,

but I think far more often the problem is that people have different definitions of "fun."

I mentioned this myself, though you excluded it from your paraphrasing. The difference is that there are people who find different things fun and can respect that different people enjoy different things, and then there are people who will directly hatred and toxicity at people who find different things fun. The former do not tend to use "powergamer" as a derogatory term.

Drakevarg
2018-05-21, 02:28 PM
That was awfully rude, stuffing words I didn't say in my mouth.

I'm a thoroughly rude and unlikable person.


...and then try to rationalize why it's offensive...

...if you repeat a lie often enough, people will start to believe it. And then people will try to rationalize why they believed it, so they start redefining words to make them hateful...

The rationalizations for the hatred are often remarkably flimsy...

So, back to the subject at hand.


I mentioned this myself, though you excluded it from your paraphrasing. The difference is that there are people who find different things fun and can respect that different people enjoy different things, and then there are people who will directly hatred and toxicity at people who find different things fun. The former do not tend to use "powergamer" as a derogatory term.

You mentioned it as an afterthought, a "that's okay though," not as a root function of the conflict. People generally don't care about power gamers at large, just about having to put up with them at their table, unless they're having a philosophical debate on the subject. And as mentioned previously, the two mindsets do not work well together because their objectives are contradictory. "You do you" doesn't work very well when it can't function both ways simultaneously.

GeometryGuru
2018-05-21, 02:31 PM
1. I have noticed more than a few people who have this really strong disgust for "power gamers"...DnD Youtubers, forum people, randos I met at the LFGS...they hate power gamers. Am I the only one who notices this? What is the motivation behind this sentiment?

2. When does optimization become "power gaming?"

3. What is the alternative to "power gaming?"

1. Personally I think the fun of rpgs is seeing your character grow and eventually be able to take on crazier villains and enemies. By power gaming you lose that element of growth because your character goes from jacked to super jacked and as someone who appreciates a fun game of roleplaying and storytelling someone punching a hole through your game like its made of tissue paper is annoying. I typically begin to slap down these characters.

2. I see optimization as power gaming when the character goes from being understandably good at something, such as a bard having a good charisma or a thief being moderately skilled in pick-pocketing, to being ridiculously over-qualified in their class or in something that makes no sense, like a fighter starting off stupid high attack with their weapon or a wizard being strangely skilled with a longsword.

3. The alternative to power gaming would be just PLAYING THE GAME. Power gaming really takes all the fun out of gaming and really just hurts the group's dynamics. I recommend that players creating characters should start with a concept of their character and then use their randomly generated results to build the character with the strengths and weaknesses of the concept kept in mind.

LudicSavant
2018-05-21, 02:36 PM
I'm a thoroughly rude and unlikable person. Well then.


You mentioned it as an afterthought, a "that's okay though," not as a root function of the conflict.

Again, I feel you have mischaracterized my position. I don't think it's "okay though." I think that it's inexcusable to lather hatred on someone simply for having fun doing something that you, personally, don't enjoy.

It's one thing to enjoy vanilla ice cream while another person prefers chocolate ice cream. It's another thing entirely to hate the person who enjoys chocolate ice cream. Or even a person who enjoys both chocolate and vanilla.

Talakeal
2018-05-21, 02:37 PM
Its odd, is talk about people who dont like power gaming must be bad at the game or not care about mechanics.

I care very much about mechanics and player skill, but I also care about challenge.

I am the type of person who plays video games on the hardest difficulty and often imposes further challenges on myself like iron man runs or only using a knife.

Most of the power gaming and optimization I see online seems less like that and more like playing with the cheat codes on.

Drakevarg
2018-05-21, 02:44 PM
It's one thing to enjoy vanilla ice cream while another person prefers chocolate ice cream, or even a person who enjoys both chocolate and vanilla. It's another thing entirely to hate the person who enjoys chocolate ice cream.

That metaphor would work better if you were talking about events happening in parallel. If you hate chocolate ice cream, and you're sitting at a table with someone who loves chocolate ice cream so much they ordered it for everyone at the table and refuses to do otherwise, it is entirely understandable to resent that person for it. Because chocolate ice cream in this metaphor is a stand-in for victory through optimization, and you can't really set up a group-game scenario where one person wins with very little effort and all the other people on their team somehow don't.

Rhedyn
2018-05-21, 02:46 PM
So much BadWrongFun in one post.
If your definition of fun is to berate people for understanding mechanics or strategy, then yes, your fun is wrong.

Anti-munchkins are toxic players.

Being a little miffed that someone broke your favorite game is one thing. Taking an experience like that and generally saying that anyone who bothers to understand the game part of RPGs are bad people, makes you a toxic anti-munchkin.

A rational response to finding out your favorite game is not balanced is to start making house rules to balance it again (which includes general guidelines of play which are defacto house rules). That's being mature enough to not attack people because of a game.

Not liking to play with tactics focused characters (which can be something someone does in character) is a matter of personal preference. Other people aren't bad players for playing characters like that or being ok playing with characters like that.

LudicSavant
2018-05-21, 02:46 PM
That metaphor would work better if you were talking about events happening in parallel. If you hate chocolate ice cream, and you're sitting at a table with someone who loves chocolate ice cream so much they ordered it for everyone at the table and refuses to do otherwise, it is entirely understandable to resent that person for it. Because chocolate ice cream in this metaphor is a stand-in for victory through optimization, and you can't really set up a group-game scenario where one person wins with very little effort and all the other people on their team somehow don't.

The metaphor is perfectly appropriate for the subject I was discussing, which was regarding people who voice contempt for powergamers in general, rather than those who simply would prefer to play a different style of game, which I specifically clarified I took no issue with in my very first post.

I'm not talking about people who say "I don't want to play at this style of table" I'm talking about people who do things like go on gaming forums and tell people that they're having badwrongfun for picking an option which happens to be better than some other option. And if you don't think those people are a common thing... I dunno what to tell you, other than "look around." There was even a guy in here earlier saying that he hates that people in ranked matchmaking in competitive videogames try to win when he plays against them. It's like if someone goes on Super Smash Bros and sees the "for glory" and "for fun" modes, picks "for glory," and then complains that people are trying to knock their character off the stage. :smallconfused:

It's such a common issue in gaming forums that it's even specifically covered in the forum rules (classified as a kind of flaming).

Drakevarg
2018-05-21, 03:00 PM
The metaphor is perfectly appropriate for the subject I was discussing, which was regarding people who voice contempt for powergamers in general, rather than those who simply would prefer to play a different style of game, which I specifically clarified I took no issue with.

I'm not talking about people who say "I don't want to play at this table" I'm talking about people who do things like go on gaming forums and tell people that they're having badwrongfun, or send you hate mail when you beat them in a videogame calling you a tryhard.

Well, people complaining about tryhards in vidjagames are definitely just sore losers. I'm not gonna debate that point. Possible exception for games where competition is optional and they're just venting about being randomly dunked on while trying to mind their own business.

As for the rest, do people that actually do that beyond philosophical debate and/or complaining about personal experience? Someone saying "man, people who insist on ordering everybody chocolate ice cream even when they're with people who don't like chocolate are just the worst" isn't the same as "people who eat chocolate ice cream suck." Or, in non-metaphorese: "I hate playing with power gamers" isn't the same thing as "high-op games are badwrongfun."

This gets a bit blurrier in games with PUGs, because when you're dealing with a constant rotation of strangers you can't really screen for people who are going to play with different priorities than you, but that doesn't make the resentment any less understandable, just harder to do anything about besides "don't play those kinds of games at all."


It's like if someone goes on Super Smash Bros and sees the "for glory" and "for fun" modes, picks "for glory," and then complains that people are trying to knock their character off the stage. :smallconfused:

I've only played the older, pre-online SSBs so the comparison is somewhat lost on me, but what if they pick the "For Fun" mode and then they get paired against some super-competitive type? Like I said, PUGs are kind of a crapshoot.

LudicSavant
2018-05-21, 03:07 PM
Well, people complaining about tryhards in vidjagames are definitely just sore losers. I'm not gonna debate that point.

Okay, then please don't stuff sarcastic quotes in my mouth when I say so. Thank you. :smalltongue:


As for the rest, do people that actually do that beyond philosophical debate and/or complaining about personal experience? Someone saying "man, people who insist on ordering everybody chocolate ice cream even when they're with people who don't like chocolate are just the worst" isn't the same as "people who eat chocolate ice cream suck." Or, in non-metaphorese: "I hate playing with power gamers" isn't the same thing as "high-op games are badwrongfun."

Yes, people actually do that (the "high-op games are badwrongfun" thing). It's just against the forum rules to say it outright on GitP, specifically. On places where it's not? Well... there's a reason the rule got made in the first place.


I've only played the older, pre-online SSBs so the comparison is somewhat lost on me, but what if they pick the "For Fun" mode and then they get paired against some super-competitive type? Like I said, PUGs are kind of a crapshoot.

To explain:

In SSB4, there is a competitive mode that's set up like how people would play tournaments in older SSBs (you know, "no items, final destination" and so forth). And then there is a "for fun" mode that is just a bunch of chaos and people messing around. This division is specifically to cater to both of SSB's flavor preferences (chocolate and vanilla).

Drakevarg
2018-05-21, 03:17 PM
Yes, people actually do that (the "high-op games are badwrongfun" thing). It's just against the forum rules to say it outright on GitP, specifically. On places where it's not? Well... there's a reason the rule got made in the first place.

Then I'll concede your issues aren't entirely without merit. Won't backpedal the sarcasm though, because I did find your presentation condescending. Personally, I was analyzing the problem as I've seen it, which because of the environment lacks the "some people are just loud, petty jerks" element and thus becomes much more worthy of philosophical contention.


In SSB4, there is a competitive mode that's set up like how people would play tournaments in older SSBs (you know, "no items, final destination" and so forth). And then there is a "for fun" mode that is just a bunch of chaos and people messing around. This division is specifically to cater to both of SSB's flavor preferences (chocolate and vanilla).

Kinda figured it was something like that. Still, some people take genuine thrill in dunking on unsuspecting casuals, and will go into arenas like that specifically for the easy wins.

LibraryOgre
2018-05-21, 03:22 PM
The Mod Wonder: Take a Deep Breath. Consider what you are about to type. Do you want infraction points? Does this seem likely to result in getting tagged for Flaming/Trolling under:

"Putting down or insulting ANY play preference, including (but not explicitly limited to) choice of game system, choice of preferred levels, classes, or races, choice of setting, choice of power level, etc. You cannot call another poster a munchkin or make any other disparaging remarks about how they like to play the game. You can express your own preference, you can express why you don't care for their preference, but you can't put someone down for feeling differently."

Do you REALLY want to make me work today?

Drakevarg
2018-05-21, 03:38 PM
The Mod Wonder: Take a Deep Breath. Consider what you are about to type. Do you want infraction points? Does this seem likely to result in getting tagged for Flaming/Trolling under:

"Putting down or insulting ANY play preference, including (but not explicitly limited to) choice of game system, choice of preferred levels, classes, or races, choice of setting, choice of power level, etc. You cannot call another poster a munchkin or make any other disparaging remarks about how they like to play the game. You can express your own preference, you can express why you don't care for their preference, but you can't put someone down for feeling differently."

Do you REALLY want to make me work today?

Genuine confusion: Has anyone actually been doing that here, or is this a general warning because of the thread subject? :smallconfused: I won't claim we've been entirely civil, but I feel like we've been speaking in generalizations well enough so far on that front. Or are we closer to the lip of the volcano than it looks?

OldTrees1
2018-05-21, 04:39 PM
While we are all taking a step back please consider the following 3 examples of optimizing:

1) Someone wants to start playing the RPG but has basically no knowledge of the mechanics (we all started there once). They have a vague and system agnostic character concept that they would like to play. You sit down with them. Through asking them questions about this character concept and your own knowledge of the game system, together you create the in system character that matches the system agnostic character to the best of your ability. Optimizing to match a character concept the new player thought of.

2) You and a bunch of your friends sit down to discuss the RPG you want to play next. You all know each other fairly well and thus know where your preferences differ. However you care about each other so you want to collectively make an ideal group decision. Through talking about various theme, challenge, setting, character, and motif preferences you settle on an RPG and have a headstart on making characters. Each of you is cognizant about avoiding unwanted emergent features whether they be unwanted intra party conflict or with a preference for skill clashing with a preference for challenge. In the end you all end up with a party that all of you will enjoy playing with in a setting with the ideal balance of challenge and skill. Optimizing to match a group for the better enjoyment of all.

3) You like challenge. When thinking about a character concept part of your idea is what struggles they will deal with. Unfortunately there is no explicit "peg leg" option for you to apply to your peg legged blacksmith. So you look at the options you have and you figure out how to simulate that challenge in spite of their being no simple explicit option. Optimizing to create a fun challenge to play with.


Genuine confusion: Has anyone actually been doing that here, or is this a general warning because of the thread subject? :smallconfused: I won't claim we've been entirely civil, but I feel like we've been speaking in generalizations well enough so far on that front. Or are we closer to the lip of the volcano than it looks?

Yes, several of you have been doing that which is why some others stopped posting entirely. Although maybe the mod comment will help with that?

LudicSavant
2018-05-21, 05:24 PM
Yes, several of you have been doing that which is why some others stopped posting entirely. Although maybe the mod comment will help with that?

Very much this.

Lord Raziere
2018-05-21, 07:00 PM
I'm just gonna say this: I have no problem with powerful characters, to dispel for the people that for some reason keep jumping to the conclusion that I somehow do. I have a problem with optimized characters, which are completely different from powerful ones. I love playing powerful characters, but I do not identify as an optimizer or a power gamer, or see my own roleplaying as optimizing or power gaming.

and anyone who insists on calling me either of those, I'm going put you on my ignore list, because I'll if your not going to listen and call me an optimizer, there is no conversation, because your not hearing out my most basic of points: just because I do this thing thats required, doesn't make me your label. I'm not comfortable with the term, I don't like the term being applied to me, I don't want the term applied to me, don't apply it to me. the whole terms surrounding this discussion are honestly colloquial fan terms that are completely subjective and do nothing but confuse the discussion further, so really, they're not even useful. they're certainly not useful to me. they're just a social sorting system to ostracize and antagonize one group in favor of another with both sides using the most extreme examples of the other to try and shame their opponents by assuming they're like those extreme examples. maybe I'm guilty of that, but at least I'm realizing it now.

so can we please stop using Most Extreme Examples and trying to lump people in with them? can we please stop assuming that anyone who doesn't like optimization are self-sabotaging idiots? I admit, I am bit biased towards the anti-optimization side, I won't deny that. but if you want me to stop assuming optimizers are "pun-pun level munchkins" to try and use these useless terms, you got to stop treating "anti-optimizers" as people who do nothing but shoot themselves in the foot. :smallmad: We're not idiots, stop treating us like ones.

Rhedyn
2018-05-21, 07:38 PM
I'm just gonna say this: I have no problem with powerful characters, to dispel for the people that for some reason keep jumping to the conclusion that I somehow do. I have a problem with optimized characters, which are completely different from powerful ones. I love playing powerful characters, but I do not identify as an optimizer or a power gamer, or see my own roleplaying as optimizing or power gaming.

and anyone who insists on calling me either of those, I'm going put you on my ignore list, because I'll if your not going to listen and call me an optimizer, there is no conversation, because your not hearing out my most basic of points: just because I do this thing thats required, doesn't make me your label. I'm not comfortable with the term, I don't like the term being applied to me, I don't want the term applied to me, don't apply it to me. the whole terms surrounding this discussion are honestly colloquial fan terms that are completely subjective and do nothing but confuse the discussion further, so really, they're not even useful. they're certainly not useful to me. they're just a social sorting system to ostracize and antagonize one group in favor of another with both sides using the most extreme examples of the other to try and shame their opponents by assuming they're like those extreme examples. maybe I'm guilty of that, but at least I'm realizing it now.

so can we please stop using Most Extreme Examples and trying to lump people in with them? can we please stop assuming that anyone who doesn't like optimization are self-sabotaging idiots? I admit, I am bit biased towards the anti-optimization side, I won't deny that. but if you want me to stop assuming optimizers are "pun-pun level munchkins" to try and use these useless terms, you got to stop treating "anti-optimizers" as people who do nothing but shoot themselves in the foot. :smallmad: We're not idiots, stop treating us like ones.
The issue is that you are using the term wrong. You talk of optimizers as the characters that result from how power gamers go about character creation.

That's just wrong. Optimized characters can be things that a power gamer would never want to play. (Example, I have a player in my Savage Worlds campaign that wants to be the fastest. He's a mad alien scientist that runs at speeds approaching the sound barrier. Thankfully the game is robust enough that he is still a viable character even though he focused so much on just moving fast)

Have you ever set down and said, "My character is going to be good at this mechanical concept"? That is optimization and is performed by optimizers.

If you instead go, "I'm picking these options because people told me I have to to have fun and I'm picking these other options because I think they are cool" then fine, I'll grant you that that isn't what an optimizer does. No effort on the player's part has been put into understanding the deeper strategy of the character building game even if they learned all the rules and understand the deeper strategic and tactical decisions of the game. (Though in most D&D versions, spell prep can quickly become something you optimize, and you can optimize what gear you carry, and so on and so on).

