Have Power Gamers ruined online discussions? [Archive]

View Full Version : Have Power Gamers ruined online discussions?

Mr.Spastic

2018-12-03, 11:21 PM

jdolch

2018-12-03, 11:28 PM

Ganymede

2018-12-03, 11:36 PM

It hasn't ruined online discussions per se, but the forum does get more than its fair share of threads on what to do with oddly good rolled stats and the oft-made discovery that sorcerer and warlock synergize.

There is nothing inherently wrong with it, but it is some of the most repetitive and least interesting content out there.

Darth Ultron

2018-12-03, 11:37 PM

Misterwhisper

2018-12-03, 11:39 PM

1. Different people just have different opinions on how playing the game is more fun to them. I am positive that people who "just want to roleplay" aka "create the worst possible characters" are just as annoying to powergamers as vice versa. That is why ...

2. There really shouldn't be any arguments. If there are any arguments between power gamers and non powergamers about which X is better, then someone communicated wrong. That there obviously is no common ground to even have an argument on.

I think a little bit of acceptance in both directions goes a long way.

I myself am a power gamer, but I would not call myself a minmaxer.

I do not try to break as much combat as possible or be unkillable.

I find a concept I like and I make it the best I possibly can.

Ex. My last character I wanted to make a bloodhound type character. Some who tracks and hunts people down better than anyone.

I made a revised rogue 2/ranger x Warforged envoy just for the fact that a warforged don’t ever have to rest, Rogues get cunning action to bonus action dash, and normal dash (I think they stack) all while using ranger abilities to ignore difficult terrain. If I had made it to level 8 I was going to take Mobile, just so I could always ignore terrain problems. Even though I was an archer I took the mariner fighting style just for the swim and climb speeds.

I make a concept through the roof, and it bothers me when someone is not built to do their job in the party.

Ex in our current game we have a barbarian, me as an archer ranger, a lore bard, and a hexblade warlock that only eldritch blasts. Normal this would not be too bad, but our zealot barbarian is a changeling that refuses to wear armor despite having a 14 ac due to only having a 14 str dex con.

It bothers me highly that someone chooses to knowingly and actively makes themself much worse and threatens the livelyhood of the group because they want to rp a concept that barely works.

Mr.Spastic

2018-12-03, 11:46 PM

Callak_Remier

2018-12-03, 11:49 PM

jdolch

2018-12-04, 12:02 AM

Just communicate that (and maybe why) you don't care about that level of optimization and if they don't accept that, then ignoring them is the best option.

But again, and as you can see even in this thread, the door swings both ways and this really has nothing to do with power gamers, but with people who cannot accept that other people can have a different opinion without being objectively wrong.

FrancisBean

2018-12-04, 12:04 AM

2. There really shouldn't be any arguments. If there are any arguments between power gamers and non powergamers about which X is better, then someone communicated wrong. That is because if communicated correctly, there obviously is no common ground to even have an argument on. If one side makes it clear that they want to create a mechanically strong character and the other side makes it clear that they don't care at all about mechanical strength, then how can you possibly have an argument?

I think a little bit of acceptance and clear communication in both directions goes a long way.

This. Absolutely, all of this.

In actual play, I'm dedicated toward my character concept on a role-play level, and use my limited system mastery just to make sure that dedication doesn't make my character suck too much to enjoy. (My current character is a barbarian, but his background is in forensic accounting, and he has proficiency in Investigation with Intelligence bought to 12.)

On the forum, I'm just as likely to want to explore a theoretical optimizational problem. That's a different kind of fun. I don't really see these as incompatible, but I've certainly encountered people who seem to want to chastise the theoretical optimization conversation as anti-role-play.

Usually it's enough to point out what your goal in the conversation is... Most people seem to respect that around here. We're a friendly, polite society -- this isn't exactly 4chan!

Nifft

2018-12-04, 12:06 AM

DeadMech

2018-12-04, 12:17 AM

Have they? No, not anymore than anti-powergamers have. I find those sorts far more bothersome. At least in my experience. I've never had a power gamer treat me rudely. Most powergamers I see here offer their opinion when asked for it. Someone writes a guide giving his opinions and I'm free to follow it, or even to choose to look at it or not, by my own choice. Far more often I get accused of bad wrong fun for wanting to make a character that is good at the things they are specifically in a party to be good at.

dgnslyr

2018-12-04, 12:21 AM

Im have been writing a Thread to try and illustrate my Feelings on the Matter of Power gamers. Ultimately i feel sad for them Since they Miss the Point of D&D imo

The point of D&D is to tell a good story, isn't it? The way I see it, no matter what character I build, I want them to be good at the things they're supposed to be good at. If I'm playing a fighting man, I want my fighting man to be good at fighting; if I'm playing a defender of all the helpless in the realm, I want them to be good at actually defending people. It's not a zero-sum game; being good at min-maxing doesn't preclude being good at roleplaying, and being bad at min-maxing doesn't guarantee they'll be good at roleplaying. And considering most people aren't interested in playing a character that is mediocre at everything, including their job, I think having a strong, crunchy core is a good foundation for building an interesting roleplaying experience. Granted, in 5e, the min-max ceiling is much lower, and the floor for failure is much higher, so the difference between a good and mediocre character is a lot thinner compared to 3.5, for example, but in a game made of numbers that determine success and failure, it's hard to willingly turn down bigger numbers.

If anything, I use my character build as a source of inspiration for my roleplaying. I'll start with the crunch of the character, and use those as a basis to build my character's backstory. Personally, I think this is easier and more effective than the reverse; given infinite freedom, the choice paralysis can make it difficult to tell a compelling story, but given a few unchangeable mechanical pillars to my character, it's easier for me to write a compelling story using those points as an outline.

Conversely, would you still willingly play a character with no ability modifier higher than +1, if numbers don't matter to you? At its core, the game is still about adding numbers to dice rolls to hit certain thresholds to either succeed or fail, and I think it's hard to enjoy a game where the storyteller is constantly telling you that you fail at the actions you attempt, especially if it happens to you more than everyone else.

ImproperJustice

2018-12-04, 12:45 AM

Kinda reminds me of the old before they were meme, memes of the Four Role Playing Archetypes:

Real Men / Women: It’s not a good session unless some dice are rolled, butts are kicked, and some steam is released.

Real Roleplayers: It’s not a good session unless some character growth happens, some new facet of the story is revealed, and a chance to improvise is presented.

Real Lunatics: It’s not a good session unless something exciting happens, and if it doesn’t your gonna make it happen. Random violence, random shifts in plot sequence or abject failure at a plot element are all welcome oitcomes.

Real Munchkins: It’s not a good session if you and maybe your character aren’t worshiped as the gods they are, and you win D&D.

I think discussion here and the outcomes desired are heavily influenced by what archetype the players fall into.
Power gamers usually drift toward the combat (and in some cases extreme cases, Munchkin side of things), and the Role players tend to be well into their camp.
The lunatics usually are busy watching sports/ porn and don’t like to bother with the nuances of the game.

Mr.Spastic

2018-12-04, 12:59 AM

I would say the problems I run into the most online is the Munchkins.

Potato_Priest

2018-12-04, 01:05 AM

Theodoric

2018-12-04, 03:37 AM

In some places, yeah, but for 5e min-maxing is much less meaningful, so it's really not quite as 'persuasive'. The power curve just isn't sharp enough that you actually need to have a remotely optimal character to be effective (much less have fun).

You've still got the 'look with this arbitrary combination of races, classes and feats I can break the game'-types, but they're not that hard to ignore (and, tbh, I don't mind them having their own spaces). The game's simply not as build-focused as it was in previous editions.

Gastronomie

2018-12-04, 03:39 AM

It's not a problem about them being power gamers, it's a problem about them being arrogant d***s.

I think this sums it all up.

Dark Schneider

2018-12-04, 04:00 AM

Unoriginal

2018-12-04, 04:03 AM

If the one making the claim you disagree with doesn't care about what you say, say your piece for the people who are reading the discussion (so it has a chance to convince them) and move to other things.

Sometime this forum honestly makes me wonder if I'm crazy.

MeimuHakurei

2018-12-04, 04:24 AM

Usually, what I see is people collectively shouting down any discussion based on mechanical merit or trying to have fun with the game system. I pretty much never see the opposite except as a strawman.

Because some people appearantly don't get that for some, minmaxing the hell out of your character or doing theorycrafting is the fun they're having. In fact, many competent optimizers are experienced with D&D in general, so they tend to understand social contracts and party cohesion better as well. Plus you can just as well experiment with less powerful options or actually account for your other player's resources when building your character.

tl;dr: The powergamer that derides players for not optimizing hard enough doesn't exist

Pelle

2018-12-04, 04:33 AM

Just ignore all the character build threads, and you'll be mostly fine I think.

Glorthindel

2018-12-04, 05:36 AM

Well, sure, it's easy: Simply ignore anyone that disagrees with you. They are free to post...but you don't have to respond or discuss anything with them, unless you want to.

Though really, the whole point of making a public posting is to have a public discussion. If you really want to have a chat about ''one thing" maybe do it in PMs or DMs or on private Discord or even E-mail with someone.

Following off this, my ethos for online discussion is to never waste my time trying to change the mind of the person I directly disagree with. Because 99% of the time I can't. The vast majority of people who have formed an opinion (and solidly enough to defend it online) cannot, and will not be swayed. Their opinion is already entrenched, and you are just wasting time and page space talking to them. Sure, you might run into the rare unicorn who will reassess their belief when you argue with them, but the odds of that are vanishingly small.

No, when I argue with another persons post, I am not doing it for their benefit (since they either can't or wont change their mind), but for the benefit of the people on the fence in the discussion who are reading. So I wont waste time with a protracted back and forth with a single poster, I will just make my counter-point for the benefit of the readers and move on. As far as I am concerned, the more a single poster rants on, the less reasonable they look, and the less I am convinced by their points anyway, so I am happy for someone I disagree with to post on and on, as it makes him look more unreasonable, and in contrast, makes my point look even more reasonable. Think of when you are reading threads yourself where you have no already entrenched opinion - who are you more swayed by, the guy who makes a single salient and reasonable post, or the one who makes six posts a page. Odds are, you very quickly are skimming the six-poster, hoping he shuts the f up and let everyone else talk.

Unoriginal

2018-12-04, 05:36 AM

tl;dr: The powergamer that derides players for not optimizing hard enough doesn't exist

That's quite a giant leap to make. Unless your argument is that:

a)people posting to deride classes/subclasses/builds as not good enough (who do exist, you can literally read threads about that on this very sub-forum's current first page) are not power gamers

b) people posting to deride classes /etc would not do it around a gaming table, they just talk about it online because they find optimizing fun

But both assertion would be quite flawed and would probably hold up again verification for the majority of cases.

jdolch

2018-12-04, 06:23 AM

As the OP said already he used the wrong word. He didn't mean "Power Gamer" as in "Optimizer" but as in "overpowering other peoples opinions". And that was really badly worded because I completely agree with Meimu that so-called "Roleplayers" are much more likely to be elitists and brow-beating other people into submission than "Optimizers".

Innocent_bystan

2018-12-04, 06:26 AM

The times I see a discussion go bad because of a power-gamer are generally when a power-gamer wants to be a rules-lawyer, but can't quite hack the whole evidence-based debate thing.

It's not the power-gaming itself, it's the convoluted (and oft-times frankly bizarre) twisting and mis-reading of the rules which might yield an extra +1 if squeezed just right.

This happens more often in the 3.5e forum than here in the 5e forum, for obvious reasons.

This. A hundred times this. I'm a powergamer (as in: I choose a concept and then optimise the bejeezus out of it), but I'm also very sensitive to RAW and RAI. I tend to avoid grey areas in the rules in my optimisation, because of this.

I have a gaming buddy that is a rabid min-maxer and can't seem to read two sentences straight without twisting something to his advantage. It drives me nuts.

Millstone85

2018-12-04, 06:46 AM

This is a role-playing game, not a board or Warhammer game. So the most important thing is not having a perfect "build", like if it was a Diablo game, but having the character you'd like to be in that world. Mention it and if someone don't want to understand, ignore their messages.It is also a roleplaying game, not improvisational theatre. It makes sense to want your character to be mechanically sound, both in general and in their particular niche. Also, if your table uses tiles and miniatures, it is alright to be excited for that board-game aspect.

Unoriginal

2018-12-04, 06:51 AM

jdolch

2018-12-04, 07:00 AM

Apparently it is extremely hard to separate mechanics from thematics...

Also, I find the claim that optimizers tend to be open-minded and positive to be dubious. There are guides full of race/class combos being labeled as trash just because they don't let you have 16 in your main stat at lvl 1. The people who insisted the Githzerai or Hobgoblin were terrible because a supposed lack of synergy certainly weren't either.

