Why can't you powergame and roleplay?

[Deepblue706]

Okay.

I like those. Sounds pretty much like "Roleplayer: Does not metagame", "Powergamer: Does metagame" though. Also, does curiously not address the power level of the characters at all. But that's fine, at least a new approach.

Well, it's not about having a high power level, but rather, first being concerned about power, in general. For instance, you can be a Powergamer and choose Fighter for a class.

Where by "character" you mean the mechanical aspect of the character, right? Because else, we would arrive at an IC source for the player's decisions again.
Anyway, agreed, and I have played with such people myself already, too.

I mean that Powergamers that also Roleplay (if secondarily) will justify things, but sometimes other Powergamers won't - which could possibly explain why some people associate Powergaming with Not Roleplaying.

Which reminds me that I did not make one of my favourite statements regarding roleplayers and powergamers in this thread yet - and before you complain how I'm speaking of my own concepts, instead of addressing yours, hear me out first, for I find they bear a striking resemblance:

A roleplayer and a powergamer can create two characters which are absolutely identical mechanically. Let's take a very powerful warrior who is socially somewhat inept, for instance. The difference between the two is their intent - the roleplayer thought primarily about a certain archetype, a mighty hero, who saves people with his sword, but may stutter around a pretty girl (and is just as eager to roleplay the latter part as the former), whereas the powergamer was thinking primarily about how he can kill dragons the easiest, and which part he can sacrifice to the least detriment to his combat prowess. Same character, created with different intent. It's intent that distinguishes roleplayers from powergamers.

Yep.

See, that's one of the main reasons why I prefer skill-based systems to class-based ones. In a skill-based system, it's very easy to always have a character improve in exactly what is fitting storytelling-wise now, since rewards are usually instantaneous and can be applied with uttermost precision where they fit the most. And since skill points aren't as big a deal as levels, and there is no upper limit or slow-down in experience gain, it's not like you had to make a huge sacrifice (like taking a level in a mechanically sub-optimal class) to get the better mechanical representation of your roleplaying concept.

This is one of the major reasons I prefer playing GURPS.

Funny, I don't even believe in such a thing as "jobs" for characters. Nobody says a group must have a tank, a healer, a damage-dealer, a locksmith or any specific type of skill-monkey, unless the game is utterly challenge focussed. A player has no obligation to make a tank out of his fighter, only to create a mechanical representation as befitting his concept of his character (and this is not as much an obligation as a natural desire on the player's part). Whatever comes out as result, that's the character who will live the story about to be told, and a GM not tailoring the story (as much as it is in the GM's hands, anyway) for each of the characters seperately is not doing his job anyway, in my humble opinion.

I don't like "jobs" too much either - but I'm just kind of rolling with the preestablished idea that comes with the basic concept of D&D.

Hmmm... not sure whether I agree here. Would you please make an example of what you understand by "getting close to The Line without crossing it"?

I'm just saying as long as people are trying to roleplay, whether it be primary or secondary in their concerns, I just kind of accept them. I might greatly admire people who run wild with their characters, not being bound to mechanically superior traditions, and allow themselves to try something different - but, I really don't see anyone do that. And, I guess I don't mind so much, because I only care a slight effort is made to keep things going. It's one thing to play your standard THF Leap Attack/Shock Trooper Fighter with mediocre intrigue and somewhat interesting background, and it's another to be playing alongside someone who does absolutely nothing with their life but make "superbuilds". Sometimes, I even enjoy playing with bare-bones characters.

Actually, no. You got me. That was basically just an attempt at keeping people from yelling at me. Apparently, if you stray from certain opinions, you come off snooty and then you've got half a thread on your back. Then they put words in your mouth, and everything goes downhill.

But, in actuality, I don't mind it when people do advanced mechanical planning, etc - but I do mind it when I find that huge gaping hole in a character's personality or background, plugged up with 72 hours of hard contemplation on how a character can solo any reasonable encounter of appropriate CR. Some people argue you can do both - I firmly believe if you are doing both, then you should detract from the mechanical issues until you're mediocre in a battle, until your character itself comes off as something amazing. Really, I'd find another Hamlet to be more inspiring than "I'm a Fighter who ceases to do actual combat damage in battles because it is less effective than tripping them over and over again while other people stab them." I have to ask - why exploit such idiotic game design flaws anyway? It's not like D&D 3.x is a game where you actually have to try to make good characters to "win"...