Nifft
2018-05-21, 07:51 PM
The issue is that you are using the term wrong. You talk of optimizers as the characters that result from how power gamers go about character creation.

That's just wrong. Optimized characters can be things that a power gamer would never want to play. (Example, I have a player in my Savage Worlds campaign that wants to be the fastest. He's a mad alien scientist that runs at speeds approaching the sound barrier. Thankfully the game is robust enough that he is still a viable character even though he focused so much on just moving fast)

Have you ever set down and said, "My character is going to be good at this mechanical concept"? That is optimization and is performed by optimizers.

If you instead go, "I'm picking these options because people told me I have to to have fun and I'm picking these other options because I think they are cool" then fine, I'll grant you that that isn't what an optimizer does. No effort on the player's part has been put into understanding the deeper strategy of the character building game even if they learned all the rules and understand the deeper strategic and tactical decisions of the game. (Though in most D&D versions, spell prep can quickly become something you optimize, and you can optimize what gear you carry, and so on and so on).

Agree.

Optimization is a tool.

Power Gaming is more like a motivation.

Chaosticket
2018-05-21, 07:56 PM
First of all am I being ignored?

Second, Optimize Definition: make the best or most effective use of.

https://1d4chan.org/wiki/Powergamer Thats a start for anyone interest in what a Powergamer is.

Okay their is a lot of ambiguity and everyone has their own personal definitions.

Using D&D and Pathfinder as an example, you can use a Point Buy system for character creation. What I would consider normal would be someone who say a Fighter and wants most balanced statistics about 10 with more focused towards what the class is designed for, in this case combat.

Now where some people go "too far" is lowering all their mental statistics down to a minimum so that way they can maximize their combat ability.

To a point that is normal. Its not unusual to have Spellcasters with a focus on what their spellcasting dependent statistic is.

Actually can someone just put up a an example of what they consider a BadWrong character?

PhantasyPen
2018-05-21, 08:15 PM
Actually can someone just put up a an example of what they consider a BadWrong character?

I would, but I purged my hard drive of that particular filth ages ago. Long and short:


Built completely wrong
designed with ridiculous abilities
roleplayed horribly
You're more powerful than me?! You must be a horrible powergaming munchkin!


I actually wish I still had a link or screenshot of that sheet now, it was so bad and I am so glad I have cut all contact with that player.

OldTrees1
2018-05-21, 09:34 PM
I'm just gonna say this: I have no problem with powerful characters, to dispel for the people that for some reason keep jumping to the conclusion that I somehow do. I have a problem with optimized characters, which are completely different from powerful ones. I love playing powerful characters, but I do not identify as an optimizer or a power gamer, or see my own roleplaying as optimizing or power gaming.

and anyone who insists on calling me either of those, I'm going put you on my ignore list, because I'll if your not going to listen and call me an optimizer, there is no conversation, because your not hearing out my most basic of points: just because I do this thing thats required, doesn't make me your label. I'm not comfortable with the term, I don't like the term being applied to me, I don't want the term applied to me, don't apply it to me. the whole terms surrounding this discussion are honestly colloquial fan terms that are completely subjective and do nothing but confuse the discussion further, so really, they're not even useful. they're certainly not useful to me. they're just a social sorting system to ostracize and antagonize one group in favor of another with both sides using the most extreme examples of the other to try and shame their opponents by assuming they're like those extreme examples. maybe I'm guilty of that, but at least I'm realizing it now.

so can we please stop using Most Extreme Examples and trying to lump people in with them? can we please stop assuming that anyone who doesn't like optimization are self-sabotaging idiots? I admit, I am bit biased towards the anti-optimization side, I won't deny that. but if you want me to stop assuming optimizers are "pun-pun level munchkins" to try and use these useless terms, you got to stop treating "anti-optimizers" as people who do nothing but shoot themselves in the foot. :smallmad: We're not idiots, stop treating us like ones.

You want people to avoid appealing to your lack of self hate as part of their logical argument because it associates you with a word that you hate (the same word they are trying to convince you not to hate) and thus don't want to be associated with that word. I will respect that, so I will approach from a completely different direction.

Could you return the favor by looking at the 3 examples of optimization that I just described? (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=23089075&postcount=124)
1) Helping a player new to an RPG to import their system agnostic character concept into the RPG in question in a manner that best represents the character concept they wanted to be able to play.
2) Talking as a group during session 0 and find out what character you want to play would enhance both your and the group's enjoyment.
3) Figuring out how to simulate a desired disadvantage that was not explicitly provided by the authors of the RPG.


Actually can someone just put up a an example of what they consider a BadWrong character?
I don't think such problems can be contained in or at least communicated by just a character sans all context of player preferences.

1) Imagine a group of players. Imagine one of them cheats the others in a socially unacceptable manner.
2) Imagine a different group of players. Between them they want to play a variety of different kinds of characters. One of them chooses to play a character that is too _______ for the specific group/setting/campaign/party and it causes conflict between the player preferences. Instead of acting like an adult (aka talking it out to find a solution) the player chooses to insist on playing the character that is too _______. Note that extremes fall in all directions. Too strong at X and too weak at X are both possible extremes but there are also some orthogonal to that axis too.
3) Imagine a jerk plays a character and acts like a jerk OOC.

WindStruck
2018-05-21, 10:02 PM
For me, I don't think I have a beef with "power gamers" or being less powerful than an other character. But I would have a problem with:

1) Ignoring rules, or twisting their words to defy the rules as intended, or common sense
2) using dubious templates/abilities from 3rd party sources that look completely broken
3) metagaming
4) poor roleplay
5) coercing others into being a "team player"

Quertus
2018-05-21, 11:27 PM
For me, I don't think I have a beef with "power gamers" or being less powerful than an other character. But I would have a problem with:

1) Ignoring rules, or twisting their words to defy the rules as intended, or common sense
2) using dubious templates/abilities from 3rd party sources that look completely broken
3) metagaming
4) poor roleplay
5) coercing others into being a "team player"

You know, I was going to be guilty of #1 while ribbing you about #3, but, instead, let me just ask a) exactly what you mean by #4&5; b) how often you find these 1-5 to correlate with power gamers.

WindStruck
2018-05-21, 11:43 PM
You know, I was going to be guilty of #1 while ribbing you about #3, but, instead, let me just ask a) exactly what you mean by #4&5; b) how often you find these 1-5 to correlate with power gamers.

I don't know why knowing and abiding by the game rules would have anything to do with metagaming.

I'll decline to answer anything else, cause I really don't feel like getting into another pointless debate.

huttj509
2018-05-21, 11:45 PM
You know, I was going to be guilty of #1 while ribbing you about #3, but, instead, let me just ask a) exactly what you mean by #4&5; b) how often you find these 1-5 to correlate with power gamers.

What I've seen for #5 is along the lines of "this is what I feel the team needs to work as a team, so I'll take the fun role, and you play support despite not wanting to play support." If "powergamer" is taken to correlate to "needs to be the person in the spotlight taking the lead mechanically" I can see it correlating.

What I see as a major issue is no solid shared context. We can handwave about definitions, but we don't have a table with a situation we can all look at and say "Is player A out of line. Is player A a powergamer. Is player A out of line *because* they're a powergamer?"

Quertus
2018-05-21, 11:52 PM
What I've seen for #5 is along the lines of "this is what I feel the team needs to work as a team, so I'll take the fun role, and you play support despite not wanting to play support." If "powergamer" is taken to correlate to "needs to be the person in the spotlight taking the lead mechanically" I can see it correlating.

What I see as a major issue is no solid shared context. We can handwave about definitions, but we don't have a table with a situation we can all look at and say "Is player A out of line. Is player A a powergamer. Is player A out of line *because* they're a powergamer?"

That makes sense.

I was trying to figure out if there was some power gamer versions of behaviors that were worse than the "default" version of that behavior. In this context, I'd say that, yes, power gamer teamwork is worse than normal teamwork, coerced or otherwise. Sadly, I think I've seen the behavior you described. Recently.

Mechalich
2018-05-22, 04:04 AM
I don't know why knowing and abiding by the game rules would have anything to do with metagaming.

Certain players utilize unwritten rules of gameplay - metagaming against known expectations - as part of their character building process. A common one is using intelligence as a dump stat. It is an extremely rare GM that actually forces a player to roleplay out having a truly subpar intelligence (such as to the point of having difficulty with normal speech, being unable to perform arithmetic, etc.) and therefore such players feel safe reducing their Int (or its equivalent) score to ludicrous levels for the power boost. Such players also operate under the assumption that the party will never be split so their character will never be called upon to make checks against abilities they've dumped - which leads to things like Lvl 20 characters with no ranks in Spot or Listen.

WindStruck
2018-05-22, 04:30 AM
Certain players utilize unwritten rules of gameplay - metagaming against known expectations - as part of their character building process. A common one is using intelligence as a dump stat. It is an extremely rare GM that actually forces a player to roleplay out having a truly subpar intelligence (such as to the point of having difficulty with normal speech, being unable to perform arithmetic, etc.) and therefore such players feel safe reducing their Int (or its equivalent) score to ludicrous levels for the power boost. Such players also operate under the assumption that the party will never be split so their character will never be called upon to make checks against abilities they've dumped - which leads to things like Lvl 20 characters with no ranks in Spot or Listen.

If the player made their 8 int character and actually roleplayed a pretty dimwitted character, even to make their build even more powerful, they wouldn't be doing anything wrong, and not even coming close to twisting rules. If they weren't RPing the low int, they still aren't breaking the rules, as the rules say nothing of how one should roleplay.

If the player made their level 20 character and was ok with splitting up, they'd also be doing nothing wrong. There's nothing in the rules that say you have to build a character a certain way like that, or how to form your party. But when they insist or assume that the party always stays together, that's the "team player" thing I was talking about and also metagaming.

MeimuHakurei
2018-05-22, 04:49 AM
Despite the fact that there's constantly talk about powergamers ruining game tables with their OP characters (worst I ever had to do deal with is people begging desperately for +1s that are absolutely not needed and/or require other character options they reject), I only ever see roleplayers whining about powergaming/metagaming/munchkining/etc. and pull all kinds of hyperboles on that behavior... I think something's amiss here...

Also lol at "roleplaying low Int" - do you also force players with high Int/Wis characters to doing perfect tactics?

Finally, Level 20 characters with no Listen/Spot or other such skills is a result of skill points being tight in 3.5, so you can't easily afford to spread them out (especially fighters).

Enforcing roleplay, if anything, is going to lead to more metagaming because you'll have things like "at how much Int will I be permitted to do/know X?" or "How many non-fire spells do I need to cast on that troll to keep the DM from throwing a tantrum?" - Yes you do act on the scene like it's a game because it is in fact a game.

http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/railroading_4430.png
relevant

Guizonde
2018-05-22, 05:17 AM
Now where some people go "too far" is lowering all their mental statistics down to a minimum so that way they can maximize their combat ability.

To a point that is normal. Its not unusual to have Spellcasters with a focus on what their spellcasting dependent statistic is.

Actually can someone just put up a an example of what they consider a BadWrong character?

funny, my giant rabbit above is guilty of doing that, or the reverse, actually. pathfinder's rules updated the aging rules, and so an ancient rabbit alchemist got +3 on all mental stats (int, wis, and cha), and a -3 on all physical. i was behind the power curve for that group, and it was a quick and dirty way of giving me more suitable stats. i rolled crazy evenly for both sets the dm allowed. ok, that's for a high-power campaign, but i don't think that's power-gaming. more like optimization, since it's a "roll for stats" case, not a point buy. i'm pretty sure every roleplayer has heard the urban legend of the barbarian with 47 str at level 1 and nothing above a 4 in the mental stats, which i'm sure is doable in point buy in 3.5 and a lot of system finnicking.

Mordaedil
2018-05-22, 05:33 AM
I've always seen Powergaming as encompassing several categories of actions people take with regards to a game and apply it to govern all of them, some of which I consider harmless behavior and others which I think can contribute to disturb others. Optimizing players fall under powergaming in a way, but I consider it relatively harmless, depending on how they bring it to the table. Other considerations are people who don't prepare anything ahead of time, like perform any kind of build or anything, but optimize in-game entirely. This can be disruptive, but I've seen it work fine, assuming it is done to help out the group. It only becomes bad if people turn it around to berate other players.

In our group, we have a warblade and a battle dancer. For the most part both have been contributing fairly well to the combat and haven't really stepped on eachothers toes, despite the battle dancer having problems understanding the basics of her class (like how attacks of opportunity work for her)

That is until recently when the DM decided to put the two of them in a tournament battle royale. They were facing off against a bunch of NPC's with clubs, but the battle dancer used her fist while the warblade used the club, both of them effectively wiping the floor with the NPC's. Then only they were left standing and immediately we all knew what would happen. The warblade tossed aside the club and decided to go fist-on-fist with the battle dancer.

And won. Because his class is just plainly better. He had more hit points, worse AC, more damage and better to-hit accuracy. Even despite taking extra hits as he was fighting unarmed, she really stood no chance against the warblade and his punishing stance.

If I was going call either of them powergamers, I'd be really off, but clearly one class design here is a lot better than the other. The odds were stacked against the warblade who had spent his maneuvers and he still won. I think if he was a powergamer at our table, he would have still used the club to avoid taking any hits, he would have insisted he'd get five minutes before the battle to attune to the club and he'd spent time to refresh his maneuvers before he took on the battle dancer.

That is how I consider a bad power gamer.

Chaosticket
2018-05-22, 06:17 AM
I don't know why knowing and abiding by the game rules would have anything to do with metagaming.

I'll decline to answer anything else, cause I really don't feel like getting into another pointless debate.

Thats not the common definition of Metagaming. When your you break character and give your character knowledge of things they never learned but the Player did is.

As a player you have to balance that by asking other characters questions and using Knowledge skills. One house rule I know of is to allow multiple Knowledge checks rather than a Pass-Fail.

Chaosticket
2018-05-22, 06:43 AM
A major contribution factor is just the game system itself. Mechanically you need all the additional benefits you can get for your luck dependent checks to succeed. Im sure youve heard of the eloquent speech fail because you didnt roll high enough or just backfire because you rolled a 1.

Id prefer a different system with less luck and more about decision.

WindStruck
2018-05-22, 07:23 AM
Thats not the common definition of Metagaming. When your you break character and give your character knowledge of things they never learned but the Player did is.

I know that. That's why I was telling the guy, I didn't see how the two were related at all.

2D8HP
2018-05-22, 07:41 AM
....where people wrongly assume that you can be good at mechanics OR good at roleplaying, but not both....Good optimizer does not equal bad role-player, and bad optimizer does not equal good role-player.

I have been criticised both for having "sub-optimal" PC's and as being bad at role-playing multiple times.

I am a "roll-player" not "role-player" and I am also a lousy "optimizer".

Settled?

I really don't care much if another player is better at optimizing and/or role-playing than me, it's only when they criticize my lack if same that I get prickly.

The last time that I've rolled for stats in 5e, I got an 18 in INT, which I decided to make a High Elf Rogue.

I'd mostly played Champion Fighters in 5e at that time and another player got very upset that I wouldn't play a Wizard, but my looking at the rules confirmed that just I didn't have enough RL intelligence to handle all the options crunch and resource management required to effectively use the Wizard Class, the other player whining about my playing "sub-optimally has still left a bad taste, so I only roll for stats if I'm not allowed standard array or point buy.

Also, in my experience most players who first roll for stats whine so much afterwards that the DM's relent and let them do point buy anyway, which just seems like cheating to me.

As to all the alternative methods of character creation?

Just like starting above first level, or with extra equipment (especially magic items) I've found that to be a red flag for a short game that will likely be lamer than usual in my experience.

But nothing gets me as annoyed as being told my that I need to "decide" to do better in-game acting and/or creative writing.

I'm nearly 50 years old and there is no "deciding" left for me, this is as good as I get people!

And BTW, do those who criticize them that have low mental stat PC's for being played "too smart", have any suggestions on how to play PC's smarter than oneself please kindly do tell how ro do that.

Rhedyn
2018-05-22, 08:30 AM
I've always been an advocate that stats only have the mechanical effects that the system gives them.

You don't do something stupid because you have 8 int. You do something stupid because that's what your character would do.

1of3
2018-05-22, 09:50 AM
I don't think anyone dislikes powergamers. People dislike bad sports. Being able to understand the rules is totally neutral. Being able to make effective character is not a problem. Unless you also do something much better another player wanted to do. If they want to play a damage dealer, and oh, you do more damge without intending to do so, yeah, they might be pissed. So why, not give them some tips, and do something else?

You know, there was this time, another player did huge amounts of damage a single turn and people uttered their amazement. I just smiled, and said: "You know, one third of that was my buffs." I did powergame my bard. And I did it with the other people's characters in mind. I remember this moment fondly.

To compare: There was one time, I didn't feel comfortable. There was flooded cave, and our water-breathing party, was attacked by a water elemental. It started to be a difficult fight for everyone. Water elemental was hard to hurt, water was hard to move in. And I thought: "I can end this." And I pulled a very effective counter measure. I really didn't like it, because I basically circumvented the whole encounter and it wasn't like I'd done anything for it or expended a lot of resources.

I think the MtG designers call this pattern "Johnny", i.e. winning with style. Scenario #1 was stylish, scenario #2 was not. So I guess, be more like Johnny. Powergame in unexpected ways. And powergame in ways that make your fellow players better in what they do, instead of stepping on their toes.