Oh, buhu. How dare a guide, whose EXPLICIT purpose it is to evaluate synergies and enable mechanical optimization, actually focus on synergies and mechanical optimization! The nerve on some people! /sarcasm

If you don't care for mechanical optimization, these guides aren't for you. Move on.

Frankly i find the amount of closed-mindedness in this thread very ironic. Funny how it's the Anti-Optimizer Faction here who constantly feels the need to attack other people.

Unoriginal

2018-12-04, 07:05 AM

Oh, buhu. How dare a guide, whose EXPLICIT purpose it is to evaluate synergies and enable mechanical optimization, actually focus on synergies and mechanical optimization! The nerve on some people! /sarcasm

For the purpose of stopping my inflammatory behavior, I have erased this part of my post. This thread is close enough of ban-worthiness as it is.

kamap

2018-12-04, 07:20 AM

Everyone has freedom of speech.
Everyone has the freedom to plug their ears and not listen.

Sometimes it is annoying when you pose a question how such or such would work and then someone comes along with "Why are you using that and not this which is much better."
If you then just politely explain why not it should stop there and not evolve into anything more, you have both said your piece and that should be it.

Though it also works the other way around.
I want to play such and such and be the most damaging player at the table. "Why would you do that its more fun to roleplay a character with flaws and such and such which makes him or her more interesting but mediocre in combat." again it should stop there after you have politely explained why such doesn't work for you.

People should just learn to agree to disagree more and leave it there.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion which might be right or wrong and remember its all about a game.

Pelle

2018-12-04, 07:20 AM

Dark Schneider

2018-12-04, 07:34 AM

It is also a roleplaying game, not improvisational theatre. It makes sense to want your character to be mechanically sound, both in general and in their particular niche. Also, if your table uses tiles and miniatures, it is alright to be excited for that board-game aspect.
Miniatures for tactical precise, as casualizing could change the balance more than I like. Looked at DMG rules for not using miniatures...didn't like really, take a look at areas i.e. Also is hard to remember where is placed each character if no some visual of any kind is used.

But is far from being a board game. Not eveything you watch on your TV is the same, even if they use the same media.

About characters, it is not bad to get advices, when you require them. So, you make your character as you like, it is a role-playing game so the 1st is to make your character, not others character. But, it is not rare you can reach some branches that really you do not care, and then ask, for those experienced, the best one or more appropriated for your character.
Then the problem I suppose is when someone says something like "do THIS character any other thing is garbage". Well, if I want my fighter to have improved critical and better jump capability, why I can't make a Champion instead an EK, if fits what I like? And then continues and continues with the "best of the best" stuff.

the_brazenburn

2018-12-04, 07:44 AM

I'm sure most people on this forum have run into somebody who claims that some class/ability/subclass/race is absolute garbage because their is some other class/multi-class/ability/race out there that performs "so much better" on paper. Then they try to refute any argument that some might have against them which leads to minor annoyance at best and full on post wars at worst. I guess my question is how do you get around people like this in discussions? Does anybody have any tips that might help me and other posters to steer the conversation in the way it was intended to go?

Edit: This is not meant to say Power Gaming is wrong. It was meant to talk about people(usually power gamers) who act like your opinions are wrong because their are more optimized choices out there.

I'm not an optimizer personally. I just find it boring. If I want to play a melee sorcerer, I'm going to play a melee sorcerer. I never use feats, and I started lurking on the Play-by-Post subforum because I was bored of all the optimization here.

That, of course, is my personal opinion. If somebody else likes optimizing, that's their opinion. Everybody has the ability to ignore advice that they don't like. I get around powergamers by ignoring them.

It hasn't ruined online discussions per se, but the forum does get more than its fair share of threads on what to do with oddly good rolled stats and the oft-made discovery that sorcerer and warlock synergize.

There is nothing inherently wrong with it, but it is some of the most repetitive and least interesting content out there.

Personally, I agree. Optimization is boring. I'm interested in history, political science, psychology. That's why I like unusual roleplaying. Optimizing is just crunching numbers.

Kinda reminds me of the old before they were meme, memes of the Four Role Playing Archetypes:

Real Men / Women: It’s not a good session unless some dice are rolled, butts are kicked, and some steam is released.

Real Roleplayers: It’s not a good session unless some character growth happens, some new facet of the story is revealed, and a chance to improvise is presented.

Real Lunatics: It’s not a good session unless something exciting happens, and if it doesn’t your gonna make it happen. Random violence, random shifts in plot sequence or abject failure at a plot element are all welcome oitcomes.

Real Munchkins: It’s not a good session if you and maybe your character aren’t worshiped as the gods they are, and you win D&D.

I think discussion here and the outcomes desired are heavily influenced by what archetype the players fall into.
Power gamers usually drift toward the combat (and in some cases extreme cases, Munchkin side of things), and the Role players tend to be well into their camp.
The lunatics usually are busy watching sports/ porn and don’t like to bother with the nuances of the game.

Heh. Forgot about that meme. I'm probably 50% lunatic, 35% roleplayer, 15% real man.

It's not a problem about them being power gamers, it's a problem about them being arrogant d***s.

I think this sums it all up.

Absolute correctness. OP, this is the reason that you have a problem. Start a "How to Deal With Arrogant D***s" thread.

If the one making the claim you disagree with doesn't care about what you say, say your piece for the people who are reading the discussion (so it has a chance to convince them) and move to other things.

Sometime this forum honestly makes me wonder if I'm crazy.

Why do you wonder if you're crazy? You're like the only sane person on this forum!

As the OP said already he used the wrong word. He didn't mean "Power Gamer" as in "Optimizer" but as in "overpowering other peoples opinions". And that was really badly worded because I completely agree with Meimu that so-called "Roleplayers" are much more likely to be elitists and brow-beating other people into submission than "Optimizers".

It's less about the factionalism between "roleplay" and "powergaming", and more about being an arrogant d***. See above post.

Trying to claim one group is worse than the other, in this particular case, is pointless. I think we're mature enough to recognize obnoxious roleplayers/power gamers/optimizers/etc are obnoxious regardless of how they handle D&D, and that claiming one side of the debate are the good seeds and the other the bad ones is as innacurate as it is inefficient.

I'm more than fine with people wanting a strong character, and I try to help when people have a character in mind and want a build.

What drives me nuts is people declaring something is superior/inferior to something else, or that X thing is just bad, with no evidence.

Very good. I wholeheartedly agree.

OP, you need to be looking at this. I'm no stranger to letting off steam by ranting, but your problem isn't with munchkins in general.

Unoriginal

2018-12-04, 07:58 AM

Why do you wonder if you're crazy? You're like the only sane person on this forum!

Thank you for the compliment, but I doubt it's true.

It's less about the factionalism between "roleplay" and "powergaming", and more about being an arrogant d***. See above post.

I agree.

Kaibis

2018-12-04, 08:00 AM

Im have been writing a Thread to try and illustrate my Feelings on the Matter of Power gamers. Ultimately i feel sad for them Since they Miss the Point of D&D imo

Thank you for this. I spend a lot of time considering the best options for my character, and pick from among the best, not absolute best, and flavour is super important, but I would never consider a sub-optimal feature regardless of flavour. I always felt that this was how I could best hide my own inadequacies as a newer player.

Currently building my 4th character and worrying away about the best choices... I found myself really wanting to make choices for flavour but feeling compelled to jump on the forum and check that this is okay (e.g. I want a druid with ritual caster (wizard) so he can have a familiar).

Thanks for the reminder that it is okay!!! I can just go with it because I want to. :D

Guy Lombard-O

2018-12-04, 08:02 AM

I think two things happen in online discussions which are possibly problematic.

People will often say things in a much more strident and unthinking way online than they might in person (widely known fact). The lack of face-to-face interaction and non-verbal communication sometimes leads to insensitivity and tone-deafness. For some, that's unintentional.

In terms of min-maxing and optimization, I'll just say this for my own experience: I don't get to actually play D&D as much as I might like to. Time is precious, and real life intrudes quite often enough that finding the time and place to play can be difficult.

Thinking about D&D (especially in smaller time increments), however, can be done much more often. Maybe it's just me, but when I think about D&D, I don't often mull over a lot about how I'm going to roleplay this or that response to stimuli with a certain character - because those things are largely reactive to in-game situations. It's much, much easier to spend time thinking about the mechanical side of things while out of game. Probably more productive, too.

Which isn't to say that I don't value the roleplaying aspect of the game, and that (as a previous poster said it better) I don't try to build some backstory for future role play onto the bones of my mechanical build.

All that said, if I've been obnoxious or too pushy in discussing such things, I hereby apologize.

Zalabim

2018-12-04, 08:06 AM

I make a concept through the roof, and it bothers me when someone is not built to do their job in the party.

Ex in our current game we have a barbarian, me as an archer ranger, a lore bard, and a hexblade warlock that only eldritch blasts. Normal this would not be too bad, but our zealot barbarian is a changeling that refuses to wear armor despite having a 14 ac due to only having a 14 str dex con.

It bothers me highly that someone chooses to knowingly and actively makes themself much worse and threatens the livelyhood of the group because they want to rp a concept that barely works.
I think your party member might just be optimizing for changeling rather than for barbarian. By not wearing armor, they can move more smoothly through social subterfuge. Wearing armor would limit their disguises and make switching take longer. Plus barbarians just plain don't start with armor in their gear packages. Try talking to the character, and you might find there's a compromise, like in dungeons.

But again, and as you can see even in this thread, the door swings both ways and this really has nothing to do with power gamers, but with people who cannot accept that other people can have a different opinion without being objectively wrong.
The ones that bother me are the ones that can't accept they're objectively wrong, if it's a matter of facts, or just not objectively right when they're giving their opinion.

Misterwhisper

2018-12-04, 08:24 AM

I think your party member might just be optimizing for changeling rather than for barbarian. By not wearing armor, they can move more smoothly through social subterfuge. Wearing armor would limit their disguises and make switching take longer. Plus barbarians just plain don't start with armor in their gear packages. Try talking to the character, and you might find there's a compromise, like in dungeons.

The ones that bother me are the ones that can't accept they're objectively wrong, if it's a matter of facts, or just not objectively right when they're giving their opinion.

The barbarian issue is not a level issue, we are level 4 and he has been offered half plate and a breastplate before, he just refuses.

His charisma is only 10 and he has no social skills other than intimidate so it is not social stuff.

Just his concept, and it bothers me.

KorvinStarmast

2018-12-04, 09:45 AM

Kinda reminds me of the old before they were meme, memes of the Four Role Playing Archetypes:
Real Men / Women: It’s not a good session unless some dice are rolled, butts are kicked, and some steam is released.
Real Roleplayers: It’s not a good session unless some character growth happens, some new facet of the story is revealed, and a chance to improvise is presented.
Real Lunatics: It’s not a good session unless something exciting happens, and if it doesn’t your gonna make it happen. Random violence, random shifts in plot sequence or abject failure at a plot element are all welcome oitcomes.
Real Munchkins: It’s not a good session if you and maybe your character aren’t worshiped as the gods they are, and you win D&D.
Heh, I have an old text file with the whole thing. It's silly funny good.

Power gamers usually drift toward the combat (and in some cases extreme cases, Munchkin side of things), and the Role players tend to be well into their camp. The lunatics usually are busy watching sports/ porn and don’t like to bother with the nuances of the game. My experience with Lunatics is mixed. A good portion of them just try weird stuff to see what happens. That can add to a lot of fun at the right table, but at some tables it is not as welcome.

I would say the problems I run into the most online is the Munchkins. Dorothy, click your heels together and say "there's no place like home" :smallbiggrin:

Sometime this forum honestly makes me wonder if I'm crazy. Nope, not seeing crazy from your inputs.

Nifft

2018-12-04, 10:03 AM

This. A hundred times this. I'm a powergamer (as in: I choose a concept and then optimise the bejeezus out of it), but I'm also very sensitive to RAW and RAI. I tend to avoid grey areas in the rules in my optimisation, because of this.

I have a gaming buddy that is a rabid min-maxer and can't seem to read two sentences straight without twisting something to his advantage. It drives me nuts.

I think it's a small minority of power-gamers who min-max via dubious readings / dishonest tricks, but they're very vocal, and their dubious reading skill leads to frustrating online discussions.

Demonslayer666

2018-12-04, 10:13 AM

Snowbluff

2018-12-04, 10:39 AM

In terms of min-maxing and optimization, I'll just say this for my own experience: I don't get to actually play D&D as much as I might like to. Time is precious, and real life intrudes quite often enough that finding the time and place to play can be difficult.

