Innefective Power Gamers

[Beelzebub1111]

It's almost cute...the way they think they have a distinct understanding of the rules, then you constantly prove them wrong at every turn when they think they're doing something clever.

One player decided he wanted to play a Psichic warrior, and I let him. He was OVERJOYED because his previous DMs thought they were overpowered. He even MULTICLASSED into PSION. now, while he got more powerpoints and access to more powers. I reminded him that he still couldn't spend more powerpoints then his CLASS level on a single power. I have to remind him that Mind Thrust is indeed a Psion and not a psychic warrior power. And even if it were, since he took it as a Psion, he can only spend 1 power point on it anyways. He also thought, that for some reason, that you get 4x on your skill points when you take the first CLASS level not the first CHARACTER level. Somehow he still thinks he's overpoewered. Though, I think he drew the line when he tried to pull a fast one on me when he bought items without telling me, with a missunderstanding on how psionic tattoos worked.

Any similar stories?

[Kurald Galain]

It's almost cute...the way they think they have a distinct understanding of the rules, then you constantly prove them wrong at every turn when they think they're doing something clever.

Any similar stories?

You'd be amazed at how often such people come up on these boards...

[Freshmeat]

I've encountered people who tried to power-game without actually knowing the rules properly. All of them eventually quit, after I pointed out for the umpteenth time that a particular build, skill or feat didn't work the way they thought it did and they thus weren't quite as awesome as some of the other characters who went with more classic, "cookie cutter" (if you will) builds. The annoying part is when they start claiming it's the DM's fault they're not the most powerful character in the party, or believe their Xtreme Power Build Plus Pro is being arbitrarily nerfed, supposedly because it would be overpowered otherwise.

[valadil]

The worst offenders IMO are the ones who only consider a single level or two and ignore how their build will scale.

[FinalJustice]

I know a guy. Once he played a rogue with a highly convoluted and feat heavy way of getting an almost sure sneak attack a round. One. Sneak. Attack. And he couldn't be bothered with taking out the artillery (Erinyies), instead poking the heavy hitters. ¬¬

On another rendition, one I wasn't playing, he built a VoP Saint Cleric/SomethingelseIdon'tremember that made an impression on everybody. Well, on paper. He actually memorized Cure spells and a whole lotta of Calm Emotions, and not a single Death Ward. In freakin' Ravenloft. Suffice to say it was a TPK.

[Arakune]

One player decided he wanted to play a Psichic warrior, and I let him. He was OVERJOYED because his previous DMs thought they were overpowered. He even MULTICLASSED into PSION.


Not a very smart move, but it's his call I guess. Maybe he wanted the tasty tasty bonus psionic feats? Who knows?



now, while he got more powerpoints and access to more powers. I reminded him that he still couldn't spend more powerpoints then his CLASS level on a single power.

Almost. It's actually that class ML, and with Pratical Manifester, Bead of Karma, Ion Stones and what have you, you can get a higher ML than you Psionic Class level. But each psionic class have it's own ML.



He also thought, that for some reason, that you get 4x on your skill points when you take the first CLASS level not the first CHARACTER level.

What? Fail here.



Somehow he still thinks he's overpoewered.

Depends on power selection and challenge. But a self inflicted mad kind of work against him...

[dsmiles]

I find power gamers as a whole to be rather hilarious. I just don't understand the mentality that produces these gamers. It's a roleplaying game...you can't win DnD.

[RagnaroksChosen]

I'll be honest i like to have powerfull characters in non powerfull games... the reason being is becuse during my early years of playing i used to hate being in a group and being the only one with a "fluff" character that didn't realy aid much in combat.

[Kobold-Bard]

I thought you meant people like me. I'll play a full Wizard/Incantatrix etc, pick all the right spells, then still suck worse than the party Rogue with pimped UMD.

I just suck at power-gaming no matter how hard I try.

[Bayar]

I find power gamers as a whole to be rather hilarious. I just don't understand the mentality that produces these gamers. It's a roleplaying game...you can't win DnD.

But you sure as hell can lose it.

[Tengu_temp]

I find power gamers as a whole to be rather hilarious. I just don't understand the mentality that produces these gamers. It's a roleplaying game...you can't win DnD.

A real powergamer doesn't want to win DND, or whatever RPG he plays. He creates powerful builds because he enjoys playing strong characters, and because in many games powerbuilding is an intellectual challenge.

[Overshee]

A real powergamer doesn't want to win DND, or whatever RPG he plays. He creates powerful builds because he enjoys playing strong characters, and because in many games powerbuilding is an intellectual challenge.

That's how I feel. I'm sure there are deep rooted psychological reasons why I do it too, but we won't get into those.

[Kurald Galain]

A real powergamer doesn't want to win DND, or whatever RPG he plays. He creates powerful builds because he enjoys playing strong characters, and because in many games powerbuilding is an intellectual challenge.

This, in a nutshell, is the difference between a "powergamer" and a "munchkin".

[dsmiles]

and because in many games powerbuilding is an intellectual challenge.

Not so much in DnD. WoTC made the "power builds" fairly obvious in my opinion. It doesn't matter much at my tables anyways, my friends and I have upgraded from WoTC's DnD to TSR's AD&D (1e, and sometimes BD&D). I still feel that WoTC killed a perfectly good game when they took over DnD...

[Gametime]

Not so much in DnD. WoTC made the "power builds" fairly obvious in my opinion. It doesn't matter much at my tables anyways, my friends and I have upgraded from WoTC's DnD to TSR's AD&D (1e, and sometimes BD&D). I still feel that WoTC killed a perfectly good game when they took over DnD...

...Really. You think the power builds in D&D are obvious. This is intriguing to me, because I've never met someone to make this claim. The mentality of almost all the knowledgeable players on the internet has been that the wide variety of books, feats, and items make for a fairly engaging exercise when building a character.

What, then, would you consider to be the obvious D&D power build?

[Ravens_cry]

In my view, what made power gaming easy was the Internet, the synergy of dozens, nay hundreds, even thousands, of minds pouring over splat books, rules and errata.

[Zaydos]

I've had people who talked the talk, said they had been playing a long time and were good at making characters and could make them so tough. Their characters they have made:
Duskblade "Tank" who wielded a great-axe and wore full-plate with a higher Cha than Con or Dex. Ultimately built for fluff, but rather odd when they had been talking about how powerful the character would be. Also silly that they actually tried to act as a tank instead of another blaster (in a party of blaster mages).
Bard/PrC from Dragon Magazine: This one required hand waiving prerequisites to get into, and upping its skill ranks to make it playable and they... did one thing in one battle. Mostly they had SLA Polymorph 1/day (moving to 2/day) when a wizard could have cast it 3 times with 18+ Int.
Both times he said how powerful they would be, over and over again, until they were put into practice and failed miserably.

The other failed powergamer I've had was really a munchkin, he wanted to win the game. He tried this by claiming +8 or +10 synergy bonuses to Diplomacy at Lv 1 in 3.0 (where the highest was +4) and then ignoring the penalty for attempting as a full-round action. As a wizard. The DM didn't listen when I pointed out how many ways the build was illegal, and stopped DMing because of him... When I DM'd I just glanced over his character sheet and pointed out the glaring inconsistencies. His character soon decided to commit hara kiri.

[Starbuck_II]

Not so much in DnD. WoTC made the "power builds" fairly obvious in my opinion. It doesn't matter much at my tables anyways, my friends and I have upgraded from WoTC's DnD to TSR's AD&D (1e, and sometimes BD&D). I still feel that WoTC killed a perfectly good game when they took over DnD...

But there was lots of powergaming in the old days. Nostalgia may be interfering with memory of yours.

[Ravens_cry]

But there was lots of powergaming in the old days. Nostalgia may be interfering with memory of yours.
I can confirm this. I have got a bunch of old Dragons magazines from the time of the AD&D 1st and second editions, and the letters to the editor quite often included DM's asking how to tune down a power gamer. The forums also often publicised letters, nay missives, offering tips on such a task.

[Dr.Epic]

A friend of mine once made a ranger because he wanted to be a good archer but ignored all the other stuff rangers get (like casting). He could have just gone fighter and specialized with a bow.

And in another campaign the same guy made this lawful fighter that took a lot a mounted combat feats because there's no class in D&D that's like a fighter and that gives you a mount (*cough* paladin *cough*).

[Soranar]

The obvious powerbuild is druid. Just druid. (obviously this is a 3.5 reference)

[Kobold-Bard]

The obvious powerbuild is druid. Just druid. (obviously this is a 3.5 reference)

Unless of course you load up on healing spells (oh no they can't cast them spontaneously like a Cleric) and forget to take Natural Spell (or use up all your Wild Shape as a cat on 2 minute scouting missions).

[Optimystik]

A real powergamer doesn't want to win DND, or whatever RPG he plays. He creates powerful builds because he enjoys playing strong characters, and because in many games powerbuilding is an intellectual challenge.

Cut dsmiles some slack. At least he didn't say "optimizer" this time. :smallsigh:

[Soranar]

Unless of course you load up on healing spells (oh no they can't cast them spontaneously like a Cleric) and forget to take Natural Spell (or use up all your Wild Shape as a cat on 2 minute scouting missions).

There are 2 facets to powergaming. The first is the build itself. The second is using it.

Give a newbie a level 20 Batman wizard and see what happens.

[Dr.Epic]

There are 2 facets to powergaming. The first is the build itself. The second is using it.

Give a newbie a level 20 Batman wizard and see what happens.

Give a newbie anything and the first thing they do is say they go to a tavern and pick up prostitutes.

[SparkMandriller]

I find power gamers as a whole to be rather hilarious. I just don't understand the mentality that produces these gamers. It's a roleplaying game...you can't win DnD.

You seriously can't imagine why some people wouldn't want to arrange things to be more efficient?

[Eldariel]

Give a newbie anything and the first thing they do is say they go to a tavern and pick up prostitutes.

Isn't that what every male character does, newbie or no?Yes, it's a joke.

[Sliver]

Give a newbie anything and the first thing they do is say they go to a tavern and pick up prostitutes.

When I gave my friend a go at DMing, his girlfriend picked up a prostitute for the party's wizard, and then she and the DM made fun of the wizard for being really old (he wasn't, they made that up) and needed a spell to get aroused.. :smallsigh:

[Dr.Epic]

Isn't that what every male character does, newbie or no?Yes, it's a joke.

Only if they play heterosexual males.

[Lycanthromancer]

Only if they play heterosexual males.Definitely not a given, especially on these boards.

[arguskos]

Only if they play heterosexual males.
Who said prostitutes in a fantasy setting are only for heterosexual males? :smallamused:

[Mongoose87]

Give a newbie anything and the first thing they do is say they go to a tavern and pick up prostitutes.

Haha, yeah, only a newbie would ever do that! :smallredface:

[Optimystik]

Only if they play heterosexual males.

Failure off the starboard bow, cap'n!

[Oslecamo]

Definitely not a given, especially on these boards.

Well duh, that's why they created alter self! Succubbus, dopellgangers and other pals who can naturaly change their bodies will gladly service your desires, whatever they may be.

[Swordgleam]

Well duh, that's why they created alter self! Succubbus, dopellgangers and other pals who can naturaly change their bodies will gladly service your desires, whatever they may be.

Just don't ask for the "surprise me" option.

