Why can't you powergame and roleplay?

[Kaelik]

ROFL. Sounds about right to me, what part did I get wrong?

The part where close allegiance to the concept presented is just as important as power.

[LibraryOgre]

I guess it's kind of a noobish question, but what's the difference between power play and munchkin?

A power player is someone who designs a character who that is mechanically powerful.

A munchkin is someone who uses the game to bully people. They build very powerful characters (sometimes within the rules, sometimes pushing the boundaries of the rules, often cheating or using "creative interpretations") that are powerful enough to push other characters around. They may decide they're going to be a bully for good, or a bully for evil, but they just want to push people around.

[Deepblue706]

Roleplaying and Powergaming are not exclusive, but I've always preferred to play with "Roleplayers".

These are my definitions of the two concepts:

Roleplayer: Makes OOC decisions based on IC concept.

Powergamer: Makes OOC decisions and justifies them with IC actions (if at all*).

*:The last tidbit found in "Powergamer" is not to poke a jab at all Powergamers, but rather note that justifications are secondary to the character itself, and are not inherently required. Still, "Powergamers" that make efforts to roleplay will attempt (success can vary) to justify decisions.

What seperates both the "Roleplayer" and the "Powergamer" is the original intent. When you're building your character, is he a cunning rogue, filled with a dark past and a heavy heart, or is he a Rog3/Ftr1 who dual-wields daggers and then proceeds to be described in the same exact way as the previous example? The second example differs from the first because it first lays emphasis on mechanical build, then the character. If you're letting your character take the lead**, you probably won't be optimized. If you're deciding upon mechanics and then the character, you are a "Powergamer" in my eyes.

**: When I say "letting your character take the lead", I mean you're allowing the IC experiences you have to hold some sway over your character's growth. This sway doesn't have to be much, but I very much admire things such as a "strange" class change that is more impactful to the players, rather than the overall mechanical status of the character. For example, a wizard-based Gish suddenly taking levels in Paladin because of his IC growth is something that very few people will do, because it loses arcane spellcasting levels, gains spellcasting in a stat that a gish may very well dump. The Paladin also makes use of Charisma, which a wizard-based gish could easily neglect as well. The motivation against this class change is primarily mechanical in nature to a "Powergamer", while a "Roleplayer's" primary concern would be whether or not becoming a Paladin merely makes sense for the character, IC-wise. I'm not saying that neither considers the other spectrum, but rather that there is a flow of thought that brings a person from A, to B, to C - and the order of thought determines your status on this Roleplayer/Powergamer axis.

I do not believe being either is good or bad - I would consider myself both a Powergamer and a Roleplayer, as I sometimes make decisions based on mechanics, and sometimes make decisions based on what is [most] internally consistent of my characters. However, I think I may be more of a Roleplayer than a Powergamer, because my heart really isn't into making highly effective builds, [a result of myself more often having made decisions based on what is IC, rather than OOC] - but simply making a character that stands out. I do understand it is important to have a character that does a job well (and I make smart OOC decisions, if only upon whim) - but on the other hand, I do believe D&D is more of a social game rather than a mechanical exercise. Thusly, I find great amounts of emphasis on mechanics, to the neglect of the character and overall social experience of the game, to be shallow and inconsistent with the game's function - and therefore I discourage it. I believe many share these feelings, and only associate "Powergamers" (and not "Roleplayers") with great emphasis on mechanics because they are closer to The Line.

Now, The Line would happen to be the that of those who are not to be named (who I will thusly call "Munchkins" ). However, many fail to recognize that getting close to The Line is absolutely meaningless - only crossing it is truly problematic.

Edits: all words found in brackets.

[Tormsskull]

The part where close allegiance to the concept presented is just as important as power.

Ah, ok, so when you say concept you're still referring to mechanics. Someone says "I want a guy who is good at Sneak Attacks" and then everyone tries to make the most powerful sneak attacker that they can.

Or someone says "I want a guy who uses a 2-handed weapon" and then everyone tries to make the most powerful 2-handed weapon wielder that they can.

The ongoing theme here is that mechanical power is the goal.