To give another example: We had a campaign with lots of undead. "I probably should prepare Restoration", the cleric player thought aloud. "Don't worry good, friend", I replied. "I have this covered." He started looking confused: "Aren't you a sorcerer or something?" - "Yes", I said, "I powergamed. And if needs be, I'll do Lesser Restoration 13 times today." My friend was quite happy with that arrangement: He liked hitting stuff much better than healing people.

kyoryu
2018-05-22, 11:53 AM
I don't think anyone dislikes powergamers. People dislike bad sports.

People dislike disruptive players.

If you're disrupting the game by optimizing to an extent that you invalidate everybody else at the table, people will dislike you.

If you're disrupting the game by being so unoptimized that it disrupts the game as you can't even survive, people will dislike you.

It's not hard.

Tvtyrant
2018-05-22, 03:45 PM
Also lol at "roleplaying low Int" - do you also force players with high Int/Wis characters to doing perfect tactics?

Finally, Level 20 characters with no Listen/Spot or other such skills is a result of skill points being tight in 3.5, so you can't easily afford to spread them out (especially fighters).

Enforcing roleplay, if anything, is going to lead to more metagaming because you'll have things like "at how much Int will I be permitted to do/know X?" or "How many non-fire spells do I need to cast on that troll to keep the DM from throwing a tantrum?" - Yes you do act on the scene like it's a game because it is in fact a game.


See, this is where I find the line. Mechanics are supposed to translate a character into a form that is playable and defined, if you are using the mechanics to make yourself stronger and then ignoring them when it is inconvenient you are ignoring the purpose of those rules.

Rhedyn
2018-05-22, 05:08 PM
See, this is where I find the line. Mechanics are supposed to translate a character into a form that is playable and defined, if you are using the mechanics to make yourself stronger and then ignoring them when it is inconvenient you are ignoring the purpose of those rules.

Right, but low int has mechanical downsides (in nearly every system I've seen a version of the int stat). You do pay for it.

Roleplaying your stats is pretty meta, unless there are actual rules for how you are supposed to do that.

If the system doesn't make dumping a mental stat negative enough, then that is a fault of the system. For example in Savage Worlds, a low smarts makes it harder to learn smarts related skills (even persuasion since charisma isn't a normal stat), they are also more susceptible to tricks and to powers that call for a smarts check. "Dumping" smarts is bad for your character both in combat and out of combat. You don't need to add on additional role-playing hindrances to that (those are things you actually take for a mechanical effect). How most people describe role playing low mental stats would be the equivalent of a major hindrance in Savage Worlds, which would gain you the equivalent of a feat (you can only start with one major hindrance, any more you develop are just downsides).

It's only in some builds of D&D where a fighter doesn't notice a real mechanical difference between 8 and 3 int.

Mr Beer
2018-05-22, 05:59 PM
If the system doesn't make dumping a mental stat negative enough, then that is a fault of the system. For example in Savage Worlds, a low smarts makes it harder to learn smarts related skills (even persuasion since charisma isn't a normal stat), they are also more susceptible to tricks and to powers that call for a smarts check. "Dumping" smarts is bad for your character both in combat and out of combat. You don't need to add on additional role-playing hindrances to that (those are things you actually take for a mechanical effect). How most people describe role playing low mental stats would be the equivalent of a major hindrance in Savage Worlds, which would gain you the equivalent of a feat (you can only start with one major hindrance, any more you develop are just downsides).

It's only in some builds of D&D where a fighter doesn't notice a real mechanical difference between 8 and 3 int.

^^^

Yes, a good system penalises dump stats, if a system does not do that, there is an imperative for players to min/max, because why wouldn't they?

Nifft
2018-05-22, 09:05 PM
^^^

Now I have to go a whole page back if I want to see what you're snarking about.

Quote button is helping friendly button. Please click warmly.

gooddragon1
2018-05-22, 09:13 PM
TL/DR Questions:

1. I have noticed more than a few people who have this really strong disgust for "power gamers"...DnD Youtubers, forum people, randos I met at the LFGS...they hate power gamers. Am I the only one who notices this? What is the motivation behind this sentiment?

2. When does optimization become "power gaming?"

3. What is the alternative to "power gaming?"

1. Grinding the game all the way down to meta choices for maximum efficiency is for computer games where tournaments happen. Imo.

2. When one player completely stomps an encounter with very little input from the other players because of carefully honed and customized meta options. A mailman sorcerer. An uber charger. A whirling frenzy orc barbarian with lion spirit totem even qualifies for this in some cases. Especially if they use obscure stuff and optimization knowledge to squeeze out much more damage than appropriate. If a player is very good at optimizing then they should likely be able to look at the party composition and know what would be more in line and how to scale it back.

3. A gentlemans agreement between the players and the DM to tone it back. If a player realizes that their druid is doing too well they can just change their spell selection to more healing and change out their animal companion. The problem happens when a player doesn't realize what they are doing is hurting the game or they just don't care. I don't like thinking about those sorts of situations (I don't remember being in one, but I've heard that they happen).

Imagine playing mtg with cards from the junk box at your mtg store. Now imagine an arms race bidding war to get a powerful card just before a tournament at the pro tour.

This is the difference between a gentleman's agreement and a competition. Imo, d&d shouldn't be an arms race and you aren't trying to beat the other players.

LordEntrails
2018-05-22, 09:21 PM
Yes, a good system penalises dump stats, if a system does not do that, there is an imperative for players to min/max, because why wouldn't they?
Imperative? Yea, no. Maybe some players, depending upon their personality, might feel they have to min/max. But the system, the game, and the world sets no such requirement.

JNAProductions
2018-05-22, 09:27 PM
Imperative? Yea, no. Maybe some players, depending upon their personality, might feel they have to min/max. But the system, the game, and the world sets no such requirement.

To a point.

Let's say the difficulty of what you do scales, typically by approaching ever-harder challenges. A Jack-Of-All-Trades type character might work early on, when the challenges are easier. They aren't as good as a specialist, but they haven't fallen so far behind as to be unable to contribute. But, let's skip ahead to the endgame. Suddenly, the challenges that the JoAT had a 40% chance of doing and the specialist a 50% chance, has changed to 5% and 75%. They didn't minmax, and they're paying for it.

Now, being someone who enjoys powerful characters myself, I am perfectly willing to acknowledge there's a degree of moderation that must be used. To use D&D as an example, I'd be perfectly fine with any character built with 27 Point Buy. But let's say there's a custom point buy in place, and you have the following stats:



Strength
Dexterity
Constitution
Intelligence
Wisdom
Charisma


3
18
14
3
18
3



Before racial mods and you're playing a Monk? I'd probably tell you to be less min-maxy. A LOT less min-maxy.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that there's no issue with min-maxing, IN MODERATION. Building a character to be good at a few things, decent at most, and bad at others is fine. Taken to the extreme, such as being overwhelmingly good in three areas, and utter garbage at the rest... not so much.

Chaosticket
2018-05-22, 10:18 PM
Okay um please stop explaining the Awesome.

See Im probably the closest person to be a Munchkin here so Im telling you when you have Standard Barbarian #12980 and compare what is basically a Superhero people are probably going to pick the Superhero.

The difference is WHY. Is is for power? Is it be interesting?

Personally I encourage people to use non-standard rules so you dont get the same thing people have been using for 40 or so years. Be a pirate, multiclass, focus on a detailed backstory, but (and Im quoting a drink here) BE NOT BLAND.

Power Gaming can be bland easily. Choosing things for practical reasons means you will get too complacent rather than going outside your comfort zone.

At the same time, well I do blame the game. Personal decisions are disconnected due to mechanical rules. I liked pre-3.0 Dungeons and Dragons when there were few skills. It meant you didnt have to make dice rolls for every possible action.

Mr Beer
2018-05-22, 10:48 PM
Imperative? Yea, no. Maybe some players, depending upon their personality, might feel they have to min/max. But the system, the game, and the world sets no such requirement.

Yeah, you're right 'incentive' then, it only creates an imperative in certain types of groups.

Point is, if you build an incentive into the system to min/max by not penalising low stats, you are creating a problem if min/maxing is viewed as aesthetically displeasing but there are no mechanics to address the issue.

Guizonde
2018-05-23, 05:06 AM
To a point.

Let's say the difficulty of what you do scales, typically by approaching ever-harder challenges. A Jack-Of-All-Trades type character might work early on, when the challenges are easier. They aren't as good as a specialist, but they haven't fallen so far behind as to be unable to contribute. But, let's skip ahead to the endgame. Suddenly, the challenges that the JoAT had a 40% chance of doing and the specialist a 50% chance, has changed to 5% and 75%. They didn't minmax, and they're paying for it.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that there's no issue with min-maxing, IN MODERATION. Building a character to be good at a few things, decent at most, and bad at others is fine. Taken to the extreme, such as being overwhelmingly good in three areas, and utter garbage at the rest... not so much.

good argument, but i feel it is only applicable to pretty competitive or optimized play. most roleplayers on these boards post that their characters and campaigns (the in-person ones anyway) are a lot less high-op than the pbp ones. jacks have a place not only in the early levels, but most importantly in my eyes as force multipliers. to recount an encounter with my team that happened 3 weeks ago, here's the composition:

bard: low op jack, focused on social skills and support
inquisitor: high-op jack, low-op inquisitor, focused on everything but the "nice social skills"
cleric: low-op healbot
monk: mid-op ki-focus, build comes online next level iirc
oracle: very high-op casting focus, str as a dump stat
paladin: fighting focused, mid-op

we had a chasm to cross, needing a dc 20 acrobatics check. before you ask, no we didn't have flight capabilities which would have helped. for the monk and inquisitor, that meant rolling a 6+ a 2+ respectively. for the bard, a 14+, and without a nat 20, the rest of the party couldn't cross. we built a rope bridge. the bard buffed the monk and the inquisitor, who proceeded to string rope on both sides of the chasm, allowing first the oracle and the cleric to cross. the bard buffed as much as possible the paladin (who had a -18 modifier to acrobatics), the monk used a ki point to assist in the crossing, and the inquisitor gave another situational bonus. by the end of it, we all managed to cross. the paladin proceeded to stomp on everything but the kitchen sink in the dungeon, occasionnally helped out by the inquisitor and the monk giving the pally free aoo's and easier dc's to beat.

we had fun, and felt like a team. were i to post the team composition in a "critique my build" thread, i'd probably give optimizers a seizure at the difference in power level in the group and the stupid choices made in character creation.

now i'm not debating the fact that jacks lose out to specialists in dnd. a wizard will always outperform rogues and skill-monkeys. what i am debating is when the usefulness of a jack is lost, and i argue that a good jack doesn't try to solo anything, but pushes its team to levels of competence never before achievable. i'm less worried about an uber-wizard as i am by a good wizard with a bard that knows its mission behind him.

Rhedyn
2018-05-23, 05:54 AM
If we're talking about 3.x it's possible to be the best at everything, which technically makes you a jack of all trades.

But that system is where things like a "power gamer" cause the most problems and groups tend to address that with House rules, the most common house rule being, "don't power game", which is a soft rule, but most of us aren't take designers so it's the best we can do to patch the system.

LudicSavant
2018-05-23, 06:55 AM
If we're talking about 3.x it's possible to be the best at everything, which technically makes you a jack of all trades.

But that system is where things like a "power gamer" cause the most problems and groups tend to address that with House rules, the most common house rule being, "don't power game", which is a soft rule, but most of us aren't take designers so it's the best we can do to patch the system.

This is basically it. Analyzing options and attempting to choose the best available option is standard procedure for strategy games at large; in fact, it's the core gameplay loop of said games. However, a skilled player can't pick the actual most optimal options they can identify in 3.5e without making the game unplayably broken. So you basically have to just make a soft agreement that people will not take the actual best options in the game (barring a DM with sufficiently high game knowledge to accurately ban said options). Later editions are less wildly unbalanced than 3.5e, but that's not saying much (it's a really low bar to get over).

It is however worth noting that this is a flaw with the game's design, not a flaw with a player's first inclination to be doing what's just... well, normal behavior for all strategy games.

Corneel
2018-05-23, 08:36 AM
This is basically it. Analyzing options and attempting to choose the best available option is standard procedure for strategy games at large; in fact, it's the core gameplay loop of said games. However, a skilled player can't pick the actual most optimal options they can identify in 3.5e without making the game unplayably broken. So you basically have to just make a soft agreement that people will not take the actual best options in the game (barring a DM with sufficiently high game knowledge to accurately ban said options). Later editions are less wildly unbalanced than 3.5e, but that's not saying much (it's a really low bar to get over).

It is however worth noting that this is a flaw with the game's design, not a flaw with a player's first inclination to be doing what's just... well, normal behavior for all strategy games.
So maybe don't approach a role-playing game as a strategy game? Start with a character concept and look for options that fit with that concept and remain internally coherent, as well as externally coherent (in relation to the campaign world and the other characters).

PhoenixPhyre
2018-05-23, 09:25 AM
So maybe don't approach a role-playing game as a strategy game? Start with a character concept and look for options that fit with that concept and remain internally coherent, as well as externally coherent (in relation to the campaign world and the other characters).

Another issue is approaching a role-playing game as if it were a competitive game. I see those analogies a lot, and they're misplaced. But I agree about keeping things character focused. If power results, fine. If it doesn't, fine. As long as the party's ok with the level of power.

What bores me about "power gamers" (in quotes because it's only a small fraction of them) is the tendency to evaluate everything in purely mechanical terms, discounting the feel or the fluff. That's how you get every wizard looking the same (within a couple small categories), every martial being an ubercharger (a slight exaggeration) or other such things. If mechanics are all that matters, you're throwing away anything that's even slightly "sub-optimal" in the quest for MO POWAH! And that bores me.

The only time I'd actually object, though, is when one player starts forcing the campaign to warp around their character specifically. This happens both with under-optimizing (when the DM has to scramble for ways to allow your character to contribute despite not being up to the standard of the rest of the party) or with over-optimizing (when things that challenge you are insurmountable to the rest of the party) or with outright refusal to engage ("I don't want to go adventuring. I'm happy being a shopkeeper." in a game about adventuring, for example).

LudicSavant
2018-05-23, 06:38 PM
So maybe don't approach a role-playing game as a strategy game?

If you don't want any strategy gameplay, D&D probably isn't the system for you, because a huge proportion of its game design is devoted to designing a strategy game, and a huge proportion of the time in its published adventure paths is taken up by strategy gameplay. If you don't want to engage with that at all, then there are much better systems to choose.


Start with a character concept and look for options that fit with that concept and remain internally coherent, as well as externally coherent (in relation to the campaign world and the other characters).

You can do all of that while still playing a strategy game. This is starting to sound like Stormwind Fallacy territory, where you think you can only do one or the other. Optimizers frequently optimize within the constraints of a desired concept. In fact it's what pretty much all optimizers do in 3.5e (I don't think I've ever heard of any skilled optimizer actually trying to play the literal most powerful character they could at a table, because I've never heard of anyone trying to actually play Pun-Pun).

PhoenixPhyre
2018-05-23, 06:52 PM
If you don't want any strategy gameplay, D&D probably isn't the system for you, because a huge proportion of its game design is devoted to designing a strategy game, and a huge proportion of the time in its published adventure paths is taken up by strategy gameplay. If you don't want to engage with that at all, then there are much better systems to choose.

But the "strategy gameplay" envisioned in D&D is very different, with different imperatives and "win conditions" than in a competitive strategy game. Thinking of your character as a game piece, to me, robs the entire game of its point. If you want a strategy game with faceless pawns, there are plenty of war games out there. See? It goes both ways.

LudicSavant
2018-05-23, 06:56 PM
Thinking of your character as a game piece, to me, robs the entire game of its point.

Well, at this point you're basically saying that you believe that doublethink is required to play the game properly.

I on the other hand do not feel any special need to pretend that dice, rulebooks, character sheets, and so forth are not pieces of a game any more that acknowledging that a book is printed on paper prevents me from enjoying a novel.


If you want a strategy game with faceless pawns, there are plenty of war games out there. See? It goes both ways.

It does not in fact go both ways. You are creating a false dilemma, by suggesting that in order for something to be a strategy game, the pawns must be faceless.


But the "strategy gameplay" envisioned in D&D is very different, with different imperatives and "win conditions" than in a competitive strategy game.

I said it was a strategy game, not a competitive one. Or is this another false dilemma where you seem to think that strategy games are necessarily competitive?

PhoenixPhyre
2018-05-23, 07:05 PM
Well, at this point you're basically saying that you believe that doublethink is required to play the game properly.

I on the other hand do not feel any special need to pretend that dice, rulebooks, character sheets, and so forth are not pieces of a game any more that acknowledging that a book is printed on paper prevents me from enjoying a novel.

Wait, I think we're misunderstanding each other. To me, treating an RPG as a strategy game is to think in terms of mechanics first--not "is this how my character would think" but "what's the best move for this piece to make". In optimization terms, that might mean ignoring the character's concept or background or history to pick up the "best" ability--having that (hypothetical) frost mage man of ice and snow who wants to chill everything take a big fire spell because the numbers are slightly bigger. Or importing a PrC from a different setting, ignoring all the "fluff" requirements because you only want the core mechanical goodies.