[Overshee]

are we really having this discussion :-P


Anyways, I genuinely enjoy the challenge of optimization. As my DM said to me last summer "You're the only one who goes all neurotic about it," and I do. I read all the material I'm using, make spreadsheets, powercards, and devote a lot of time to research. I enjoy that just as much as playing the character (I also like feeling the most competent player of the group). Last summer, I started playing at level 5 as a damage based Psychic Warrior (relatively unoptimized because I made the character a day). The other DPS, a barbarian was at level 7, but I was able to be more effective due to preparation, light optimization, and a better knowledge of how to use my character.

I enjoy the act of optimization, and playing optimized characters.

[Mongoose87]

I enjoy the act of optimization, and playing optimized characters.

Hey, depending on the campaign, sometimes developing the character is more fun than playing it!

[Bayar]

Only if they play heterosexual males.

But I like changeling prostitutes ! It's like flipping a coin blindfolded. It could be either, and you wont know it.

[Winthur]

But I like changeling prostitutes ! It's like flipping a coin blindfolded. It could be either, and you wont know it.

"Two-Facial. Harvey Two-Facial."

*runs away*

[Kobold-Bard]

"Two-Facial. Harvey Two-Facial."

*runs away*

NO!! NO!! <Whacks on the nose with a newspaper>

:smalltongue:

[Flickerdart]

Give a newbie anything and the first thing they do is say they go to a tavern and pick up prostitutes.
Or they could just cast Mordenkainen's Faithful Mistress.

[Mongoose87]

Or they could just cast Mordenkainen's Faithful Mistress.

An then take her back to his Magnificent Mansion?

[Flickerdart]

An then take her back to his Magnificent Mansion?
The Magnificent Mansion is where the heart is.

The dragon's heart that the Wizard wears as a hat, to be precise.

[Kobold-Bard]

Anyone who hasn't done must read the Book of Erotic Fantasy. After that this thread will take on a whole new significance :smalltongue:

[nefele]

A real powergamer doesn't want to win DND, or whatever RPG he plays. He creates powerful builds because he enjoys playing strong characters, and because in many games powerbuilding is an intellectual challenge.
Introduce someone to D&D, give him 50 splatbooks, lock him up in a room for a weekend, and ask him to come up with a powerful build. This is a daunting intellectual challenge.

Give someone access to the internet and time to much about CharOp boards and the like for a couple of months. This is less of an intellectual challenge. :smalltongue:

Disclaimer: I have absolutely nothing against powergaming as long as it doesn't disrupt the game. I do it myself (occasionally). And I'm perfectly aware that a lot of people who do spend months (or even years) mucking about CharOp boards and the like somehow fail to come up with a powerful build - unless they nick it "as is". And very often end up with something subpar or illegal instead.

I'm just saying that, when sources for heavy optimisation are so widely available, powerbuilding rarely impresses me even when it's done right.

[Mongoose87]

Anyone who hasn't done must read the Book of Erotic Fantasy. After that this thread will take on a whole new significance :smalltongue:

Why do people keep reminding me this book exists?

Although, I do love how there's one PRC in there that's completely unrelated to the rest of the book.

[Sliver]

Anyone who hasn't done must read the Book of Erotic Fantasy. After that this thread will take on a whole new significance :smalltongue:

You must mean the rocks that this train is headed to, because this thread has little to do with the BoEF.

[Eldariel]

Or they could just cast Mordenkainen's Faithful Mistress.

Or just...Lesser Planar Binding can get a Succubus. Greater can get a Marilith; imagine what you can do with that many hands.

[Mongoose87]

Or just...Lesser Planar Binding can get a Succubus. Greater can get a Marilith; imagine what you can do with that many hands.

Play a lot of cards?

[Zom B]

I have a player friend of mine and whenever he gets the urge to build a powerful character, he turns to monk. "But man, with a monk's belt, a periapt of wisdom, and gloves of dex, I can give him, like, a 35 AC!"

I was once young and naive, though. I remember just after Complete Warrior came out, I built a monk with Karmic Strike and Defensive Throw. Took a ton of feats just to get both of those, since I don't think they share much in common for prerequisites, just so that if someone hit me, I could trip them and if they missed me, I could trip them. Sounded awesome, unless you're not the one they're swinging at. Which it rarely was.

[Volthawk]

You must mean the rocks that this train is headed to, because this thread has little to do with the BoEF.

Well, it's sorta gone like this:

Powergaming -> new players picking up prostitutes -> shapechanging prostitutes -> BoEF

Simple

[Zom B]

Only in the playground can a thread go from powergaming to shapeshifting prostitutes. On the first page of the thread, no less.

[Mongoose87]

I have a player friend of mine and whenever he gets the urge to build a powerful character, he turns to monk. "But man, with a monk's belt, a periapt of wisdom, and gloves of dex, I can give him, like, a 35 AC!"

I was once young and naive, though. I remember just after Complete Warrior came out, I built a monk with Karmic Strike and Defensive Throw. Took a ton of feats just to get both of those, since I don't think they share much in common for prerequisites, just so that if someone hit me, I could trip them and if they missed me, I could trip them. Sounded awesome, unless you're not the one they're swinging at. Which it rarely was.

That's why you wait, and take Robilar's Gambit, so you can do it all with one feat.

[Sliver]

Well, it's sorta gone like this:

Powergaming -> new players picking up prostitutes -> shapechanging prostitutes -> BoEF

Simple

I know how we got to shapeshifting prostitutes. Still doesn't make Powergaming BoEF related.. Although that Metaphysical Spellshaper is an interesting PrC and only the Craft skill is a random prereq that you won't regularly meet, but the rest are pretty much a given.. Yay for metamagic reducers.. *wonders what it does in that book*

[Eldariel]

I know how we got to shapeshifting prostitutes. Still doesn't make Powergaming BoEF related.. Although that Metaphysical Spellshaper is an interesting PrC and only the Craft skill is a random prereq that you won't regularly meet, but the rest are pretty much a given.. Yay for metamagic reducers.. *wonders what it does in that book*

Ineffective powergamers are ineffective because they're too enamored with BoEF. Duh.

[Sliver]

Ineffective powergamers are ineffective because they're too enamored with BoEF. Duh.

Then if next to every cheesy PrC was a picture of a pierced boob, maybe there will be less use of said PrCs! "Oh that PrC looks nice.. Oh.. Umm.. What I was thinking a moment ago?"

[Mongoose87]

Ineffective powergamers are ineffective because they're too enamored with BoEF. Duh.

Would you say it...seduced them?

[Defiant]

There are 2 facets to powergaming. The first is the build itself. The second is using it.

Give a newbie a level 20 Batman wizard and see what happens.

He or she will say "What the heck? Where are the damage spells?" or go for the few that are there, like magic missile.

[Sliver]

He or she will say "What the heck? Where are the damage spells?" or go for the few that are there, like magic missile.

That is why I hated druids at first :smallredface: And the red wizard in the beginning of NWN2 the mask campaign.. Dammit..

[Flickerdart]

That is why I hated druids at first :smallredface: And the red wizard in the beginning of NWN2 the mask campaign.. Dammit..
She has Meteor Swarm, and Druids get stuff like Call Lightning.

[Eldariel]

Would you say it...seduced them?

Yeah, sure, why not.


Then if next to every cheesy PrC was a picture of a pierced boob, maybe there will be less use of said PrCs! "Oh that PrC looks nice.. Oh.. Umm.. What I was thinking a moment ago?"

Eh, I think there'd be a lot more of accidental breaking of the game that way. "Wow, Incantatrix is so HOT, I wanna be one!" - hours later - "How was I supposed to know, the hot girl melts the game?!"

[Sliver]

She has Meteor Swarm, and Druids get stuff like Call Lightning.

Past me was foolish. Past me did stuff like make an elven sorcerer with Magic Missile and Mage Armor that didn't learn in his hundred years of living that he can 5ft step.. Past me shall not be remembered any more.

[Tinydwarfman]

I know how we got to shapeshifting prostitutes. Still doesn't make Powergaming BoEF related.. Although that Metaphysical Spellshaper is an interesting PrC and only the Craft skill is a random prereq that you won't regularly meet, but the rest are pretty much a given.. Yay for metamagic reducers.. *wonders what it does in that book*

What are you talking about? It obviously means that shapeshifting prostitutes are the most powerful builds in existence! I mean really, you didn't know that?

[absolmorph]

Give a newbie anything and the first thing they do is say they go to a tavern and pick up prostitutes.
First thing I did was climb a mountain in a blizzard.
I guess I got off to a strange start.

That said, I tend to attempt some optimization within the flavor of a character. Honestly, it ends up being really messy.

[Fiery Diamond]

Actually, I have a question. What books are the various metamagic reducers in?

[sofawall]

Actually, I have a question. What books are the various metamagic reducers in?

Umm, Dragon, Comp. Arcane, Unearthed Arcana, Shining South, Player's Guide to Faerun, Dungeon Master's Guide, Comp. Mage...

Can you be more specific?

[Fiery Diamond]

Umm, Dragon, Comp. Arcane, Unearthed Arcana, Shining South, Player's Guide to Faerun, Dungeon Master's Guide, Comp. Mage...

Can you be more specific?

Sure. Non-prestige-class ways.

[Dust]

We used to play with a guy like that, but because we're a pretty laid-back group we let most of his stuff slide. What's worse is that he constantly quoted RAW at us, but ignored it when it suited his purposes.

Finally, his superiority went to his head and in one game, attempted to PK my character. We ended up explaining that since he didn't pick up the system's equivalent of quick draw he was attempting to perform too many actions in one round, and I ended up Intimidate-checking his machismo character into weeping submission. He simmered down a lot after that.

Edit: Also, I foolishly only read the first page of this thread before responding. Fogive my on-topicness!

[Optimystik]

That said, I tend to attempt some optimization within the flavor of a character. Honestly, it ends up being really messy.

That's why you come here, tell us the concept, and let us optimize it for you. :smallsmile:


Sure. Non-prestige-class ways.

Rods.

[Viletta Vadim]

What are you talking about? It obviously means that shapeshifting prostitutes are the most powerful builds in existence! I mean really, you didn't know that?
Well, if you're using the GUCK, there's Transmitting Orgasm, a negative three level metamagic that makes spells only castable via orgasm, allowing Polymorph or Lesser Geas as first-level spells. Suggestion as a cantrip is always fun, though I tend to prefer the Suggestion/Dominate kiss. Gotta love simply kissing the baroness' hand and making her your thrall. :smallwink:

[Sstoopidtallkid]

Well, if you're using the GUCK, there's Transmitting Orgasm, a negative three level metamagic that makes spells only castable via orgasm, allowing Polymorph or Lesser Geas as first-level spells. Suggestion as a cantrip is always fun, though I tend to prefer the Suggestion/Dominate kiss. Gotta love simply kissing the baroness' hand and making her your thrall. :smallwink:Arcane Fusion on a Sorcerer with that. Use the BoEF version of Suggestion on yourself(fail your save) to orgasm, then use Transmitting Orgasm'd Greater Arcane Fusion(looping) to fire off NI TO Orbs of Searing Fire. You orgasm in the middle of combat, then several thousand extra-hot flaming orbs fly out of your pants and hit every target on the battlefield. Repeatedly. All that's left is scorch marks and you.
DON'T USE NEGATIVE-LEVEL METAMAGIC! EVER! FOR ANYTHING! It. Breaks. The. Game.