[Indon]

Sure, you can powergame and roleplay at the same time... to a point.

But the more powerful you want your character, the fewer actual character options you have. You can optimize a dual-wielding fighter, but an optimized fighter does not dual wield, but instead uses a 2-hander. You can optimize a blast-oriented wizard, but an optimized wizard bothers with very few direct damage spells.

So either way, yes, you may well have to give up character power for character concept, or vice versa, simply because some concepts produce characters which are weaker or more powerful than others.

The Stormwind Fallacy is about how Powergaming does not neccessarily lead to bad roleplaying, by genericising characters, stripping away character personality options, and so on... but for the reason listed above, it quite clearly can do this. It's just not a guarantee, being dependent on the specific circumstance.

[Kaelik]

Ah, ok, so when you say concept you're still referring to mechanics. Someone says "I want a guy who is good at Sneak Attacks" and then everyone tries to make the most powerful sneak attacker that they can.

Or someone says "I want a guy who uses a 2-handed weapon" and then everyone tries to make the most powerful 2-handed weapon wielder that they can.

The ongoing theme here is that mechanical power is the goal.

No I don't mean just the mechanics. The Concept includes personality, character likes and dislikes and everything else. Which is why if someone wants to play a Dwarven Fighter type character (specializing grappling or something) a Bear Warrior is not an option, because the character does not turn into a Bear.

The Personality has to stay the same as the OP wants it to. But that doesn't really come into play much, because 95% of mechanics are separate from the characters thoughts/beliefs/ect.

[Citizen Joe]

"Winning the game" doesn't mean ending it. Powergamers have powerful characters. How does that end the game. That means they can start with a powerful level 1, and slowly become more powerful until they reach level 20 (or epic.) Rolepayers on the other hand die at level 6, or complain because high levels are too powerful, and so instead end the game at level 12.

This posts contains exactly the same amount of misrepresentation as yours.

I'm not saying that they WILL win the game, I'm saying that powergamers play towards the goal of 'winning' the game.

Roleplayers play the game with the goal of playing the game.

The problem becomes this:
Powergamer optimizes and becomes very good at something... we'll say fighting...
Powergamer character wants to shine so he drags everyone into fights
Powergamer gets bored because he is beating the adversaries so easy and is not getting enough loot
GM relents and sends group on tougher challenges
Rest of party either has to power game to keep up or gets killed.

Now if it is the reverse situation, where the roleplayer is the odd man out, then they will usually either bow out and leave the party or take it as a roleplaying challenge and start an inn or act as the faceman for the party or something along those lines.

Powergaming causes escalation and an arms race. That may have more to do with a Power GM that insists on challenging the strongest party member and ignoring the fact that the rest of the team would get crushed without him.

Frankly, the group is better off if they bemoan how hard things are and how they are always broke, when they are actually in pretty good shape rather than brag about it and challenge the GM to test them. That even works in character. If a town hires you to stop goblins from attacking the town, bemoan how difficult it will be and how expensive supplies and healing will be to accomplish the task... That way you'll look all the more impressive when you get it done... and you can ask for more money. If you're all like "Pfft! Goblins... I wipe out an army in my sleep!" The town is just going to point you at them and say "Have at it!"

[Duke Malagigi]

What about those folks who create the powerful optimized build first and then try to patchwork the concept around the build they already have? Are they Munchkins or are they Powergamers?

They're called powergaming role-players. Dicefreaks has one of these. His screen name is Jaerom Darkwind as is his character. The basic concept was that Jaerom was a master of divine and arcane magic, psionics, stealth training, woodsman training and physical combat then built a very coherent back story around him. He later tacked on incarnum, maneuvers and a legacy weapon also successfully inserting them into Jaerom’s back story. The prestige class used was a heavily modified version of the chameleon titled red mage. Guess what he has an avatar of.

[AKA_Bait]

The Personality has to stay the same as the OP wants it to. But that doesn't really come into play much, because 95% of mechanics are separate from the characters thoughts/beliefs/ect.

That seems to be the case only if the character is only somewhat defined before you approach the mechanical aspect. Preferred kind of weapon, perhaps part of the backstory, or fighting style can have a huge effect on the available mechanics.