To me, those detract from the point of the game that's different from what you can get in a board game, namely exploring fantastic worlds through the lens of a character organically part of that world. Yes, they're represented mechanically, but the mechanics are there merely as a guide to translating the character's world to our own and vice versa. They are not the character, nor are they the important things. They're tools, to be used as necessary and discarded when inconvenient. I could use thousands of systems to explore the same world or even use a hybrid of them. The rules are tools, nothing more. I don't play the rules, I play the character using the rules as a starting point for a framework.

Edit in response to your edit: I was responding to what I saw as a false dichotomy with another false dichotomy. Hence the "goes both ways" comment.

LudicSavant
2018-05-23, 07:13 PM
Wait, I think we're misunderstanding each other. To me, treating an RPG as a strategy game is to think in terms of mechanics first--not "is this how my character would think" but "what's the best move for this piece to make". In optimization terms, that might mean ignoring the character's concept or background or history to pick up the "best" ability--having that (hypothetical) frost mage man of ice and snow who wants to chill everything take a big fire spell because the numbers are slightly bigger. Or importing a PrC from a different setting, ignoring all the "fluff" requirements because you only want the core mechanical goodies.

I've been playing D&D for almost 30 years, and I have never, ever seen a skilled optimizer at one of my tables ignore a character's concept, background, or history to pick up the "best" ability. In fact, despite frequently playing in games with people who straight up write theoretical optimization treatises and class guides and post builds and so forth, I have never seen them actually pick any of the best abilities in 3.5e, despite having full knowledge of what they are (basically, Pun Pun. Or a few of the other things on the CharOp Campaign Smashers thread from back in the WotC board days). In fact I have never even heard of someone attempting to choose the literal best options in 3.5e (Pun-Pun and co) in an actual game, despite being active in online roleplaying forums for decades.

This sounds like a boogeyman that doesn't actually exist (or, at least, is exceedingly rare). Instead, what I actually see happen is that optimizers impose limits on the options available to them (either for obvious balance concerns or for conceptual reasons) and then optimize to make that character concept be the best version of that character concept that they can be, intentional weaknesses for flavor reasons and all. And those players are absolutely playing a strategy game each and every time they decide that using one ability will have a greater chance of surviving an encounter than another... even if they sometimes overrule that strategic analysis on those occasions that it would conflict with their character's personality. But usually? The strategic decision and the in-character decision line up, because characters are in the very same situation the players are: Trying to survive and beat the monsters, or successfully solve the mystery, or whatever. And to beat the monsters or solve the mystery or infiltrate the castle and not have a TPK in any campaign where there's more than just the illusion of challenge, you have to solve decision trees... which is pretty much the definition of playing a strategy game. And if someone wants to get on a high horse and puff out their chest and say that they're above trying to figure out how to infiltrate the castle or solve the mystery, then... I just have to wonder why they think that's a virtue. Not wanting to engage with the gameplay doesn't make you a better roleplayer.

PhoenixPhyre
2018-05-23, 07:28 PM
Phoenix, I've been playing D&D for almost 30 years, and I have never, ever seen a player at one of my tables ignore a character's concept, background, or history to pick up the "best" ability. In fact, despite frequently playing in games with people who straight up write theoretical optimization treatises and class guides and post builds and so forth, I have never seen them actually pick any of the best abilities in 3.5e, despite having full knowledge of what they are (basically, Pun Pun. Or a few of the other things on the CharOp Campaign Smashers thread from back in the WotC board days). In fact I have never even heard of someone attempting to choose the literal best options in 3.5e (Pun-Pun and co) in an actual game.

This sounds like a boogeyman that doesn't actually exist (or, at least, is exceedingly rare). Instead, what I actually see happen is that players impose limits on the options available to them (either for obvious balance concerns or for conceptual reasons) and then optimize to make that character concept be the best version of that character concept that they can be, intentional weaknesses for flavor reasons and all. And those players are absolutely playing a strategy game each and every time they decide that using one ability will have a greater chance of surviving an encounter than another... even if they sometimes overrule that strategic analysis on those occasions that it would conflict with their character's personality. But usually? The strategic decision and the in-character decision line up, because characters are in the very same situation the players are: Trying to survive and beat the monsters, or successfully solve the mystery, or whatever. And to beat the monsters or solve the mystery or infiltrate the castle and not have a TPK in any campaign where there's more than just the illusion of challenge, you have to solve decision trees... which is pretty much the definition of playing a strategy game.

Then explain the majority of the optimization threads on this very forum. Where the intent is to "break the game" or "humiliate the DM" or "make an OP X". And all the comments which say (paraphrased) "that's just fluff, you can ignore that." Or "play a wizard, fighters/barbarians/etc suck" (which may be true but it's a mechanics focused mindset).

As I said, I have no problem with being powerful. I only have problems with people intentionally taking steps to cause problems for the table, in this context by obviating another player's character or by intentionally being a drag. There are lots of other ways to do that as well that aren't immediately relevant.

I, personally, have no interest in mechanics or "strategy gaming." I want to see how my character changes the world and how the world changes them. Mechanics are only relevant to that end. They're a means, and a disposable one at that. I'd be happy doing free-form (which is how I started as a kid for many years). The character comes first, even if that means doing something "stupid." Or not choosing a better spell when a more thematic one works well enough and would be what the character would chose. Winning, losing, competition, challenge, these are all foreign to me as a player. I want to see what happens next, to see how this evolving story plays out. Move-countermove gameplay (what I've heard called 5D chess) bores me, in part because it's fake. The DM could win whenever he wants to. In that sense, it's all the illusion of challenge. It also means that only a few character concepts can even participate.

Chaosticket
2018-05-23, 07:31 PM
If we're talking about 3.x it's possible to be the best at everything, which technically makes you a jack of all trades.

But that system is where things like a "power gamer" cause the most problems and groups tend to address that with House rules, the most common house rule being, "don't power game", which is a soft rule, but most of us aren't take designers so it's the best we can do to patch the system.

Dont Power Game is so vague its inane.

How about using actual examples.
#1 Primalist archetype for the Bloodrager in Pathfinder RPG.
#2 the Leadership feat.
#3 crafting feats
#4 Spells in general.

Guides for RPGs rate the quality and just by thinking of advice makes you a Power Gamer.

You shouldnt even any choice in anything. The Game Master should make all characters and all decisions.

LudicSavant
2018-05-23, 07:34 PM
Then explain the majority of the optimization threads on this very forum. Where the intent is to "break the game" or "humiliate the DM" or "make an OP X". And all the comments which say (paraphrased) "that's just fluff, you can ignore that." Or "play a wizard, fighters/barbarians/etc suck" (which may be true but it's a mechanics focused mindset).

I suppose I should clarify that I've never seen someone who is skilled enough at optimizing to actually know what the best options are (Pun-Pun et al) actually choose to play one of those options (I've never seen nor heard of someone actually playing Pun-Pun at the table). I have seen inexperienced and unskilled players pick something "to be OP and mess with the DM" but they've all been laughably weak compared to what the old guard of the CharOp board could come up with, without exception. Plus, I tend to boot such immature players from my tables pretty quickly (or, more accurately, never invite them to the game to begin with, since I talk to prospective players before actually inviting them to a game).

As for "that's just fluff, you can ignore that," the context I usually see that comment in is "you can alter fluff to suit your needs, and don't need to think of pre-written fluff as a creative straitjacket." Which is actually good roleplaying advice. You don't wanna be one of these guys: http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0209.html (Don't do what Elan is doing in this comic!)

For "play a wizard, fighters suck" again the context matters. If someone is asking what character classes are powerful, then it's a perfectly appropriate and factual answer, and doesn't involve anyone ignoring a character's already-existing concept, background, or history.

For "break the game" again the context matters. I know some of the people who post in theoretical-op and post infinite loops and stuff... and those people will have a lot of fun talking about breaking the game but won't actually play those builds at the table.

If someone wants to humiliate the DM, that's obviously a big problem that has little to do with whether or not they're an optimizer.

PhoenixPhyre
2018-05-23, 07:48 PM
I suppose I should clarify that I've never seen someone who is skilled enough at optimizing to actually know what the best options are (Pun-Pun et al) actually choose to play one of those options (I've never seen nor heard of someone actually playing Pun-Pun at the table). I have seen inexperienced and unskilled players pick something "to be OP and mess with the DM" but they've all been laughably weak compared to what the old guard of the CharOp board could come up with, without exception. Plus, I tend to boot such immature players from my tables pretty quickly (or, more accurately, never invite them to the game to begin with, since I talk to prospective players before actually inviting them to a game).

As for "that's just fluff, you can ignore that," the context I usually see that comment in is "you can alter fluff to suit your needs, and don't need to think of pre-written fluff as a creative straitjacket." Which is actually good roleplaying advice. You don't wanna be one of these guys: http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0209.html

When it's a prerequisite for entry into a PrC, no you can't just alter fluff unilaterally to suit your needs. Nor is it right to get annoyed by DMs who put the kibosh on that practice. The idea that DMs should run a blacklist (everything printed is legal unless explicitly disallowed, regardless of setting) instead of a whitelist (options are disallowed unless allowed explicitly or by reference (all content from source X)) is a problem for me. Because it focuses the play on digging through material to find the "best" (by whatever standards) mechanical material, disregarding the setting or the context, instead of building a character organically in a setting.

On a side note, the idea that all characters in universe get this giant scroll that lists their options whenever they gain a level (so they can see that hey, that's a better spell/feat/class/etc), which is necessary to justify the "well, any competent person would pick X" mentality I see a lot, is a major verisimilitude break. It's an abstraction leak of the highest order. The mechanics represent the character, not the character the mechanics. A researcher into fire magic isn't likely to become an expert in summoning specific outer-planes entities, even though it's probably more powerful. That's a basic problem I have with D&D's a la carte mechanics (everything separate with no prerequisites other than raw power), especially spells. But that's a separate topic.

Edit: I want to make it perfectly clear that being mechanics-forward is not wrong. It's not something I like, but it's a valid way to play. I'll just play somewhere else if that's how you want to play, just like I'll play somewhere else if you want to be super graphic about your kills or want to play an evil campaign.

LudicSavant
2018-05-23, 07:52 PM
the idea that all characters in universe get this giant scroll that lists their options whenever they gain a level

What the heck are you even talking about? :smallconfused:

PhoenixPhyre
2018-05-23, 08:05 PM
What the heck are you even talking about? :smallconfused:

It's the only way I've been able to make sense of the discussions on optimizing NPCs--people assume that they know about all of the options, no matter how obscure. Which, in my mind, is like an MMO-style "ding" event and a UI letting them see their options. The idea that "all competent X prepare A, B, and C and have items Q, R, and S" (where A, B, C and Q, R, and S aren't even found in the setting in question by default) seems to demand that somehow they know all their options instead of growing more organically. Sure, it would be "more optimal" if everybody who could learned a few wizard spells. But most people don't want to/aren't exposed to/aren't aware that it's even a possibility. The big burly guy takes Tough, not because it's best but because it represents his big burliness. The fire mage learns fire, bigger fire, biggest fire even though its decidedly sub-optimal compared to summon X or summon bigger X. Because he doesn't care about summoning, he cares about fire.

Players get to know the options, because it's easiest/best from a game standpoint. But that's a purely meta, game thing, not something available to characters in-universe. So criticizing a setting because "it makes more sense that they'd all do Y" is silly because it requires knowledge the fictional characters can't have.

But that's why it's a side point. It's an implied mental picture on my side that causes me issues.

Chaosticket
2018-05-23, 08:10 PM
What the heck are you even talking about? :smallconfused:


Characters gain things without actual practice. For example can become proficient with a weapon youve never even seen.

Wizards and other spellbooks dependent classes have to at least take a test to learn new spells. Other benefits are instant an inexpicable.

Its that games are games, not realistic. You dont practice swimming, or lift weights.

There was the Inquisitor RPG where all gains had to be practiced and explained.

LudicSavant
2018-05-23, 08:50 PM
Characters gain things without actual practice. For example can become proficient with a weapon youve never even seen.

Wizards and other spellbooks dependent classes have to at least take a test to learn new spells. Other benefits are instant an inexpicable.

Its that games are games, not realistic. You dont practice swimming, or lift weights.

There was the Inquisitor RPG where all gains had to be practiced and explained.

Okaaay... but this has nothing to do with anything in the quote that PhoenixPyre put that comment under. As he himself said, it's a "side point." To such an extent that I have no idea why my post is even quoted at all.

Satinavian
2018-05-24, 01:21 AM
Players get to know the options, because it's easiest/best from a game standpoint. But that's a purely meta, game thing, not something available to characters in-universe. So criticizing a setting because "it makes more sense that they'd all do Y" is silly because it requires knowledge the fictional characters can't have.Humans are really good at imitating each other and technology travels extremely fast.

If some way to do things is clearly superior, nearly everyone interested in doing this thing will adopt this way.

That is not the same as "everything exists in every setting" but stuff that does exist should be used by NPCs as efficiently as by PCs. If not, that would require a good reason.

Pelle
2018-05-24, 04:34 AM
I, personally, have no interest in mechanics or "strategy gaming." I want to see how my character changes the world and how the world changes them. Mechanics are only relevant to that end. They're a means, and a disposable one at that.

I think you can have both. For me, the fiction is most important, but I also highly value the game part. For me when playing, being challenged is what is fun. And it's not winning that's important (powergaming), but rather being challenged, which IMO can combine both fiction and mechanics. And it is not using the mechanics themselves, it is engaging with what is going on in the fiction and using the mechanics that represent that and also keeps the game aspect. So to me the fiction is absolutely important, but I want to focus the session in-game time on when the characters are trying to overcome challenging obstacles to reach their goals.

So when I design content for my games, I try to have an eye on both something that makes sende in the setting/fiction and also that there are some interesting game elements. I don't necessarily know the answer to how to best approach the scenarios, but if there is one obvious easy approach I find it a bit boring. Seeing how the PCs approache and handle the situations is what is fun. And whether the PCs achieve what they want or not isn't important, as long as they are actually trying.

D&D is also mostly a gamist system (with mostly associated mechanics), so using it without any game consideration is kind of pointless. Some players don't mind the 15 min work day when that makes sense in the fiction, because they don't care that they are not challenged and just want to be immersed and experience an evolving story. I find it boring however, and much more fun when you are changing the world in situations where you also have to balance your resources strategically.

MeimuHakurei
2018-05-24, 04:40 AM
I've been playing D&D for almost 30 years, and I have never, ever seen a skilled optimizer at one of my tables ignore a character's concept, background, or history to pick up the "best" ability. In fact, despite frequently playing in games with people who straight up write theoretical optimization treatises and class guides and post builds and so forth, I have never seen them actually pick any of the best abilities in 3.5e, despite having full knowledge of what they are (basically, Pun Pun. Or a few of the other things on the CharOp Campaign Smashers thread from back in the WotC board days). In fact I have never even heard of someone attempting to choose the literal best options in 3.5e (Pun-Pun and co) in an actual game, despite being active in online roleplaying forums for decades.

This sounds like a boogeyman that doesn't actually exist (or, at least, is exceedingly rare). Instead, what I actually see happen is that optimizers impose limits on the options available to them (either for obvious balance concerns or for conceptual reasons) and then optimize to make that character concept be the best version of that character concept that they can be, intentional weaknesses for flavor reasons and all. And those players are absolutely playing a strategy game each and every time they decide that using one ability will have a greater chance of surviving an encounter than another... even if they sometimes overrule that strategic analysis on those occasions that it would conflict with their character's personality. But usually? The strategic decision and the in-character decision line up, because characters are in the very same situation the players are: Trying to survive and beat the monsters, or successfully solve the mystery, or whatever. And to beat the monsters or solve the mystery or infiltrate the castle and not have a TPK in any campaign where there's more than just the illusion of challenge, you have to solve decision trees... which is pretty much the definition of playing a strategy game. And if someone wants to get on a high horse and puff out their chest and say that they're above trying to figure out how to infiltrate the castle or solve the mystery, then... I just have to wonder why they think that's a virtue. Not wanting to engage with the gameplay doesn't make you a better roleplayer.

I want to print this out and frame it in a canvas. It's mainly inexperienced players who throw around accusations and try to go against the group/DM/players (on either side of the screen) while also not actually making gamebreaking characters even if the damage numbers seem impressive. Also, you can very much act like a munchkin through roleplaying, like describing your actions such that you're always trying to use skills off of your highest attribute, arguing with "realism" or "logic" why a certain action should've succeeded/failed, the good old "It's what my character would do" and so on.

As for character weaknesses and strategic misplays: Nobody is the ultimate optimizer or perfect strategist; people will do things like positioning suboptimally, spend too much on finishing an opponent, avoid an AoE even if the ally in the affected area would've been fine and so on. Similarly, most people don't think of everything and may find themselves lacking an option/statistic to overcome a certain problem. That said, there are some strategic decisions that are much more about personal decision making rather than optimizing (find and rescue people in a collapsing building instead of bailing immediately, taking a penalty with your attack rolls to use nonlethal force against enemies, protecting an object precious to the character etc.), which of course are valid choices.

Guizonde
2018-05-24, 04:59 AM
Dont Power Game is so vague its inane.

