Why can't you powergame and roleplay?

[Winterwind]

Please don't take this the wrong way - I don't mean to slander your favourite RPG - but this got me curious.

In the roleplaying games I play, it actually would not even matter whether a person tried to powergame or not. Sure, they might be slightly more powerful than the people who gave the one somewhat magical item they found within six sessions to charity (yes, my players do that), and they would certainly outfight a similarly experienced character who did not dump all their experience points into combat-relevant skills and attributes, but so what? Then they might lose a bit less hit points in a fight against some opponent than their fellow adventurers and maybe take on three of them in succession, instead of merely two, but that does neither diminuish the impact on the story the other characters can have, nor does it give them a distinct advantage, because obviously the other characters used their experience points for something else, which will become useful sooner or later as well. And that magic item... meh, the GM controls what items the group obtains anyway, they certainly won't break the game, especially not in a world where magic items are rare and carefully designed.

Basically, everyone is free to try and create a character as close to his concept as (s)he wishes, for they will be able to meaningfully contribute, no matter what. I'm not even sure how to define powergaming in our games, for any skill point, no matter in which skill, may become useful at some point - somebody could optimise for a specific role, but no more, and that's perfectly fine - not every character is required to be able to defeat opponents, if the game is not centred around combat.

So basically, what I wanted to ask is... is the disparity in power between a powergamer's character and a non-powergamer's character in D&D really so big? People write here how non-optimising roleplayers could ruin the powergamers' fun by creating characters which are unable to contribute; to me, that's an unimaginable situation, for no system I know would allow for such a great power disparity, unless maybe somebody actively tried to un-optimise their character to an utterly ridiculous degree,.

[Emperor Demonking]

Yeah,, at high level a powergamed wizard will slaughter a normal fighter and kill a normal wizard.

For non-spell casters unless you use the big or really weak guns I don't think thiers that much.

[Jayabalard]

Citizen Joe: Am I right in thinking that uou believe a roleplayer can't roleplay a violent or knowledgable character.

I'm not sure how you got that; I thought he was pretty clear: a roleplayer doesn't need to roll dice to roleplay. Making a bluff or diplomacy check has nothing to do with roleplay.

[Emperor Demonking]

I'm not sure how you got that; I thought he was pretty clear: a roleplayer doesn't need to roll dice to roleplay. Making a bluff or diplomacy check has nothing to do with roleplay.

If a roleplayer rolls dice he's failed. Those two concepts need to roll dice.

[Tormsskull]

This may or may not be a bright line in practice. What counts as 'sacrificing a characters integrity' can vary. Let's say I built a Paladin who carried his ancestors +2 sword finds a Holy Avenger. He could still choose to keep the old sword and wield the new because he knows it will help him preserve his family legacy and destroy evil. Of course, if a CN rogue found a Holy Avenger and decided to take a Paladin level and start acting LG all the time just for the bonus that would be different.

This is the reason I didn't give a specific example; each example has way too many implications contained within them. Everyone tries to read between the lines or infer additional information not given in the example so as to prove their point.

Going by only what you have said for the Paladin, I wouldn't say there is anything wrong with opting to use the Holy Avenger. If you change the example slightly, by adding that the Paladin vowed on his father's deathbed to slay his father's murderer with the ancestreal sword for example, then perhaps there would be a problem with the Paladin opting to use the Holy Avenger.

As far as the CN rogue, again, going by only what you have given, I would say that is a pretty good example of a powergamer choosing mechanical power over the integrity of their character.

Also, remember, because it can happen multiple times, a player may with one choice opt for mechanics and with a later one opt for RP or vice versa.

But what is more important is WHY the player is making the choices. A powergamer may make a modicum of effort towards RPing in an attempt to appease his DM or group, but his true intentions are on accumulating more mechanical power.

If a powergamer LG character comes upon an option to do some horribly evil act that will reward him with +1 Knowledge [The Planes] checks, he will most likely loudly proclaim that his character would never dream of doing such a thing. In effect, he is weighing the mechanical advantage of +1 Knowledge [The Planes] against the arguments that he will have to endure at the hands of his DM & fellow players.

However, change that +1 Knowledge [The Planes] to Maximized Fireball spell-like ability 3/day, and not only will the LG powergamer character go for it, he'll try to convince the DM and the other players that the horribly evil act isn't really evil. And what is evil anyway? It isn't explictly spelled out in the rule books is it? Etc, etc.