Thinking about D&D (especially in smaller time increments), however, can be done much more often. Maybe it's just me, but when I think about D&D, I don't often mull over a lot about how I'm going to roleplay this or that response to stimuli with a certain character - because those things are largely reactive to in-game situations. It's much, much easier to spend time thinking about the mechanical side of things while out of game. Probably more productive, too.

Which isn't to say that I don't value the roleplaying aspect of the game, and that (as a previous poster said it better) I don't try to build some backstory for future role play onto the bones of my mechanical build.

I agree with this sentiment. Roleplayer or not, power gamer or not, if you're here you're looking for ways to improve the short amount of time you actually can spend playing.

I do a lot of roleplaying, but that's highly subjective as to how it works, so there isn't much to talk about without some common ground.

The rules are something that we have in common. If in someone's experience something doesn't work/isn't fun or useful in practice, it should be noted for other people.

MilkmanDanimal

2018-12-04, 10:48 AM

I just think a lot of people miss the character optimization metagame from 3.5, and get focused on trying to replicate that in 5e. Problem is, that's hard to do, as 5e has a level of balance where you don't need to optimize to be effective. I'm playing in a big West Marches-style campaign with a shifting roster of maybe 15-20 regular-ish players, and one of the things I find kind of funny about the regular powergamer threads on here is that the two most consistently effective characters from a combat perspective tend to be the Warlock I'm running, and the Barbarian/Champion crit-fisher, and two of the most common threads here are "WARLOCKS ARE BAD" and "CHAMPIONS SUCK", and they're doing absolutely fine.

I just roll my eyes at the overt powergaming stuff, because I play with a group focused on having fun, and we're all, you know, actually having fun. There are always the "you're having fun wrong" people in every hobby, and it's not worth it to worry about it.

JakOfAllTirades

2018-12-04, 11:02 AM

There are lots of power gamers on this board who can participate in a thread without ruining it.

I consider any type of OneTrueWayIsts to be a good bet for serious thread ruination, whether they're fixated on power gaming or some other hobby horse and won't get off it. Lately I've just been ignore listing all the *** **** warlock haters and it's made my life so much nicer....

Amano666

2018-12-04, 11:10 AM

I think that some players should stay out of online discussions when they are simply having trouble making up their minds. I like "power-gaming" questions because there often is objectively a correct answer.

More damage/hp/utility is measurable, if we change X/Y/Z about your build it will have effects that we can compare with arguments based on rules and math, this makes for a discussion that reaches conclusions and helps not just you, but anyone seeking information.

Most questions I see where people run into problems are along the lines of "if Mr. Fancy pants should wear a blue cloak" and there are about a million home brewed rules/DM eccentricities about the color of cloaks, and the thread winds up with nothing valuable because nobody can really give you an answer that is worth more than flipping a coin. Am I going to convince you that the purple cloak is better somehow? Wouldn't your DM and the other players who care about what color cloak you are going to wear be better to ask these completely subjective questions to?

Too often I think that indecisive players get online and ask for opinions, and when given reasonable advice, reject everything because of a thousand totally irrelevant reasons not disclosed in the OP. It is totally fine to ask for help on subjective matters, do whatever you want, but if someone goes out of their way to provide a "power gamer" answer, then don't get up on your high horse, they are simply offering advice from a perspective that is probably the most broadly applicable.

Keravath

2018-12-04, 11:18 AM

The problem you are identifying has nothing to do with D&D ... or power gamers.

It is an inherent issue of any anonymous internet discussion forum.

One person expresses an opinion/idea/position that they take to be fact and incontrovertible. Another poster politely explains why their position is incorrect or inaccurate. Two people with opposing views on the same topic.

Occasionally, these result from one or the other misinterpreting the rules and these can be definitively answered. Others may involve some sort of white room analysis or other complex reasoning that one or the other of the folks in the discussion may not understand or believe. (some folks don't believe in math for example ... thus all the threads on what advantage is worth)

In some of these cases, some of the folks involved in the discussion may choose to not agree even when their position is very clearly incorrect. This is just human nature. Some people literally can not admit that they are wrong.

This type of argument has nothing to do with D&D or power gamers vs role players. It has to do with human personality characteristics.

Finally, this leads into the "troll". There are folks out there who will intentionally start threads on controversial subjects taking an extreme position for the sole purpose of getting a response from folks who feel invested in the topic. Some of these are the most likely to ignore logical responses since their intention is not to resolve the question or to obtain some answer but rather to intentionally start as heated an argument as possible. (See: "Sorcerer King" and why it really isn't that good a build :) ). But some trolls are much more subtle.

stoutstien

2018-12-04, 11:19 AM

Dms must approach the games from a view that every player is a power gamer to some extent. Sounds crazy but think about it. If I want to set of a series of encounters their needs to be an expected character power level. No problems if a players doesn't go full min/max but if they never take mecanics into consideration it makes more along the lines of a pick your own adventure book.
Its a unique situation ttrpg have.

Callak_Remier

2018-12-04, 11:23 AM

The point of D&D is to tell a good story, isn't it? The way I see it, no matter what character I build, I want them to be good at the things they're supposed to be good at. If I'm playing a fighting man

Your refering to Optimization with which i have no issue. Spell & Feat or even Magic item Purchases are perfectly acceptable ways to optimize as A Fluid part of the game.

being good at min-maxing doesn't preclude being good at roleplaying,

I made no assertions that it did, However the Tendency for hyper Focus on a build to the exclusion of other parts of the game happens more in Power gamers, From what i have seen personally. That has shaped my opinion in a negative way towards power gamers (it doesnt help when the ones i have played with negatively impact everyones fun at the table either)

Thus my belief that they miss out on a wealth of experience.

If anything, I use my character build as a source of inspiration for my roleplaying. I'll start with the crunch of the character, and use those as a basis to build my character's backstory.

How much back story do you usually write?

Conversely, would you still willingly play a character with no ability modifier higher than +1, if numbers don't matter to you?

You make quite the wild assumptions don't you.

I have Rolled up many a Character with low stats
While less common in Modern editions there was a Time when you got what you rolled on 3d6. The DM would determine if your character was survivable.

At its core, the game is still about adding numbers to dice rolls to hit certain thresholds to either succeed or fail
When i Say That Power gamers miss the Point of D&D this qoute couldn't summize it any better.

Marywn

2018-12-04, 11:47 AM

As someone that doesn't really ever think about powerplaying and minmaxing, What I don't focus on it just pure numbers. You create a character to be another person, with a personality, goals, flaws; basically they have character.
I know that some players like to crush numbers and kill things, which can be fun.
The main problems I find with your arguements are this:
Stats are only one piece of the whole, but having low ones aren't always negative things
I had a rogue with decent rolls except for a 5 which I dumped into CHA. Instead of acting like it didn't matter in the grand scheme of things, I made it an interagle part of her character. She always displayed her emotions, and couldn't physically lie because of how bad she was at it.
Point is that numbers aren't always the most important things. Now, I'm not trying to say that having have stats and insane damage is a bad thing, the problem occurs when it only becomes about you only trying to increase those numbers and not on the other players fun.

I also find the nature of this question in of itself is pretty negative. The way it's phrased can induce some agravation to some, but that's my view.
Note that I say this all without any malice or blame. I'm just expressing my opinion, take it as you well.

stoutstien

2018-12-04, 11:51 AM

There is a sliding scale of role-playing and mechanical properties with ttrpgs. Dnd 5e is almost smack it the middle with fate and dungeon adventures sliding more towards rp elements and 3.5, Pathfinder, warhammer sliding to a more mechanical focus. I believe that middle ground is why 5e has be such a successful system.
A new player can play 5e with a vauge understanding of less than a page of rules. I think that was the largest accomplishment of the addition.
At the same time a player can master the rules of 5th edition fairly quickly.

MaxWilson

2018-12-04, 12:46 PM

Kinda reminds me of the old before they were meme, memes of the Four Role Playing Archetypes:

Real Men / Women: It’s not a good session unless some dice are rolled, butts are kicked, and some steam is released.

Real Roleplayers: It’s not a good session unless some character growth happens, some new facet of the story is revealed, and a chance to improvise is presented.

Real Lunatics: It’s not a good session unless something exciting happens, and if it doesn’t your gonna make it happen. Random violence, random shifts in plot sequence or abject failure at a plot element are all welcome oitcomes.

Real Munchkins: It’s not a good session if you and maybe your character aren’t worshiped as the gods they are, and you win D&D.

That is the most succinct description of RM/RR/RL/RMu I have ever seen. Kudos!

As a player I'm probably 25% munchkin, 30% roleplayer, and 45% lunatic. I am usually very cautious and rational in-character, but when I-the-player get too bored (especially if the game is not challenging enough to justify the caution) all of that goes out the window and I make my own excitement.

Snowbluff

2018-12-04, 12:52 PM

I had a rogue with decent rolls except for a 5 which I dumped into CHA. Instead of acting like it didn't matter in the grand scheme of things, I made it an interagle part of her character. She always displayed her emotions, and couldn't physically lie because of how bad she was at it.

Man, I would play this as a Wormtongue or Danny DeVito from Always Sunny. That would be such a blast playing a real gremlin, horrible, disgusting person of a rogue.

Pex

2018-12-04, 01:09 PM

I'm not referring to the opposite ends of the spectrum. I already know that Power Gamers and Rule incompetent role players don't mesh well. I'm more concerned when you have a power gamer who comes into a discussion and asserts that they are right and everybody else is wrong. I'm not talking about play styles but actual types of people.

I personally power game myself (Edit: sometimes) but I don't lord my opinions over other people. I probably phrased the thread title a little bit wrong. I just want some tips to deal with antagonistic posters. That's not just ignoring them.

But funny how it's almost always the power gamer who gets chastised and not the rule incompetent role player, such as this thread. When someone likes a particular game mechanic for the fun of doing it they do not need to apologize for it and no amount of condescending "I roleplay not rollplay" responses will convince me the power gamer is playing the game wrong nor is the "role player" a superior gamer. Once in a while the "roleplayer" will get responses of Stormwind Fallacy, but it's the power gamer who gets yelled at, figuratively speaking, first and often.

Edit: Why did you feel the need to add in the edit of "sometimes". Why was the clarification important?

Willie the Duck

2018-12-04, 01:12 PM

Trying to claim one group is worse than the other, in this particular case, is pointless. I think we're mature enough to recognize obnoxious roleplayers/power gamers/optimizers/etc are obnoxious regardless of how they handle D&D, and that claiming one side of the debate are the good seeds and the other the bad ones is as innacurate as it is inefficient.

The problem you are identifying has nothing to do with D&D ... or power gamers. It is an inherent issue of any anonymous internet discussion forum.

These two are the clear winning answers to the OP question. The internet is contentious, and people on all sides of any issue are often less than pleasant here. Not D&D (or optimizer) specific.

Im have been writing a Thread to try and illustrate my Feelings on the Matter of Power gamers. Ultimately i feel sad for them Since they Miss the Point of D&D imo

The point of D&D is to tell a good story, isn't it?

This is a role-playing game, not a board or Warhammer game. So the most important thing is not having a perfect "build", like if it was a Diablo game, but having the character you'd like to be in that world. Mention it and if someone don't want to understand, ignore their messages.

But is far from being a board game. Not eveything you watch on your TV is the same, even if they use the same media.

This I wanted to touch on. First and foremost, there's no such thing as what D&D is 'about,' except maybe broad brush stroke categoricals like 'it's a leisure pastime,' or, 'it's a form of entertainment.' The game is about what you the user decide it is about. Regardless, and I recognize that those-who-were-here-first have no greater right to the thing than anyone else, it is worth noting that D&D started out a lot more like a game than like a storytelling tool. The game started as Arneson using Gygax's wargames rules, turning each unit into an individual soldier, and having them mine under the walls of a town (and discovering that running around the tunnels down there looking for treasure the other side hid down there more entertaining than the actual siege). It started as a game. Certain concepts we now consider important to the role-play aspect (such as keeping what the player knows separate from what the character knows) were late additions to the game. I'm not saying that this type of play has any moral primacy or the like, but declaring it missing the point or the like is a flat out false narrative that ignores the history of the game. The gamers were here first, don't declare them poor cousins. That's ignorant and mean-spirited.

Misterwhisper

2018-12-04, 01:15 PM

But funny how it's almost always the power gamer who gets chastised and not the rule incompetent role player, such as this thread. When someone likes a particular game mechanic for the fun of doing it they do not need to apologize for it and no amount of condescending "I roleplay not rollplay" responses will convince me the power gamer is playing the game wrong nor is the "role player" a superior gamer. Once in a while the "roleplayer" will get responses of Stormwind Fallacy, but it's the power gamer who gets yelled at, figuratively speaking, first and often.