How about using actual examples.
#1 Primalist archetype for the Bloodrager in Pathfinder RPG.
#2 the Leadership feat.
#3 crafting feats
#4 Spells in general.

Guides for RPGs rate the quality and just by thinking of advice makes you a Power Gamer.

You shouldnt even any choice in anything. The Game Master should make all characters and all decisions.

*because of your post, i actually looked at the primalist archetype. holy carp, that is broken beyond belief. to wit, a bloodrager can replace his bloodline power by two barbarian powers he qualifies for, every time he gains a bloodline power. i don't know who wrote that archetype, but it's so easily abused there must be a typo in there.
*the leadership feat is a lot of work and is the reason why most dm's don't allow it. theoretically it's powerful. in practice, it sucks the fun out of playing the game. you're playing pen and paper, not micro-managing a real-time-strategy game. my dm allows me to use it right now, and believe me, both him and me are laissez-faire about it precisely to speed up the game (also, because i don't abuse it like i could. it was a gag choice).
*crafting feats can be broken, but they come online at higher levels, and a friend did try to measure the time it would take to build some things without shenanigans. i think i remember 18 months of non-stop work for an item costing 200,000 gp. you have to break the system if you want to have an adventuring crafter (think pocket dimensions, time-stops, and other timey-wimey things).
*saying that spells are broken is akin to saying a truenamer is broken. we know it is, but we play the game anyway.

you really should have put your last sentence in blue. i encountered dm's on power trips, and yeah, they were kind of like that, but seriously, nobody plays with them.

Rhedyn
2018-05-24, 06:13 AM
I strongly believe that the G is an important part of RPG. There is RP and there is the Game aspect too. They are supposed to marry together.

I don't believe you can shun the G part without losing out on much of the fun of RPGs. I feel that such people are better served with pure RP systems without real conflict resolution.

Quertus
2018-05-24, 06:31 AM
BE NOT BLAND.

Preach it!


The idea that DMs should run a blacklist (everything printed is legal unless explicitly disallowed, regardless of setting) instead of a whitelist (options are disallowed unless allowed explicitly or by reference (all content from source X)) is a problem for me. Because it focuses the play on digging through material to find the "best" (by whatever standards) mechanical material, disregarding the setting or the context, instead of building a character organically in a setting.

The idea that the GM should ban anything* is a problem for me.

It means you can't pick the options that make the most sense for your character, and instead have to play something (not) "close enough".

It means that it's really hard to find options to make the Intelligence 8 Wizard balanced with the party (for those of you who care about that kind of thing).

And I'm tired of all the GMs "special snowflake" closed to the larger multiverse worlds. I'm not from around here, I'd like to explore the world in character, thanks, not get a masters in "your world" just to sit down to play. :smallannoyed:

* that's "ban any component". Banning at the final product, character level is fine.

LudicSavant
2018-05-24, 07:09 AM
I want to print this out and frame it in a canvas.

Glad you liked it. :mitd:

Mordaedil
2018-05-24, 07:10 AM
I strongly believe that the G is an important part of RPG. There is RP and there is the Game aspect too. They are supposed to marry together.

I don't believe you can shun the G part without losing out on much of the fun of RPGs. I feel that such people are better served with pure RP systems without real conflict resolution.

It's kinda funny cause me and my friends think the RP part is more important about RPG, because the G part is what we can get out of a board game. I mean, both are important, but it's interesting that we can have opposite priorities from the same game.

Rhedyn
2018-05-24, 07:16 AM
It's kinda funny cause me and my friends think the RP part is more important about RPG, because the G part is what we can get out of a board game. I mean, both are important, but it's interesting that we can have opposite priorities from the same game. Oh no, I feel that they are equally important.

But there is a big tend in gamers right now to disregard the G, so being centrist seems to be an extreme.

Edit: I also feel like the RP part doesn't take nearly as much out of game effort as getting the G part right.
Like I see people agonize on how to best construct narratives before even selecting a system, and how they completely disregard the system as important. Which for our group, getting the story going is easy, keeping the game fun is much harder. Systems tend to cause problems far more than narratives.

LudicSavant
2018-05-24, 08:12 AM
It's kinda funny cause me and my friends think the RP part is more important about RPG, because the G part is what we can get out of a board game. I mean, both are important, but it's interesting that we can have opposite priorities from the same game.

He never said the G part was more important. :smallannoyed:

Pelle
2018-05-24, 08:19 AM
It's kinda funny cause me and my friends think the RP part is more important about RPG, because the G part is what we can get out of a board game. I mean, both are important, but it's interesting that we can have opposite priorities from the same game.

I also play a lot of boardgames, more so than RPGs, and I play RPG to get the RP. But to paraphrase Angry, D&D becomes a game when the PCs face a conflict and have to resolve it. I don't want to spend my time playing RPGs seeing the PCs do trivial stuff, I want to see them facing exciting challenges. Without that G, only RP becomes boring to me and the G is in no way reducing the RP.

Corneel
2018-05-24, 08:42 AM
PhoenixPhyre has mostly adressed this but just my ow


If you don't want any strategy gameplay, D&D probably isn't the system for you, because a huge proportion of its game design is devoted to designing a strategy game, and a huge proportion of the time in its published adventure paths is taken up by strategy gameplay. If you don't want to engage with that at all, then there are much better systems to choose.
First of all, this is not a D&D exclusive part of the forum, and, secondly while maybe strategy heavy, D&D is an RPG, and marketed as such. I have no problem with strategic play once the characters are in play. I have a problem with approaching the design of the characters while ignoring RP part of the G.


You can do all of that while still playing a strategy game. This is starting to sound like Stormwind Fallacy territory, where you think you can only do one or the other. Optimizers frequently optimize within the constraints of a desired concept. In fact it's what pretty much all optimizers do in 3.5e (I don't think I've ever heard of any skilled optimizer actually trying to play the literal most powerful character they could at a table, because I've never heard of anyone trying to actually play Pun-Pun).
I have no problem with a certain level of optimizing. But again, it depends on what you consider as the constraints of a concept, if it's just mechanical constraints that's not sufficient for me. That's why I spoke about coherence: if you can explain your optimizing choices in a coherent narrative about him, his place in the world, where he comes from and how he came to be in the character group, then no problem at all.

LudicSavant
2018-05-24, 08:53 AM
I have a problem with approaching the design of the characters while ignoring RP part of the G. Something I'm pretty sure nobody, at all, has advocated for, in this entire 7 page thread.

Rhedyn
2018-05-24, 10:08 AM
Something I'm pretty sure nobody, at all, has advocated for, in this entire 7 page thread. I'm really glad Savage Worlds has the concept of "trappings". You take mechanical options, its flavor is something you decide and the GM may give that flavor a mechanical effect (fire spells can light things on fire).

It really sidesteps the issue of "My sorcerer is water themed so she won't take fireball" to "I throw water into that spot over there and have it explode into razor sharp water blades". You don't have to avoid good mechanics to line up flavor. Flavor is module.

Talakeal
2018-05-24, 12:48 PM
I've been playing D&D for almost 30 years, and I have never, ever seen a skilled optimizer at one of my tables ignore a character's concept, background, or history to pick up the "best" ability.

Really? Never? I have seen plenty of players try and abuse a combo to break the game, and even myself, someone who is often at odds with the party because I do sub-optimal things in the name of RP occasionally give in to temptation and pick an option that doesn't really fit my character but is just too mechanically good to pass up.


The idea that the GM should ban anything* is a problem for me.

It means you can't pick the options that make the most sense for your character, and instead have to play something (not) "close enough".

So as a DM am I supposed to memorize hundreds of supplements before the game can even start?

Also, if you ban the final result rather than the components, doesn't that make players bitter and jealous of one another? I can't imagine what would happen at my table if I said "Player A can take option B, but nobody else can!"


And I'm tired of all the GMs "special snowflake" closed to the larger multiverse worlds. I'm not from around here, I'd like to explore the world in character, thanks, not get a masters in "your world" just to sit down to play. :smallannoyed:

That's a new complaint. So are you saying you prefer games set in the old school style of a shared world where people drop in and out of groups frequently with their same characters but have trouble finding them anymore?

Because, yeah, I sure haven't played in a game where players come and go or DMs run a shared world in the entire 25+ years I have been gaming, and in my experience 90+% of games involve the DM making their own campaign setting rather than using a published one.

PhoenixPhyre
2018-05-24, 01:29 PM
That's a new complaint. So are you saying you prefer games set in the old school style of a shared world where people drop in and out of groups frequently with their same characters but have trouble finding them anymore?

Because, yeah, I sure haven't played in a game where players come and go or DMs run a shared world in the entire 25+ years I have been gaming, and in my experience 90+% of games involve the DM making their own campaign setting rather than using a published one.

Quertus is...old-school in that regard. I've had one game where there was a shared world, and it took lots of work and only sort of worked. But he's talking even more than that, he's talking taking epic-level characters and importing them, memories intact, to other campaigns. I can't even begin to imagine how that works.

Cluedrew
2018-05-24, 01:36 PM
I've been playing D&D for almost 30 years, and I have never, ever seen a skilled optimizer at one of my tables ignore a character's concept, background, or history to pick up the "best" ability.Come to think of it nether have I. But really that is because the people aiming for the "best" ability I have don't fill in enough background or history to contradict and the concept tends to be "I am strong". And often "I am dark and foreboding" for whatever reason.

Of course I will admit that not one of them was actually very good at it. A more skilled optimizer probably could build a strong character off of almost any concept. And a good storyteller could probably create a full back story to match any build and most people probably do a bit of both.

Still I think that optimizer and power gamer are very different types. I'm not exactly sure either of them are actually, it is a bit nebulous. But the clouds are not in the same place.

On Quertus: Yup he has got some strange habits. After several explanations I still don't really get most of them.

Quertus
2018-05-24, 01:44 PM
So as a DM am I supposed to memorize hundreds of supplements before the game can even start?

Well, there are three possibilities here:

Sure, the GM could just memorize everything, I suppose.

Or the GM could "look it up" when the character is created - where "look it up" includes talking to the player about it.

Or - my personal favorite - the GM could never look at the pc's character sheets. Never.

If the group cares about something - say, balance, because that's what's easiest to discuss - then let the group handle it. The GM has enough to handle, what with running the world and all.

If the GM cares about balance, all it takes for a good group is to have a couple of sample characters to show the expected power range.

If someone ends up outside the expected power range, have a conversation with them, get them to retool their character in a way that both stays true to their vision and fits with the group.

It's really not that hard, and the GM doesn't need to know anything (beyond interpersonal skills, or how to delegate).


Also, if you ban the final result rather than the components, doesn't that make players bitter and jealous of one another? I can't imagine what would happen at my table if I said "Player A can take option B, but nobody else can!"

Does your group care about balance (or whatever the concern is that would cause bans)? Can they do simple math? That's all it takes.


That's a new complaint. So are you saying you prefer games set in the old school style of a shared world where people drop in and out of groups frequently with their same characters but have trouble finding them anymore?

Because, yeah, I sure haven't played in a game where players come and go or DMs run a shared world in the entire 25+ years I have been gaming, and in my experience 90+% of games involve the DM making their own campaign setting rather than using a published one.

Pretty much, yes... but I'm also saying much more than that. Let me try to hit on all the relevant points...

-----

Yes, I like the "open table" format.

-----

Characters have a bit of a range of value to me, a range of how well fleshed out they are. Backstory - as essential as it is (to me) - will never be as rich as time spent in play. To put tiers on it, there's concept only -> created (backstory only) -> played -> worth playing.

Of the characters I talk about, were any if them only run under just a single GM? Has any single GM ever provided rich, diverse enough content to bring a character up to the "worth playing" tier? I'm too senile to trust my answer to be exhaustive, but probably not.

Everyone has things that they do well, and things that they do poorly. Everyone has things that they focus on, and blind spots. I'm unlikely to ever get a rich enough pallet to adequately paint my picture of my character from the experiences gained under only a single GM.

Only once a picture is painted to a certain point does the character become worth playing.

-----

Most relevant, however, is the fact that Exploration is my favorite "aesthetic", my greatest source of enjoyment from a game. As such, I wouldn't normally call GMs out on being the largest producers of "special snowflakes" in the gaming world, were it not for a) their snowflakes being as "unique" as playing a 2-scimitar-wielding drow ranger; b) that "uniqueness" generally involving being antithetical to me Exploring their world; and c) many of those same GMs trying to make "special snowflake" into a bad word. :smallannoyed:

Give me a cool world that I can explore and learn about in character, not something where I need a masters in "your world" to build a whole new, totally throwaway, never to be played again character. :smallyuk:

Knaight
2018-05-24, 01:53 PM
And I'm tired of all the GMs "special snowflake" closed to the larger multiverse worlds. I'm not from around here, I'd like to explore the world in character, thanks, not get a masters in "your world" just to sit down to play. :smallannoyed:

You can sit down and play with minimal knowledge of how the GM's world works. You just can't make a character with two hundred pages of setting specific backstory that way.

Quertus
2018-05-24, 01:56 PM
Quertus is...old-school in that regard. I've had one game where there was a shared world, and it took lots of work and only sort of worked. But he's talking even more than that, he's talking taking epic-level characters and importing them, memories intact, to other campaigns. I can't even begin to imagine how that works.

Well, they wouldn't be epic if you didn't level so danged fast in 3e!

As to how it works - um, easily. How could it possibly not work?


On Quertus: Yup he has got some strange habits. After several explanations I still don't really get most of them.

Lol! I can't argue with that.

Lord Raziere
2018-05-24, 02:01 PM
Quertus is...old-school in that regard. I've had one game where there was a shared world, and it took lots of work and only sort of worked. But he's talking even more than that, he's talking taking epic-level characters and importing them, memories intact, to other campaigns. I can't even begin to imagine how that works.

Yeah, I can't even see the appeal, myself. a new campaign is like, an opportunity to try a new character fitting for that campaign. but then again I have this weird urge where whenever I get into a game to make the weirdest most unique character concept possible for that setting without actually making something that doesn't make sense for that setting. like I'm never satisfied with the normal options, it has to be something I made so that it stands out in some way to me. I'm special snowflake like that. like I won't go powerful with it, I just want DIFFERENT. heck even in fluff I'm not really a power gamer, since I prefer my characters to not be turned into messiahs or destined heroes, and prefer to be unchosen ones who defy destiny.

Talakeal
2018-05-24, 02:13 PM
Well, there are three possibilities here:

Sure, the GM could just memorize everything, I suppose.

Or the GM could "look it up" when the character is created - where "look it up" includes talking to the player about it.

Or - my personal favorite - the GM could never look at the pc's character sheets. Never.

If the group cares about something - say, balance, because that's what's easiest to discuss - then let the group handle it. The GM has enough to handle, what with running the world and all.

If the GM cares about balance, all it takes for a good group is to have a couple of sample characters to show the expected power range.

If someone ends up outside the expected power range, have a conversation with them, get them to retool their character in a way that both stays true to their vision and fits with the group.

It's really not that hard, and the GM doesn't need to know anything (beyond interpersonal skills, or how to delegate).



Does your group care about balance (or whatever the concern is that would cause bans)? Can they do simple math? That's all it takes.



Pretty much, yes... but I'm also saying much more than that. Let me try to hit on all the relevant points...

-----

Yes, I like the "open table" format.

-----

Characters have a bit of a range of value to me, a range of how well fleshed out they are. Backstory - as essential as it is (to me) - will never be as rich as time spent in play. To put tiers on it, there's concept only -> created (backstory only) -> played -> worth playing.

Of the characters I talk about, were any if them only run under just a single GM? Has any single GM ever provided rich, diverse enough content to bring a character up to the "worth playing" tier? I'm too senile to trust my answer to be exhaustive, but probably not.

Everyone has things that they do well, and things that they do poorly. Everyone has things that they focus on, and blind spots. I'm unlikely to ever get a rich enough pallet to adequately paint my picture of my character from the experiences gained under only a single GM.

Only once a picture is painted to a certain point does the character become worth playing.

-----

Most relevant, however, is the fact that Exploration is my favorite "aesthetic", my greatest source of enjoyment from a game. As such, I wouldn't normally call GMs out on being the largest producers of "special snowflakes" in the gaming world, were it not for a) their snowflakes being as "unique" as playing a 2-scimitar-wielding drow ranger; b) that "uniqueness" generally involving being antithetical to me Exploring their world; and c) many of those same GMs trying to make "special snowflake" into a bad word. :smallannoyed:

Give me a cool world that I can explore and learn about in character, not something where I need a masters in "your world" to build a whole new, totally throwaway, never to be played again character. :smallyuk:

Yeah, I think we have totally different gaming styles. I would never want the players to be the ones responsible for balance no matter which side of the screen I was on, too much potential for conflicts of interests, players butting heads, and miscommunication.

So is the DM supposed to know anything about the PC you are bringing in? If so, why is it unreasonable for the DM to expect players to learn about their world but not unreasonable to the DM to have to learn about all these new PCs coming in? And if not doesn't that create a lot of awkward and inconsistent moments. I remember one game where the DM didnt know my character's sexuality and an NPC who really should know better assumed wrong and created a very awkward and disruptive situation both in and out of character; I imagine stuff like this could happen all the time in such a game.

Knaight
2018-05-24, 02:22 PM
As to how it works - um, easily. How could it possibly not work?