Just to be clear on that example, you are saying a powergamer would accept that their backstory means that they will use throwing daggers and a munckin would change the backstory and have them use a twohander?

They're called powergaming role-players.

Wait wait wait... where did the role-player bit come from? I was working off of Kaelik's powergamer/munchkin distinction. I should have thought it would have needed to be one or ther other but somehow the roleplayer bit snuck in...

Also, has that build ever seen play? Strikes me as the sort of thing that would ruin a game.

[Deepblue706]

One of you bastards better respond to my earlier post, that was a bitch to get right.

[Kaelik]

That seems to be the case only if the character is only somewhat defined before you approach the mechanical aspect. Preferred kind of weapon, perhaps part of the backstory, or fighting style can have a huge effect on the available mechanics.

Just to be clear on that example, you are saying a powergamer would accept that their backstory means that they will use throwing daggers and a munckin would change the backstory and have them use a twohander?

I'm saying that if a Powergamer had a character, that for whatever reason, used throw daggers he would build the best dagger thrower. He might dip the exact right number of levels in Fighter/Rogue/Master Thrower, he might find some crazy PrC (Whisper knife?) that works well with the concept. He'll build a good Thrower.

A Munchkin wouldn't build a thrower unless he thought it was more powerful then the alternative. (Ubercharger or whatever.) Or he'd build a Thrower (using some cheating) that managed to kill everything in one round, making everyone else feel useless.

[Citizen Joe]

One of you bastards better respond to my earlier post, that was a bitch to get right.

Your post came off as a wall of text, well beyond my attention span and thus ignored.

[Kaelik]

I'm not saying that they WILL win the game, I'm saying that powergamers play towards the goal of 'winning' the game.

No. Powergamers play toward the goal of having powerful characters. Which is fun in itself. They aren't trying to beat everything. They just want to have power.

Roleplayers play the game with the goal of playing the game.

So far based on your comments, your version of a "roleplayer" plays to avoid the game, you never want to enter combat (dice) you never want to make a diplomacy or bluff check (dice) and you never want to cast a spell (using evil mechanics to do something in the game). That's not playing the game, that's telling a story and playing a big game of "let's pretend," and if you are going to denigrate and avoid all the parts of the game that separate it from freeform, just play freeform. Then you can join an elitist freeform forum where they all talk about those losers that use mechanics because they don't have any imagination. And then we can have a productive discussion without you asserting that using all that material written in all those books is "not playing the game."

The problem becomes this:
Powergamer optimizes and becomes very good at something... we'll say fighting...
Powergamer character wants to shine so he drags everyone into fights
Powergamer gets bored because he is beating the adversaries so easy and is not getting enough loot
GM relents and sends group on tougher challenges
Rest of party either has to power game to keep up or gets killed.

The problems are twofold.
1)Powergamer optimizes.
Powergamer wants to do something.
Powergamer RPs a bit, then gets in a situation where fighting is needed (facilitated by the DM, because the DM plans for such encounters to occur.)
Powergamer beats adversaries easily. Powergamer levels up, Powergamer fights tougher adversaries (because a) that's how the game was designed, b) that's what the DM wants to progress the story, and c) in the process of beating on little things he attracted the attention of bigger things.)
Rest of the party has a grand old time. Either they enjoy the RP bits in between fights and then coast on the heels of more powerful players in combat, or they enjoy the combat and help out. Everyone is happy.

Note that it turns out very differently if you have a Munchkin, because they can't let other player have their turn.

2)Super Roleplayer (TM)* thinks he has a great imagination and is an awesome RPer (may be right, doesn't matter)
SRPer wants to focus everything on how well he pretends to be his character.
SRPer insists on going to random bars or "starting an inn" forcing every other player to give him his time to do whatever he wants while they sit around twiddling their thumbs (Because the Wizard who wants to go to the Arcane College isn't going to go to the bar or inn, unless he does it just to give SRPer his due.)
DM relents and spends a fourth of his time making one character happy and 3/4ths of his time making other people happy (divided evenly between the good RPers who want to do what their character would do (which is not sit in a bar all day) and the people who want to kill things, though these groups overlap.)