Edit: Why did you feel the need to add in the edit of "sometimes". Why was the clarification important?

Also, it tends to be the "role-player" who tends to complain and whine about: "But why can't I do it, it makes sense" despite the fact it is completely agains the rules to do so.

2D8HP

2018-12-04, 01:19 PM

I'm not referring to the opposite ends of the spectrum. I already know that Power Gamers

Back in the 1980's I had the issue of Different Worlds magazine that introduced (to me) the term "Power Gamer" (which I really hope is still at my mom's house and that I find it again some day), and thanks to the magic of the internet you may read it as well:

http://darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/theory/models/blacow.html

Kinda reminds me of the old before they were meme, memes of the Four Role Playing Archetypes:

Real Men / Women: It’s not a good session unless some dice are rolled, butts are kicked, and some steam is released.

Real Roleplayers: It’s not a good session unless some character growth happens, some new facet of the story is revealed, and a chance to improvise is presented.

Real Lunatics: It’s not a good session unless something exciting happens, and if it doesn’t your gonna make it happen. Random violence, random shifts in plot sequence or abject failure at a plot element are all welcome oitcomes.

Real Munchkins: It’s not a good session if you and maybe your character aren’t worshiped as the gods they are, and you win D&D......

Here is one version of the differences:

http://dragon.facetieux.free.fr/jdr/Munchkin.htm

(I like that one better because it mentioned Led Zeppelin instead of Bruce Springsteen)

....When people want completely different things out of the game, it's difficult to have a discussion about it. You can just recognize that personal preferences are different....

When I was feeling warm and fuzzy I put it thus:

Some play RPG's like chess, some like charades.

Everyone has their own jam.

To repeat (mostly):
Some play Dungeons & Dragons like chess, some like charades.

Everyone has their own groove.

It is also a roleplaying game, not improvisational theatre. It makes sense to want your character to be mechanically sound, both in general and in their particular niche. Also, if your table uses tiles and miniatures, it is alright to be excited for that board-game aspect.

Eh, not ranty enough for my tastes.

Since I'm really bad at both optima-whatever and role-playing it grinds my gears when people insist on doing them when I want to play D&D, and since the anti-"power game" viewpoint is well represented in this thread, I have the other side of the coin of evil in my sights.

Please hold my ale, 'cause here's some ranting!:

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g68/Cats_Are_Aliens/Banners/DirtFarmerM_zpsf9mvc6ni.png And why insist on "role-playing" not "roll-playing"?

A pox on that!

Amateur theatrics may be fun, but not when it's forced!

Insisting on "role-playing" when you want to play Dungeons & Dragons is mean.

Let people play D&D, not a psychological therapy gimmick!

*goes to a high shelf, takes down and dusts off an old adventure*

Oh look, on the back of my
[I]Dungeon Module B2
The Keep on the Borderlands
by Gary Gygax
INTRODUCTORY MODULE FOR CHARACTER LEVELS 1-3

I see "Other releases of additional items relating to D&D Adventure Games are planned for the future."

Adventure not role-playing!

Proper D&D is about exploring dungeons, encountering and then looting monsters, not exploring inner deals!

The rules?

Here you go:

Dungeons and Dragons, The Underground and Wilderness Adventures, p. 36: "... everything herein is fantastic, and the best way is to decide how you would like it to be, and then make it that way."

AD&D 1e, DMG, p. 9: "The game is the thing, and certain rules can be distorted or disregarded altogether in favor of play."

The first version of what became D&D was the rules system inside Dave Arneson's mind.

The rules are there because players want some idea of what the odds are first, and it's easier to choose from a catalog than write on a blank page.

When D&D started there was no mention of role-playing on the box!

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_DSs2bX13hVc/SfSTvUzCu4I/AAAAAAAAA9A/9bUyti9YmUk/s320/box1st.jpg

While the 1977 Basic set did indeed say "FANTASY ROLE-PLAYING GAME"

http://i2.wp.com/shaneplays.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/dungeons_and_dragons_dd_basic_set_1stedition_origi nal_box_holmes_edition.jpg?zoom=4&resize=312%2C386

The phrase "role-playing" was not part of the 1974 rules.

http://i2.wp.com/shaneplays.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/original_dungeons_and_dragons_dd_men_and_magic_cov er.jpg?zoom=4&resize=312%2C494

Notice that the cover says "Rules for Fantastic Medieval Wargames", not role-playing!

I believe the first use of the term "role-playing game" was in a Tunnels & Trolls supplement that was "compatible with other Fantasy role-playing games", but early D&D didn't seem any more or less combat focused than the later RPG's I've played, (in fact considering how fragile PC''s were avoiding combat was often the goal!) so I wouldn't say it was anymore of a "Wargame". I would however say it was more an exploration game, and was less character focused.

Frankly while some limited role-playing is alright, it's the 'enjoying a "world" where the fantastic is fact' part that is much more interesting to me.

These rules are strictly fantasy. Those wargamers who lack imagination, those who don't care for Burroughs'
Martian adventures where John Carter is groping through black pits, who feel no thrill upon reading Howard's Conan saga, who do not enjoy the de Camp & Pratt fantasies or Fritz Leiber's Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser
pitting their swords against evil sorceries will not be likely to find Dungeons & Dragons to their taste. But those whose imaginations know no bounds will find that these rules are the answer to their prayers. With this last
bit of advice we invite you to read on and enjoy a "world" where the fantastic is fact and magic really works!
E. Gary Gygax
Tactical Studies Rules Editor
1 November 1973
Lake Geneva, Wisconsin

While Dave Arneson later had the innovation of having his players "roll up" characters, for his "homebrew" of Chainmail:

http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2016/04/the-original-dungeon-masters/

At first the players played themselves in a Fantastic medievalish world:

http://swordsandstitchery.blogspot.com/2016/10/in-celebrate-of-dave-arnesons-birthday.html?m=1

So a wargame was made into a setting exploration game, and then was later labelled a "role-playing" game.
While it's still possible to play D&D as the wargame it once was, I'm glad that the game escaped the "wargame" appellation, which makes the game more attractive to those of us with 'less of an interest in tactics, however I argue (to beat a dead horse), that the labeling of D&D as a role-playing game is hurtful ("Your not role-playing, your roll-playing! etc.).
Just label D&D an adventure game, and people can be spared all the hand-wringing, and insults when acting and writing talents don't measure up to "role-playing" standards, and instead we can have fun exploring a fantastic world together.

Please?

While I'm ever grateful to Holmes for his work translating the game rules into English, perhaps he (an academic psychologist) is to be blamed for mis-labelling D&D with the abominable slander of "role-playing" (a psychological treatment technique).
It's too late now to correct the misnomer, but D&D is, was, and should be a fantasy adventure game, not role-playing, a label no good has come from!
.

DOWN WITH ROLEPLAY!

UP WITH ADVENTURE!

To me "role-playing" and "roll-playing" are two sides of the same coin, and the "vs" between the "optimizers" and "method actors" isn't a debate I'm interested in, because emphasis on either and/or both gets in the way of something that I want more of in what have become to be called "role-playing games": The sense of exploring a rich and detailed world (not an "Empty Room" or its near twin the "passive-aggressive railroad").

As to the "If your just 'roll-playing' it's just a board game" line, have you seen boardgames lately? They're richer with more actual meaningful decisions and world detail than most RPG sessions now!

From when I was on the other side of the screen, I know that much of that detail of those increasingly rare good "RPG" sessions is often improvised on the fly as the much decried "illusionism", and I don't care!

I want GM's to make that effort of some illusionism again, instead of just setting up drawing rooms for a few players to monologue their PC's back-stories to each other, and I want more to that illusion than endless fights!

Maybe have some NPC's other than antagonists and patrons/questgivers again?

In my experience those things are so endemic to how what are called "role-playing games" are played that they are the definition, and the few rare exceptions should be called something else, which is why I suggest dusting off a label from the late 1970's and early 80's: "Adventure Game"

They didn't used to be, and sometimes there's a few rare sessions where they aren't now, but for the most part?

Just as in the early 1990's when I walked out of the hobby (for the record it was other "RPG's" that were not D&D then that I last played then, I know it's hard to believe, but back then D&D games were rarer to find than other games), and today when it's hard to find anything played besides D&D and Pathfinder, it's too many what I call "Empty Rooms" or "Locked into Lameness arenas" that I see.

What would bring back the Adventure is:

NPC's who talk more than a few words.

Descriptions of the environment besides "Duchess and Duke blah-di-blah say go fight what's-it for inadequately-explained reasons that the PC's just do because heroes", and "You see the what's-its, and they attack".

Challenges other than combat, maybe walls to climb? Traps to avoid? People to find? A chase?

Combat that's quick and that's deadly for the PC's as well as the antagonists, so it's something that you try to avoid, or use tactics, not "powers" to survive.

I'd like to envision my character as someone exploring and interacting with a world beyond voicing their inner deals or in endless riskless combat.

I want a to explore a world not a role

This book is dedicated to Dave Arneson and Gary Gygax, who first opened Pandora's box,
and to Ken St. Andre who found it could be opened again.(Arneson & Gygax were the creators of Dungeons & Dragons -published 1974, Andre of Tunnels &Trolls -published 1975).

INTRODUCTION
WHAT IS A FANTASY ROLE-PLAYING GAME?
A role-playing game is a game of character
development, simulating the process of personal development commonly called "life". The player acts a role in a fantasy environment, just as he might act a role in s play. In fact, when played with just paper and pencil on the game board of the player's imagination, it has been called "improvisational radio theatre. " If played with metal and plastic figurines, it becomes improvisational puppet theatre. However it is played, the primary purpose is to have fun.

“If I want to do that,” he said, “I’ll join an amateur theater group.” (see here (http://www.believermag.com/issues/200609/?read=article_lafarge)).

:amused:

They're things that 2D8HP likes, such as:

Malty brown ale, listening to Bon Scot sing "Rocker", beef with cabbage and potatoes, watching Helen Mirren, playing a game with actual other people and saying, "I stand in the market square as the fire breathing Dragon approaches and shoot an arrow at it", when a Dungeon Master/gamemaster asks "What do you do?"

While there's other parts of gameplay (planning "builds" for example), for me the biggest part of the game is coming up with in-character decisions, that is the part where the DM/GM says "What do you do?".

I enjoy playing characters similar to Robin Hood (or most any character portrayed by Errol Flynn), Sinbad, Indiana Jones, Tonto, Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser from fiction, and as long as my PC's may sometimes (with luck and/or skill)

Fire arrows

Swing swords

Track

Sneak

Hide

Climb

Swim

Convince,

Run,

Walk,

Speak,

and

Heal

I'm good.

I want to imagine a Knight on horseback charging a Dragon with a lance.

I also want to imagine an agile quick witted Rogue saving said Knight, from said Dragon.

Oh who am I kidding, "You play a guy with a sword (or a bow). You start at first level" will usually work.

Exploring a fantastic world that has dragons sitting on giant piles of treasure, sorcerers with Ill intent, and pirates all to be faced with a bow or sword in hand! That's what I want Dungeons & Dragons not "back-stories" and "builds"!

Any questions?

Pex

2018-12-04, 01:29 PM

Also, it tends to be the "role-player" who tends to complain and whine about: "But why can't I do it, it makes sense" despite the fact it is completely agains the rules to do so.

I know those types of players. What they really want is free form improv. What they want to happen will happen because they say so. They're not doing it for power but for story even if it's an attack against an enemy in combat. When the rules don't let that happen they blame the DM for not letting it happen because they have this other DM who would have and has done. They're ok with a die roll indicating a failure for whatever it is they wanted to do, but they object vehemently the rules saying it couldn't even be attempted.

Misterwhisper

2018-12-04, 01:49 PM

I know those types of players. What they really want is free form improv. What they want to happen will happen because they say so. They're not doing it for power but for story even if it's an attack against an enemy in combat. When the rules don't let that happen they blame the DM for not letting it happen because they have this other DM who would have and has done. They're ok with a die roll indicating a failure for whatever it is they wanted to do, but they object vehemently the rules saying it couldn't even be attempted.

Yeah, I will use a real life example from a game I was running.

We had a player was playing a moon druid, she loved the idea of shifting into animals, and wanted to play the nature loving shifter who casts spells to protect the wild.

She role-played it like she was on stage, did amazing at it, and is probably the best character player I know, but even with that she still knows the game very well and has solid system mastery.

Worked great until they hit level 6.

The group was trying to gather info on an enemy stronghold, it was literally a stronghold in the middle of the open plains made of stone and wood, and guarded like crazy.