The demand that every setting has some sort of interdimensional access point from totally unrelated settings forces a setting change to every setting that doesn't have them. For any number of settings the mere existence of this portal, at all, fundamentally changes the nature of the setting so drastically that it effectively breaks it.

That's how it could possibly not work.

mephnick
2018-05-24, 02:22 PM
It's kinda funny cause me and my friends think the RP part is more important about RPG, because the G part is what we can get out of a board game. I mean, both are important, but it's interesting that we can have opposite priorities from the same game.

Conversely, I can RP without a system at all. I'm buying it for the G.

Lord Raziere
2018-05-24, 02:48 PM
The demand that every setting has some sort of interdimensional access point from totally unrelated settings forces a setting change to every setting that doesn't have them. For any number of settings the mere existence of this portal, at all, fundamentally changes the nature of the setting so drastically that it effectively breaks it.

That's how it could possibly not work.

Exactly.

There are some settings where I'd be violently opposed to that portal. like Exalted, Eclipse Phase or any other good sci-fi setting, Dragon Age, and so on so forth. anything where its premise is what you play it for over anything else.

PhoenixPhyre
2018-05-24, 02:49 PM
Yeah, I think we have totally different gaming styles. I would never want the players to be the ones responsible for balance no matter which side of the screen I was on, too much potential for conflicts of interests, players butting heads, and miscommunication.

So is the DM supposed to know anything about the PC you are bringing in? If so, why is it unreasonable for the DM to expect players to learn about their world but not unreasonable to the DM to have to learn about all these new PCs coming in? And if not doesn't that create a lot of awkward and inconsistent moments. I remember one game where the DM didnt know my character's sexuality and an NPC who really should know better assumed wrong and created a very awkward and disruptive situation both in and out of character; I imagine stuff like this could happen all the time in such a game.

Yes to both of these. I most often play with new players. Best case, I don't have to worry about balance at all, because the system just works. Normal case, I as the DM can adjust things to balance reasonably small discrepancies. But I want the players to focus on their characters as people in the setting. And I want to be able to speak to the characters desires, goals, and style. I want my hooks to tie to them, I want my special rewards to catch their interest. And that requires knowing their characters. Of course, I probably helped them build those characters in the first place, so not knowing about them would be...awkward.


The demand that every setting has some sort of interdimensional access point from totally unrelated settings forces a setting change to every setting that doesn't have them. For any number of settings the mere existence of this portal, at all, fundamentally changes the nature of the setting so drastically that it effectively breaks it.

That's how it could possibly not work.

Very much this. The "inter-universe metropolis" is one possible idea. But it's also incompatible with having a stable setting with any depth, because cross-roads don't get the chance. They get trampled by folks looking to get from point A to point B. I play mainly to see what the players do with the setting. That requires me to know what the starting conditions are, and how to incorporate their changes into future groups.

Quertus
2018-05-24, 03:09 PM
You can sit down and play with minimal knowledge of how the GM's world works. You just can't make a character with two hundred pages of setting specific backstory that way.

I mean, maybe. But, after your first three characters get rejected, because there's no Sna, Foo, or Bar on the world, it gets kinda annoying.


Yeah, I think we have totally different gaming styles. I would never want the players to be the ones responsible for balance no matter which side of the screen I was on, too much potential for conflicts of interests, players butting heads, and miscommunication.

Can the players do simple math? If so, it's easy to, you know, do the math.

Discussing relative contribution is a but harder, but is, IMO, the more important metric.


So is the DM supposed to know anything about the PC you are bringing in? If so, why is it unreasonable for the DM to expect players to learn about their world but not unreasonable to the DM to have to learn about all these new PCs coming in? And if not doesn't that create a lot of awkward and inconsistent moments. I remember one game where the DM didnt know my character's sexuality and an NPC who really should know better assumed wrong and created a very awkward and disruptive situation both in and out of character; I imagine stuff like this could happen all the time in such a game.

"an NPC who really should have known better" - now that's an interesting starting point. Thank you for this nearly perfect example.

See, there's information that needs to be communicated. It's kinda fundamental in computer science, but much harder with squishy wetware. Apparently, somehow, this vital information didn't make it into the GMs brain, despite them (presumably) looking over your character sheet.

My goal is to focus on - and have the GM focus on - that actually important information.

I'll just stop there. Anything else, and we'll lose the forest for the trees.


The demand that every setting has some sort of interdimensional access point from totally unrelated settings forces a setting change to every setting that doesn't have them. For any number of settings the mere existence of this portal, at all, fundamentally changes the nature of the setting so drastically that it effectively breaks it.

That's how it could possibly not work.

So, those "special snowflake" worlds I referenced break.

Anything else?

(also, it doesn't technically have to be a static portal - merely the possibility of things traveling from elsewhere)


Exactly.

There are some settings where I'd be violently opposed to that portal. like Exalted, Eclipse Phase or any other good sci-fi setting, Dragon Age, and so on so forth. anything where its premise is what you play it for over anything else.

From what I know of Exalted, it'd be strange, but no stranger than anything else in the Wild for an Exalted from a parallel world / alternate timeline to wander in. Even so, the world is kinda... Boringly set. There'd be no significant difference between those two worlds, beyond their current events.

I can't speak to Dragon Age.

Koo Rehtorb
2018-05-24, 03:17 PM
So, those "special snowflake" worlds I referenced break.

This is a strange accusation to throw from someone who wants to play a dimension hopping character from another game.

Like, frankly, this is a ludicrous thing to ask for and every group out there can (and should) say "no" to that.

Corneel
2018-05-24, 04:57 PM
Something I'm pretty sure nobody, at all, has advocated for, in this entire 7 page thread.
Is a person not allowed any hyperbole on this forum anymore? Is it rationed or something?

But, actually, your post

This is basically it. Analyzing options and attempting to choose the best available option is standard procedure for strategy games at large; in fact, it's the core gameplay loop of said games. However, a skilled player can't pick the actual most optimal options they can identify in 3.5e without making the game unplayably broken. So you basically have to just make a soft agreement that people will not take the actual best options in the game (barring a DM with sufficiently high game knowledge to accurately ban said options). Later editions are less wildly unbalanced than 3.5e, but that's not saying much (it's a really low bar to get over).

It is however worth noting that this is a flaw with the game's design, not a flaw with a player's first inclination to be doing what's just... well, normal behavior for all strategy games.
to which I first reacted seemed to do just that and was interpreted that way by at least one other person (PhoenixPhyre) in a similar way and necessitated a vigorous discussion between you to clarify things. Other posts, while not being explicit, at least brush up to the idea and some mention clearly putting mechanics above character concept, eg:

I mean, at least when it comes to 5E, I tend towards more mechanics first. I still roleplay just fine, but my thoughts are not usually "I want to play this type of person. What mechanics fit that?" it's "I want to play with these mechanics. What character fits that?"
Yes, they mention role playing, but that seems to be once in play. At the point of character creation it seems that for them role playing takes a backseat, if it's not stuffed in the trunk.

Also, way to not engage with the rest of my post. I'd rather would have you see clarifying on what you see as the constraints of a concept and optimizing within them. That would be more interesting than looking for who advocated for what.

Knaight
2018-05-24, 05:09 PM
So, those "special snowflake" worlds I referenced break.

Anything else?

(also, it doesn't technically have to be a static portal - merely the possibility of things traveling from elsewhere).

"Special snowflake" worlds like modern day earth, all historical settings, all but the softest science fiction, any fantasy setting that isn't completely drenched in magic, so on and so forth. Basically every genre except a decent chunk of fantasy and a tiny chunk of science fiction is effectively banned from RPGs by your demands.

This seems like breaking things to me.

PhoenixPhyre
2018-05-24, 05:17 PM
"Special snowflake" worlds like modern day earth, all historical settings, all but the softest science fiction, any fantasy setting that isn't completely drenched in magic, so on and so forth. Basically every genre except a decent chunk of fantasy and a tiny chunk of science fiction is effectively banned from RPGs by your demands.

This seems like breaking things to me.

And playing as an outsider (especially someone like a god who's just playing around here on <world>, as Quertus has espoused in the past) breaks all sorts of story seeds as well. Basically you can only do "bunch of strangers get together under strange circumstances beyond their control". That cuts out not only most settings, but most possible stories. That's the epitome of being a "special snowflake."

Talakeal
2018-05-24, 05:22 PM
"Special snowflake" worlds like modern day earth, all historical settings, all but the softest science fiction, any fantasy setting that isn't completely drenched in magic, so on and so forth. Basically every genre except a decent chunk of fantasy and a tiny chunk of science fiction is effectively banned from RPGs by your demands.

This seems like breaking things to me.

To be fair, I have a feeling that Quertus is mostly focused on D&D, where the ability to travel between campaign worlds is more or less a given, even if some worlds have local conditions that make such travel rarer than the norm.

PhoenixPhyre
2018-05-24, 05:31 PM
To be fair, I have a feeling that Quertus is mostly focused on D&D, where the ability to travel between campaign worlds is more or less a given, even if some worlds have local conditions that make such travel rarer than the norm.

Even in D&D, inter-world transport is the exception, not the norm. Very very very very very few campaigns not set in Spelljammer (which hasn't been a thing for decades) ever did such things. And most settings don't include canon ways to do such things.

Quertus
2018-05-24, 05:37 PM
This is a strange accusation to throw from someone who wants to play a dimension hopping character from another game.

Like, frankly, this is a ludicrous thing to ask for and every group out there can (and should) say "no" to that.

Well, let's look at that.

Is my definition of "special snowflake" really that off? Isn't the concept that their world is so special it couldn't possibly be accessed from another dimension much more special snowflake than any character you've ever seen? It certainly is IME.

Most of the systems I play - from D&D to WoD to various superhero systems to Warhammer to (shudder) RIFTS have portals to other dimensions baked into the lore. It's excluding such possibilities that should strike people as odd.

Is rejecting a character that follows the rules, is balanced for and a good fit for the party, just because he's been played at another table really a defensible position, let alone a fair expectation as a default position? Is an unknown, who may not fit the group, the party, or the adventure really preferable? In what mindset does this possibly make sense?

PhoenixPhyre
2018-05-24, 05:39 PM
Well, let's look at that.

Is my definition of "special snowflake" really that off? Isn't the concept that their world is so special it couldn't possibly be accessed from another dimension much more special snowflake than any character you've ever seen? It certainly is IME.

Most of the systems I play - from D&D to WoD to various superhero systems to Warhammer to (shudder) RIFTS have portals to other dimensions baked into the lore. It's excluding such possibilities that should strike people as odd.

Is rejecting a character that follows the rules, is balanced for and a good fit for the party, just because he's been played at another table really a defensible position, let alone a fair expectation as a default position? Is an unknown, who may not fit the group, the party, or the adventure really preferable? In what mindset does this possibly make sense?

By your own expectations (no one ever sees the character sheet), they just have to take all that on faith. And no, portals to other settings are not baked into the lore or anything other than vanishingly rare most places. Portals to other portions of the same setting are, but that's a very different thing. Except in RIFTS, which is it's own ball of wax.

Quertus
2018-05-24, 05:47 PM
"Special snowflake" worlds like modern day earth, all historical settings, all but the softest science fiction, any fantasy setting that isn't completely drenched in magic, so on and so forth. Basically every genre except a decent chunk of fantasy and a tiny chunk of science fiction is effectively banned from RPGs by your demands.

This seems like breaking things to me.

Modern Earth seems a good example. If I have a character I've played on modern Earth, why would it be harder to integrate his story into the setting than the backstory of a different character?

I'm not seeing the breakage.


And playing as an outsider (especially someone like a god who's just playing around here on <world>, as Quertus has espoused in the past) breaks all sorts of story seeds as well. Basically you can only do "bunch of strangers get together under strange circumstances beyond their control". That cuts out not only most settings, but most possible stories. That's the epitome of being a "special snowflake."

Well, that's a different case. When I'm forced to play a playing piece, I'd rather roleplay the guy playing the playing piece, than struggle to roleplay the playing piece. But the piece is the same piece, either way.


To be fair, I have a feeling that Quertus is mostly focused on D&D, where the ability to travel between campaign worlds is more or less a given, even if some worlds have local conditions that make such travel rarer than the norm.

Largely. And most of the other worlds / systems I play in have similarly prolific rifts.


Even in D&D, inter-world transport is the exception, not the norm. Very very very very very few campaigns not set in Spelljammer (which hasn't been a thing for decades) ever did such things. And most settings don't include canon ways to do such things.

Don't they? I'm pretty sure Spelljammer covered most if not all D&D settings. Heck, even Ravenloft had canon exit points. I have a hard time fathoming the mindset that argues that D&D isn't full of holes. :smallwink:

And it's not a matter of whether it's rare, but whether it's possible.

Quertus
2018-05-24, 05:55 PM
By your own expectations (no one ever sees the character sheet), they just have to take all that on faith.

Conflating discussions here. That it is "taken on faith" is true regardless of the origin of the character. Thus, irrelevant to this discussion.


And no, portals to other settings are not baked into the lore or anything other than vanishingly rare most places. Portals to other portions of the same setting are, but that's a very different thing. Except in RIFTS, which is it's own ball of wax.

Asgard has a portal to 7 realms, and it's not even remotely unique - Heck, which comic universe had to number the individual instances of Earth? Warhammer had portals through not just space but time. D&D canon included items to teleport, not just to other campaign settings, but to entire other gaming systems.

Compared to the realities my characters are from, the expectation that they could be played at multiple tables seems rather trivial.

Thrudd
2018-05-24, 05:57 PM
In some systems, mechanical character abilities have little or nothing to do with their personality or relationships (D&D). So there really is no reason not to create a character with any allowed mechanical components, including those that are "optimal". Being the best fighter or wizard or rogue they can be mechanically won't affect how they are role played in the slightest. If there are ridiculous mechanical combinations that have no logical in-world explanation for existing, that is a problem with the system that the GM would need to correct. It's not on the players to police themselves or anticipate this somehow.

In systems that do have mechanical enforcement of role playing/personality elements, there is still no reason not to "optimize", it just means that optimal character performance will involve more role playing decisions on the part of the player. Again, if the system allows silly things to happen when players choose certain options that are good mechanically, that's a system/GM problem. Anticipate it and fix it, so players don't need to choose between "good role play" and "good game play".

A game that has a small number of clearly superior strategic options for all scenarios is a poor game system. It needs to be fixed or abandoned. Refusing to adjust or ban options or switch systems while expecting players to self-police and avoid being "too good" at the game is a very unintuitive and I'd say untenable position to hold.

PhoenixPhyre
2018-05-24, 05:59 PM
Don't they? I'm pretty sure Spelljammer covered most if not all D&D settings. Heck, even Ravenloft had canon exit points. I have a hard time fathoming the mindset that argues that D&D isn't full of holes. :smallwink:

And it's not a matter of whether it's rare, but whether it's possible.

But Spelljammer is an old, dead setting. And it's a singular setting that incorporates copies of other settings, not a gateway between settings.

And face it--

If I'm playing in Forgotten Realms at table 1 and I go to table 2, playing in the same region of Forgotten Realms at the same in-universe time, I'm, by canon, playing in a different setting. Because one is FR, version Bob, and the other is FR, version Joe. They're the same base, but different instances (in the computer science meaning). Expecting things to transfer between them is...frankly...absurd.

Nifft
2018-05-24, 06:04 PM
"Special snowflake" worlds like modern day earth

Gotta stop you right there.

Modern Earth has been a popular adventure destination since oD&D.

You can't make a valid counter-argument with modern day Earth as your cornerstone, it's been un-special yellow snow since day one.

Quertus
2018-05-24, 06:05 PM
But Spelljammer is an old, dead setting. And it's a singular setting that incorporates copies of other settings, not a gateway between settings.

And face it--

If I'm playing in Forgotten Realms at table 1 and I go to table 2, playing in the same region of Forgotten Realms at the same in-universe time, I'm, by canon, playing in a different setting. Because one is FR, version Bob, and the other is FR, version Joe. They're the same base, but different instances (in the computer science meaning). Expecting things to transfer between them is...frankly...absurd.

Of course not. They're different worlds. Quertus, my signature academia mage for whom this account is named, had noticed the proliferation of copies of that particular world, and hypothesized what such replication portented for the fate of the universe at large.

Even he did not predict 3e. :smalltongue:

LudicSavant
2018-05-24, 07:07 PM
Is a person not allowed any hyperbole on this forum anymore?

Not if you want to be accurate.


But, actually, your post *quotes*

to which I first reacted seemed to do just that
It takes some serious twisting to hear "D&D is a game with strategic elements" and translate that to "you should approach the design of the characters while ignoring roleplaying."


Other posts, while not being explicit, at least brush up to the idea

I'm just not seeing that in the discussions throughout the thread. What I am seeing a lot of is posts like Mordaelil quoting Rhedyn (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=23096319&postcount=183) saying that he thought the "G" part of RPG was important, and then Mordaelil telling him that he actually said that he thought the "G" part of RPG was more important than roleplaying which is not even a remotely logically equivalent statement. It is a wild and irresponsible twisting of words and stuffing an argument into Rhedyn's mouth that he didn't make.

Koo Rehtorb
2018-05-24, 07:09 PM
Well, let's look at that.

