[3.5] Question for DMs - Power/Op Level

[Thurbane]

Something I posted in a recent thread got me thinking:

All in all, I'm happier DMing for a low-op group than I would be for a full-op group. I find it gives me more freedom as a DM not to have to engage in an arms race to make the game a challenge.

My group are definitely mid-low optimizers. Myself and one other are the highest optimizers, and even then, pretty tame to most optimization I see on D&D forums.

As a DM, I enjoy DMing for a mid-low op group, because I don't have to go crazy over-the-top trying to find challenges for them - most monsters out of the book are around the right CR are a decent challenge.

I do like to tweak monsters and NPCs to optimize them a little; but if I was DMing for a party of optimized Tier 1s and 2s, I'd feel like I was in some kind of arms race to ramp up challenges for them.

(My current group is 4 full time, and 2 part time players; we have rotating DMs, so I'm currently on a break while one of the others DMs for a while).

Just wondering how other DMs feel about this kind of thing.

[Draconium]

I'm happy DMing at whatever power level the players want.

Seriously. If my players want a high-powered game, I'll tweak the campaign's power to the point where they are happy. Same with mid-powered and low-powered campaigns.

Now, it is easier to do a lower-powered game, don't get me wrong. But as long as the power level of the game is where the players can have fun at, I'll feel happy to DM it for them.

[Nifft]

In my experience, it's less about the optimization power level, and more about the presence or absence of an adversarial attitude in the players.

High-optimization players who want to help make the game work are as welcome as anyone else with a good attitude.

[A_S]

Depends a bit on my players, and my goals for the game.

-----

Low-power groups: When I DM for groups composed mostly of Tier 4-6 characters, and/or groups that are sufficiently low-op that they play like Tier 4-6 characters, I find that combat is very predictable, and I have a good idea of whether or not my group will be able to overcome a given challenge ahead of time. This has its advantages, but also its disadvantages:

On the plus side, it means I can structure my story a lot more easily and linearly, because I have a lot of control over what happens just by presenting challenges that are doable for my party (if I want them to succeed at something), or that are too hard for them (if I want them to experience a set-back), without having to resort to more heavy-handed forms of railroading or DM fiat (fudging dice rolls, making up inescabable "you get captured" encounters, etc.). If I'm trying to tell a fairly linear story, this is the power level I prefer.

On the minus side...telling a linear story where you know ahead of time what your group is going to do is usually pretty boring (for both me and my players). I've done some short standalone adventures this way that worked well when I had a narrative that I really wanted to get through, but most of the time, having my PC's come up with unexpected and outside-the-box solutions to the challenges I give them is half the fun of DMing, and I'd much rather have my plots be driven by my players' choices than the other way around. Plus, I find Tier 4-6 combat really boring because it's mostly just taking turns hitting stuff, and whoever runs out of hit points first loses. Not a lot of interesting tactical choices to make.

Pros: PC's are predictable enough you know what they're gonna do ahead of time, and can plan your story accordingly.
Cons: Predictable PC actions are usually boring for me as a DM. Low-Tier combat is dull.

-----

Medium-power groups: When my group clusters around Tier 3-4 or so, I find that the game is generally in a sweet-spot where I know enough about what my players can do that I can predict their actions and structure my story accordingly pretty well, but they can still surprise me, and combat isn't so boring. It's also nice that I don't have to trust my players 100% not to be munchkins. Even if they decide to cheese, they'll still only be playing high-op Tier 3 characters. I know how to provide challenges for high-op Tier 3 characters, so that's not really a problem.

I think of this power level as mostly just "unproblematic."

Pros: Less boring than low-power games. PC's are still predictable enough I can plot my story with some planning, but not so predictable that they might as well just read a novelization of my plot.
Cons: I don't get to play Tier 1-2 enemies.

-----

High-power groups: I'll tell you a secret. I'm actually a huge munchkin at heart. I tone it down pretty hard most of the time because being the only person in a group who goes all-out high-op is fairly unfun for me (steamrolling challenges gets old), and extremely unfun for my group and my DM (being outshined and having your challenges steamrolled both get old really fast). But on the rare occasions when I can play high-op characters without feeling bad about ruining games, I actually find it super fun.

DMing high-power games is my outlet for this. The OP is right that they quickly become an arms race, but it's an arms race that I find pretty entertaining. So I really enjoy running fights involving lots of Tier 1-2 shenanigans, where every round I expect a bajillion Contingencies and immediate actions to go off, vast quantities of dice to be rolled, and multiple PC's and foes to get (at least temporarily) deleted.

But there are some caveats on running this kind of game: One, I have to trust my players not to step on each other's toes. If everybody is on board with the "we are Tier 1 powerhouses, and the point of this game is to flex our muscles as Tier 1 powerhouses" thing, everybody can have a good time. But if some players are more on board with that than others...there can be problems.

The second thing is that high-power games make it basically impossible to run a game with a linear, pre-planned story. You can still have a cool story, you just have to be extremely adaptable, and ready to change the direction of your plot at the drop of a hat, in case your PC's suddenly come up with a way you haven't thought of to suddenly delete all your antagonists and foil their plans halfway through the game.

Pros: Tier 1-2 combat is really fun! Well, as long as you enjoy bookkeeping. And agonizingly slow rounds. But I do, so I think it's fun. Also, there's some cool narrative options that the world-changing power of high-Tier spellcasters make possible.
Cons: Have to trust my players not to break my game. Planning the plot ahead of time is impossible, because there's no way I can plan for the vast array of options available to the PC's. Combat is excruciatingly involved, so if I have any players who aren't on board with the "let's play System Mastery!" style of play, they'll be bored/frustrated.

[OldTrees1]

I DM a sandbox. This means the players can quickly get to places I did not expect. When they do they need to be able to have a chance against what they find and I need to be able to generate what they find. Thus all characters need to be useful(even if not skilled) in areas outside their focuses(aka Tier 5-6 choices need to be buffed) but not powerful enough that all challenges needed to have already be preparing for the PCs months ahead of time(aka not Tier 1-2 characters).

[nedz]

I'm currently DMing for two groups.

Group A
Mid OP builds so I have no problem with them running T1 characters. In the last game I had two people running Clerics, one with a Wizard cohort. Now the clerics were mainly support with the occasional GOD mode moment, whilst the Wizard was a Blaster/Utility sort, so no real issue. This group play quite well and so Player>Build>Class applies here even more than usual.

Group B
A mix of power gamers with one hopeless player. The power gamers think that they are optimisers but don't really know the system as well as they think they do. The hopeless player always plays Rogue/Wizard but he tends to cast Magic Missile and Fireball all of the time.

I banned T1 classes, Casterly PrCs which increased tiers, about 20 feats and about 20 spells. I also gave out lots of build advice before the game started - mainly so I could help out the weaker player without him feeling put upon. He is now playing a Rogue/Sorcerer and is trying out Illusions.

My aim was to try and balance out the group a little which does seem to be working - though it is early days.

[MyrPsychologist]

I tend to like things right in the middle.

Too high and there are concerns about individuals being overshadowed or the players acting too adversarial with the DM. You can also have difficulty telling a cohesive story when people die and players are able to handle every single problem that you throw at them.

Too low and problems can become too predictable and boring. In addition, i've had personal experiences where exceptionally low optimized groups had difficulty handling appropriate CR encounters and I had to take extra precautions in what i actually threw at them or they could unexpectedly die.