She wanted to use Wild Shape to change into a hawk and spy on the place.

I told her that she can't change into a hawk at level 6, she can't do that until level 8.

Then the massive argument happened:

"If I can change into a crocodile and a bear which are all large and dangerous why can I not turn into a simple bird?"
"I have met birds plenty of times, i have studied them, I know how plenty enough to turn into one."
and about 10 other complaints about how dare she not be able to change into a bird at level 6.

I pointed out in the book that even a moon druid has to be level 8.
She threw the character in the trash and went home.

Similar situation:

Player was a fighter with a str and cha of 10.

He went on a 5 minute detail of how he was going to torture a guard and murder his family if he did not let them in a door.

I asked him if he really planned to kill the guys family, to which he said no.

I asked him to roll Deception then to convince the guy.
Which he refused because he did not even have training in deception.
I then said that if he wanted he could try it with intimidate.
Which he refused because he was not trained in it either.

I told him that if he wants to succeed at something that is done with a skill he is going to have to roll a skill check.

his response and I will quote it:

"Rolling dice is for people who suck at role playing, I should not have to role dice at all unless you are being a ****."

Marywn

2018-12-04, 02:01 PM

"Rolling dice is for people who suck at role playing, I should not have to role dice at all unless you are being a ****."
This my friend, is something I really hate about people like that. You have proficiencies because your proficient. Rolling a dice is the iconic thing about dnd, and I like it because of its randomness, and I can roleplay the mistake if I roll a nat 1. Not in a way to influence the effects or hit, but for flavor.
Like if my aarakacro is flying, she is not used to flying in the city so I roll a 1d100. If I roll closer to 100 the better she does.
She once got caught in the rafters of a building and made a hole in the roof of the tavern.

Sudsboy

2018-12-04, 02:02 PM

It's not a problem about them being power gamers, it's a problem about them being arrogant d***s.

I think this sums it all up.

Yep. Nothing wrong with power gaming if it's your thing, but there's everything wrong with behaving like an a**hole. I personally love power gaming, but I'm discovering that my DM (who isn't particularly talented at the number crunching part of games, but is fantastically gifted at storytelling) has an easier time with characters who aren't min/maxed.

Innocent_bystan

2018-12-04, 02:15 PM

That has shaped my opinion in a negative way towards power gamers (it doesnt help when the ones i have played with negatively impact everyones fun at the table either)

Ah, you have played with bad power gamers. Or, alternatively, you wanted different things out of a DnD game than them and this has led to some friction.
Although I'll admit there are some real #ssholes in the powergamer population.

When i Say That Power gamers miss the Point of D&D this qoute couldn't summize it any better.

From my point of view, you are also missing out on some aspect of Dnd: heroic fantasy fullfiment. I can be a regular Joe any day of the week, but I can only be Trogdor, slayer of dragons, savior of Waterdeep and seducer of an untold amount of princesses on Friday night, once every two weeks (if schedules match up).
And Trogdor is very much a larger-than-life hero. Out of game, this means that he as optimized as they come, because those dice rolls translate in successes and heroes are successful.

Sure, the DM matches the difficulty of the encounters to the power level of the party. That's what good DM's do. But everybody at the table knows that we're handling encounters way above our pay grade. And we have fun while doing so, because we need to push those powergamed beasts that we call characters to the limit to do so.

Is the same possible with non-optimized characters and less demanding encounters? Of course, but every would know that we're playing with mittens on.

The thing is that everyone at the table has the same expectations. In our case that's: difficult combat encounters, some silliness while exploring and social encounters where we all get a chance to be sarcastic bastards. A (and note the airquotes) "real roleplayer" would probably find the whole thing shallow and badwrongfun. I don't mind, they're not invited.

Marywn

2018-12-04, 02:19 PM

You can also have the belligerent player that refuses to listen to you as a DM.
At the time I wasn't assertive, and let player get away with rape jokes, and insisting that he was too important. Let me explain.

The player was playing a assassin rogue bugbear, solely focused on himself. The party went through some troubles, ending up in a underground city of banished and misfits. They all did their own thing, finding and doing what parties shouldn't do. SPLIT THE PARTY. But whatever.

At some point the party met the leader of the city, a distinguished man with peaceful and calm intention. Only problem was the rogue kept insisting on being a hitman for hire, and the man kept refusing until he forced the party out due to a decision he made.

It ruined my DMing and made me not want to DM again, But I'm ready to try it again.
This is kinda like the furry community agrument, not all furries are weird people on rule34. The outliers help shape the stereotype

Unoriginal

2018-12-04, 02:40 PM

I don't care if you prefer tinkering to make your character the most powerful within set parameters or if you want to have your character's life unfold through years of campaign playing. The two aren't even mutually exclusive.

But if you want to make a claim, make it bullet-proof. And present your evidences.

I'm sick and tired of people going on and on about how X subclass is OP or Dwarves make ****ty Monks or Half-Orc are automatically worse as Wizards or how about Y thing only exist for multiclass dip, really, when they have nothing to prove it or at best contrived testing conditions/standards of evaluation.

Laserlight

2018-12-04, 02:48 PM

"Have X ruined online discussion" generally gives the impression "I am opposed to X and want to gather support that X is bad or Y is better."

It's just a game. There are different ways to do it, and all of them are right.

Pelle

2018-12-04, 03:08 PM

And Trogdor is very much a larger-than-life hero. Out of game, this means that he as optimized as they come, because those dice rolls translate in successes and heroes are successful.

I get wanting to play a powerful character. Just curious though, why isn't it enough to just play a higher level character instead of spending the energy optimizing? Sure, if you find the act of optimizing fun, that's understandable, but I don't get the argument of wanting to play a powerful character as a reason to optimize. Unless you want to be more powerful than the other characters in the party who has gotten the exact same amount of xp.

Tanarii

2018-12-04, 03:13 PM

Nah. Its the nitpicking rules-lawyers who are sure they're right you have to watch out for.

Full Disclosure: I sometimes revert to a nitpicking rules lawyer. 😂

sithlordnergal

2018-12-04, 03:29 PM

I'm sick and tired of people going on and on about how X subclass is OP or Dwarves make ****ty Monks or Half-Orc are automatically worse as Wizards or how about Y thing only exist for multiclass dip, really, when they have nothing to prove it or at best contrived testing conditions/standards of evaluation.

Well...I mean, there are certain subclasses that are OP. Case in point, Oath of the Ancients Paladin. Yes, it has the weakness of the normal Paladin, all Paladin subclasses do. But you can't look at me and tell me a subclass isn't OP when it allowed me and my entire party to successfully tank a Meteor Swarm at level 10 by cutting the damage from 136 down to 34 thanks to making the save and my resistance to spell damage.

Same with races. Can a Dwarf make a good Monk, or Half-Orc make a good Wizard? Yes, they can. In fact, any Race can do fine as any class. A pure Orc with its negative to intelligence can make a fine Wizard, BUT, and there is a big but, you're going to be struggling until you get enough ASI's to catch up/max out your main stat. Especially if you are a caster. For a Half-Orc, you don't get 18 Int till level 8, and unless you find a Headband of Intellect you're going to feel that 16 Int. Because Monsters are going to have a very easy time making those saving throws between levels 5 and 8.

And while Half-Orcs are perfectly fine Wizards after level 8, provided you used both ASI's to boost your Int to 18, first of all you won't have any feats. And Second, most campaigns and characters do not go very far past level 10 from what I hear. As such you spend the majority of the campaign struggling due to your lower Int.

Again, doesn't mean you can't make a Half-Orc Wizard. You just need to be ready for the fact that such a Wizard will be below curve and will appear weaker then a Wizard that started with a 16 Int because Monsters will make their saving throws more often.

Innocent_bystan

2018-12-04, 03:32 PM

I get wanting to play a powerful character. Just curious though, why isn't it enough to just play a higher level character instead of spending the energy optimizing? Sure, if you find the act of optimizing fun, that's understandable, but I don't get the argument of wanting to play a powerful character as a reason to optimize. Unless you want to be more powerful than the other characters in the party who has gotten the exact same amount of xp.

The answer to that is a few lines below what you quoted:

But everybody at the table knows that we're handling encounters way above our pay grade. And we have fun while doing so, because we need to push those powergamed beasts that we call characters to the limit to do so.

Because of the challenge and because we know out-of-game that we are handling triple deadly encounters. It's a lot more satisfying (at least for me) to kill a beholder with a party of 4 level 5 characters than it is to kill that same beholder with a party of 4 level 10 characters, or even the first party of level 5s but decked out in magical gear. A good build is something you as a player did, and it is about the only thing in DnD you have 100% direct control of.

But you do strike a point about the party's power levels. Optimizing is only fun when everyone at the table (including the DM) is doing it. One powergamer at a table of more casual players can leave a sour taste. Especially when the powergamer is also a rules lawyer and doesn't respect the Dm's rulings.

Unoriginal

2018-12-04, 04:16 PM

Well...I mean, there are certain subclasses that are OP.

Prove it.

But you can't look at me and tell me a subclass isn't OP when it allowed me and my entire party to successfully tank a Meteor Swarm at level 10 by cutting the damage from 136 down to 34 thanks to making the save and my resistance to spell damage.

A subclass isn't OP when it allowed you and your entire party to successfully tank a Meteor Swarm at level 10 by cutting the damage from 136 down to 34 thanks to making the save and your resistance to spell damage.

Evidences of this claim:

On average, Meteor Swarm deals 120 damages. Level 10 characters tend to have between ~60 and ~115. A lvl 10 Rogue or a lvl 10 Bear Totem Barbarian can easily survive this much damage even if they fail their saves thanks to their class features.

For your party to survive that Swarm as they did, they needed:

-To all be within the 10 ft of aura around your Paladin, which is specifically made to counter that kind of things
-Succeed their DEX save against a top-level caster.

Does it make the Rogue OP? Does it make the Bear Barbarian OP? No, it doesn't.

Your Paladin of the Ancient accomplished something awesome. It doesn't make the subclass OP, it makes the subclass appropriate for adventurers.

Meteor Swarm is not a 9th level spell because it's an one-shot-kill against a small group of relatively tough enemies with special powers like a group of adventurers. It's a 9th level spell because it's four 40ft radius AoE which can utterly devastate a sea of mooks.

Same with races. Can a Dwarf make a good Monk, or Half-Orc make a good Wizard? Yes, they can. In fact, any Race can do fine as any class. A pure Orc with its negative to intelligence can make a fine Wizard, BUT, and there is a big but, you're going to be struggling until you get enough ASI's to catch up/max out your main stat. Especially if you are a caster. For a Half-Orc, you don't get 18 Int till level 8, and unless you find a Headband of Intellect you're going to feel that 16 Int. Because Monsters are going to have a very easy time making those saving throws between levels 5 and 8.

And while Half-Orcs are perfectly fine Wizards after level 8, provided you used both ASI's to boost your Int to 18, first of all you won't have any feats. And Second, most campaigns and characters do not go very far past level 10 from what I hear. As such you spend the majority of the campaign struggling due to your lower Int.

Again, doesn't mean you can't make a Half-Orc Wizard. You just need to be ready for the fact that such a Wizard will be below curve and will appear weaker then a Wizard that started with a 16 Int because Monsters will make their saving throws more often.

Is having 15 in your INT as a wizard this handicapping? Yes, your spells with saves and to-hit-bonuses are going to fail a bit more. 5% more than if you had 16 INT. But do the benefits of being an Half-Orc, like needing one more hit before needing to start making death saves compared to Wizards of other races, make up for it? I believe they do. And I've not been shown datas to convince me otherwise.

In fact, I've not been shown any datas that'd indicates the benefits from any races are not worth that 5% difference in spell-with-save-or-to-hit-mod failure. Only the Orc stands out as less suited for Wizard because the difference between 13 and INT 16 is bigger than the benefits of being Orc.

Pelle

2018-12-04, 04:35 PM

The answer to that is a few lines below what you quoted:

Yeah, I was a little quick to reply.

A good build is something you as a player did, and it is about the only thing in DnD you have 100% direct control of.

Allright, I suspected something like this, and I guess it's a common sentiment. To me, it feels kind of trivial. I made a powerful character, so I "punch above my weight class", but I only do that because I made a powerful character. I guess I just don't see creating a powerful build as an achievement in itself, since it's quite easy to see what synergizes in most cases. So to me it will rather reduce my sense of accomlishment, if the build is the sole main reason for prevailing...

Guy Lombard-O

2018-12-04, 04:45 PM

I would say this

Part of the reason I theory-craft my characters is that's it's a fun thing I can do outside of the actual game time. It's fun for me. I go online because it's fun for me. I take the thoughts and suggestions of the online forums as fun and useful input toward theory-crafting, because quite frankly other people sometimes think of cool and fun things that I haven't (maybe can't?).