I would still consider such a player a powergamer. On the other hand, a player that aquires mechanical power without sacrificing his character's integrity is a roleplayer.

It really is just a mindset, and it is incredibly simple when you view it from an objective stance. Individual instances of possibly sacrificing a character's integrity for mechanical power are open to interpretation.

As a DM it is incredibly simple to figure it out. When a player makes a decision for his character that I think is infringing on his character's integrity, I ask the player why the character is making the choice. If they explain it in a way that makes sense, they are all set. If they start pointing out the mechanical advantages and minimizing their character's background/personality/etc, then they are probably powergaming.

So basically, what I wanted to ask is... is the disparity in power between a powergamer's character and a non-powergamer's character in D&D really so big? People write here how non-optimising roleplayers could ruin the powergamers' fun by creating characters which are unable to contribute; to me, that's an unimaginable situation, for no system I know would allow for such a great power disparity, unless maybe somebody actively tried to un-optimise their character to an utterly ridiculous degree,.

Well, yes, the power disparity between an optimized character and an unoptimized character can be HUGE. But for me personally, that is not even the real issue. I can deal with power disparities as the DM, and I can still make the game fun and entertaining for the players.

For me, the entire purpose of the game is to RP, that is why I play D&D. If I wasn't interested in RPing, then there are several other games out there that do fantasy combat simulation better than D&D.

In this effort I always make sure that my players are aware of my high-expectations for RP, and then when they are aware of that and still sign on to play, I make rulings to maintain that high level of RP.

[Roog]

For example, in a 1st level Forgotten Realms setting, the dwarf fighter guy and the elf wizard guy will optimize their mechanics and roleplay their mutual mistrust, right? No prob. But when you play race Random/template Whatever/ classX 5/classY 2/PrC A 2/PrC B 1/ PrC 10 C... do you really know your place in the world? Do the other players know it? More importantly, does the DM have any clue about it?

Why should the names of a PC's classes be important to their place in the world?

If the players have strong concepts of who the characters and their personalities, then they they can answer those questions without metagame infomation (class/template/etc).

Do you need to know the class (and prestige class) of characters in a book or movie to know who they are?

[Tura]

For character generation, it depends on how stats are generated. A 32-point buy (or a decent roll) allows for a nice balance, but the history of AD&D is filled with dump fighters... And not because the player WANTS to play a dump character, or has a clue how to do that, or thinks it will make the game interesting, but because he wants to own in combat, aarrrg.

And when you play IC, it's a matter of choices, really. Seeing everything as walking XPs, doing something which conflicts with your moral code or your cultural perceptions just to gain an advantage in combat... those are things a roleplayer would never do, but a powergamer would be very tempted to do, and then try his best to justify. (Or, alternatively, wouldn't do and expect XP to award his roleplaying. )

In my opinion, a good player simply knows where to draw the line and say "well, it would be to my benefit mechanically, but my character would NEVER do that."
[Conversely, the history of AD&D is also filled with passionate roleplayers who cause a TPK every other session or stop the flow of the plot and generally ruin everyone's fun because "that's what my character would do, OK?"]

[Emperor Demonking]

Out of curiosity what would you rather play with.

A game hogging roleplayer with a weak character but can do combat or a combat hogging powergamer with a strong character you does roleplaying.

I'd choose the latter every time.

If you think that's an unfair choice make another one.

[Citizen Joe]

A game hogging roleplayer with a weak character but can do combat or a combat hogging powergamer with a strong character you does roleplaying.

That isn't a roleplayer... that is a drama queen. Ideally, the roleplayer will draw everyone in.

[VeisuItaTyhjyys]

But PCs don't need to be adventurers either, at least not in the sense that they are people who actively seek out a life where "every day is like an action movie", merely in the sense that they are people to whom adventures happen. They may just as well be just some warriors or wizards who, while having a few specific goals in their life, do not actually desire a life in danger, but find themselves confronted with a task which is too important for them to decline, even if it is going to be dangerous. Accepting the task nevertheless is what makes them heroes; that doesn't mean they meant for their life to turn out as a long and dangerous series of adventures and challenges, and they would rather sooner than later return to whatever it is they lived before.

Still, they'd want to be sure they succeeded at that very important task, wouldn'tthey?