Is my definition of "special snowflake" really that off? Isn't the concept that their world is so special it couldn't possibly be accessed from another dimension much more special snowflake than any character you've ever seen? It certainly is IME.

Most of the systems I play - from D&D to WoD to various superhero systems to Warhammer to (shudder) RIFTS have portals to other dimensions baked into the lore. It's excluding such possibilities that should strike people as odd.

Is rejecting a character that follows the rules, is balanced for and a good fit for the party, just because he's been played at another table really a defensible position, let alone a fair expectation as a default position? Is an unknown, who may not fit the group, the party, or the adventure really preferable? In what mindset does this possibly make sense?

The answer to all these (rhetorical?) questions is "yes". Fundamentally, you don't have a right to play whatever sort of character you want in a game. And a dimension hopping wizard is wildly out of place and inappropriate for most pitches for a game I've ever heard of. It would have to be quite the wacky and silly game, in my opinion, where such a character had any chance whatsoever of not being hugely tonally inappropriate.

LudicSavant
2018-05-24, 07:29 PM
Really? Never?

Really. Never in dozens upon dozens of groups.

Quertus
2018-05-24, 07:36 PM
Gotta stop you right there.

Modern Earth has been a popular adventure destination since oD&D.

You can't make a valid counter-argument with modern day Earth as your cornerstone, it's been un-special yellow snow since day one.

True that.


The answer to all these (rhetorical?) questions is "yes". Fundamentally, you don't have a right to play whatever sort of character you want in a game. And a dimension hopping wizard is wildly out of place and inappropriate for most pitches for a game I've ever heard of. It would have to be quite the wacky and silly game, in my opinion, where such a character had any chance whatsoever of not being hugely tonally inappropriate.

I'm horribly confused. How can a dimension hopping Wizard be out of place in, say, D&D once Plane Shift comes online?

If the tone of the game doesn't account for the rules of the game, isn't that the game's fault?

Koo Rehtorb
2018-05-24, 07:48 PM
I'm horribly confused. How can a dimension hopping Wizard be out of place in, say, D&D once Plane Shift comes online?

Because most pitches for a game typically don't involve a bunch of wacky strangers thrown together by Unusual Circumstances. And even if they do, those wacky strangers especially tend not to be level 13+ wizards.

PhoenixPhyre
2018-05-24, 08:12 PM
Because most pitches for a game typically don't involve a bunch of wacky strangers thrown together by Unusual Circumstances. And even if they do, those wacky strangers especially tend not to be level 13+ wizards.

Especially not ones who have already saved multiple universes and become gods. He's seen everything. Been everywhere.

One of the major things I look for in a character (either to play or to participate in a game I'm running) is the possibility that they'll change somehow on contact with the setting and the events of the campaign. And a character you've fixed in stone over years is very unlikely to do that. In fact, his ability to change is a primary character point. So no, Quertus is a bad character for any game I'm in or that I'm DMing. Same with any "this is my concept and nothing will change it". It's part of the reason I'm not particularly fond of systems that require the whole build to be planned out in advance, lest you step into a trap. It leaves very little room for surprises. And surprises are fun, to me at least.

ross
2018-05-24, 09:15 PM
"power gamer" is a meaningless phrase :smallsmile:

Florian
2018-05-25, 01:01 AM
@Quertus:

Take a look at Aventurien. That's build around the concept of a shared game world and is tightly bound to the rules of DSA. Every published campaign, module, tournament, con event and the results of each years organized play season will happen and the setting receives an actualization and update each year. Because of that, the setting contains some special "white zones" that mark where nothing official will ever happen and where groups can set adventures that enact some sort of "local" changes that will not carry over to the "global" events and updates.

Now this is not what D&D is. D&D gives you the building blocks to build your own setting or use a regenerated one, but basically, it only uses an implied setting (oD&D to 4E, 5E explicitly uses the Realms), somewhat based on Greyhawk, to give context to the rules. Assumptions, like the Great Wheel being the default cosmology for every D&D game, are pretty ridiculous because of that, same as every group having any interest in hosting a guy with the main focus of "setting exploration", when out will want to create a great story and do "story exploration", like playing one of the published campaigns, er immerse themselves in a setting like Rokugan or Iron Kingdoms, which use the D&D rules, but modify them to fit (which, by your strange train of thought, should make them part of D&D)

Mordaedil
2018-05-25, 01:44 AM
Oh no, I feel that they are equally important.

But there is a big tend in gamers right now to disregard the G, so being centrist seems to be an extreme.

Edit: I also feel like the RP part doesn't take nearly as much out of game effort as getting the G part right.
Like I see people agonize on how to best construct narratives before even selecting a system, and how they completely disregard the system as important. Which for our group, getting the story going is easy, keeping the game fun is much harder. Systems tend to cause problems far more than narratives.

Oh, I misunderstood you. I getcha now.


I'm just not seeing that in the discussions throughout the thread. What I am seeing a lot of is posts like Mordaelil quoting Rhedyn (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=23096319&postcount=183) saying that he thought the "G" part of RPG was important, and then Mordaelil telling him that he actually said that he thought the "G" part of RPG was more important than roleplaying which is not even a remotely logically equivalent statement. It is a wild and irresponsible twisting of words and stuffing an argument into Rhedyn's mouth that he didn't make.
I said that?

Knaight
2018-05-25, 02:28 AM
Gotta stop you right there.

Modern Earth has been a popular adventure destination since oD&D.

You can't make a valid counter-argument with modern day Earth as your cornerstone, it's been un-special yellow snow since day one.

You can have a fantasy game that includes, as a fantasy element, a portal to earth from a fantasy realm. It changes earth to fantasy-earth, but that's not a problem in that context.

That doesn't mean that a modern game set on earth a portal opening up doesn't flatly contradict the setting. Say you're running a game that's inspired by the action movie genre instead of the fantasy genre. The PCs are all a mercenary special operations team.

There's a lot of leeway for characters in that sort of setup. A player could bring in a former cop, a government spy trying to infiltrate the mercenary company, some random person who turned out to have a knack for killing people and breaking things and joined up, so on and so forth. What you can't bring in is a wizard from another dimension.

Satinavian
2018-05-25, 03:01 AM
A portal to some other world means that this other world sudenly becomes part of the setting. A character from another world means that this the whole history of this character and all places he has been suddenly become part f the setting.

Even in shared settings where people can bring characters from other groups this holds true and is absically the main reason to keep so close to the official setting. It is a measure to keep intergroup compatibility and leave the setting intact.

But some world hopping wizard who has seen many many worlds ? And talks about his experiences there, draws from outerworldly knowledge ? In most groups i would not want that, too disruptive to immersion and setting. Even if there somewhere exist portals.


I do like shared setting play. But you have to be resposible when doing so to leave the setting intact. You should never include stuff from outside this setting into it if you are not commited to abandon shared setting play.

Quertus
2018-05-25, 06:34 AM
Assumptions, like the Great Wheel being the default cosmology for every D&D game, are pretty ridiculous

the main focus of "setting exploration",

Two minor quibbles: 1) how many official D&D settings are there, and how many of those use the Great Wheel cosmology (not that I see any reason that actually matters, btw); 2) that's not my main focus (in fact, it's entirely optional), just my greatest source of enjoyment in a game.


But some world hopping wizard who has seen many many worlds ? And talks about his experiences there, draws from outerworldly knowledge ? In most groups i would not want that, too disruptive to immersion and setting. Even if there somewhere exist portals.

Someone being a world traveler, who (whether happens to, on occasion, or constantly) talks about the many places that they've visited, I'd in no way disruptive or detracts from my immersion in my home town. In fact, if anything, they add to my immersion, by reminding me of the connection to a larger world.


One of the major things I look for in a character (either to play or to participate in a game I'm running) is the possibility that they'll change somehow on contact with the setting and the events of the campaign. And a character you've fixed in stone over years is very unlikely to do that.

I think I can safely say that I've never been in a long-term game with such "unknowns" where one or more didn't turn toxic / become incompatible with the group or the adventure during the course of play. Usually more than one player had characters that need to be retired. It's bad for the coherence of the story.

That having been said, I'm curious as to your reason for wanting this thing that I view as exclusively a detriment. What value do you find in having the world fundamentally change the character?

PhoenixPhyre
2018-05-25, 07:18 AM
I think I can safely say that I've never been in a long-term game with such "unknowns" where one or more didn't turn toxic / become incompatible with the group or the adventure during the course of play. Usually more than one player had characters that need to be retired. It's bad for the coherence of the story.

That having been said, I'm curious as to your reason for wanting this thing that I view as exclusively a detriment. What value do you find in having the world fundamentally change the character?

Because living people, real people, change based on their environment. Characters who merely observe and meddle, but aren't changed by the events of the campaign ring real hollow, like chess pieces. They're avatars, not people I can imagine being organically there. You don't expect a 2D cardboard cutout to change as he experiences events, but you do expect a person to change.

I've changed, greatly. Growing up, I set up my own character build as an MD-PhD. Academic medical research, because I hated interacting with people but liked science. I also said that

a) I hated high school. With a burning passion.
b) I strongly preferred physics to chemistry.
c) I strongly preferred cold climates to hot climates.

Then, in college, I realized that physics was more fun and I didn't care as much as the other pre-meds did. So I changed course and ended up doing a physics (quantum chemistry) PhD. My goal was to go into academic research. At first. Then I started teaching as a grad student, and discovered that a) I liked it, and b) I was good at it. So I figured I'd be a college professor.

And then I graduated and couldn't find a post-doc to save my life. So I decided to take that teaching thing and try teaching at an independent (private) school. As it turns out, I got a job teaching high school chemistry (and physics) in Florida. And I love it. My whole attitude toward people, toward teaching, toward lots of things has changed. My skill-set has changed. And I'd expect characters to do the same. Because I want to see characters that aren't caricatures.

LudicSavant
2018-05-25, 07:39 AM
What value do you find in having the world fundamentally change the character?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Character_arc

Satinavian
2018-05-25, 08:16 AM
Two minor quibbles: 1) how many official D&D settings are there, and how many of those use the Great Wheel cosmology (not that I see any reason that actually matters, btw); 2) that's not my main focus (in fact, it's entirely optional), just my greatest source of enjoyment in a game.I don't know how many exist, but only half of those i have ever experienced in use have this mythology.

Someone being a world traveler, who (whether happens to, on occasion, or constantly) talks about the many places that they've visited, I'd in no way disruptive or detracts from my immersion in my home town. In fact, if anything, they add to my immersion, by reminding me of the connection to a larger world.Because you are actually already living in the world where those places exist.

A traveller coming to your home and telling you about his previous life as a dragon on the world of Crythansia would probably just ignored.

I mean you probably could play a lunatic who thinks and claims that he "really" is a world hopping wizard. Despite not actually having any functioning world hopping power. And that might probably not destroy the setting while you still can pretend that your character is from another world - at least until you try to use technological knowledge that doesn't exist in this world but theoretically could exist.

PhoenixPhyre
2018-05-25, 08:27 AM
Because you are actually already living in the world where those places exist.

A traveller coming to your home and telling you about his previous life as a dragon on the world of Crythansia would probably just ignored.

I mean you probably could play a lunatic who thinks and claims that he "really" is a world hopping wizard. Despite not actually having any functioning world hopping power. And that might probably not destroy the setting while you still can pretend that your character is from another world - at least until you try to use technological knowledge that doesn't exist in this world but theoretically could exist.

I had a player who played an interdimensional, Far Realms giant nautilus-shaped godling incarnated as a warlock to warn the world of threats from Beyond. Or so he thinks.

It worked well, because of that last sentence. Was he? That wasn't resolved until the last session, but he acted as if he was. And everyone thought he was crazy. Useful, but crazy. And he gained power just like everyone else. So in-universe, he was just a strange person with weird tentacle-themed powers and a serious ego. Turns out he was a tiny fragment of the personality of such a being, shattered into countless pieces when he fell fighting those threats. One fragment entered the mortal realm and pierced a half-elf teenager, partially overwriting the previous personality. So he didn't really have the power of a godling, just some of the memories.

CantigThimble
2018-05-25, 09:50 AM
I think I can safely say that I've never been in a long-term game with such "unknowns" where one or more didn't turn toxic / become incompatible with the group or the adventure during the course of play. Usually more than one player had characters that need to be retired. It's bad for the coherence of the story.

That having been said, I'm curious as to your reason for wanting this thing that I view as exclusively a detriment. What value do you find in having the world fundamentally change the character?

For me at least, character development is pretty much the reason to play the game in the first place. You create an interesting personality and then throw him in scenario after scenario of cooperating and competing with others and see what his personality and role in the story become. If I wasn't doing that then I don't know why I would bother to roleplay characters at all.

There are ways this can go poorly, and you do need to be careful to make sure you don't break everything. You can tilt the character development towards working with the party and the story more to avoid the incompatibility problems, or just let them happen and work on interesting ways for the character to exit the party, possibly becoming a future antagonist in the process. Those can be really interesting parts of the story.


And as for the "players needing to be an expert in their DM's world" problem, I've found there are some really good ways around that.

First off, if there are some elements you want to include in your backstory, it's usually not difficult to get DMs to work with you to include them in the setting. Chances are there's a lot of space in their setting for things they haven't fully fleshed out. If you want your character to come from a place where people view the gods in X way and humans and orcs have Y relationship, then you can work with your DM to include an area like that. Usually the DM's are happy to have someone else invested in their world and contributing to worldbuilding. (within limits, of course)

Secondly, I don't need to know everything about the setting, I need to know what my character thinks about things in the setting. If my character is some highly connected nobleman then that might be a problem, but if my character is from a small town or isn't highly educated about the world then he probably just has some vague, probably incorrect, ideas about what all the nations, cultures and historical events are. As long as I know what he thinks, then I can work out how he reacts to contradictory ideas when it comes to that.

PhoenixPhyre
2018-05-25, 10:02 AM
For me at least, character development is pretty much the reason to play the game in the first place. You create an interesting personality and then throw him in scenario after scenario of cooperating and competing with others and see what his personality and role in the story become. If I wasn't doing that then I don't know why I would bother to roleplay characters at all.

Secondly, I don't need to know everything about the setting, I need to know what my character thinks about things in the setting. If my character is some highly connected nobleman then that might be a problem, but if my character is from a small town or isn't highly educated about the world then he probably just has some vague, probably incorrect, ideas about what all the nations, cultures and historical events are. As long as I know what he thinks, then I can work out how he reacts to contradictory ideas when it comes to that.

Character growth and not needing to know everything go hand in hand. Because you can start a game with a basic idea (the 1000' view of the setting) and iteratively expand your knowledge in play, unless you're tied to a very specific, inflexible character. I usually only have broad brush-strokes of a character when I begin--the rest comes out in play. Not even that it's changing, but that I'm discovering how this person was all along as they talk to me through play.

Rhedyn
2018-05-25, 10:10 AM
My character build has very little to do your world in any 3.x game.

You list available sources, I make something. "Organic growth" is basically non-viable in 3.x do to severe balance problems.

In Savage Worlds, I see my players growing more organically. The benefit of a classless system is that it supports that kind of idea better. When you have classes, you are locked into a progression and HAVE to build around it. My 3.5 fighter could learn magic, but now he is a non-viable trash character unless I planned for this all along. In Savage Worlds, I can pick up magic as a Warrior and still be a viable warrior, but the pure warrior is going to have a few more tricks going for him that he learned while I was mastering magic. SW background edges can only be selected after character creation with GM permission, aka a story event makes getting that edge make sense.

PhoenixPhyre
2018-05-25, 10:17 AM
My character build has very little to do your world in any 3.x game.

You list available sources, I make something. "Organic growth" is basically non-viable in 3.x do to severe balance problems.


And that's a reason I'm not fond of 3.X's character build system. It precludes organic growth and mandates (at reasonable optimization levels) mechanics-first thinking.



In Savage Worlds, I see my players growing more organically. The benefit of a classless system is that it supports that kind of idea better. When you have classes, you are locked into a progression and HAVE to build around it. My 3.5 fighter could learn magic, but now he is a non-viable trash character unless I planned for this all along. In Savage Worlds, I can pick up magic as a Warrior and still be a viable warrior, but the pure warrior is going to have a few more tricks going for him that he learned while I was mastering magic. SW background edges can only be selected after character creation with GM permission, aka a story event makes getting that edge make sense.

Not all class-based systems are as locked down as 3.X. But yes, point-buy systems tend to facilitate this type of mechanical reflection of character growth better.

Talakeal
2018-05-25, 10:56 AM
Really. Never in dozens upon dozens of groups.

That's incredible. I don't think I have ever seen a single group, or even a single player, who didn't do that sometimes. Its also incredible that you have had the opportunity to play with dozens upon dozens of groups over the years, you are a very lucky gamer.

To clarify though, when you say "the most powerful option," do you mean the most powerful option in the given situation, or do you mean "THE MOST POWERFUL OPTION PERIOD," Like Pun-Pun or something? Because if its the latter I can see that a lot easier.



Two minor quibbles: 1) how many official D&D settings are there, and how many of those use the Great Wheel cosmology (not that I see any reason that actually matters, btw); 2) that's not my main focus (in fact, it's entirely optional), just my greatest source of enjoyment in a game.

Greyhawk. Maybe Birthright?

Mystara, Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, and Eberron all use their own cosmology.