Another part of the reason is that I've witnessed others at my table play characters with powerful abilities and great at filling a certain role in the party/combat, but run into (not uncommon) situations where they suddenly morph into nigh-useless lumps (e.g. paladins & barbarians in ranged combat, min/maxed combat fighter in basically any non-combat situation). Those folks looked to me like they were NOT having fun in those situations.

So when I theory-craft, I look for builds which can not only do one or two things pretty well (if not great), but can contribute in many (or even most) situations. I think that makes me a certain type of powergamer, if not an actual min/maxer. I don't want to be the character that just has to sit back and suck it because we're not currently doing the one (or two) thing(s) I'm best at. I try hard not to step on others players toes while contributing, not ruin or steal their moments of glory. But I also don't like sitting there with basically no ability to contribute.

So I'll mix in a level (or Initiate feat) of ranged/spell ability to a melee monster. Or I'll look for the best/most fun bard/generalist. And if possible, I'll build to help buff those others at the table to overcome the shortcomings of their own builds at the same time, so they don't have to just suck it too often, either (upcast Fly or something similar).

That's the way I like to optimize and power game. Just trying to maximize the fun in and out of game. Or at least minimize the not-fun.

Nifft

2018-12-04, 04:46 PM

Allright, I suspected something like this, and I guess it's a common sentiment. To me, it feels kind of trivial. I made a powerful character, so I "punch above my weight class", but I only do that because I made a powerful character. I guess I just don't see creating a powerful build as an achievement in itself, since it's quite easy to see what synergizes in most cases. So to me it will rather reduce my sense of accomlishment, if the build is the sole main reason for prevailing...

1/ If you play "competitively" such that you're not cooperatively enjoying time with your friends, then your pre-game prep work which enables your character to survive the game is part of your victory.

2/ If you never actually play, and the closest you get to a game is building characters in the darkness all alone, then building a better _______ is your only shot at something like victory.

... but yeah, for most games I've played you just need to have PC which is competent in your role.

Being incompetent will decrease your fun, and decrease the table's fun overall.

Being hyper-competent and stealing everyone else's roles... is technically possible, but I've not seen it IRL. So it's a potential problem but not nearly as common as incompetence, and a modest infusion of Power-Gaming is a wonderful anodyne for mechanical incompetence.

The closest thing I've seen to a power-gamer ruining a game would be the VERY FEW times someone tried to pass off a rules abuse which they think ought to make them hyper-competent but actually just doesn't work -- and then they feel upset that they weren't able to trick the DM and/or break the game. But that's rare and honestly those weren't great players to start with, and I'd hesitate to call them power-gamers proper. They were more script kiddies trying to do the stuff that theory threads discuss, except at a table with a real DM where theory-crafting obviously won't work.

Innocent_bystan

2018-12-04, 05:08 PM

I guess I just don't see creating a powerful build as an achievement in itself, since it's quite easy to see what synergizes in most cases. So to me it will rather reduce my sense of accomlishment, if the build is the sole main reason for prevailing...

Put like that, you are selling the whole thing a bit short. A good build, by itself, doesn't mean you'll have a successful character. The build is an enabler for your actions. A good build + decent tactics + some luck causes you to overcome challenges (note: this doesn't only mean combat). And overcoming challenges, with some light roleplaying on the side, make for a fun evening with friends.

KorvinStarmast

2018-12-04, 05:59 PM

Callak_Remier

2018-12-04, 06:22 PM

Ah, you have played with bad power gamers. Or, alternatively, you wanted different things out of a DnD game than them and this has led to some friction.
Although I'll admit there are some real #ssholes in the powergamer population.

no word of a lie the Guy wanted 2 magic interlocking hemispherical Towershields ( a guy in a Metal ball) " you cant target me i have total cover" who's idea of Roleplaying was Yelling " Goosh" as he attacks people from inside the Metal ball when he himself had no line of sight.

From my point of view, you are also missing out on some aspect of Dnd: heroic fantasy fullfiment.

I get this almost every time i Play, Why would you assume i did not. I dont need to Win every Roll to feel that however. The Game is collaberative story telling,
Fate( the dice) plays a Roll. One of my favorite Characters lost his shield arm and had a Silver prothstetic.

Sure, the DM matches the difficulty of the encounters to the power level of the party.

When you have to account for one player more than others it can lead to a decrease in enjoyment i have seen this as a player and DM.

That's what good DM's do. But everybody at the table knows that we're handling encounters way above our pay grade. And we have fun while doing so, because we need to push those powergamed beasts that we call characters to the limit to do so
If everyone is on board thats just Heroic Fantasy

Is the same possible with non-optimized characters and less demanding encounters? Of course, but every would know that we're playing with mittens on.

why would you assume its any less demanding. The opposite is true the world isn't fair and the hero's are often lacking. Perhaps its just a difference of perspective. For me my definition of a Hero has More to do with Sacrifice than your definition perhaps.

The thing is that everyone at the table has the same expectation
I couldnt agree more, my expectations are different from extreme power gamers and thus i avoid them.

A (and note the airquotes) "real roleplayer" would probably find the whole thing shallow and badwrongfun. I don't mind, they're not invited.

I would find it fun i just find the experience " video gamy" enjoyable but as you say shallow. I would like To have my Morals and Ethics being challenged and thrown into question, while fighting epic battles in fantastic locations. All of which is apart of an intricate storyline.

Sigreid

2018-12-04, 08:35 PM

Skylivedk

2018-12-04, 09:27 PM

Usually, what I see is people collectively shouting down any discussion based on mechanical merit or trying to have fun with the game system. I pretty much never see the opposite except as a strawman.

tl;dr: The powergamer that derides players for not optimizing hard enough doesn't exist

Agreed :) it's more of a myth than a real life problem: like unicorn pooh blocking your driveway

That's quite a giant leap to make. Unless your argument is that:

a)people posting to deride classes/subclasses/builds as not good enough (who do exist, you can literally read threads about that on this very sub-forum's current first page) are not power gamers

b) people posting to deride classes /etc would not do it around a gaming table, they just talk about it online because they find optimizing fun

But both assertion would be quite flawed and would probably hold up again verification for the majority of cases.

The verification process would require a statistic you are, probably, never going to get. The most rule tinkering players and DMs I know, don't do rule tinkering in game... If anything, they know the rules quite well.

Everyone has freedom of speech.
Everyone has the freedom to plug their ears and not listen.

Sometimes it is annoying when you pose a question how such or such would work and then someone comes along with "Why are you using that and not this which is much better."
If you then just politely explain why not it should stop there and not evolve into anything more, you have both said your piece and that should be it.

People should just learn to agree to disagree more and leave it there.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion which might be right or wrong and remember its all about a game.

It should be, and it very far from is. Neither math nor polite disclaimers will stop you from having the "real" D&D players bring down a post about a rule change. Funnily, I've not seen the "power gamers" flood threads about someone wanting to play Simple Jack's less mentally endowed third cousin.

I don't care if you prefer tinkering to make your character the most powerful within set parameters or if you want to have your character's life unfold through years of campaign playing. The two aren't even mutually exclusive.

But if you want to make a claim, make it bullet-proof. And present your evidences.

I'm sick and tired of people going on and on about how X subclass is OP or Dwarves make ****ty Monks or Half-Orc are automatically worse as Wizards or how about Y thing only exist for multiclass dip, really, when they have nothing to prove it or at best contrived testing conditions/standards of evaluation.

On the other hand, using tons of math and examples (i.e. the calculations on the dear Champion v Battlemaster or Sorcerer v Warlock on a normal adventuring day) don't seem to work either, so what gives? The easier approach is maybe to not join those threads. Or only join them with one salient and concise point.

I would say this

Part of the reason I theory-craft my characters is that's it's a fun thing I can do outside of the actual game time. It's fun for me. I go online because it's fun for me. I take the thoughts and suggestions of the online forums as fun and useful input toward theory-crafting, because quite frankly other people sometimes think of cool and fun things that I haven't (maybe can't?).

Another part of the reason is that I've witnessed others at my table play characters with powerful abilities and great at filling a certain role in the party/combat, but run into (not uncommon) situations where they suddenly morph into nigh-useless lumps (e.g. paladins & barbarians in ranged combat, min/maxed combat fighter in basically any non-combat situation). Those folks looked to me like they were NOT having fun in those situations.

So when I theory-craft, I look for builds which can not only do one or two things pretty well (if not great), but can contribute in many (or even most) situations. I think that makes me a certain type of powergamer, if not an actual min/maxer. I don't want to be the character that just has to sit back and suck it because we're not currently doing the one (or two) thing(s) I'm best at. I try hard not to step on others players toes while contributing, not ruin or steal their moments of glory. But I also don't like sitting there with basically no ability to contribute.

So I'll mix in a level (or Initiate feat) of ranged/spell ability to a melee monster. Or I'll look for the best/most fun bard/generalist. And if possible, I'll build to help buff those others at the table to overcome the shortcomings of their own builds at the same time, so they don't have to just suck it too often, either (upcast Fly or something similar).

That's the way I like to optimize and power game. Just trying to maximize the fun in and out of game. Or at least minimize the not-fun.

Thanks. Bull's eye. I use these forums as my weak DnD crack replacement.

KOLE

2018-12-04, 10:00 PM

I use these forums as my weak DnD crack replacement.

Can I sig this?

2D8HP

2018-12-04, 10:51 PM

....The powergamer that derides players for not optimizing hard enough doesn't exist

I really haven't encountered any threads that"Power Gamers ruined" (that I remember) but I did have a co-player that really annoyed me when I rolled a high INT stat because he kept insisting that I playa Wizard "to be optimal" and seemed personally affronted by my choosing to make a High Elf Rogue with those stats.

He did have a point in that the Party would be weaker because of my choices, but he just didn't understand that I didn't think I could remember all the minutiae that playing a Wizard entails, and that my trying to do so would feel too much like homework for me to want to do.

Other "Power Gamer" co-players mostly just amuse me with their shenanigans, though as the Party as a whole gets more powerful I tend to lose interest (choosing spells doesn't interest me, I'm more into arrows and ambushes).

Tanarii

2018-12-05, 09:21 AM

In fact, I've not been shown any datas that'd indicates the benefits from any races are not worth that 5% difference in spell-with-save-or-to-hit-mod failure. Only the Orc stands out as less suited for Wizard because the difference between 13 and INT 16 is bigger than the benefits of being Orc.
Yeah, no one is going to really feel a significant difference between a one point stat modifier difference. Even 2 points (16 to 20) gets swept under the rug as you gain enough levels.

A 20 on a rolled character to start might be noticeably more powerful at level 1. But a 16 vs an 18 at level 8, while mechanically superior, is providing a much larger psychological bonus than mechanical one.

This is noticible when you point out to newer players that the game math doesn't even assume a 18 until level 10, and they've previously been fretting over not getting it at level 4.

Baptor

2018-12-05, 09:51 AM

My problem isn't with power gamers per se. If squeezing every bit of power out of your character is what makes d&d fun, then that's cool with me.

What's uncool is when players start to try and dictate what you, the DM, can or can't allow at your table. Like they insist on access to every book, optional rule, and supplement. They throw Crawford's rulings in your face and demand you accept them. They insist on the rules as written when it favors them and whine about RAI when it doesn't.

To me, a good power gamer will work with what you give him and be happy. His character might not be as powerful as I've with all of the above, but he's more powerful than anyone else within the rules of your game. Those I respect.

Skylivedk

2018-12-05, 10:06 AM

Can I sig this?
Please, go ahead. For once there's plenty in the pipe ;)

Pex

2018-12-05, 01:43 PM

I really haven't encountered any threads that"Power Gamers ruined" (that I remember) but I did have a co-player that really annoyed me when I rolled a high INT stat because he kept insisting that I playa Wizard "to be optimal" and seemed personally affronted by my choosing to make a High Elf Rogue with those stats.

He did have a point in that the Party would be weaker because of my choices, but he just didn't understand that I didn't think I could remember all the minutiae that playing a Wizard entails, and that my trying to do so would feel too much like homework for me to want to do.

Other "Power Gamer" co-players mostly just amuse me with their shenanigans, though as the Party as a whole gets more powerful I tend to lose interest (choosing spells doesn't interest me, I'm more into arrows and ambushes).

I can agree those players are annoying.