They do not spend their entire time training. They are not the most intelligent or strong people around; they are just the people who were in the right place at the right time. Just because that would make him stronger does not mean a wizard is going to change his personality and habits and suddenly become paranoid, and he may not even expect to be involved into yet more dangers; that's metagaming, using the OOC knowledge that this character is a PC and hence bound to get involved into yet more adventures, while the character himself would actually expect to be finally able to return to his calm and secure scholar life.

PTSD? Besides, wouldn't he try and optimize himself during that one adventure. Now, he can't change how his stats happened at first level, but he can choose what spells he learns and how he acts during that adventure. If he wants to survive, which I would imagine he doesn, he's going to be cautious and defensive. A barbarian or paladin, not so much so, but you can't really optimize them very well.

Also, not everyone plays in such a grisly and horrible world where you can get a fireball into your face at each corner. A character who lives for a life of adventure and actively tries to prepare himself for it as much as possible is a perfectly valid personality choice to be roleplayed, but to say that better roleplayers limit themselves to this particular personality is like saying that better roleplayers always play vengeful characters, instead of forgiving ones - it's just one character trait, you may make it a part of a character's personality or not, both can lead to a believable character (that part was directed rather to CactusAir, not you).

Oh, I agree. I'm not saying it's the only way to go (or, for some classes, even a good way to go), but it is a valid way to play. I think it makes the most sense for wizards, as they've got a bit of a reputation for being power-mad, as it is, and being frail little dudes who can't even wear padded armour in a sea of danger should waken your latent paranoia. Crossbows are less scary to tough guys in full plate than they are to a wizard who isn't prepared for them, which is why I think most wizards would want to be prepared for them.

Or a fighter who used a lighter sword. Or you'll be picking weaker things to go after.

By picking the lighter sword, you're optimizing the best you can with the scores you have.

"Higher than 10" is not optimized. fighters with a strength like that would include quite a bit of unoptimized characters.

I said "or such is the idea." MCMAP is supposed to be the ideal hand-to-hand combat training, but it's honestly pretty useless.

people in the army become BETTER, not optimized.

I think we're using different definitions of optimized, here. I'm using it as making the best you can make with what you have, which, I think, is what most people in the real world do, as well. Most rock stars do have a lot of charisma. Most Doctors and Lawyers are usually intelligent (as a Law student, I also frequently take advantage of BovD cheese).

It might be like that, or it might be much more like being a cop, depending on your game. This is part of what I mean by " a narrow set of roles" ... non powergamers can play roles that cannot fit in the sort of game that you're talking about, characters that are definitely non-optimal.

Powergamers can play roles in worlds where characters don't have to be prepared constantly, I was just giving an example of a situation in which it actually makes more sense, at least with some classes, to powergame. A wizard who's obsessed with efficiency, Cheaper by the Dozen-style, would probably go for a greater teleport SLA, to get where he's going faster. A rogue who always wanted to be a wizard, but never had the money to go to arcane schools would abuse the hell out of Use Magic Device to make himself as much like a wizard as possible.

[Tura]

Why should the names of a PC's classes be important to their place in the world?

If the players have strong concepts of who the characters and their personalities, then they they can answer those questions without metagame infomation (class/template/etc).

Do you need to know the class (and prestige class) of characters in a book or movie to know who they are?

Perhaps I didn't make that clear. I'll try again.
When I say "their place in the world" I don't mean who they are (you're right when you say that this is not a class combo - it's a concept), I mean how the others perceive them. What's their social status, or better yet, how their social status as Race X, Born in a mansion or hamlet in town Y is altered by their advancement as Class Z.

We all know how core races and classes are regarded, and can work out any combination of the above. We can even imagine ten rogues of same level, race and stats, who make each a completely different concept [role in the party, backstory, "place in the world"]. And the tools we have to imagine all that is the fluff, even if it's just a patent-free, generic fantasy setting. Give the DM any background you like for your character, he'll know what to do with it.

But when you have a Druid 3/Wizard 3/Mystic Theurge 2/Arcane Heirophant 10/Ghoul 1/Swarmshifter 1 (LA), HOW did that happen exactly? Even with a background story that somehow makes sense, the DM still needs to think through at least NPC reactions. [Disclaimer: I have in mind games I like, and games I like invest a lot on the setting as a whole, and not just a series of unrelated encounters. Other games, heck, most games, tend to more or less ignore that factor.]

[Frosty]

In DnD, everyone, including roleplayers, need to roll dice. Otherwise, it's called free-form.