[Viletta Vadim]

Arcane Fusion on a Sorcerer with that. Use the BoEF version of Suggestion on yourself(fail your save) to orgasm, then use Transmitting Orgasm'd Greater Arcane Fusion(looping) to fire off NI TO Orbs of Searing Fire. You orgasm in the middle of combat, then several thousand extra-hot flaming orbs fly out of your pants and hit every target on the battlefield. Repeatedly. All that's left is scorch marks and you.
There is a sum total of three and only three problems with that plan. Transmitting Orgasm specifically omits self-only spells, it can only deliver spells to others, and spell-induced climax doesn't count; you have to do it manually.

There is absolutely nothing else wrong with this beyond these three points.

DON'T USE NEGATIVE-LEVEL METAMAGIC! EVER! FOR ANYTHING! It. Breaks. The. Game.
Oh, of course, but the limitation on only bringing up things that should be allowed in-game kinda breaks down when you're talking about shapeshifting magic super prostitutes.

Though Transmitting Kiss (-1) is fun~

[Beelzebub1111]

shapeshifting magic super prostitutes.

Why have I never heard those words in that order together before? Have I not watched enough B movies?

[Lycanthromancer]

Why have I never heard those words in that order together before? Have I not watched enough B movies?Not enough anime, apparently.

[Raiki]

Why have I never heard those words in that order together before? Have I not watched enough B movies?

I'm with you on this Bub, that is quite possibly the most awesome phrase I've heard all week. I think I just came up with my next adventure hook.


Not enough anime hentai, apparently.
Fixed that for you

You've got a point though. Bible Black should have been more than enough to bring this plot hook to mind...but I think I was too busy scouring my brain with bleach and chlorine to think of it.


~R~

[valadil]

A real powergamer doesn't want to win DND, or whatever RPG he plays. He creates powerful builds because he enjoys playing strong characters, and because in many games powerbuilding is an intellectual challenge.

I agree that it's an intellectual challenge, but I don't get the part about using it in game. I optimize a lot of builds. It's something I do at work when I'm bored. But I've never seen the point in playing such a character. That's where powergamers and I differ.

[Foryn Gilnith]

But I've never seen the point in playing such a character.

Well, why not? You make them, you might as well use them. It's not like the game will break in half, as long as you introduce psychological character flaws.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

I agree that it's an intellectual challenge, but I don't get the part about using it in game. I optimize a lot of builds. It's something I do at work when I'm bored. But I've never seen the point in playing such a character. That's where powergamers and I differ.Depends on the level of optimization. Are you saying you don't want to kill a Dragon? Some people like being awesome. And as long as the whole group is awesome, there isn't a problem.

[Viletta Vadim]

Well, why not? You make them, you might as well use them. It's not like the game will break in half, as long as you introduce psychological character flaws.
That reminds me of a certain story involving a giant gorilla and a chimpanzee with mind control.

[drengnikrafe]

I have only some minor skill in optimization, and so my builds are above average, but not killer. I generally make one at the top of my ability, and then one based more upon plot, and partially upon optimization. I show the first to my DM so he'll accept the second. This generally gives me the best character in the party with a useful plot, and all without rendering the other members of the party useless (unless they do that to themselves).

[9mm]

You've got a point though. Bible Black should have been more than enough to bring this plot hook to mind...but I think I was too busy scouring my brain with bleach and chlorine to think of it.


~R~

you must have been watching the english dub... god that was horrible. Subbed hentai however, is usually hilarious; I have been told I have a warped sense of humor so, YMMV.

[Eldariel]

So...now we're talking our favorite Hentais? Best. Thread. Ever.

[Pharaoh's Fist]

Kuro Ai. :smallamused:

[absolmorph]

you must have been watching the english dub... god that was horrible. Subbed hentai however, is usually hilarious; I have been told I have a warped sense of humor so, YMMV.
I know EXACTLY what you mean.
Reading doujin is typically amusing because it goes from a semi-normal conversation to suddenly OH MY GOD THEY'RE NAKED FAPFAPFAP!

[Totally Guy]

I build terrible characters but then tell my group that they're powerful. It's on purpose but it's part of the joke.

The bad guy always loses, that's just how it works. So if I were to make a character that was more powerful than everyone else and was actually more powerful than everyone else I'd be upsetting that basic rule. But if I claim that my character is powerful when really he's just needlessly complicated then they feel like they can forgive my mad ambition when it just doesn't match my claims.

Plus it increases the perception of game balance at the table.

[Aharon]

On the topic of optimizing BoEF:
Doesn't it have that 3rd level CHA-enhancing spell (1d4 per level, max 5d4), that lasts one hour per level? It's like the druid's Owl's Insight (?), without the limitations.

[Ashiel]

I build terrible characters but then tell my group that they're powerful. It's on purpose but it's part of the joke.

The bad guy always loses, that's just how it works. So if I were to make a character that was more powerful than everyone else and was actually more powerful than everyone else I'd be upsetting that basic rule. But if I claim that my character is powerful when really he's just needlessly complicated then they feel like they can forgive my mad ambition when it just doesn't match my claims.

Plus it increases the perception of game balance at the table.

Emphasis mine. :smallcool:

Dude, I wish that were the case everywhere sometimes. I've usually found that, if no one is cheating, you can totally lose to the bad guys, or even the bad guys' minions. :smallamused:

Anyway onto the topic at hand! :smallbiggrin:
---------------

I recently had a player on an OpenRPG game I was running, who was talking about his amazing, awesomely powerful, super character who was all sorts of awesome, and powerful (getting the idea yet?); which was the one he planned to play in my game. I pointed out a few glaring discrepancies, and he got all bent out of shape. Here's kinda how the conversation went:

NOTICE: The PC in question is 8th level.
Me: "Nah, I'm not going to run a game right now without everyone else here."
Him: "Well, my character can handle the adventure all by himself!"
Me: "I really doubt that, given the encounters and NPCs I'm looking at right now."
Him: "What, are they all level 20 or something?"
Me: "Actually, no. The highest level NPC is 5th, but the majority of them are 3rd level warriors and adepts."
Him: "Well why do you think I'd loose?"
Me: "Well, against a single target you're outnumbered and can be focus-fired to death without trouble."
Him: "My AC is 28!"
Me: "That's nice. But I've looked over your saving throws, and your reflex is low for your level; mostly due to your multi-classing of battle-sorcerer/half-dragon-progression/half-dragon paragon stuff. You have about a 40% chance to successfully save against anything that would target your reflex save in this adventure, and honestly that will probably kill you without backup."
Him: "But reflex isn't important, and I have 98hp!"
Me: "Actually, your HP isn't correct."
Him: "Yeah it is. It's just the maximum possible."
Me: "Yeah. Counting your constitution modifier, your HP should be 63 hit points if you weren't rolling." (12 + (6*8.5)=63hp)
Him: "What is this some sort of house rule you're using?"
Me: "No, it's in the DMG as an optional way to do hit points if you don't wish to roll, since a bad roll hurts more than a good roll helps."
Him: *spends five to ten minutes trying to figure out why my math is wrong, and tries to over-complicate it, and then ends up failing to do so*
Him: "Whatever. It doesn't matter anyway."
Me: "Well, if it's not calculated correctly, it's going to give DMs the wrong idea about you, and you're going to have a harder time finding a game."
Him: "So I just won't tell them I have 98hp."
Me: *face-palms* "That's...a worse idea."
Him: "Whatever, run me a game."
Me: "I already said I wasn't going to run the game without the others, and you'd get fried during the combats."
Him: "But I've got 98hp!"
Me: *wishes I could fabricate a gun and a bullet*

I just thought you guys might find this humorous.

[Bayar]

Anyone who hasn't done must read the Book of Erotic Fantasy. After that this thread will take on a whole new significance :smalltongue:

Or at least read the comics at the back of the book.

[Ryuuk]

If there's still room for response to a side point of the original topic amongst all the wonders of the fantasy red light district, I'd like to add my two cents.

I'm not a very good power gamer, epic levels scare me and what characters I've made above level 14 have mostly ineffective compared to what the other players where bringing to the board. However, in ECLs below that I usually check the Handbooks and Build Compendiums for ideas. I enjoy looking for good combinations and spend a lot of time thinking over each feat and item I'll be buying with my initial WBL. For me, the character building is the fun part of DnD and this is because I've only played PbP (a few IRL atempts with my brothers, but they never lasted longer then 2 sessions).

Of all the characters I've made and submitted I've rolled a die with maybe half of them. Rarely do the games I play last long enough to make my sheet actually matter. For me at least, character creation is a game on its own right. I usually spend more time making the characters than actually playing them, and its fun.

[elonin]

Maybe shape shifting prostitutes is a overlooked power build?

It strikes me as funny that for a lot of dm's consider anything more powerful than a bard, monk, or fighter is too powerful.

[Viletta Vadim]

On the topic of optimizing BoEF:
Doesn't it have that 3rd level CHA-enhancing spell (1d4 per level, max 5d4), that lasts one hour per level? It's like the druid's Owl's Insight (?), without the limitations.
Oh, yeah. It's still enhancement, mind, but maximizing that with a rod? +20 charisma for umpteen hours is very nice. You could squeeze an extra +2-10 out of it with empower, but that's generally now worth it.

It tends to be one of those spells that gets banned with extreme prejudice.

More importantly, it brings us Reverse Gender. The absolute greatest way to depose a drow matron ever.

The bad guy always loses, that's just how it works.
The bad guys always lose? Sounds like you're involved in some rather boring games, to me.

It strikes me as funny that for a lot of dm's consider anything more powerful than a bard, monk, or fighter is too powerful.
It strikes me as funny that a lot of those very same DMs allow core Wizards and Sorcerers, but fear Barbarians.

[oxybe]

you need to remember there is both Theoretical Optimization & Practical Optimization, and knowledge of both can lead to the great system mastery of what is called "powergaming".

TO is the realm of *twitch*twitch*. it's the Pun-Puns, wish/word, Hulking Hurler, ect... of 3rd ed lore that should never see the table. TO is important as it shows break points, proper number crunching, stacking of abilities/bonuses and the strength of some feats/classes over others. it shows, in a controlled environment (usually a vaccum), the numbers & mechanics behind the game running full speed.

TO then leads to PO. learning what works & what doesn't leads to practical optimization: taking your idea, putting it on paper & making it work to the best of it's abilities. this is the stuff that most DMs love seeing at the table... a strong (but not too strong) character that can pull his/her fair share of the party weight and it's abilities represents the character well in-game (though the class/feat list might look odd).

most powergaming is is the realm of PO. they pick a concept and apply system mastery to make it work like a well oiled machine.

the problem is that you have... "inventors" and i use the word loosely as to not insult actual innovators, who create shambling 3-legged monstrocities made of chipwood, styrofoam, 2 bikes, a push-mower engine and an eggbeater, manage to get it moving and call it a machine. well it's something alright.

and then you have the munchkins, the guys who watch mythbusters and ignore the "don't try this at home warning" and wonder why their garage is on fire while the police are driving up their driveway.

most powergamers aren't the extremes, they're the "hobbyists" who've actually studied the "art" and tinker around with it within set & safe parameters.