If I'm asked my opinion I'll answer what I would do as a power gamer, but it's not my character so not my business. However, the one instance I insist on butting in even when not asked is when someone dumps Constitution. The player might do it anyway, but I do not apologize for speaking up. The party really does suffer when someone does that. The character will drop often. We lose the character's actions and have to spend healing resources on him way too much. I know I'm biased in believing the Adventurer's Tax in that every PC should have at least a 14 CO. I'll cringe when I see someone with a 12, but if I see less than that I will say something.

MaxWilson

2018-12-05, 02:03 PM

I can agree those players are annoying.

If I'm asked my opinion I'll answer what I would do as a power gamer, but it's not my character so not my business. However, the one instance I insist on butting in even when not asked is when someone dumps Constitution. The player might do it anyway, but I do not apologize for speaking up. The party really does suffer when someone does that. The character will drop often. We lose the character's actions and have to spend healing resources on him way too much. I know I'm biased in believing the Adventurer's Tax in that every PC should have at least a 14 CO. I'll cringe when I see someone with a 12, but if I see less than that I will say something.

I'm largely a powergamer at heart (or actually what 2d8HP's article (http://darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/theory/models/blacow.html) calls a "wargamer", a challenge-seeker) and sometimes I'm drawn to low-Constitution builds specifically for the challenge. If I roll a 4d6k3 array like 17, 12, 13, 3, 10, 11, sure, I could make an Eldritch Knight Mobile Sharpshooter and just put the 3 in Str where it will never matter, but there's a siren call there that says, "You may never roll another natural 3 again! Do something interesting with it!" and wants me to put that 3 in Constitution and make it work anyway.

I think it would be doable. At 20th level, with the Tough feat, you'd have "only" 80 HP, but as a Mobile Sharpshooter that should actually be plenty if you avoid dumb risks. You could still survive multiple blasts of Ancient Red Dragon breath, for example, or a full round of combat with a Nightwalker if you had to.

It would be challenging, interesting, and most importantly different, which is the whole point of rolling stats in the first place: new challenges. You'd come away from it all knowing exactly how much Con really matters to an archer.

2D8HP

2018-12-05, 02:17 PM

....one instance I insist on butting in even when not asked is when someone dumps Constitution....

I"ve been recently playing a Fighter/Ranger with a CON of 8

"What do I need extra HP for?
Put it in DEX, dodge and use a bow!"
and yeah, that was a mistake.

Next time I'm getting levels in Rogue.

ad_hoc

2018-12-05, 02:22 PM

Something people should stop doing is speaking with authority.

People think they're strategy geniuses but there is no metric to determine that. Competitive games have people winning and losing. The winners are the ones who know what's going on. Even in those games I see people who lose a lot still think they know what is best; only it is some other element that makes them lose.

Not only is D&D not competitive but it also varies drastically from table to table. At one table where monsters never walk up to and attack ranged characters; those characters are both going to be much better and not need to worry about AC. And so on.

Guy Lombard-O

2018-12-05, 02:30 PM

...the one instance I insist on butting in even when not asked is when someone dumps Constitution. The player might do it anyway, but I do not apologize for speaking up. The party really does suffer when someone does that. The character will drop often. We lose the character's actions and have to spend healing resources on him way too much. I know I'm biased in believing the Adventurer's Tax in that every PC should have at least a 14 CO. I'll cringe when I see someone with a 12, but if I see less than that I will say something.

Good on ya!

I'm dealing with this in one of my games right now. Our monk character went with a 8 con. At level one, he's got 7 HP. Which, if he did dodge in battle when he could, might still work. But he's a Ki-puncher.

The party's only other front liner is me, the paladin. The last fight I used all 5 of my LoH healing points on him, 1 at a time, to get him back up. I'm not exactly irritated, but I think we'd be more effective if I just ignored him, fought on, and let him sink or swim on his own (but I won't, the player's a nice guy and seems to think this is great fun).

EDIT: We're second level now, which is why I know he's a Ki-puncher. Obviously, he didn't have any Ki at the time of the aforementioned battle.

jdolch

2018-12-05, 02:31 PM

Since I'm really bad at both optima-whatever and role-playing it grinds my gears when people insist on doing them when I want to play D&D, and since the anti-"power game" viewpoint is well represented in this thread, I have the other side of the coin of evil in my sights.

You Sir, are a "power gamer" as defined by the starter of this thread. You too want to tell other people how the game is to be played. The whole point of this entire thread (before it was hijacked by the whole power gamer = optimizer misunderstanding) was the problem of people telling other people how the game is to be played, instead of accepting that D&D can be many different games for different people and you are doing just that.

And as neat as those early Versions of D&D are, they are completely irrelevant to today. That is true for 4e, it is true for 3e and it sure as hell is true for 1e. I get that people have their fond memories of times long past (and so have I) but the makers of D&D have changed the system so many times that what the rules said in 1980 (let alone some cover Art that was outsourced) really has no bearing on playing D&D today.

As for the problem that you play D&D for close to 40 years and still can't optimize a character or role-play (according to yourself): You are either underestimating yourself or you really, really have no business telling other people how to play the game. (notice how i used "can't" and not "don't want to")

I really wish we could just end this whole discussion with the agreement that different people at different tables play D&D in different ways with different (house) rules. And all of them have the right to call what they are doing "Playing D&D" while none of them have the right to tell other people "You are playing D&D wrong". It is the nature of this Forum that it brings together all kinds of different players from different tables. And just like you would leave a table where D&D is not played the way you want to play it, we don`t have to agree on how it is played here. All we have to do is to exercise some tolerance. Does that mean you can't tell people your opinion? Of course not. But you also have to respect theirs.

Tanarii

2018-12-05, 02:52 PM

You Sir, are a "power gamer" as defined by the starter of this thread. This statement being leveled at 2D8HP makes no sense. All it really does is show tha the term "power gamer" isn't the appropriate term. :smallamused:

2D8HP

2018-12-05, 04:04 PM

You Sir, are a "power gamer"....

I don't think that I have enough skill to be a "Power Gamer"

..as defined by the starter of this thread.

A ruiner of threads?

Sorry, I usually hope to extend them not end them.

...You too want to tell other people how the game is to be played.

That's a fair cop.

I do hope to persuade others to play in a style that I enjoy in order to increase my chances of getting to play in games that I like.

...The whole point of this entire thread (before it was hijacked by the whole power gamer = optimizer misunderstanding) was the problem of people telling other people how the game is to be played...

Yeah,that was also the point to the article from 1980 that I linked to in my initial post in this thread:

Back in the 1980's I had the issue of Different Worlds magazine that introduced (to me) the term "Power Gamer" (which I really hope is still at my mom's house and that I find it again some day), and thanks to the magic of the internet you may read it as well:

http://darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/theory/models/blacow.html

....instead of accepting that D&D can be many different games for different people and you are doing just that...

Accepting?

It's pretty obvious that the game may be enjoyed in different ways (the new DMG gives good examples!).

What I object to is the contention that "Role-playing" is superior to "Power Gaming" (or "Wargaming" or "Story Telling"), as most games have some of all four "Aspects of Adventure Gaming" to greater and lesser extents, and the canard that "It's called a role-playing game" to privilege one style ("Aspect") over the others seems cruel to me (except of course when doing so encourages a play style I enjoy more, in which case carry on good madams and sirs!).

Most of the rest of my initial post was bloviating (which was some work!) and self mockery, I thought the contradictions made that obvious.

...And as neat as those early Versions of D&D are, they are completely irrelevant to today....

The rules?

Well yes, but the spirit may still have some validity.

Judging by the published 5e Adventures and given the listed options,WotC is trying to have most of the different ways the game has been played over the decades be viable.

...As for the problem that you play D&D for close to 40 years...

I started as a DM in '78 and a player in '79 but sadly my playing ended in '92 and, except for some solo GURPS and 3e D&D "builds" didn't resume again till '16, and I suspect that I have less table hours than much of this Forum

...and still can't optimize a character or role-play (according to yourself): You are either underestimating yourself or you really, really have no business telling other people how to play the game. (notice how i used "can't" and not "don't want to")....

That's a fair cop, I probably don't, but someone needs to speak for the mediocre dagnabbit!

....I really wish we could just end this whole discussion with the agreement that different people at different tables play D&D in different ways with different (house) rules. And all of them have the right to call what they are doing "Playing D&D" while none of them have the right to tell other people "You are playing D&D wrong". It is the nature of this Forum that it brings together all kinds of different players from different tables. And just like you would leave a table where D&D is not played the way you want to play it, we don`t have to agree on how it is played here. All we have to do is to exercise some tolerance. Does that mean you can't tell people your opinion? Of course not. But you also have to respect theirs.

Also a fair cop.

ChildofLuthic

2018-12-05, 04:51 PM

I honestly haven't noticed this being the case. I usually see powergamers sticking to their own little threads about coffeelockadins or whatever. Of course, you could easily accuse me of being a powergamer - at the very least, I'm one of those awful "don't play a beastmaster ever" people. And I've probably said that at the wrong time before. But if that doesn't interest you, ignore it??? Like it's not hard??

Baptor

2018-12-05, 06:27 PM

I usually see powergamers sticking to their own little threads about coffeelockadins or whatever.

:smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin::smallbi ggrin::smallbiggrin:

"coffeelockadins"

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

:smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin::smallbi ggrin::smallbiggrin:

I love it! :smallwink:

Unoriginal

2018-12-05, 06:53 PM

"coffeelockadins"

"By making two pushups every hours and resting even though I'm not tired, I have an unlimited amount of smites."

https://www.journaldugeek.com/content/uploads/2017/04/saitama-one-punch-man.jpg

Kadesh

2018-12-05, 07:16 PM

Galactkaktus

2018-12-05, 09:28 PM

Don't you usally find this behavior in threads that are for discussing mechanics? And in those cases there are right and wrong answers. It being your opinion is a non argument and doesn't really add anything to the discussion at all. Why it's your opinion is far more interesting than what your opinion is since that might actually have some value.

Dark Schneider

2018-12-06, 04:54 AM

Yeah, no one is going to really feel a significant difference between a one point stat modifier difference. Even 2 points (16 to 20) gets swept under the rug as you gain enough levels.

A 20 on a rolled character to start might be noticeably more powerful at level 1. But a 16 vs an 18 at level 8, while mechanically superior, is providing a much larger psychological bonus than mechanical one.

This is noticible when you point out to newer players that the game math doesn't even assume a 18 until level 10, and they've previously been fretting over not getting it at level 4.
Yes. That's why I think is not bad to increase your stat at lvl 4, but at lvl 8 instead max your stat use it to get some feat. And maybe max your stat in the future, as is not bad in any case for casters: spells saving throw, prepared spells, attack, but also for skills and your own saving throws.

Pex

2018-12-06, 09:01 AM

Yes. That's why I think is not bad to increase your stat at lvl 4, but at lvl 8 instead max your stat use it to get some feat. And maybe max your stat in the future, as is not bad in any case for casters: spells saving throw, prepared spells, attack, but also for skills and your own saving throws.

It also doesn't hurt to do the reverse, take the feat at 4th and go to 18 at 8th. Even for spellcasters monster saving throws aren't so high at these levels you wish you had the 18. Neither option is poor. Do what fits your fancy. That's a good thing.

That's of course presuming using Point Buy. If you use dice rolling a nice array can make the choice easier.

ChildofLuthic

2018-12-06, 11:09 AM

>Let me insult a group of people by calling them power gamers because they see a Wis based Class and a Wis based race and add them together and I also like giving funny little names to 'builds' because I only play Orc Wizards and Kobold barbarians.
Okay.

I can't tell if this is directed at me? Like, I came down on a pro-power gamer position, and as a DM I tend to strongly suggest they don't make non-optimal choices, but I'm the one who gave a silly name to the warlock/sorcerer/paladin multiclass so

Misterwhisper

2018-12-06, 11:11 AM

Unoriginal

2018-12-06, 11:14 AM

Willie the Duck

2018-12-06, 11:27 AM

If someone had made a thread about, “are entitled role players ruining the game” and were talking about people who want to role play and change the rules to get what they want, it would have been locked within an hour...

Unlikely, but this does highlight how both sides of a bitter, decades old fight where both sides have routinely been awful to each other can paint themselves as the beleaguered underdogs. There's probably a greater social/societal metaphor buried in there somewhere...

Misterwhisper

2018-12-06, 11:38 AM

On what are you basing this claim, just to know?

the fact that someone is whiny and aggressive because they don't like "power gamers" ruining their game.

the same exact thing could be brought up in reverse about people who want to "Role Play" and ignore the actual rules in the book.

However, Role-players are held on a pedestal like they are the icon of virtue but if someone wants to make their character the best at their job all of a sudden they are just scum minmaxers who ignore role play for power despite the two being perfectly able to coincide.