A fantastic roleplayer should not and would not be able to talk a a jailor into giving up the keys to the cells if the roleplayer's character is a CHA 6 and INT 9 Fighter with no points in social skills. The math *limits* what your characters can do, so you still need to roll the dice to see how far your roleplaying will carry you.

Granted, someone playing a big, dumb, ugly fighter may not attempt that conversation, which is fine. But then he may have to resort to violence, which is again, rolling with dice.

DnD involves navigating a world using a pre-determined rule-set. You gotta follow the rules or you're not playing DnD.

[AKA_Bait]

Why should the names of a PC's classes be important to their place in the world?

Well, the reason is that some classes carry social connotations with them that are built into the mechanics and the fluff. A Paladin is more than just a set of class abilities to be RPed under since there are RP requiements to keep the benifits of the class. Clerics are similar in that the particular gods they worship have a social meaning. A cleric of Pelor is going to be greeted very differently than a cleric of Hextor in a LG community.

I'm not sure how you got that; I thought he was pretty clear: a roleplayer doesn't need to roll dice to roleplay. Making a bluff or diplomacy check has nothing to do with roleplay.

Thing is though, influencing an NPC attitude requires those checks and the things said only count towards applying modifiers to them. If a character wants to talk their way out of a situation they would not normally be able to 99% of the time, by RAW, they are making those checks. Many DM's, including myself, don't rabidly enforce this and houserule/handwave it away but if playing D&D by the book on those even the Roleplayer will be rolling dice.

In DnD, everyone, including roleplayers, need to roll dice. Otherwise, it's called free-form.

*snip*

DnD involves navigating a world using a pre-determined rule-set. You gotta follow the rules or you're not playing DnD.

Or at least not following RAW.

I think we're using different definitions of optimized, here. I'm using it as making the best you can make with what you have, which, I think, is what most people in the real world do, as well. Most rock stars do have a lot of charisma. Most Doctors and Lawyers are usually intelligent (as a Law student, I also frequently take advantage of BovD cheese).

Thing is, most Rockstars do have lots of charisma. How many are just going to shows, practicing, and recording all the time? I can think of almost none that do so after they have 'made it', or crossed that 'good enough' threshold. How many of your fellow law students do Law Review, Mock Trial and Intern at the same time? It's possible if they didn't take time for anything else (considering law school this could include sleep). I know lots of lawyers that loathe taking CLE classes, even though it makes them more knowledgeable and better lawyers because they figure they already know enough to do what they have to do at a high level. Could these groups be better at their chosen professions if they spent all their time focusing on it? Probably. Do most of them do so? No, because they have other interests and priorities above becoming 'the best they can be' at their profession when 'good enough' will suffice to bring home the bacon/record deal.

[Valairn]

Nope; I know programmers who don't have high school diplomas let alone collage degrees. I know people who had a high school diploma and a hobby interest in computers late in their adult life (no additional training) who wound up as programmers. I know people who graduated with a business degree who turned around and got a job programming, with no background in computers other than the training that the job is going to give them. Heck, I spend most of my time on things that are not related to programming. While I'm good at what I do, I'm far from optimized. Plenty of programmers are not optimized.

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.

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.

Optimization comes in tiers. There is low level optimization, fighters use melee, wizards cast spells, and rogues are sneaky. Medium level optimization, fighter uses power attack with a two hander, rogue uses feint to sneak attack more often, wizard casts save or suck/lose rather than generic damage spells. And high level optimization, Power attack, shock trooper, TOB maneuvers, + insert ridiculous combo here. Rogues multi-classing all over the place to get dirt tons of sneak attack damage. Wizards casting celerity + timestop etc....

You cannot actually play DnD without optimizing. At some point you will make a decision that "betters" your character in their primary role. And thus you have optimized. I used a key word, in my original post, slightly.

I'm talking a totally different ball game than you.

[Riffington]

Why should the names of a PC's classes be important to their place in the world?

If the players have strong concepts of who the characters and their personalities, then they they can answer those questions without metagame infomation (class/template/etc).

Do you need to know the class (and prestige class) of characters in a book or movie to know who they are?

That's actually the entire point of classes: to pigeonhole characters into predefined roles. If you are going to tweak those roles a bit, it still works. But once you start saying "I need a level of Barbarian so my character can run faster"... why play a game with classes and levels at all? Why not play one where you assign more points to Running to improve your speed?