[Kobold-Bard]

Maybe shape shifting prostitutes is a overlooked power build?

It strikes me as funny that for a lot of dm's consider anything more powerful than a bard, monk, or fighter is too powerful.

You're obviously not a very effective power gamer if you consider a fully-optimised Bard to be on the same level with the Monk or Fighter, even when similarly optimised :smallwink:

[Oslecamo]

TO is the realm of *twitch*twitch*. it's the Pun-Puns, wish/word, Hulking Hurler, ect... of 3rd ed lore that should never see the table. TO is important as it shows break points, proper number crunching, stacking of abilities/bonuses and the strength of some feats/classes over others. it shows, in a controlled environment (usually a vaccum), the numbers & mechanics behind the game running full speed.
...
most powergamers aren't the extremes, they're the "hobbyists" who've actually studied the "art" and tinker around with it within set & safe parameters.

Funny thing, wish/word was banned from the optimization contest it was created to for being plain munchkenery

Also, I completely disagree with most of your post.

Powergamers are the ones who take things to the extremes. It's not just a well oiled machine. Is a freaking F1 car with imported pieces, oil, and checked by at least a dozen other people for the maximum speed whitout geting the judges to kick you out of the race.

Those who actualy tinker and study the "art" and create new builds and create three-legged monstruosities in their free time? They're the optimizers. Please don't confuse the two. A powergamer doesn't create three legged monstruosities when he can create a two legged human wich deals 30% more damage and has more skill points.

[Viletta Vadim]

To keep things from delving into the realms of pedantics, it's generally best to go with the Brilliant Gameologists standard.

Munchkin: Cheater. Munchkins are people who flat break the rules.

Powergamer: Someone for whom the entire game is about power, to the exclusion of all else, including the fun of everyone else at the table. Powergamers generally abide by the rules, but tend to force the most overpowered stuff down others' throats and push parts of the game known to be completely broken.

Min-Maxer/Optimizer: Someone who actually knows and understands the rules and creates effective characters within the rules.

It is important to understand the difference between an optimizer and a powergamer. Just because you're annoyed with someone does not mean they're a powergamer who only cares about power and doesn't care about anyone else's fun. It can just as easily mean you are the problem, that you're simply being a nitpicky jerk, that they're just playing the game fairly and you're just not very good at the game yet. 'Tis a vital distinction, and it's always important to assess where the real problem lies.

After all, system mastery is a huge deal in most systems, but especially in 3.5, and just because someone has a higher degree of system mastery doesn't mean they're a problem any more than a better chess player is misbehaving if she plays chess better than you do.

[KellKheraptis]

To keep things from delving into the realms of pedantics, it's generally best to go with the Brilliant Gameologists standard.

Munchkin: Cheater. Munchkins are people who flat break the rules.

Powergamer: Someone for whom the entire game is about power, to the exclusion of all else, including the fun of everyone else at the table. Powergamers generally abide by the rules, but tend to force the most overpowered stuff down others' throats and push parts of the game known to be completely broken.

Min-Maxer/Optimizer: Someone who actually knows and understands the rules and creates effective characters within the rules.

It is important to understand the difference between an optimizer and a powergamer. Just because you're annoyed with someone does not mean they're a powergamer who only cares about power and doesn't care about anyone else's fun. It can just as easily mean you are the problem, that you're simply being a nitpicky jerk, that they're just playing the game fairly and you're just not very good at the game yet. 'Tis a vital distinction, and it's always important to assess where the real problem lies.

After all, system mastery is a huge deal in most systems, but especially in 3.5, and just because someone has a higher degree of system mastery doesn't mean they're a problem any more than a better chess player is misbehaving if she plays chess better than you do.

This. And sometimes the only difference between an optimizer and a powergamer is how the character is played. E.g. my Incantatrix/Metaphysical Spellshaper could most likely easily steal the thunder of his partymates the barbarians and rogue in a few levels, but it's way more fun to just make the bad guys useless while turning my brute squad into M1A2 Abrams' and plow down the enemies that way. And if my kill count is ever called into question, I can whip out the howitzer for a combat and settle all arguments, then return to playing GOD :D

Slightly OT Local Rant
Cie knows what I'm talking about, though I'm still debating if I'm going to be gishing...or for that matter if the sidewalks are clear enough to get up there.

[Pharaoh's Fist]

Also, I completely disagree with most of your post.

Powergamers are the ones who take things to the extremes. It's not just a well oiled machine. Is a freaking F1 car with imported pieces, oil, and checked by at least a dozen other people for the maximum speed whitout geting the judges to kick you out of the race.

Those who actualy tinker and study the "art" and create new builds and create three-legged monstruosities in their free time? They're the optimizers. Please don't confuse the two. A powergamer doesn't create three legged monstruosities when he can create a two legged human wich deals 30% more damage and has more skill points.

Webster's dictionary of the English language does not define the words this way, nor does any other dictionary. The definitions you have are not official; they are your own takes on the subject. There is no reason we should have the same definition as you or share your point of view.

[Hallavast]

Webster's dictionary of the English language does not define the words this way, nor does any other dictionary. The definitions you have are not official; they are your own takes on the subject. There is no reason we should have the same definition as you or share your point of view.

Huh? Since when are dictionary definitions relevant to forum/gaming language? Welcome to the internet. We don't care about Webster here.

Also, pointing out that his opinion is, in fact, an opinion does little to address his views on the subject. Why argue semantics?

[Pharaoh's Fist]

Also, pointing out that his opinion is, in fact, an opinion does little to address his views on the subject. Why argue semantics?
I am pointing out the mistake of using his own definitions to say why someone else's views on the issue were wrong.

[Viletta Vadim]

I am pointing out the mistake of using his own definitions to say why someone else's views on the issue were wrong.
Except Webster's isn't what defines those terms. They're hobby jargon, outside the purview of the dictionary. If someone invokes a dictionary on niche jargon, the person invoking the dictionary is, quite simply, wrong.

[Hallavast]

He seemed to fancy himself an authority on the subject, using his own definitions to say why someone else's views on the issue were wrong.

I agree, but this is done often on the internet and largely without quibble. Why remark on it unless you dissagree with his sentiment?

If the case IS that you dissagree, why not argue the point rather than simply bring up semantics to discredit him? After all, when you get down to it, one party's definitions are little better than another's. I doubt any of us is an expert sociologist with a special interest in social gaming trends (if you are, no offense).

[Kobold-Bard]

I agree, but this is done often on the internet and largely without quibble. Why remark on it unless you dissagree with his sentiment?

If the case IS that you dissagree, why not argue the point rather than simply bring up semantics to discredit him? After all, when you get down to it, one party's definitions are little better than another's. I doubt any of us is an expert sociologist with a special interest in social gaming trends (if you are, no offense).

None taken :smallcool:

[Pharaoh's Fist]

I agree, but this is done often on the internet and largely without quibble. Why remark on it unless you dissagree with his sentiment?
But I do disagree.


If the case IS that you dissagree, why not argue the point rather than simply bring up semantics to discredit him?
I am using semantics to argue the point. HA!

[Hallavast]

But I do disagree.

Umm... I preemptively addressed that... ^ :smallconfused:

Edit: Meta-ninja edit is ninja... this whole thing is getting far too silly

[Pharaoh's Fist]

Umm... I preemptively addressed that... ^ :smallconfused:

I preemptively addressed your preemptive addressing.

[Hallavast]

I am using semantics to argue the point. HA!

I would point out that using semantics to argue a point is, in fact, the same as using semantics to avoid arguing the point, but in this case, doing so would border on a semantic argument itself. Ironically, the subject matter thereof is, indeed, also semantical.

[Flickerdart]

I would point out that using semantics to argue a point is, in fact, the same as using semantics to avoid arguing the point, but in this case, doing so would border on a semantic argument itself. Ironically, the subject matter thereof is, indeed, also semantical.
Yo dawg, we heard you like semantics.

[Hallavast]

Yo dawg, we heard you like semantics.

Um . . . Word?

[absolmorph]

Yo dawg, we heard you like semantics.
Keep your semantics out of my car!

[frogspawner]

I preemptively addressed your preemptive addressing.
Bring back the hyphen - "preempt" is too silly a word!

[Lappy9000]

Keep your semantics out of my car!Keep your car out of my semantics!

[oxybe]

Funny thing, wish/word was banned from the optimization contest it was created to for being plain munchkenery

Also, I completely disagree with most of your post.

Powergamers are the ones who take things to the extremes. It's not just a well oiled machine. Is a freaking F1 car with imported pieces, oil, and checked by at least a dozen other people for the maximum speed whitout geting the judges to kick you out of the race.

Those who actualy tinker and study the "art" and create new builds and create three-legged monstruosities in their free time? They're the optimizers. Please don't confuse the two. A powergamer doesn't create three legged monstruosities when he can create a two legged human wich deals 30% more damage and has more skill points.

i'm sorry that i don't share your dictionary of gaming terms?

i use the the MUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCH better Oxybe Web Standard Geek and Nerd Terms used by Geeks and Nerds Dictionary while you seem to use the obviously less gooder one, the Oslecamo Web Dictionary.

i poop on your semantics. poop i say!:smalltongue:

also: keep your car out of my ticks, seaman!

[Optimystik]

Um . . . Word?

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/xzibit-yo-dawg

[Kobold-Bard]

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/xzibit-yo-dawg

This is pretty hypocritical coming from me, but some people have waaaaaay too much time on their hands.

Edit: The people who made the site, not you. (Unless it was you, then you :smallwink:)

[oxybe]

This is pretty hypocritical coming from me, but some people have waaaaaay too much time on their hands.

Edit: The people who made the site, not you. (Unless it was you, then you :smallwink:)
you think know your meme is bad? here's tvtropes (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HomePage) if you haven't seen it. just a warning, it will ruin your life (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TVTropesWillRuinYourLife).

[ScionoftheVoid]

It strikes me as funny that for a lot of dm's consider anything more powerful than a bard, monk, or fighter is too powerful.

Emphasis mine. Being tiers three, six and five respectively, IIRC, I have no idea how you thought that monks or fighters were anywhere near as useful as bards.

Edit: Ninja'd ages ago, stupid hard-to-notice page count. If I'd seen that I wouldn't have needed to edit this twice!

[Kesnit]

Well, why not? You make them, you might as well use them. It's not like the game will break in half, as long as you introduce psychological character flaws.


Depends on the level of optimization. Are you saying you don't want to kill a Dragon? Some people like being awesome. And as long as the whole group is awesome, there isn't a problem.

The problem is, not everyone is good at optimization, or likes playing optimized characters. In all honesty, I don't like playing full casters in 3.5. (Nothing against people who do, I just don't find them appealling.) Together, these facts put me at a disadvantage if I am playing a 3.5 game. If someone comes in with an optimized full caster, I (and anyone else who shares my views) may as well put our dice away.

I am not saying anyone who plays a Tier 1 class should intentionally overly gimp themselves to keep me happy. However, D&D is supposed to be a party game, and going in with one-step-below-Pun-pun when everyone else is playing Tier 3-4 is going to make a lot of people unhappy.

Edit: Just saw definitions for power-gamer and optimizer above. My comments about optimizers actually, under those definitions, refer to power-gamers.