Ex. I will build the best character to do its job possible, if I am building an archer they will be a great archer, if I am building a master detective he will be amazing at detective work, but I will also have probably a 10 page minimum backstory and footnotes for the DM on exactly how their personality works.

Simple as this: Role Players automatically get a positive spin but "power gamers" automatically get a negative one despite neither of which being exclusive.

mephnick

2018-12-06, 11:51 AM

I hate role-players and power-gamers. I remember when the game had no options except to be eaten by wolves, dagnabbit. And I liked it!

Misterwhisper

2018-12-06, 11:53 AM

I hate role-players and power-gamers. I remember when the game had no options except to be eaten by wolves, dagnabbit. And I liked it!

All these fancy people with their dice, when I was growing up imaginary combat consisted of "Zap, I hit you!" "Nah uh, no you didn't"

MilkmanDanimal

2018-12-06, 12:20 PM

I hate role-players and power-gamers. I remember when the game had no options except to be eaten by wolves, dagnabbit. And I liked it!

Wolves? When I was playing first edition, we were eaten by somewhat large hamsters! You were lucky to be eaten by wolves.

Marywn

2018-12-06, 12:26 PM

If you die in the get, you get eatten by a large creature in real life.

stoutstien

2018-12-06, 12:27 PM

Wolves? When I was playing first edition, we were eaten by somewhat large hamsters! You were lucky to be eaten by wolves.
House cats

Innocent_bystan

2018-12-06, 12:53 PM

hero's are often lacking. Perhaps its just a difference of perspective. For me my definition of a Hero has More to do with Sacrifice than your definition perhaps. Probably. We want slightly different things, but it seems like we both get what we want.

I would like To have my Morals and Ethics being challenged and thrown into question, while fighting epic battles in fantastic locations. All of which is apart of an intricate storyline.
If you can get that kind of gaming on a regular basis, then you are a lucky man/woman/whatever.

jdolch

2018-12-06, 01:04 PM

Back in my day we could only play by using sign-language and grunts because words weren't invented yet. Sure we had fire if the firekeeper did his job but that didn't help because nobody could read ... and also books weren't invented. All you kids with your fancy language and house thingies. Grow up.

2D8HP

2018-12-06, 01:17 PM

House cats

Covered pits.

To illustrate,

The scene:

A dank almost crypt like basement/garage during the waning years of the Carter Administration, two pre-teens and three teenagers surround a ping pong table, that has books, papers, dice, pizza and sodas on it

Teen DM (my best friends older brother): You turn the corner, and 20' away you see the door shown on the map.

Teen player (who thinks he's all that because he's been playing longer than me with the LBB's, but does he have the new PHB and DMG? No! So who's really the "Advanced" one huh!): With the lantern still tied to the ten foot pole, I slowly proceed forward observing if they are any drafts from unexpected places. You (looks at me) check the floor with the other pole.

Me (pre-teen): Oh man it's late, are we every getting into the treasure room today!

Teen player: You've got to check for traps!

Me: I run up and force the door open!

DM: Blarg the fighter falls through the floor onto the spikes below.

*rolls dice*

Your character is dead.

Teen player: Dude you got smoked!

Me: Look at my next character. I rolled a 15 for Strength!

DM: Really?

Me: Yeah, Derek totally witnessed me rolling it up!

DM: Did he?

Derek (my best friend, another pre-teen who invited me to the game): Are you gonna eat that slice of pizza?

Me: No.

Derek: Yeah I totally saw it.

*munch*

DM: *groan*

:smallwink:

In memory of my best friend, Derek Lindstrom Whaley, who in 6th grade saw me reading the blue book and invited me to play D&D at his house - R.I.P.

Back in my day we could only play by using sign-language and grunts because words weren't invented yet. Sure we had fire if the firekeeper did his job but that didn't help because nobody could read ... and also books weren't invented. All you kids with your fancy language and house thingies. Grow up.

*ahem*

If your clan has discovered fire you are no true Grognard!

Well, that's fine, it's not a competition, but then trying to out-old-school 2d8 seems silly...

Misterwhisper

2018-12-06, 01:56 PM

Covered pits.

To illustrate,

The scene:

A dank almost crypt like basement/garage during the waning years of the Carter Administration, two pre-teens and three teenagers surround a ping pong table, that has books, papers, dice, pizza and sodas on it

Teen DM (my best friends older brother): You turn the corner, and 20' away you see the door shown on the map.

Teen player (who thinks he's all that because he's been playing longer than me with the LBB's, but does he have the new PHB and DMG? No! So who's really the "Advanced" one huh!): With the lantern still tied to the ten foot pole, I slowly proceed forward observing if they are any drafts from unexpected places. You (looks at me) check the floor with the other pole.

Me (pre-teen): Oh man it's late, are we every getting into the treasure room today!

Teen player: You've got to check for traps!

Me: I run up and force the door open!

DM: Blarg the fighter falls through the floor onto the spikes below.

*rolls dice*

Your character is dead.

Teen player: Dude you got smoked!

Me: Look at my next character. I rolled a 15 for Strength!

DM: Really?

Me: Yeah, Derek totally witnessed me rolling it up!

DM: Did he?

Derek (my best friend, another pre-teen who invited me to the game): Are you gonna eat that slice of pizza?

Me: No.

Derek: Yeah I totally saw it.

*munch*

DM: *groan*

:smallwink:

In memory of my best friend, Derek Lindstrom Whaley, who in 6th grade saw me reading the blue book and invited me to play D&D at his house - R.I.P.

*ahem*

Not nearly as poignant but:

I was sitting in my college dorm room talking to my room mate, Hat, (His real name was Jason but everyone, and I mean EVERYONE even his college teachers called him Hat).

"Hey, Hat, I just finally got my new knife in the mail."

"What kind of knife is it?"

"It is a Tom Brown Tracker series, made of ..." I went on a 10 minute description of my new knife.

"It may be masterwork, but is it a +1 Knife?"

"+1, what the crap are you talking about?"

And just like that, I became a gamer.

Unoriginal

2018-12-06, 02:15 PM

Got to a RPG club as part of the activities the town proposed for kids during the holidays. Had an introductory session of a game called "Guilds". PCs worked for a Guild who wanted some kind of mystery in a small village investigated. Spent most of the session with people going to the market before leaving to that village. One of them bought a pet monkey, another went to an underground slave market and bought a barbarian lady. When we finally showed up to the village, we didn't have the time to solve anything, but we found a sunken smuggled/pirate ship with only one survivor, which I had to save because the others kept wanting to torture him to death to get info (or just out of a desire to kill).

A few days later, my mother bought me a White Dwarf magazine, with tons of lore and an awesome battle story and Lord Mazdamundi on his giant dinosaur.

And I've been playing RPG since.

No brains

2018-12-06, 02:26 PM

See, I remember the days of roleplaying before organisms could even see, let alone use see as a metaphor for comprehension. We could barely comprehend that we could comprehend things. Imagining we were something else was a huge leap forward and really passed the time in between absorbing nutrients.

Biggest play I ever made: "I want to eat something over there." Anticipated the trope of "being able to move" that you see in all stories these days.

Contrast

2018-12-06, 02:38 PM

Ex. I will build the best character to do its job possible, if I am building an archer they will be a great archer, if I am building a master detective he will be amazing at detective work, but I will also have probably a 10 page minimum backstory and footnotes for the DM on exactly how their personality works.

10 pages? Minimum? Just to say, a player turning up with 10 pages of backstory with footnotes would be all sorts of red flags to me and that has nothing to do with roleplaying 'vs' powergaming.

Misterwhisper

2018-12-06, 03:12 PM

10 pages? Minimum? Just to say, a player turning up with 10 pages of backstory with footnotes would be all sorts of red flags to me and that has nothing to do with roleplaying 'vs' powergaming.

I am a writer, everything I turn in is going to be long and detailed.

My last character had an 88 page backstory.

I put a LOT into building something, which is why I have an issue people who gimp their characters for the sake of "role-playing" also with people who want to do things against the rule because "That is what my character would do"

If my character dies because you thought it would be fun to make a rogue with a great axe and wade into melee in light armor, I have a major problem with that.

Someone can RP anything they want, I encourage it, don't just show up with some numbers on the page and run with it. Write a story to RP it out, but you still have to be useful to the group or the group will just leave you at the nearest settlement and replace you with someone actually good at their role.

ad_hoc

2018-12-06, 06:04 PM

10 pages? Minimum? Just to say, a player turning up with 10 pages of backstory with footnotes would be all sorts of red flags to me and that has nothing to do with roleplaying 'vs' powergaming.

Yeah, if someone did that I would take them aside and find out if they are really right for the game. I think most people like that are trying to be the protagonist which isn't going to fly. The most common thing I see in new players is not realizing what a level 1 character is. Then they become disappointed when their character with a heroic backstory is actually very inexperienced. The game should be played at the table.

They should be aware that with adventure comes danger too. Characters and parties can and do die.

Backgrounds do a good job here. Other details should be a paragraph tops.

Misterwhisper

2018-12-06, 06:41 PM

Yeah, if someone did that I would take them aside and find out if they are really right for the game. I think most people like that are trying to be the protagonist which isn't going to fly. The most common thing I see in new players is not realizing what a level 1 character is. Then they become disappointed when their character with a heroic backstory is actually very inexperienced. The game should be played at the table.

They should be aware that with adventure comes danger too. Characters and parties can and do die.

Backgrounds do a good job here. Other details should be a paragraph tops.

It is more that I am a writer, I love it and do it for a living and as a hobby.

The backsorties are filled with details of their lives that made them who they are from the details of their parents and siblings and how their personalities and upbringing has made them who they are.

I also try to make sure I hit 5 major point:

1. Why are you the class you are?
Did you pick it and seek training?
Did you not have much choice?
Did you just so happen to end up one by luck?
That kind of thing

2. What are your morals like?
We don’t use alignments, a person is more than just good or evil, lawful or chaotic.
What will you do and not do based on your moral outlook?

3. How do you feel about other races and classes?
Not specific classes but in general like how do you feel about magic Users, about warriors, about skills based people?
What about certain races?

4. Why are you an adventurer?

What is your goal?
Did you do it for greed?
Glory?
Love?
Thrills?

5. What is your end goal, what is the big picture?
Where do you want to end up?
How do you want others to see you.

As games progress I keep track of things in the form of either a character journal written in first person, or I have the game written down as a novel that builds as the game progresses.

I am actually a huge role-player, but because I put so much work into it I can’t stand the idea of dying because someone else could not pull their weight so I get called a powergamer like it is some insult and because I am now somehow a powergamer my role play does not matter.

ad_hoc

2018-12-06, 06:51 PM

It is more that I am a writer, I love it and do it for a living and as a hobby.

D&D is not a tool to force your novel onto people.

It's a collaborative storytelling game.

If people want to read your novel they will.

Misterwhisper

2018-12-06, 06:57 PM

D&D is not a tool to force your novel onto people.

It's a collaborative storytelling game.

If people want to read your novel they will.

I did not say I have to be the spotlight, or that I expect anyone else to read it. that is why I give the dm the foot notes because sometimes they don’t really care what someone is playing or why.

As the game goes and I write up notes and things, that is as the player not the dm, I don’t usually even show it to the other players I do it for me.

So now somehow if I make the character well I am somehow wrong for being a powergamer, but I write a longer backstory so I am also wrong for being a role player.

Nifft

2018-12-06, 07:00 PM

So now somehow if I make the character well I am somehow wrong for being a powergamer, but I write a longer backstory so I am also wrong for being a role player.

Moderation in all things, I guess?

Or perhaps: "The only winning move is not to play*."

*) ... the game where you compare yourself against the ideals of everyone on the forum, because you will fall short of someone's.

Marywn

2018-12-06, 07:00 PM

*Rolls athletics against someone that is resisting, Gets a Crit*

POWER WORD:MUSCLE

2D8HP

2018-12-06, 07:03 PM

...So now somehow if I make the character well I am somehow wrong for being a powergamer, but I write a longer backstory so I am also wrong for being a role player.

Oh wow, I'm badwrong for not doing enough of those!

I feel a strange sense of solidarity despite being the opposite.

Misterwhisper

2018-12-06, 07:11 PM

Oh wow, I'm badwrong for not doing enough of those!

I feel a strange sense of solidarity despite being the opposite.

That is rather odd.

Illven

2018-12-06, 07:48 PM

You two are equal and opposites, like matter and antimatter.

Pelle

2018-12-07, 04:21 AM

So now somehow if I make the character well I am somehow wrong for being a powergamer, but I write a longer backstory so I am also wrong for being a role player.

You're not wrong for making the character well, you're wrong for becoming angry at other people who don't. If you can't handle losing your precious characters, why not play a game where character death is not on the table instead?