[Tormsskull]

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.

I would argue that you are completely unfamiliar with what the typical understanding of "optimization" means on a gaming forum. When a fighter draws a weapon and fights with it, that is no where close to the common definition of optimization.

When you reinvent the words, they can mean whatever you want them to be. However, if you're going to do that, and especially if you're going to call someone else out for misunderstanding your little-used definition of the word, you should spell out in clear terms exactly what you mean by the world in your initial post.

[AKA_Bait]

You cannot actually play DnD without optimizing. At some point you will make a decision that "betters" your character in their primary role. And thus you have optimized. I used a key word, in my original post, slightly.

So is there a difference for you bettween an 'optimized' character and an 'effective' character or are they the same thing?

I think most people when the term 'optimized' is tossed out tend to think about that upper tier of optimization you identified. When folks on these boards refer to a build, or part of it, as suboptimal, they aren't saying it's as bad as the fighter standing at the back, making noises and wacky hand gestures. They mean that it is not 'the best' or 'most powerful' it can be.

[Kaelik]

Of course terms are debateable, but it is important to work off of one standard definition in order to communicate clearly. If we are both using the word "Hot", but I am referring to attractiveness of a person where as you are using it to refer to temperature, then our communication is hampered.

Of course it is important to be talking about the same thing. However, you are the only person who actually thinks in terms of that being the definition. It has become very clear to me over the course of my visiting this forum that the vast majority of people see powergaming as building the strongest character that for your concept.

That definition was put up a long time ago, and the meanings of things change. Perhaps when 90% of the forum operates under a different definition of powergame it's time for it to change.

In addition, if we actually used that definition, all roleplaing vs powergaming threads are pointless. Because either:
1) Everyone who makes powerful characters that fit their concept is roleplaying, and by extension 90% of people are "roleplayers" even if they spend all their time making their character ass powerful as possible, as long as they don't violate the concept. Or
2) There is a huge gap between "roleplayer" and "powergamer" where most people fall, this is the area where people (unlike Jaybalad) don't brag about playing weak characters because they avoid doing so, but enjoy playing certain concepts and playing the characters well.

Your definition makes Pun-Pun the only acceptable choice for powergamers to play. That's an incredibly narrow subset.

That isn't a roleplayer... that is a drama queen. Ideally, the roleplayer will draw everyone in.

And there we go. Like all people of the ROLEPLAYING>POWERGAMING!!111 crowd you redefine everything bad about roleplaying as not be a part of it. Roleplaying refers to the good applications of a certain type of playing, but bad applications need a different name so that roleplaying never gets sullied.

Well guess what, we do the same thing. Making powerful characters within the concept and not making the other players feel bad is called powergaming. Making other players useless or optimizing outside the concept is called Munchkinism.

In my mind:

Optimization is an action.
Powergaming is doing that in way that doesn't take away others fun and staying inside the concept.
Munchkinism is going outside the concept or ruining it for others.
Roleplaying is an action.
Good roleplayers do it in ways that don't hurt the other players enjoyment.
Bad RPs hurt others or RP horribly or don't RP the concept right.

This means RPing characters that when played in concept will still hurt the others is bad RPing. If the DM says, "I'm making a one-shot dungeon that is incredibly hard. Make your characters accordingly." And the RPer brings an incredibly weak character, well then the TPK is his fault and he ruined it for everyone else, just like the Batman Wizard who takes on BBEG alone while everyone else is arguing about tactics.

[AKA_Bait]

Well guess what, we do the same thing. Making powerful characters within the concept and not making the other players feel bad is called powergaming. Making other players useless or optimizing outside the concept is called Munchkinism.

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?

[Citizen Joe]

Here's the primary problem I see...

Powergamers seem to be under the assumption that 'winning' in an RPG is a good thing. It isn't. It means the end of the game.

Maybe it could be defined as:
Roleplayers want to play the game
Powergamers want to win the game
Munchkins want to win the game and play it too

[Valairn]

I would argue that you are completely unfamiliar with what the typical understanding of "optimization" means on a gaming forum. When a fighter draws a weapon and fights with it, that is no where close to the common definition of optimization.

When you reinvent the words, they can mean whatever you want them to be. However, if you're going to do that, and especially if you're going to call someone else out for misunderstanding your little-used definition of the word, you should spell out in clear terms exactly what you mean by the world in your initial post.