[Kobold-Bard]

you think know your meme is bad? here's tvtropes (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HomePage) if you haven't seen it. just a warning, it will ruin your life (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TVTropesWillRuinYourLife).

There are people who haven't seen tvtropes? As I said, it was hypocritical for me to claim people have too much free time :smallcool:

[Kesnit]

Except Webster's isn't what defines those terms. They're hobby jargon, outside the purview of the dictionary. If someone invokes a dictionary on niche jargon, the person invoking the dictionary is, quite simply, wrong.

To back up this statement, here is a word - "wow." According to Merriam-Websters, "wow" is an interjection "used to express strong feeling (as pleasure or surprise)"

However, if you saw "wow" on a video game forum, there is a good change it refers to "World of Warcraft." M-W makes no mention of "wow" = "World of Warcraft." Does that mean "wow" does not mean "World of Warcraft," and everyone who uses it that way is wrong?

[Sstoopidtallkid]

The problem is, not everyone is good at optimization, or likes playing optimized characters. In all honesty, I don't like playing full casters in 3.5. (Nothing against people who do, I just don't find them appealling.) Together, these facts put me at a disadvantage if I am playing a 3.5 game. If someone comes in with an optimized full caster, I (and anyone else who shares my views) may as well put our dice away.

I am not saying anyone who plays a Tier 1 class should intentionally overly gimp themselves to keep me happy. However, D&D is supposed to be a party game, and going in with one-step-below-Pun-pun when everyone else is playing Tier 3-4 is going to make a lot of people unhappy.Like I said, it depends on the group being similar in power level. A party of Wizard/Cleric/Druid/Artificer can have a lot of fun, as can a party of Warblade/Binder/Beguiler/DMM Chain Cleric. Heck, IC-Focused Bard/Rogue/Fighter/Healbot Cleric can be fun. As long as either the entire party is on the same level of optimization, or those that aren't focus on boosting those who are, it'll be fine. But I can't enjoy a game if I'm sitting there thinking 'I'd have still been invisible if I'd just taken Darkstalker' or 'He'd be dead now if I cast Haste instead of Fireball'.

[Sanguine]

To back up this statement, here is a word - "wow." According to Merriam-Websters, "wow" is an interjection "used to express strong feeling (as pleasure or surprise)"

However, if you saw "wow" on a video game forum, there is a good change it refers to "World of Warcraft." M-W makes no mention of "wow" = "World of Warcraft." Does that mean "wow" does not mean "World of Warcraft," and everyone who uses it that way is wrong?

Yes they are it's WoW. Periods also help to identify an acronym(which is not a word and thus wouldn't be in the dictionary)[/nitpick]

[Aquillion]

TVtropes actually has a page relevant to this discussion, too: Player Archtypes (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PlayerArchetypes).

Particularly pay attention to the Magic: The Gathering "Tommy, Johnny, Spike" distinction:


# Timmy plays to experience something. He doesn't care if it's inefficient, as long as it's interesting, because for Timmy, "fun" is more about the journey than the destination.

# Johnny plays as a form of self-expression. The more customization there is in the game, the more room there is for Johnny, because Johnny thrives on taking the pieces the game gives them and making something uniquely their own. Johnny lives for the deck that makes your eyes bug out; Johnny probably spends more time designing his deck (army) (whatever) than playing it, and probably enjoys it more.

# Spike plays to win. They're most likely to be a Tournament Player, because they're the one willing to analyze and scrutinize the available strategies, looking for the one which gives them the best odds. Spike is the most likely type to be a "Mr. Suitcase," a player who spends unusually large amounts of money on the hobby, and will copy other people's designs and strategies (as opposed to inventing his own) if he thinks that holds the key to victory.
These really represent the three approaches to a purely mechanics-based game -- so they're good parallels for D&D, in that they tell us what sorts of players are likely to focus heavily on the mechanics of their characters.

Many people mistake anyone who obsesses over mechanics for a "Spike", but really, all three of these people can actually come across as would-be optimizers in D&D. They just optimize (or try to) for very different reasons and with very different goals.

It's important to understand that many of the people who focus on building "the perfect build" are really doing it because part of what they enjoy about the game is expressing themselves through interesting or creative use of mechanics... or because they see particular combinations of abilities as mechanically fun and interesting, and want to work out ways to access them.

(And this might explain why some of them are suboptimal. Haberdash the Masked (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=88633) might have extremely calibrated and optimized mechanics for what he's intended to do, but he is never going to be as strong as a full caster -- someone who wanted to "win" D&D would never play him. He's the expression of that sort of "Johnnie" thinking, more of a "look at what I can do with the mechanics" and something mechanically interesting to play than something based purely around crushing all opposition.)

[KellKheraptis]

The problem is, not everyone is good at optimization, or likes playing optimized characters. In all honesty, I don't like playing full casters in 3.5. (Nothing against people who do, I just don't find them appealling.) Together, these facts put me at a disadvantage if I am playing a 3.5 game. If someone comes in with an optimized full caster, I (and anyone else who shares my views) may as well put our dice away.

I am not saying anyone who plays a Tier 1 class should intentionally overly gimp themselves to keep me happy. However, D&D is supposed to be a party game, and going in with one-step-below-Pun-pun when everyone else is playing Tier 3-4 is going to make a lot of people unhappy.

Edit: Just saw definitions for power-gamer and optimizer above. My comments about optimizers actually, under those definitions, refer to power-gamers.

Were you to come to the game where I play my Incantatrix and take that attitude, you would have plenty to do. Blanket statements beget flame wars, nothing more, and frankly, any Wizard player worth his dice can make even a Warrior or Monk that's hacked together from cobbled bits of goblins into Billy Bad ***, while still getting off on playing GOD the whole night. Everyone gets their cake and eats it too, and in the event the party gets in over their head, Batman just pulls out one of the myriad of tricks he's kept in his belt, since they weren't needed at the time :D

[Akal Saris]

Honestly, this thread reminds me of the Base Class Tiers thread from a few days ago, where Cheesegear kept trying to assert that the tier system was somehow invalid, and his opinion mattered because he knew all about powergaming.

Which would be nice if any of his examples of powerful characters that he knew about were powerful - but they weren't. They weren't even particularly good ideas for the classes being played, and in some cases were illegal builds.

Personally, I've had a few chuckles at ineffective power gamers at my table as well. One of my PCs got very into the wizard's handbook and the cleric's handbook and made a cleric at my game - but didn't really think through how little charisma for turning attempts a 1st level cleric really has, or that DMM isn't that efficient without nightsticks and the like, especially not in a core+completes PF game :P

I'm one of the two "powergamers" in a moderately high level 3.5 game, but arguably the least useful member of the party, since I opted not to play a full caster. I mean, my character's about as awesome as a ranger can get, but he's in a party with a druid, cleric, and wizard, ya know?

[absolmorph]

you think know your meme is bad? here's tvtropes (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HomePage) if you haven't seen it. just a warning, it will ruin your life (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TVTropesWillRuinYourLife).
Well, there goes my day.

[Doc Roc]

I find power gamers as a whole to be rather hilarious. I just don't understand the mentality that produces these gamers. It's a roleplaying game...you can't win DnD.

Actually you can. I'll tell you the story sometime, but it was definitely a Pyrrhic victory.

[Tavar]

Actually you can. I'll tell you the story sometime, but it was definitely a Pyrrhic victory.

I'm very interested in this. Please, go on.

[Kobold-Bard]

I'm very interested in this. Please, go on.

I can only assume it ends with a law suit after the DM threw a DMG at the player's head.

[Ravens_cry]

Honestly, this thread reminds me of the Base Class Tiers thread from a few days ago, where Cheesegear kept trying to assert that the tier system was somehow invalid, and his opinion mattered because he knew all about powergaming.

I would say it's not so much invalid as irrelevant. Everyone plays a different game.The group I game with is on the whole very low power. Either from a lack of knowledge (me) or from not caring for whatever reason (people playing longer then I have been born), the most optimized build I ever saw was a straight fighter. Yes, bottom of the tier fighter, making it so that no one else really got a chance to do something. What each group defines as 'broken' or 'munchkin' varies from group to group. This fighter would have been darn right ordinary or even lackluster to another group who optimized more heavily on average. The tier system doesn't work because it assumes everyone plays the same ways, within the same tolerances, when merely perusing this board shows otherwise.

[Kesnit]

Yes they are it's WoW. Periods also help to identify an acronym(which is not a word and thus wouldn't be in the dictionary)[/nitpick]

Actually, NAACP (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/NAACP) can be found at m-w.com. So acronyms are in dictionaries. :smallsmile:


Were you to come to the game where I play my Incantatrix and take that attitude, you would have plenty to do. Blanket statements beget flame wars, nothing more, and frankly, any Wizard player worth his dice can make even a Warrior or Monk that's hacked together from cobbled bits of goblins into Billy Bad ***, while still getting off on playing GOD the whole night. Everyone gets their cake and eats it too, and in the event the party gets in over their head, Batman just pulls out one of the myriad of tricks he's kept in his belt, since they weren't needed at the time :D

There is a difference between a Wizard who uses their spells to buff other party members / debuff enemies, and one who uses their spells as "I Win" buttons. I was referring to the second type. ("If someone comes in with an optimized full caster, I (and anyone else who shares my views) may as well put our dice away.")

[Xzeno]

Actually you can. I'll tell you the story sometime, but it was definitely a Pyrrhic victory.

Divine Minion 1/Wizard 1/ Master of Many Forms 3? Let's not bring that into this discussion...

[Gametime]

I would say it's not so much invalid as irrelevant. Everyone plays a different game.The group I game with is on the whole very low power. Either from a lack of knowledge (me) or from not caring for whatever reason (people playing longer then I have been born), the most optimized build I ever saw was a straight fighter. Yes, bottom of the tier fighter, making it so that no one else really got a chance to do something. What each group defines as 'broken' or 'munchkin' varies from group to group. This fighter would have been darn right ordinary or even lackluster to another group who optimized more heavily on average. The tier system doesn't work because it assumes everyone plays the same ways, within the same tolerances, when merely perusing this board shows otherwise.

Except your definition of the tier system "working" is it modeling the exact power levels of every class. IT DOESN'T. Cheese kept saying the exact same things you are, and they're not wrong, they're just not arguing for your point in the slightest.

YES, every group plays differently. YES, player skill is infinitely more important than class choice. YES, wizards can suck and bards can rock and so on and so forth. None of that matters in the slightest when talking about the tier system "working" or "failing", because tiers are a representation of POTENTIAL and OPTIONS, not absolute power level.

If people would stop acting as though the tiers are gospel, and realize that they are nothing more than an abstraction for potential optimization comparisons, we wouldn't have so many inane discussions like this.

[Koury]

<snip>
YES, ... bards can rock...
<snip>

[Insert generic Perform: Electric Guitar joke]

:smallbiggrin:

[Tyndmyr]

Yes they are it's WoW. Periods also help to identify an acronym(which is not a word and thus wouldn't be in the dictionary)[/nitpick]

You've clearly never actually been on the wow forums. Neither capitalization or periods are in common use.

[Tavar]

Completely misses the point.

In addition to what Gametime said, let me repost a post by the author of the tier system on it's purpose/use. If you have issues with this post, I'll try and answer them to the best of my abilities, but so far no one seems to address it's points, simply talking around it instead.