Notice how none of that happens if you have a good Roleplayer who recognizes that most people have better things to do then spend hours talking all day, and that some professional monster slayers just want to slay monsters, and that some Wizards want to test their magical prowess against the cruel world (or other Wizards.)

*This is my name for RPers who denigrate powergamers, and ruin things for everyone else by needing to be the focus of attention at all times.

Powergaming causes escalation and an arms race. That may have more to do with a Power GM that insists on challenging the strongest party member and ignoring the fact that the rest of the team would get crushed without him.

Maybe the Powergamer is just compensating for the mechanical inadequacies of the players who want to play "Let's Pretend" at an inn all day, so that the DM doesn't need to throw out all his encounter notes and tone everything down for the party of misfits.

Why not try RPing someone who is pathetic and weak, but hires a kickass body guard to do all his fighting for him?


Honestly, the biggest thing I see here is that we aren't playing the same game.

I'm Playing D&D, with Dungeons, Dragons, and a DM.

You are playing freeform, or a RP focused GURPS campaign with lots of talking, no combat, and a GM.

[Valairn]

To use a D&D example, I'll bet that the clerics of Pelor (experts on religion) and clerics of Nerull (experts on religion) have VERY different definitions of words. They are both "experts", but since their bias is one way or the other, their definitions are of course going to reflect that bias.

I concur. That's while you see while we are here on the Giant in the Playground Forums I was using the Giant in the Playground Forum's definition of "Powergaming".

Here,

From dictionary.com:
op·ti·mize
1. to make as effective, perfect, or useful as possible.

Now possible is the deal breaker here. Some people define possible as whatever is possible within the rules, which if you take that extreme pun pun can be your next new character. Some people define possible as whatever falls within their character concept. Both are fine definitions for possible.

And I'm not talking about powergaming, I'm talking about optimizing, there's a big difference.

[Deepblue706]

Your post came off as a wall of text, well beyond my attention span and thus ignored.

I'm actually not surprised - most people don't want to bother with so much nonsense, especially when the poster has low internet-based CHA.

[horseboy]

Roleplayer: "I finish paying my respects and being to wrap the body respectfully in order to return it to Lord Longname. Really, DM, couldn't you think of a better name than that?"

LOL! Lord Longname, I am so totally stealing this.

[Winterwind]

One of you bastards better respond to my earlier post, that was a bitch to get right.

Okay.

Roleplayer: Makes OOC decisions based on IC concept.

Powergamer: Makes OOC decisions and justifies them with IC actions (if at all*).

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.

*:The last tidbit found in "Powergamer" is not to poke a jab at all Powergamers, but rather note that justifications are secondary to the character itself, and are not inherently required. Still, "Powergamers" that make efforts to roleplay will attempt (success can vary) to justify decisions.

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.

What seperates both the "Roleplayer" and the "Powergamer" is the original intent. When you're building your character, is he a cunning rogue, filled with a dark past and a heavy heart, or is he a Rog3/Ftr1 who dual-wields daggers and then proceeds to be described in the same exact way as the previous example? The second example differs from the first because it first lays emphasis on mechanical build, then the character. If you're letting your character take the lead**, you probably won't be optimized. If you're deciding upon mechanics and then the character, you are a "Powergamer" in my eyes.

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.

**: When I say "letting your character take the lead", I mean you're allowing the IC experiences you have to hold some sway over your character's growth. This sway doesn't have to be much, but I very much admire things such as a "strange" class change that is more impactful to the players, rather than the overall mechanical status of the character. For example, a wizard-based Gish suddenly taking levels in Paladin because of his IC growth is something that very few people will do, because it loses arcane spellcasting levels, gains spellcasting in a stat that a gish may very well dump. The Paladin also makes use of Charisma, which a wizard-based gish could easily neglect as well. The motivation against this class change is primarily mechanical in nature to a "Powergamer", while a "Roleplayer's" primary concern would be whether or not becoming a Paladin merely makes sense for the character, IC-wise. I'm not saying that neither considers the other spectrum, but rather that there is a flow of thought that brings a person from A, to B, to C - and the order of thought determines your status on this Roleplayer/Powergamer axis.