Actually I'm using the definition of the word as provided by the Wizards Character Optimization FAQ. I would give you a direct link, but I can't access it here at work, I'll edit my post later. After all, if there is any de-facto standard to what optimization is, I think it lies there.

Optimization has its bad sides and its good sides. But that wasn't my particular concern at all. Role-playing is a GOOD thing.

But lets get one thing straight here, role-playing is just a different form of optimization, you are strengthening a characters personality, by giving it verisimilitude with its mechanics. That's wonderful, and all the power to you. I'm not saying playing sub-optimal characters are wrong, I'm saying that even a "sup-optimal" character is still optimized at least in some regard.

My problem lies in this sort of attitude, "I play unoptimized characters, because I'm a great role-player." Your ability to role-play is not a result of the level of optimization in your character. At times they are related, but correlation does not equal causation.

[Tormsskull]

Of course it is important to be talking about the same thing. However, you are the only person who actually thinks in terms of that being the definition. It has become very clear to me over the course of my visiting this forum that the vast majority of people see powergaming as building the strongest character that for your concept.

Clear to you perhaps, but I don't see any evidence that what you believe happens to be the majority belief. In fact, I'm not really sure why no many people are caught up on the term. It is quite obvious to me that the initial purpose of the word "powergaming" was to refer to problem players who put the mechanics over the story.

You seem to agree with me when you say that the meaning of the word has changed. But, it begs the question why someone would identify themself as a powergamer and then try to change the definition of the word.

That definition was put up a long time ago, and the meanings of things change. Perhaps when 90% of the forum operates under a different definition of powergame it's time for it to change.

Agreed. Maybe that means your numbers are just pulled out of thin air?

In addition, if we actually used that definition, all roleplaing vs powergaming threads are pointless. Because either:

Well, they are pointless in the effect that none of us are going to change each other's minds, but yet we still keep trying.

Your definition makes Pun-Pun the only acceptable choice for powergamers to play. That's an incredibly narrow subset.

I'd disagree. Powergamers want to play the game, they just want to have the most mechanical power as possible. If they achieved Pun-Pun, the game would effectively end, as no DM would continue running a game with Pun-Pun I am sure.

Actually I'm using the definition of the word as provided by the Wizards Character Optimization FAQ.

I'm not sure what exactly that is, but I'm going to take a guess. In the small niche of the forums that is specifically dedicated to packing the most power into a character, there is a FAQ that defines optimization? I think you can see how that is quite a bit biased.

Often times in those type of forums someone will say something like "I'm in a ECL 8 game and I'm going to be playing the tank. Give me a powerful build." The posters will then scour all books that are allowed per the question-poser and pick classes/skills/feats that synnergize with one another and allow of a good amount of power. Someone may pose a build and then another poster may "beat" that build by packing more power into it by taking a different class or feat or something else that allows them to qualify for something else faster/easier/what have you.

The focus is on making the most powerful character within the restrictions given. That's pure and simple powergaming.

[Kaelik]

Here's the primary problem I see...

Powergamers seem to be under the assumption that 'winning' in an RPG is a good thing. It isn't. It means the end of the game.

Maybe it could be defined as:
Roleplayers want to play the game
Powergamers want to win the game
Munchkins want to win the game and play it too

"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.

[Valairn]

I'm not sure what exactly that is, but I'm going to take a guess. In the small niche of the forums that is specifically dedicated to packing the most power into a character, there is a FAQ that defines optimization? I think you can see how that is quite a bit biased.

Actually you will find that the Char Op boards are full of some of the most creative and dedicated fans of DnD. They have their fun with mechanics, creating pun pun and the like, but they also understand limits. There are builds there ranging from literally "sup-optimal" all the way to OMGIPWNEDTHENOOBWITHMY6BILLIONDAMAGE builds. If you work with the people on the boards you can actually get really solid builds that are not power-gaming in the slightest.

I figure if you are gonna talk about something though, you should probably use the definitions the "experts" are using. And these guys are in fact experts, in every sense of the term. And in this regard I am using the correct approach to reasonable arguments. I'm going to the experts to see there take on the subject, before I go and make my own personal arguments. I would expect the same from others. If we want REAL answers, you have to start somewhere, generally that lies within the definitions of words.

I'm using a definition that's readily available to anyone, on a forum that is dedicated to the topic of discussion at hand, and is the forum supported by the actual owners of the product. I'm pretty sure that's as foundational as you can get in this situation.