I've been meaning to put this in the first post for a while now... I'll link it in later.

A big question that's come up recently is this: what exactly is the purpose of the tiers, and what do they measure? Many people think it means raw power, but that's not the case. Raw power is pretty worthless as a measurement, as there are too many areas to be powerful in. What's stronger after all... the Barbarian that can do 2000 damage a hit, or the Factotum who can be completely impossible to detect? In the end, the best explanation I can give is a metaphor.

Imagine for the moment a map. This map represents the entire campaign world as the DM knows it. The map is four dimensional in that it includes time... it includes the invasion of the Mindflayers 10,000 years before the start of the game, the Orc invasion that's coming a year after the game starts, the fact that the princess of the land will be kidnapped right after the game starts, and so on. This map also includes any notable NPCs, any locations... basically everything the DM knows about (and thus everything that exists in the game world). Some DMs make their entire map before the players even sit down the first time, while others build it piecemeal as the game progresses. Some build a huge map, most of which the players will never see, others build a map that's just big enough to include everything the players will see. But this map exists for all games in some form.

Through this map runs a road. This road represents the path the DM expects the PCs to take through the game world. It too is four dimensional. Perhaps the PCs are expected to be chased out of their starting village by some attacking monsters, then lured to the castle with promises of reward for rescuing the princess, or whatever. In some cases, this road may represent the story the DM wants to tell via the PCs, in other cases the road connects from one encounter to the next. For some DMs, this road will be very thin, and the PCs are expected to follow a very specific set of actions... this is generally called railroading. For other DMs, this road is very wide, such that the PCs can wander all over without ever leaving the expected road... this is called sandbox play. And as with the map, some DMs plan out the road far in advance, while other DMs only plan it out session by session, but in any case there's always some kind of road.

So let's imagine an example, using what we've got above. We've got our campaign world of, let's say, Jaronland. As the DM, I've planned out the continent full of city states, with each city state being controlled by one race and some races controlling multiple such city states. It's a somewhat low magic world... WBL is normal but it's hard to get specific magic items. I'm a pretty sandboxy DM, so the road is pretty wide, but it starts with the PCs getting chased out of their home and sent to a castle where they learn that there is a healthy reward for whoever can rescue the princess, and rescuing the princess will result in the PCs learning of an upcoming orc invasion which they must then prepare for. Eventually they'll gain power and treasure by clearing out some dungeons and solving tasks for allies and amass an army and repel the invasion (okay, so I just finished playing Dragon Age). In this case, the road is that series of events... it's reasonably wide, so as long as the PCs are chasing those goals running around clearing out enemies and making friends they're basically on the road.

Now, what do the Tiers represent? Weaker tier classes will require help to follow my road if I don't specifically build the road to play to their strengths. A Fighter, for example, might be completely worthless when the PCs have to travel over to deal with the elves and convince them to help, as diplomacy is required and the Fighter has absolutely no diplomatic abilities. When dealing with the evil necromancer in his tower, the Ninja can't do anything since all the enemies are undead unless I make sure to include special gear for him. At the very weakest tiers even playing to their strengths won't help... a Warrior will have trouble being useful even in standard combat encounters unless he's heavily optimized. As a DM, I'm going to have to work to make sure my weak tier players can follow my road, by tailoring encounters for them (suddenly, some elves are ambushed by monsters! By defeating the monsters, you make the elves like you more! Good job Fighter!), by giving them loot and gear that fixes their class problems (when you unlock the chest, you find a Truedeath Crystal. Yay ninja, now you can do something useful!), or by otherwise giving them little nudges that help them out (You find a magical warrior only +1 Keen Enfeebling Rapier that's mysteriously Warrior only!).

At the other end of the spectrum are the powerful tier classes. These guys can follow the road easily, but they can also leave it entirely. My campaign as listed would be pretty lame if the Cleric just says "I cast Miracle. There, we win the battle against the Orcs. What's next?" Likewise, having the Wizard assassinate the Orc leader with Love's Pain would be pretty silly. And if the players say "we need to get stronger before the invasion... let's Plane Shift to Ysgard!" things are going to get very weird, as they've gone not just off my road, but right off my map. Suddenly instead of having to help my players along the road, I now have to put barriers on the side of the road to keep them in. This can be nerfs (a mysterious force prevents Plane Shift from working!), coincidences that keep them from using their nastiest tricks (nobody ever loved the Orc leader. Also, he has an antimagic torq that's always on. Stop that), or gentleman's agreements with the players (um, please don't cast miracle in the final battle. It'll mess up my plans. Thanks).

At this point I should mention that I don't consider players to be asses for breaking my game. It's not their fault... really. The rules of the game give them these abilities, and I gave them this scenario, and it makes perfect sense for their characters to do what works in saving their homeland. After all, can you really imagine a Wizard saying "hey, there's the killer dragon that's going to eat us all. I could totally kill it with Shivering Touch and then go home safe and sound with all my friends safe too, but instead I'm just going to cast Haste on the Fighter so he feels better and the fight is more interesting"? That would be like a soldier in battle saying "well, our enemies aren't as well equipped as us, so I'm going to get out of my tank and try and attack them with a sword!" His CO would punch him in the face and get him back in that unfair tank of his right away (or use some other appropriate military discipline). Point being, it's not that my players are asses for doing exactly what they're allowed to do. The problem is the class, not the player (unless the player is being particularly abusive after being asked otherwise, or intentionally messing up the game. But I don't attribute to malice what can be attributed to ignorance). Sure, you can just ask the player not to use the abilities that get the job done really well, but that gets annoying as you quickly run into the situation where the player is saying "okay, I can beat this encounter in the following ways. Which ones are allowed today?" And that's just not a challenging dramatic way to win battles at all.

Anyway, in the center of the Tiers you've got the classes that can follow most roads quite nicely, and yet don't easily go flying right off said roads. These are the Tier 3 and 4 classes. Sometimes they can't follow the road perfectly, sometimes they may be able to leave it, but in general they stay on that road.

And of course you can make particularly easy roads to follow, or hard roads to follow. This works great if everyone's at a similar power level. I'm running a game right now where everyone's a level 6 commoner. I just make the road easy to follow... they most recently had to defeat a group of awakened house cats (the epic battle continues!). In a normal game they'd be screwed, but the difficulty level was set low enough that they could do it (though one of them got sucker punched by a stunning fist to the nuts from a kitten... for one damage. Go Monk Kitty!).

So, one can then catagorize the tiers like this, if one wants:

Tier 6: Can only follow very easy roads. Is virtually incapable of surprising the DM or leaving the road. Will need help to keep up.

Tier 5: Will often have trouble following roads where their specialties don't apply. Will almost never leave the road, though might rarely do something unexpected.

Tier 4: Will occasionally have trouble following roads in certain circumstances. Will very rarely leave the road, but may do unexpected things occasionally.

Tier 3: Will only rarely have trouble following the DM's road. Sometimes will have unexpected abilities that allow them to leave the road.

Tier 2: Will occasionally have trouble following roads in certain circumstances. Will often have abilities that allow them to leave the road, and thus require significant observation to avoid having them go in an unexpected direction.

Tier 1: Will virtually always be able to follow any road not specifically tailored to be difficult for them. Has abilities that allow them to be very unpredictable and can leave even the widest of roads if played with any amount of creativity. Requires significant observation to avoid having them go in a completely unexpected direction.

Note there's a funny thing that happens with the Tier 2 classes, as they're as powerful as Tier 1s (and thus as able to leave the road) and yet they're not as flexible as Tier 3s most of the time. They're just sort of special that way. In a weird way, they're some of the most difficult classes to deal with, as they sometimes need help, and sometimes need restraining. For example, a Sorcerer might be able to Planar Bind something with incredible power to help deal with one situation, and may thus dramatically change your game world (for example by binding a Midguard Dwarf and thus becoming able to get whatever magic items they might want in the example game above), and yet be unable to do something like talk with people and gather information in a town.

Anyway, I hope that all makes sense.

JaronK

[Rasman]

I find power gamers as a whole to be rather hilarious. I just don't understand the mentality that produces these gamers. It's a roleplaying game...you can't win DnD.

if i may, it's not that people are trying to "win" D&D, it's partly a respect factor OR a desire to be effective or just plain do something cool

I powergame because I want to be effective with classes that everyone else calls a joke and because I want a little respect from my playing group because I'm the new guy, it's not so much a desire to win as a desire to be

[dsmiles]

[Insert generic Perform: Electric Guitar joke]

:smallbiggrin:

You must have played The Bard's Tale. I'm talking about the more recent, comedic version.

[Ormagoden]

That first post. It makes me cry.

[BigBadBugbear]

Unless of course you load up on healing spells (oh no they can't cast them spontaneously like a Cleric) and forget to take Natural Spell (or use up all your Wild Shape as a cat on 2 minute scouting missions).


In a game I play a lvl 10 full druid. But because its a dwarf i dont use wild shape, instead i choose the Stone From feat from races of stone. I also took the elemental companion from complete mage. Also i prepair a lot of healing spells because I'm the only divine caster. Ans I use the spell compendium. But I only use the spells that have something to do with stone....

why?... because it looked fun....

[The Glyphstone]

That would be like a soldier in battle saying "well, our enemies aren't as well equipped as us, so I'm going to get out of my tank and try and attack them with a sword!" His CO would punch him in the face and get him back in that unfair tank of his right away (or use some other appropriate military discipline).


http://pix.motivatedphotos.com/2008/6/20/633495988526210130-drive-me-closer.jpg


:)

[Gametime]

In a game I play a lvl 10 full druid. But because its a dwarf i dont use wild shape, instead i choose the Stone From feat from races of stone. I also took the elemental companion from complete mage. Also i prepair a lot of healing spells because I'm the only divine caster. Ans I use the spell compendium. But I only use the spells that have something to do with stone....

why?... because it looked fun....

It's your prerogative to prepare whatever you like, but you might find you get more mileage out of not preparing so many healing spells and just using spontaneously-cast Summon Nature's Ally IV spells to get Unicorns. A single Unicorn has more healing in it than than the level-equivalent Cure Serious Wounds (three Cure Light Wounds and one Cure Moderate, at CL 5, is 5d8+20 healing compared to 3d8+10), and can spread it around.

Using your spell slots on offensive spells is a great way to end battles more quickly, followed by using your spontaneous casts to top people off.

[Dimers]

It's your prerogative to prepare whatever you like, but you might find you get more mileage out of not preparing so many healing spells and just using spontaneously-cast Summon Nature's Ally IV spells to get Unicorns. A single Unicorn has more healing in it than than the level-equivalent Cure Serious Wounds (three Cure Light Wounds and one Cure Moderate, at CL 5, is 5d8+20 healing compared to 3d8+10), and can spread it around.

If only unicorns were made of stone! :smallbiggrin:

Come to think of it, that character should totally ride a stone horse (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Stone_Horse).

[The Glyphstone]

Get Spell Thematics as a feat and choose "Stone" for your theme. Now EVERYTHING you cast is made of stone, or related to stones. Problem solved!

[Kurald Galain]

The tier system doesn't work because it assumes everyone plays the same ways, within the same tolerances, when merely perusing this board shows otherwise.

As several have pointed out already, the very first page on the tier system makes it abundantly clear that it doesn't assume everyone plays the same ways, within the same tolerances.