Ravenloft and Darksun may exist in the larger multiverse, but a big part of those settings is their isolation and difficulty with planar travel.

Spelljammer and Planescape are of course meta-settings which contain a version of all the other campaign worlds, but they have fundamentally different cosmologies to most of them.

Satinavian
2018-05-25, 11:52 AM
That's incredible. I don't think I have ever seen a single group, or even a single player, who didn't do that sometimes. Its also incredible that you have had the opportunity to play with dozens upon dozens of groups over the years, you are a very lucky gamer.

To clarify though, when you say "the most powerful option," do you mean the most powerful option in the given situation, or do you mean "THE MOST POWERFUL OPTION PERIOD," Like Pun-Pun or something? Because if its the latter I can see that a lot easier.Take into account that LudicSavant talked about skilled optimizers. Depending how high one takes this requirement the number of possible candidates might be quite low.

Personally i share the experience of the savant here. People with near perfect system mastery know very well how imbalanced the system is and how to break it effortlessly and that it would be utterly pointless to do they. They tend to use their skill to get exactly the power level for their character they want.

They don't have to impress anyone with system mastery. The whole table knows their system mastery level anyway. They don't get any feeling of accomplishment from winning through optimization because that is trivial. They might get it from making something subpar that is universally shunned into a powerful option. Because that is a challenge. But building a strong, even OP character alone is no challenge for them.

Lord Raziere
2018-05-25, 12:00 PM
Take into account that LudicSavant talked about skilled optimizers. Depending how high one takes this requirement the number of possible candidates might be quite low.

Personally i share the experience of the savant here. People with near perfect system mastery know very well how imbalanced the system is and how to break it effortlessly and that it would be utterly pointless to do they. They tend to use their skill to get exactly the power level for their character they want.

They don't have to impress anyone with system mastery. The whole table knows their system mastery level anyway. They don't get any feeling of accomplishment from winning through optimization because that is trivial. They might get it from making something subpar that is universally shunned into a powerful option. Because that is a challenge. But building a strong, even OP character alone is no challenge for them.

Which to me, only proves these "most powerful optimization" options are pointless, as once you reach the summit it seems, one stops and just decides to have fun anyways, so I'm just cutting the big optimization mountain middleman out, walking around it and deciding to have fun with whatever character I want without learning all that nonsense. hasn't failed me so far.

Talakeal
2018-05-25, 12:01 PM
Take into account that LudicSavant talked about skilled optimizers. Depending how high one takes this requirement the number of possible candidates might be quite low.

Personally i share the experience of the savant here. People with near perfect system mastery know very well how imbalanced the system is and how to break it effortlessly and that it would be utterly pointless to do they. They tend to use their skill to get exactly the power level for their character they want.

They don't have to impress anyone with system mastery. The whole table knows their system mastery level anyway. They don't get any feeling of accomplishment from winning through optimization because that is trivial. They might get it from making something subpar that is universally shunned into a powerful option. Because that is a challenge. But building a strong, even OP character alone is no challenge for them.

Right, the original post did mention that qualification, thanks for reminding me. Still, aside from its potential to "No True Scotsman," the discussion I am not sure that changes anything.

For example, if I am a perfectly skilled optimizer and the group has decided that we are all going to play characters with a power level of six out of ten (just making up numbers here) but the character concept I had in mind is only a 4 out of 10 I am going to be torn between taking the more powerful option to better fit with the party or the less powerful option to stay true to my character concept. I just find it hard to believe that Ludic has never encountered anyone who ever took the first path.

Again though, I might just be taking him too literally or not literally enough and inadvertently straw-manning the statement.

Rhedyn
2018-05-25, 12:07 PM
Not all class-based systems are as locked down as 3.X. But yes, point-buy systems tend to facilitate this type of mechanical reflection of character growth better.
Woah, Savage Worlds is not point buy like GURPS (outside of Supers). It's a bit simpler than that.

Quertus
2018-05-25, 02:50 PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Character_arc

Even If we take this as prescriptive rather than descriptive, or view it as the desired end goal for role-playing then, even according to the link you sent, growth isn't expected for anyone but the main character, and isn't even required for them. Seeing as how I've literally played a sentient potted plant next to a (figurative) Thor, one should not be surprised to hear that I not infrequently play a supporting role, for which such growth is not required, and can even be disadvantageous to the emergent story.

To continue to pick on my signature character, Quertus is very much an "app for this" wizard. Whenever he encounters something that he doesn't have a spell for, he goes out and researches a new spell to augment his capabilities. In that regard, he fits perfectly - far better than most characters I've ever seen, in fact - the linked notion of growth and increased capabilities. The only difference is, since he's usually traveling with parties capable of resolving the issues themselves, we don't have to put the campaign on hold for months while we run Quertus' training montage; instead, he can simply pick up these skills during downtime.


Because living people, real people, change based on their environment. Characters who merely observe and meddle, but aren't changed by the events of the campaign ring real hollow, like chess pieces. They're avatars, not people I can imagine being organically there. You don't expect a 2D cardboard cutout to change as he experiences events, but you do expect a person to change.

I've changed, greatly. Growing up, I set up my own character build as an MD-PhD. Academic medical research, because I hated interacting with people but liked science. I also said that

a) I hated high school. With a burning passion.
b) I strongly preferred physics to chemistry.
c) I strongly preferred cold climates to hot climates.

Then, in college, I realized that physics was more fun and I didn't care as much as the other pre-meds did. So I changed course and ended up doing a physics (quantum chemistry) PhD. My goal was to go into academic research. At first. Then I started teaching as a grad student, and discovered that a) I liked it, and b) I was good at it. So I figured I'd be a college professor.

And then I graduated and couldn't find a post-doc to save my life. So I decided to take that teaching thing and try teaching at an independent (private) school. As it turns out, I got a job teaching high school chemistry (and physics) in Florida. And I love it. My whole attitude toward people, toward teaching, toward lots of things has changed. My skill-set has changed. And I'd expect characters to do the same. Because I want to see characters that aren't caricatures.

Well, we're in strong agreement about wanting characters rather than caricatures.

So, let's say that I want to run a medical school game. The person playing you decides that their character doesn't care enough, and changes major. As for the rest of the character's, well... Adam can't handle the stress, and commits suicide. On a lucky roll, Bob wins the lottery, and decides to go for early retirement. Charlotte was doing fine, until Douglas raped her, then murdered her in a failed attempt to cover up his actions. Edgar found solace at the bottom of a bottle, until a drunk driving accident left him paralyzed for life, and a little brain damaged. So, of the entire initial party, not a single character made it to the boss round with the final exam.

If you actually play games Sandboxy enough to consider that a successful campaign, then, yes, I will fully support your position.

But I have been conditioned to consider that campaign a failure. I build, choose, and value my characters accordingly. And, if I say I'm running a political sandbox, I expect the other players to know their characters well enough to know that they can and will engage the political adventure politically, and not just murderhobo, or drop out because they discover that their characters don't do political. I'm not interested in a whole party full of unknowns for a serious campaign.

Satinavian
2018-05-25, 03:02 PM
To continue to pick on my signature character, Quertus is very much an "app for this" wizard. Whenever he encounters something that he doesn't have a spell for, he goes out and researches a new spell to augment his capabilities. In that regard, he fits perfectly - far better than most characters I've ever seen, in fact - the linked notion of growth and increased capabilities. The only difference is, since he's usually traveling with parties capable of resolving the issues themselves, we don't have to put the campaign on hold for months while we run Quertus' training montage; instead, he can simply pick up these skills during downtime.And how does this character work in settings where "researching a new spell" simply isn't a thing ? And where he coudln't even in his backstory ever researched new spells ?

Quertus
2018-05-25, 03:17 PM
Greyhawk. Maybe Birthright?

Mystara, Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, and Eberron all use their own cosmology.

Ravenloft and Darksun may exist in the larger multiverse, but a big part of those settings is their isolation and difficulty with planar travel.

Spelljammer and Planescape are of course meta-settings which contain a version of all the other campaign worlds, but they have fundamentally different cosmologies to most of them.

Perhaps we're using words differently. Spelljammer and Planescape both connect... All?... Official settings? That's all I care about. I have no clue what the person who started this line of thought cared about.


And how does this character work in settings where "researching a new spell" simply isn't a thing ? And where he coudln't even in his backstory ever researched new spells ?

These words make no sense.

I mean, sure, not every D&D city, town, village, cave, and plane has an established library of research materials, thousands of gold worth of supplies for him to purchase, etc. But, as I said, as the issue is rarely pressing, Quertus can simply wait until he goes home. Or, in 3e, until he levels, and learns spells automatically. :smalltongue:

The "couldn't have even in his backstory" is completely incomprehensible. It's like saying the USA couldn't have been a British colony, even in its backstory. :smallconfused:

PhoenixPhyre
2018-05-25, 03:45 PM
To continue to pick on my signature character, Quertus is very much an "app for this" wizard. Whenever he encounters something that he doesn't have a spell for, he goes out and researches a new spell to augment his capabilities. In that regard, he fits perfectly - far better than most characters I've ever seen, in fact - the linked notion of growth and increased capabilities. The only difference is, since he's usually traveling with parties capable of resolving the issues themselves, we don't have to put the campaign on hold for months while we run Quertus' training montage; instead, he can simply pick up these skills during downtime.


To be very honest, Quertus as described seems to me to be an utterly toxic character. The worst combination of the Load (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheLoad) and the Mary Sue DMPC. You're either useless (since you've described him as utterly tactically inept and non-participatory) or overpowering (when you have the right spell). That concept would get an instant, peremptory ban at any table I'm DMing, and I would rebel as a player. Depending on how its played, it likely comes across as patronizing. You sit back, do next to nothing while everyone else is risking their lives, and then solve everything with a wave of your wand.

This may just be description, but no. Just no.



Well, we're in strong agreement about wanting characters rather than caricatures.

So, let's say that I want to run a medical school game. The person playing you decides that their character doesn't care enough, and changes major. As for the rest of the character's, well... Adam can't handle the stress, and commits suicide. On a lucky roll, Bob wins the lottery, and decides to go for early retirement. Charlotte was doing fine, until Douglas raped her, then murdered her in a failed attempt to cover up his actions. Edgar found solace at the bottom of a bottle, until a drunk driving accident left him paralyzed for life, and a little brain damaged. So, of the entire initial party, not a single character made it to the boss round with the final exam.

If you actually play games Sandboxy enough to consider that a successful campaign, then, yes, I will fully support your position.

But I have been conditioned to consider that campaign a failure. I build, choose, and value my characters accordingly. And, if I say I'm running a political sandbox, I expect the other players to know their characters well enough to know that they can and will engage the political adventure politically, and not just murderhobo, or drop out because they discover that their characters don't do political. I'm not interested in a whole party full of unknowns for a serious campaign.

I have no idea what you're trying to say or how it relates to my point. Can you say it in a different way maybe? I'm totally lost here.

Talakeal
2018-05-25, 03:54 PM
Perhaps we're using words differently. Spelljammer and Planescape both connect... All?... Official settings? That's all I care about. I have no clue what the person who started this line of thought cared about

Its kind of a weird one-way thing.

Sort of like how the Marvel movies are canon to the TV series, but the TV series are not canon to the movies.

If I am playing Planescape I can travel to Toril because it exists in the setting. If I am playing Forgotten Realms I cannot travel to Sigil.

The cosmologies and metaphysics of the settings are just incompatible as written. For example The Great Wheel does not exist in Forgotten Realms or Eberron, and those planes contain the realms of setting specific deities who, in Planescape, have been moved to the Great Wheel.

PhoenixPhyre
2018-05-25, 04:11 PM
Its kind of a weird one-way thing.

Sort of like how the Marvel movies are canon to the TV series, but the TV series are not canon to the movies.

If I am playing Planescape I can travel to Toril because it exists in the setting. If I am playing Forgotten Realms I cannot travel to Sigil.

The cosmologies and metaphysics of the settings are just incompatible as written. For example The Great Wheel does not exist in Forgotten Realms or Eberron, and those planes contain the realms of setting specific deities who, in Planescape, have been moved to the Great Wheel.

Exactly. Planescape has a sub-setting that shares the same name as the planet on which Forgotten Realms is set, but FR Toril =/= Planescape Toril. To borrow a computer science term, they're in different namespaces. Different settings entirely.

Not only that, but DM.JoeBob.FR.Toril and DM.Jane.FR.Toril are different implementations and cannot be assumed to be drop-in replacements. And that's by explicit rule in all editions, straight in the PHB.

Quertus
2018-05-25, 07:44 PM
To be very honest, Quertus as described seems to me to be an utterly toxic character. The worst combination of the Load (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheLoad) and the Mary Sue DMPC. You're either useless (since you've described him as utterly tactically inept and non-participatory) or overpowering (when you have the right spell). That concept would get an instant, peremptory ban at any table I'm DMing, and I would rebel as a player. Depending on how its played, it likely comes across as patronizing. You sit back, do next to nothing while everyone else is risking their lives, and then solve everything with a wave of your wand.

This may just be description, but no. Just no.

It must be the description - Quertus is arguably my most successful MMTFPC (Massively Multi Table Friendly Player Character)

Think :durkon: - theoretically this tier 1 powerhouse that the playground would expect to totally overshadow the other PCs, but limited by his own tactics and personality.


I have no idea what you're trying to say or how it relates to my point. Can you say it in a different way maybe? I'm totally lost here.

I probably can't say it better (especially after my first rely was eaten!), but I'll try to explain.

You said that you like characters who are like real people, not caricatures. Same.

Then you said that you like characters to change. And you gave an example of how someone changed - yourself.

So I tried to show you what I think that would look like in a game.

If someone brought you as a character to a med school game, then left the campaign partway through, because the player realized that med school just wasn't your thing.

My question is, would the games you play consider that scenario a successful character / game / campaign?

Because, if so - if you really do play such Sandboxy, character first games, where leaving the game because that's what your character would do is considered a win, then your argument is internally consistent, and I can totally get behind your PoV. And I'm arguably a little jealous.

But me? I've been conditioned to consider that a fail case. An extreme one, actually, where a character billed as "strongly prefers physics to chemistry, strongly prefers cold climates to hot climates, hates high school with a burning passion" leaves the med school game to go teach high school chemistry in Florida.

For the style of games I'm used to, your player would have been considered disruptive, and probably kicked out. I've been conditioned to believe that it is optimal for the player to know the character better than you knew yourself before committing to a serious game.

So, my question is, which of those better describes the style of games that you play?

CantigThimble
2018-05-25, 09:14 PM
The med school example is completely different from every RPG I've played because there is no 'party' the way you described it. You described 6 random, independent stories that just so happened to be in the same place at the same time.

When you get 6 people around the table to play an RPG they should be working together to tell the story. There should be some overarching purpose that unites them as well as individual relationships between them. There can be conflict between characters of course, but there also needs to be an understanding between the players that they're working together to tell a good story, and that they're going to resolve the conflict in a way that will allow the group to move forward.

If there is no cooperation, then you get the random unrelated stories that collapse into confusion like you described.

Allowing character development doesn't mean allowing any kind of character development whatsoever. There are constraints imposed by the structure of the game.

PhoenixPhyre
2018-05-25, 09:25 PM
Quertus, let me respond using my own games as examples.

My starting premise for games I DM in my own setting is

"You are all graduating today from the Adventurer's Guild Academy as newly licensed Adventurers. Make characters that have a reason to be risking their lives as Adventurers. If it's an achievable goal, let me know if you want to pursue it and if reached, if you want to retire the character when it's done."

If, after some time (or even immediately), it was clear that someone wasn't cut out as an Adventurer or had reached their goal and no longer had a reason to continue, I'd gracefully transition them out and bring in a new character. Most likely, that old character would end up as an NPC that future adventuring groups could encounter. If they weren't a good fit but wanted to be, I'd talk to the player and see what events could be thrown their way to let the character become a good fit.

So yes, I'd consider a character who retired and went on to other things to absolutely be a win for that character, as long as the player was satisfied. I care to see where the character's thread leads. What knots it gets into. How its thread affects the others.

I have kids dropping out pretty frequently, as school life gets in the way. I started this last school year with about 10 players, and ended up with 4. Their characters drifted off, finding new things to get involved in or were written out of the story.

Without the unknown, with everything determined in advance, the game is boring. If the only choices are come out on top, unchanged, and fail and die, I'll put the controller down and play something else (to mix a metaphor).

In the game I'm in as a player, if my character hit a point where she'd retire or was becoming unfit for the story, I'd certainly retire her and switch to one that wants to be there. And the group would be just fine with that. Because the other options (force the character into shape or play with a character that's a bad fit) are horrific. I've seen characters grow. I've had characters retired because they were bad fits (either in mechanics or personality). And if it's the player that's a bad fit, I'll walk away or get them to (depending). I've done that too, on both sides.

The fun of the game comes first, for everyone. Wanting to play a particular character, wanting to go a certain direction, "plot coherence", all of these are secondary. If people aren't having fun, someone needs to change until fun is maximized. I do enough annoying stuff as an adult. Doing un-fun stuff in a game, especially out of pride, laziness, or ego is a total waste. Better not to play in that case.

Edit: and knowing where a character has been and what they're like now doesn't mean you know what they'll be like later. The past is but a prologue, the future is yet to come. Pay performance is no guarantee of future returns.