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.

I do understand it is important to have a character that does a job well (and I make smart OOC decisions, if only upon whim) - but on the other hand, I do believe D&D is more of a social game rather than a mechanical exercise. Thusly, I find great amounts of emphasis on mechanics, to the neglect of the character and overall social experience of the game, to be shallow and inconsistent with the game's function - and therefore I discourage it. I believe many share these feelings, and only associate "Powergamers" (and not "Roleplayers") with great emphasis on mechanics because they are closer to The Line.

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.

Now, The Line would happen to be the that of those who are not to be named (who I will thusly call "Munchkins" ). However, many fail to recognize that getting close to The Line is absolutely meaningless - only crossing it is truly problematic.

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"?

[Tormsskull]

*snip*

I'd agree with pretty much everything in this last post. I could definitely roleplay a weak guy who hired a bodyguard, I could see that as being pretty fun. I could also roleplay the bodyguard to the weak guy as well, that could be fun as well.

Being what I consider a roleplayer, I think I'd be able to get into either role and bring it to life, making for a fun and interesting character for all of the players.

And I'm not talking about powergaming, I'm talking about optimizing, there's a big difference.

Interesting, would you mind expanding on that? Explain, in your mind, the difference between the two?

[Valairn]

Powergaming has always struck me as playing DnD for the sake of the mechanics. Where you build your characters with mechanics in mind first, it takes optimization and applies it across the board, turning up every aspect of a character up as many notches as it can, and then laying waste to countless foes, I admit powergaming can be fun from time to time.

Optimizing, well I always figured optimizing was more of an action you took that benefited your character mechanically. More like the wrench for the mechanic's engine. Optimizing, at least in my eyes has always been, sort of like tuning an engine, you already have a car, even if its a clunker, and you take some time to change the oil, change the radiator fluid, may take it on a drive and fix any sort of other problems you can find, before putting it out on the road, where engine failure can kill you.

I hope that analogy makes sense. Powergaming to me is an end. Optimization is more of a means, regardless of what goal you have.

Even the most hard-core roleplayers optimize on at least some level, just because optimizing is something you just sort of do in DnD, while powergaming requires a meaningful effort and forethought, optimization is just saying, my fighter would probably be best with a two handed weapon, so I'll go with that.

Shrug.

[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"...

[Cuddly]

Here's the powergamer, epitomized:

"I'd like to play X. Can you guys give me a hand making X work?"

"Ok. Play a wizard. Here's a link to the Batman guide. You're welcome."

[Emperor Demonking]

No it isn't.
Just look at the character ops on the wizard board.

[Tura]

I think it's wrong to make generalizations. (Yes, I know I'm stating the obvious , but I want to point something out.)

In some games, powerplaying doesn't hinder your roleplaying at all. Your intent may be "to build a powerful character", sure, but if (IF, I say, it doesn't always happen) you can combine it with good roleplaying which doesn't annoy your fellow-players and DM, who cares? Because that's where it all boils down to. Not to annoy anyone. Intentions are irrelevant.

But it some games, no matter how ingenious a player you are, you simply can't combine both. In some cases, sacrificing a bit of your mechanics' awesomeness is a prerequisite for a good story... And a good story, collectively created, is why some of us play in the first place.

[Tormsskull]

In some games, powerplaying doesn't hinder your roleplaying at all.

That all depends on the definition of the word. If by powerplaying you mean explictly and restrictvely "tries to obtain mechanical power" then you are right.

But, if powerplaying means the same thing as powergaming, which is generally associated with the attempt to gather mechanical power at the expense of story/fluff/RP, then I'd disagree.

The logical snob in me says that when a word means something, that's what it means. When you say "But it doesn't have to" or "Maybe it doesn't" all you are doing is confusing the term.

If, as I suspect, the word "Powergamer" started off a a derogatory term for a player that ignores story/fluff/RP in their attempt to accumulate mechanical power, then it should remain that way.

If you use another word, like "Powerplayer(ing)", which sounds incredibly similiar to Powergamer, you can't blame people for making the association between the two.