[Optimystik]

As several have pointed out already, the very first page on the tier system makes it abundantly clear that it doesn't assume everyone plays the same ways, within the same tolerances.

But, noticing that means I have to read. Reading is hard! :smallsigh:

[SpikeFightwicky]

I used to play with someone like that. All of their characters were one-trick ponies, and their one-trick never worked the way they thought. He'd usually make a single attack, spend 5 minutes calculating bonuses, mess up, have someone else help out, then that person realizes that most of the bonuses don't stack, don't apply, have to be used in a specific way that doesn't apply, etc... It usually ends with says 'power-gamer' claiming that his character sucks and moping the rest of the night away.

The best part was when they charged a giant, generating 3 AoOs from the target and the giants next to him, and then dropping to -3 after some brutal damage rolls. When we told him that charging isn't the best way to solve every situation, his retort was "I have to charge. My character's useless otherwise".

[Kurald Galain]

Oh yeah. That reminds me of a none-too-bright player I once had that decided the best tactic in combat was to ride the fantasy equivalent of a cow, and have it charge the enemy so he could use his dagger. This was because he built a character that couldn't fight (being a socialite and all that) and "this was the only way he could deal damage".

I'm not sure if it was an attempt at power gaming or just plain dumb, but it sure was ineffective.

[huttj509]

You've clearly never actually been on the wow forums. Neither capitalization or periods are in common use.

You've clearly never been on the internet. Neither capitalization or periods are in common use.

[Draz74]

You've clearly never been on the internet. Neither capitalization or periods are in common use.

I dunno, the number of periods might actually exceed the number of sentences, thanks to the occasional post that pulls the average way up by doing something like this..............................

[Kurald Galain]

uve clrly ner been on da interwebs neitr capizilatoin or peroids r in comn uze

Fixed that for you :smallbiggrin:

[Knaight]

I dunno, the number of periods might actually exceed the number of sentences, thanks to the occasional post that pulls the average way up by doing something like this..............................

This might have something to do with the lack of complete sentences on the internet as well; grammar in general is largely viewed as blase, as even people who are capable of using proper grammar have a tendency not to. I do this to some extent, as there is a lot that can be done with variations from proper grammar, and between people who realize that, and people who just can't seem to make a sentence, periods probably outnumber sentences. Added to these factors are the numerous internet memes, most of which don't fit in whole sentence format.

Back to topic, on reasons to power game. I power game myself, to a limited extent, often beyond the rest of my group, because I like my characters, and would prefer not to have them killed repeatedly. Furthermore, I also enjoy being able to end combat quickly, and get back to the -in my opionion- more fun portion of the game. Naturally that only applies in games where combat goes slowly, I'm more likely to powergame Rolemaster than D&D, more likely to powergame D&D than GURPS, and more likely to powergame GURPS than Savage Worlds. I just don't powergame most varieties of Fudge, and I find the very concept of powergaming in Risus laughable.

[SpikeFightwicky]

Oh yeah. That reminds me of a none-too-bright player I once had that decided the best tactic in combat was to ride the fantasy equivalent of a cow, and have it charge the enemy so he could use his dagger. This was because he built a character that couldn't fight (being a socialite and all that) and "this was the only way he could deal damage".

I'm not sure if it was an attempt at power gaming or just plain dumb, but it sure was ineffective.

Heh, probably something that seemed really cool in his mind, but didn't work in-game.

I inadvertantly created a super-effective socialite that was deadly in combat. In a Legend of the Burning Sands game, I made a 'socialite' and had a few points left over (about 90% of my points were in social or non-combat magic skills), so I invested a bit into my staff skill. Combined with the stats I had, I became the group's second best combatant (I rolled something like 6 dice to hit with the staff and kept 2-3). I couldn't take much of a hit, but I was a difficult target. I was new to the system (we all were), so I didn't realize how effective I was in combat until I was told how many dice to roll/keep. Even better, I was almost as good in social situations as the other socialite, and that other socialite had 0 ability to defend themselves.

I think it's the irony that makes it all worthwhile. Every character the power gamer in our group made was designed to bend rules to get more numbers on paper, but in practice, those same characters were almost useless. The player was hot tempered and didn't like criticism, so no one could let him know how poor his character was.

[Gametime]

I dunno, the number of periods might actually exceed the number of sentences, thanks to the occasional post that pulls the average way up by doing something like this..............................

Or the occasional poster who uses nothing but ellipses...I hate reading sentences like that...it just looks like they're trailing off for no reason...it's never aesthetically pleasing or anything...and it's not even a correct use of the ellipsis...

[Pharaoh's Fist]

Or the occasional poster who uses nothing but ellipses...I hate reading sentences like that...it just looks like they're trailing off for no reason...it's never aesthetically pleasing or anything...and it's not even a correct use of the ellipsis...

.................................................. .........................

[AtwasAwamps]

.................................................. .........................

????????????????????????

...

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Kobold-Bard]

I heard about a woman on the radio today who is phobic about lines of dots, especially when written or typed.

You better hope she doesn't peruse the Playground or you may have all just killed her.

[Pharaoh's Fist]

I heard about a woman on the radio today who is phobic about lines of dots, especially when written or typed.

You better hope she doesn't peruse the Playground or you may have all just killed her.

She wouldn't have happened to leave a mailing address, would she have?

[Fitz10019]

If only unicorns were made of stone! :smallbiggrin:

Come to think of it, that character should totally ride a stone horse (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Stone_Horse).

You know, a unicorn with kidney stones might fit the theme. It would just be reeealllly grumpy.

[Saintjebus]

Pharoah, you are quite evil, sir. I approve.

[Kobold-Bard]

She wouldn't have happened to leave a mailing address, would she have?

Funnily enough she didn't :smalltongue:

[Overshee]

.................................................. .........................

... --- ...

[Jayabalard]

Actually, NAACP (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/NAACP) can be found at m-w.com. So acronyms are in dictionaries. :smallsmile:As are a number of words that started off life as acronyms, such as laser (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Laser)


But there was lots of powergaming in the old days. Nostalgia may be interfering with memory of yours.I'm really not so convinced; I ran into people who were into power gaming far less often back then. And of the ones I did run into, most of them had the decency to feel ashamed of themselves. :smallbiggrin:

3e on the other hand seems to encourage power gaming. There's a very different mentality in the design.


But you sure as hell can lose it.Not really; you can have a character killed, but that's not the same thing as losing the game.

[Tyndmyr]

Not really; you can have a character killed, but that's not the same thing as losing the game.

You just made me lose the game.


I would argue that yes, you can lose the game. Not necessarily by having a character killed...but by completely failing to achieve the objectives of the game. I can conceive of a character who achieves his goals BY dying and self-sacrifice, sure...but I can also conceive of a campaign that never really goes anywhere, and fizzles horribly because the players involved really just failed at playing D&D.

[Jayabalard]

I would argue that yes, you can lose the game. Not necessarily by having a character killed...but by completely failing to achieve the objectives of the game.This would only the case in games where the game itself has specific, concrete objectives. Those aren't required to play D&D, or any other RPG that I can think of off-hand.

[Gametime]

3e on the other hand seems to encourage power gaming. There's a very different mentality in the design.



I would be interested to hear how it encourages power gaming any more than every other edition of D&D.

If you think you're running into power gamers more often now, consider two things. One, your experiences are not statistically representative. Two, power gaming is, without doubt, easier now. The internet makes the transfer and acquisition of information easier than ever before. The fact that there are more power gamers now, if indeed there are, does not change the fact that there were still power gamers then.

[Gametime]

This would only the case in games where the game itself has specific, concrete objectives. Those aren't required to play D&D, or any other RPG that I can think of off-hand.

A game without objectives is boring. If you don't have an objective, you aren't achieving anything, and if you aren't achieving anything then what are you doing?

Perhaps what you mean is that the objectives in a game of D&D isn't laid out by the rules, which is true. Or that the objective can be assigned by the DM, or decided on by the players, or some combination thereof, which is also true. Either way, that is not the same as a lack of objectives. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any game that doesn't involve objectives. I'm pretty sure it ceases to be a game at that point.

[Tavar]

Also, more compared with what? Pure numbers? Well, there are more RPG's total now, so there would probably be more powergamers.

Considering how much literature seems to focus on powergamers, even from relatively early on in DnD's lifespan, I have to agree that this hardly seems to be a recent development.

[Jerthanis]

I had one player who had the most bizarre ideas of what was powerful.

He statted up a Troll character who no one ever let him play, so I wasn't super-clear on the mechanics, but he had twinked out his regeneration so much that when fighting, just to show off, he would tear off his own arm and beat people with it like it was a club. Horrible at actually fighting, and super weak versus save-or-loses, but killing him with hit point damage was very difficult.

His other characters were Monk/Barbarian/Reaping Mauler characters who could grapple extremely well, but couldn't do a single thing else. He also played a bard with a 4 constitution once and thought it was a great idea.

[Mongoose87]

His other characters were Monk/Barbarian/Reaping Mauler characters who could grapple extremely well, but couldn't do a single thing else. He also played a bard with a 4 constitution once and thought it was a great idea.

Min/Max, man. Minimize your life span, maximize your lulz.

[Viletta Vadim]

I would be interested to hear how it encourages power gaming any more than every other edition of D&D.
It actually gives you a significant number of meaningful choices?

[awa]

maby he had a way of becoming undead (or a construct i suppose) in a level or two and had something else about the charecter that made him good

[absolmorph]

His other characters were Monk/Barbarian/Reaping Mauler characters who could grapple extremely well, but couldn't do a single thing else. He also played a bard with a 4 constitution once and thought it was a great idea.
Well, that second one is a stereotype of bards...

[Gametime]

It actually gives you a significant number of meaningful choices?

All that means is that it offers more opportunities to make a bad character. Again, I don't see how this motivates people who aren't already planning on optimizing to optimize, nor do I see how it creates a "power gamer" mentality. (Power gamer here assumed to mean a player for whom power is the only consideration, beyond synergy, fun, or roleplaying applications.)

[SurlySeraph]

I had one player who had the most bizarre ideas of what was powerful.

He statted up a Troll character who no one ever let him play, so I wasn't super-clear on the mechanics, but he had twinked out his regeneration so much that when fighting, just to show off, he would tear off his own arm and beat people with it like it was a club. Horrible at actually fighting, and super weak versus save-or-loses, but killing him with hit point damage was very difficult.

His other characters were Monk/Barbarian/Reaping Mauler characters who could grapple extremely well, but couldn't do a single thing else. He also played a bard with a 4 constitution once and thought it was a great idea.

Frankly, that sounds like they were built more for fun than for power to me. Clubbing people with your arms, suplexing dragons, and being an asthmatic fop all sound like they could be highly enjoyable ways to approach the game.

[Jerthanis]

Frankly, that sounds like they were built more for fun than for power to me. Clubbing people with your arms, suplexing dragons, and being an asthmatic fop all sound like they could be highly enjoyable ways to approach the game.

If he wasn't always talking about how awesome his builds were, I'd agree. He had a good sense of humor, so it was fun, but to play with him he clearly thought his characters were unstoppably powerful and we were just incapable of understanding his genius powergaming skills.