[AKA_Bait]

@Valairn

The trouble with the definition of optmization you are using is that anything that even remotley does it's job can be referred to as 'optimized'. It maybe vogue over at Char Op, I dunno, but it begs for confusion on that regard.

I'm still curious about the Powergamer/Munchkin distinction. Most folks I know who call themselves 'powergamers' create the build first and the concept second. How can the build violate the concept if the concept was only made to fit the build? Wouldn't any powerlevel then count as powergamed rather than munchkin? Or if building it in that order, does it make everyone who goes build first a munchkin?

[Tormsskull]

Actually you will find that the Char Op boards are full of some of the most creative and dedicated fans of DnD. They have their fun with mechanics, creating pun pun and the like, but they also understand limits. There are builds there ranging from literally "sup-optimal" all the way to OMGIPWNEDTHENOOBWITHMY6BILLIONDAMAGE builds. If you work with the people on the boards you can actually get really solid builds that are not power-gaming in the slightest.

Woah, don't make this out to be me attacking people on the Char Ops boards. Once again, if you choose to powergame, that's your choice and if you have fun why shouldn't you?

Some people like powergaming, some people hate powergaming. If you like powergaming, and congregate with others who like powergaming, and then among all of you, you come up with a definition for powergaming, I'm sure its not going to generally make powergaming out to be a positive or at least neutral thing.

Same is true for the opposite. If you hate powergaming and congregate with others who hate powergaming and then come up with a definition of powergaming it is probably going to be a negative thing.

I would consider GITP to be pretty neutral on that aspect (Char Ops being the pro-powergaming type people and something like True Roleplayers being the pro-roleplaying type people).

I figure if you are gonna talk about something though, you should probably use the definitions the "experts" are using. And these guys are in fact experts, in every sense of the term. And in this regard I am using the correct approach to reasonable arguments. I'm going to the experts to see there take on the subject, before I go and make my own personal arguments. I would expect the same from others.

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.

If we want REAL answers, you have to start somewhere, generally that lies within the definitions of words.

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".

I'm using a definition that's readily available to anyone, on a forum that is dedicated to the topic of discussion at hand, and is the forum supported by the actual owners of the product. I'm pretty sure that's as foundational as you can get in this situation.

Actually, its not readily available to me because it is blocked by the filters . Also, remember that just because the Char Ops board have their definitions, they don't represent the views of Wizards of the Coast, only some of its members that congregate there.

If Wizards of the Coast came out and defined a word, then I would agree that their definition would take precedence when discussing their game.

[bluish_wolf]

Nah, munchkins don't even bother coming up with a concept. Before or after.

[Kaelik]

Often times in those type of forums someone will say something like "I'm in a ECL 8 game and I'm going to be playing the tank. Give me a powerful build." The posters will then scour all books that are allowed per the question-poser and pick classes/skills/feats that synnergize with one another and allow of a good amount of power. Someone may pose a build and then another poster may "beat" that build by packing more power into it by taking a different class or feat or something else that allows them to qualify for something else faster/easier/what have you.

The focus is on making the most powerful character within the restrictions given. That's pure and simple powergaming.

You should spend more time there before you critisize. Most threads I've seen go something like this:

OP:Help me make a Dwarf who uses X tactic to do Y.
POST1:Random build with obscure Dwarf subrace and feats to do something similar to X.
POST2:POST1 is a loser, [more powerful build that uses a more stereotypically Dwarven subrace and actually uses X.] My build is better because it's stronger and fits the concept better. I am better then you in every way.
Rest of Thread: Argument between 1 and 2, occasional suggestions by others that completely violate the concept or are weaker then 1 and 2.

[valadil]

Looks like I missed the roleplaying vs metagaming portion of the thread, but I'd like to throw this out there. A good roleplayer will at times metagame in order to make the game run better.

I've seen a lot of players take on a loner character. When played accurately, that character is self motivated and doesn't necessarily go along with the party. Sometimes they hold up the game. Sometimes they split off and form their own separate party forcing the GM to run a split screen game. Sometimes they go along with the group periodically announcing that this goes against what their character believes in. A good roleplayer will find an in character reason to go along with the group in this scenario. This kind of metagaming is done simply to make the game run more smoothly, and is more than welcome in all the groups I actively game with.

[Tormsskull]

You should spend more time there before you critisize. Most threads I've seen go something like this:

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