I did suggest to the Common terms/abbreviations thread the "Optimizing" be made into the neutral term for obtaining mechanical power within a concept, but I don't think anything has been done with that yet. If that were to happen, then I think a lot of this confusion could be easily cleared up.

When someone means to say that they are a person who enjoys accumulating mechanical power while being restricted by their concept/story/fluff/RP, they can call themselves an Optimizier and we'll all know what they mean here @ GITP.

And when someone calls themself a powergamer but they really mean they are an optimizer, we can point them to the abbreviations thread.

[Prophaniti]

*snip*

I think I pretty much completely agree with Deepblue's asessment here. Now, can anyone tell me a way to get my players to WANT to make more OOC decisions based on IC development? None of them are horrible at roleplaying, we just always seem to end up doing nothing but metagaming...

[Kaelik]

And when people refuse to allow you to dictate what a word means that you have no control over and instead point out every time this comes up that "Powergaming means [this] as per my definition, and the definition of a credible source of authority. And just because you write in the Common terms thread that a tail is a leg doesn't make it one."

What are you going to do then Tormskull?

[Emperor Demonking]

I did suggest to the Common terms/abbreviations thread the "Optimizing" be made into the neutral term for obtaining mechanical power within a concept, but I don't think anything has been done with that yet. If that were to happen, then I think a lot of this confusion could be easily cleared up.

When someone means to say that they are a person who enjoys accumulating mechanical power while being restricted by their concept/story/fluff/RP, they can call themselves an Optimizier and we'll all know what they mean here @ GITP.

And when someone calls themself a powergamer but they really mean they are an optimizer, we can point them to the abbreviations thread.

That seems like a good idea, but people should really use the definitions before they're put in.
Can we all agree to use terms for ease of debate. (i myself disagree with them.)

[Indon]

I think I pretty much completely agree with Deepblue's asessment here. Now, can anyone tell me a way to get my players to WANT to make more OOC decisions based on IC development? None of them are horrible at roleplaying, we just always seem to end up doing nothing but metagaming...

My group kind of half-and-halfs it, in my view. Sometimes, we say, "Oh, crap, this fight's going to kill us, we should probably run," and sometimes we say, "Well. This fight is probably going to kill us. Time to die gloriously, as our characters would!"

It seems to me that the difference is mental image; not just description, but also the very event. The players in my group play to game, and we play to tell a story, in a sense... but it's not so much the whole story we're looking for, as the opportunity to make really cool anecdotes about the story.

So, OOC, we might all agree on a TPK if our deaths were, well, cool enough. And if you can get a party to agree on a TPK, you can probably get it to agree on any number of other things for that sake.

Your mileage may vary.

[Jayabalard]

First and this is the most important point.

Every programmer who programs cannot program successfully without knowing how to program or have the ability to learn how to program. In here lies the heart of optimization.

Your argument in fact proves my point. None of these people followed the "traditional" methods for being a programmer. That in no way signifies that they are not optimized for the job.

Nope, none of the people I talked about were optimized for programming; they could have been better programmers given their situation.

I think you don't actually understand what optimization is. If you are playing a fighter and you are in combat, and you choose to draw your weapon, from that moment on you are playing an "optimized" fighter. You have chosen a fighters strength and are using it. That is optimization. You could stand in the back with the wizard and do whatever he does, it won't work, but nothing is stopping you from doing it. That would be unoptimized.

Likewise, I suggest that you learn what the term means. Since the context in the situation is roleplaying games, and specifically powergaming vs roleplay, you might want to use a more relevant definition of the word "optimization" ...

[Indon]

You know, it seems odd to refer to optimization in degrees. Optimization seems to be a binary attribute; you're either optimal for any given task, or you are not.

You can optimize for smaller or bigger tasks - you could optimize a Monk for grappling Halflings, for instance, vs. Batmanning a Wizard. Both are optimized characters - that Monk grapples the hell out of halflings. Of course, there's a bit of a power difference between the two optimized concepts.

But power-gaming seems to me to be more than optimization. It seems to be the desire for character power regardless of character concept.