[Dragonmuncher]

One of the traps would-be power gamers fall into are the abilities that just sounds like they'd be so cool. Vow of Poverty, for instance: "Oh so I can all these superpowers, for free, without having to worry about gear? Sweeeeeet."

Or, I remember a time when I was trying to stat out a Bullseye-type character. It used monk, exotic weapon master, and master thrower to become the absolute best at throwing bazillions of shurikens at people. I could attempt to pin them to the wall, I could try to disarm them, I could throw a shuriken as a touch attack...

What I couldn't do was DAMAGE.

Sigh... it was still a cool idea, though

[Dante & Vergil]

Goodness, I remember my first character, Wizard 4/Bard4, because there was only me and one other person in the party and I was told a bard would be needed/useful. I don't remember much past the first encounter, but I do know that later when I realised that I could cast stronger and cooler spells, fireball, specifically. I know the spell is not that now, but I knew then that multi-classing was really bad for casters.
Also, nowadays, I like using homebrew for my characters whenever I can or am allowed. My first real character, was an Ultimate Necromancer 4/Monk 2/Boneblade Reaper 3. Looking back, there was a lot of cool stuff my DM used to let me use. I don't know.
Just speaking my mind.

[dsmiles]

I would be interested to hear how it encourages power gaming any more than every other edition of D&D.

If you think you're running into power gamers more often now, consider two things. One, your experiences are not statistically representative. Two, power gaming is, without doubt, easier now. The internet makes the transfer and acquisition of information easier than ever before. The fact that there are more power gamers now, if indeed there are, does not change the fact that there were still power gamers then.

I can show where another edition of AD&D doesn't encourage power gaming. Take, for instance, 1e. The only customization you could do is: pick your race/class combination, assign your stats, pick wp's and secondary skills/nwp's. Wizards/illusionists can choose their spells. Show me where today's definition of power gaming comes into play.

[Gametime]

I can show where another edition of AD&D doesn't encourage power gaming. Take, for instance, 1e. The only customization you could do is: pick your race/class combination, assign your stats, pick wp's and secondary skills/nwp's. Wizards/illusionists can choose their spells. Show me where today's definition of power gaming comes into play.

Just to be clear, I'm assuming that we're talking about power gaming as an approach where you attempt to maximize your own power, possibly at the expense of the fun of others, and almost certainly to the exclusion of anything you don't focus specifically on.

Ready? Here we go.

Power gaming is a superlative approach; that is to say, you choose the best options available. Now, it's possible that every single spell in 1e was completely balanced and equal. I don't know - I never played. It's possible that every race was just as good as every other. It's possible that every class was balanced against every other.

If that isn't true, though, then there's a best option. If there's a best option, you can power game. If you are inclined to power game, you'll probably do it regardless.

Optimizers are concerned with superlatives, generally; they're concerned with proficiency (and no, not the rules kind). An optimizer wants to be good at something he chooses to do; a power gamer wants to be the best at something he chooses to do. Depending on the edition and how balanced it is, the amount of optimization or power gaming necessary to get to that point will vary; in, say, 4th edition, where there are only a few bad powers and even the "bad" classes are only suboptimal and not terrible, you don't have to optimize much at all to get a perfectly serviceable character. There is still a lot of room for power gaming, though, because the baseline for proficiency is considerably below the upper limit on power.

I posit that an edition can promote optimizing if the non-optimized options are poor enough. I would even argue that 3rd edition does this; if you don't optimize, and your team mates do even a little, your samurai is not going to contribute much to the party. However, no edition promotes power gaming significantly more than any other because those with a drive to be the best will always attempt to be the best, no matter how small the gap between "the best" and "average" is. It isn't a matter of absolute power comparison; it's a matter of superlatives. The power gamer wants to be better than you, and he can do that in any edition - unless, of course, every class and spell and skill are all of exact value. I think we all know that's never been completely true.

Further, I should note that even if 1st edition didn't allow opportunities for power gaming, that wouldn't magically prove that 3rd edition does. Your thesis seems to be that options promote power gaming, and I would argue that that only holds true for optimization; the mentality that goes along with power gaming is too specific to be influenced much by game rules.

[Starbuck_II]

I know AD&D did (2e), multiclasses almost always was better than single classing (unless human who can't multiclass).

[Jayabalard]

Your thesis seems to be that options promote power gaming, and I would argue that that only holds true for optimization; the mentality that goes along with power gaming is too specific to be influenced much by game rules.No, I think it's quite clear that in his thesis he's talking about a game where you choose between lots of options that have, in and of themselves, vastly different power levels rather than a game where you have options that have no clear advantage in power the others. The former game promotes power gaming much more than the latter, because it makes power gaming easy; this is especially true when the game design encourages that sort of min-maxing (rewarding of rules mastery) rather than discouraging it.


I know AD&D did (2e), multiclasses almost always was better than single classing (unless human who can't multiclass).Level limits? I don't really remember 2e very well (I mostly stuck to the 1e rules), but generally multi-classed demi-humans had lower level limits than single classed demi-humans.

[Tyndmyr]

Just to be clear, I'm assuming that we're talking about power gaming as an approach where you attempt to maximize your own power, possibly at the expense of the fun of others, and almost certainly to the exclusion of anything you don't focus specifically on.

Ready? Here we go.

Power gaming is a superlative approach; that is to say, you choose the best options available. Now, it's possible that every single spell in 1e was completely balanced and equal. I don't know - I never played. It's possible that every race was just as good as every other. It's possible that every class was balanced against every other.

If that isn't true, though, then there's a best option. If there's a best option, you can power game. If you are inclined to power game, you'll probably do it regardless.

I am aware of no edition of D&D in which spells, races, and classes were balanced and equal. In some, race/class was sort of one mish-mash, and plenty of them had less options in total than 3.5, but there's definitely better options and worse options, and it'll make a significant difference. Hell, even getting a character with poor stats killed off asap so you can reroll a better one probably constitutes power gaming.

[Jayabalard]

I would be interested to hear how it encourages power gaming any more than every other edition of D&D.It's that part of the game design where the player is rewarded for rules mastery, and the reward is having a more powerful character. This was supposedly part of the design philosophy for 3e, and I would say that it was clearly not the case in AD&D.


One, your experiences are not statistically representative.I didn't claim that they were; I just said that I personally was not convinced that it was nostalgia interfering rather than just a much lower incidence pf powergaming in 1e AD&D.


The internet makes the transfer and acquisition of information easier than ever before.I see this thrown around, and while it's a true statement, it's a bit misleading. The internet has been around in one form or another for quite a while, it's just more popular now. While playing 1e AD&D in the mid 80s, I had USENET, and I know for a fact that there were thousands of people in some of the groups I wound up reading/posting to; heck, there were thousands of people talking about D&D in some of the local BBS forums.

There was quite a bit of overlap between the gaming crowd and the BBS/Usenet crowd, so it's really not very surprising that it was a popular topic of conversation.


The fact that there are more power gamers now, if indeed there are, does not change the fact that there were still power gamers then.you're arguing against a straw man here. I never said there were none then, just that I ran into them less often.

[Tiki Snakes]

Just to say that the only real difference between a power gamer and an optimiser is whether you consider yourself one, or perhaps simply a matter of whether the person or type of person you are describing is to be described positively or negatively.

The distinction is pretty arbitrary.

[Ashiel]

I agree with Gametime. Previous editions were not better balanced, and encouraged plenty of optimizing. Heck, look at humans vs demi-humans. Dual-classing didn't even work unless you were meta-gaming the heck out of it, and the ability score requirements for different classes greatly encouraged power-gaming.

When I was reading the 2E PHB, it specifically called out that many players didn't even want to play a character if they couldn't get at least one 18 on their rolls. This led to a small section in the PHB telling you to give a low score character a go because it still might be fun. (Pg. 18 of the 2E PHB if anyone cares to check it)

Oh, and ability requirements to even play the race you wanted. Yeah, that couldn't encourage power gaming "I need at least a 7 or I can't be a dwarf!".

Oh, and let's talk about how if your prime ability score was really high, you got a +% boost on experience gains, in a game that you had to amass thousands and thousands of experience points to advance (one great red dragon I checked being worth less than 5000 XP). Tell me THAT doesn't encourage players to want to "power-game".

It offers options that can be seen as "better" than other options.
It rewards powerful and/or prepared characters for optimizing in some form (in this case, you gain more experience and you are more likely to survive without rolling new character).
It has penalties for not being a stronger character, in addition to bonuses for being a stronger character (in this case, everything from race, class, and rewards are based on higher numbers).
Success is influenced by power and ability. (All things being equal, having lower ability scores do not help you survive a dungeon, no matter how much someone tries to say it does. Having higher ability scores do.)

From this, we can surmise that previous editions of D&D (1E/2E) encourage power gaming.

Power-gaming can occur in any game, not just RPGs. My sister power-games when she racks up +30 extra lives passing through stages on Super Mario World, using tricks she's learned playing, so she doesn't have to start over when she gets defeated by the big-bad of the next castle (IF she gets defeated). She'll grab the cape of the fire flower because it's better against more enemies and allows her to slow-fall and fly, so she can more effectively deal with the traps and enemies. She carries a spare cape in case she looses her first. Sounds kinda like someone rackin' up their stats to avoid re-rolling to me, and definitely power-gaming. She does pack the fire-flower in aquatic stages because it slaughters the annoying fish, and the cape provides little help in such stages. Also, she'll be the first to tell you that the only Yoshi worth having is the blue one, and she upgrades ASAP. Super Mario World encourages Power Gaming.

How about in Fallout 3? You get 10 + INT skill points each level. I never start with less than 9 intelligence, then I run to the permanent intelligence boost item to max it to 10. Why? Because being smart lets you get better at other things, which means surviving in the hostile world of monsters and madmen is a lot easier when you actually have enough skill points to invest in lock-picking, explosives (gotta disarm those mines), science (need to hack them computers to keep the 'bots off your butt), and sneaking (always get the first shot, and always get the last shot!). Fallout 3 encourages Power Gaming.

Final Fantasy (any of them) encourage power gaming. You can die/loose which means your party gets taken down by their enemies or fails against traps, and then you have to restart the game (sounds like re-rolling to me). You can learn magic, pick up good weapons, have a balanced party, use little known tricks or secrets, pickup optional characters, become a paladin, summon the magical entity to kick butt, or gain levels through adventuring to make you stronger and less likely to suddenly have to re-start. We can determine from this that Final Fantasy encourages Power Gaming.


Let's move on to Donkey Kong. Yeah, this game doesn't encourage power-gaming at all. But if you think about it, you can't actually DO anything that isn't specifically laid out in the game plan or objectives. You don't get to customize Mario as he attempts to save "what's her name", and you don't get any power-ups. You just jump barrels. This game is totally balanced. Donkey Kong does not encourage Power Gaming.

Duck Hunt. Similar to Donkey Kong, this game has no customization factor. Besides the overwhelming desire as a child to shoot that snickering dog, you can't change or develop anything other than a high score. You can't upgrade to different types of guns, get a better rate of fire, or even shoot something besides ducks, so again, this game really doesn't encourage power gaming (and also is very balanced). Duck Hunt does not encourage Power Gaming.





...
I posit that an edition can promote optimizing if the non-optimized options are poor enough. I would even argue that 3rd edition does this; if you don't optimize, and your team mates do even a little, your samurai is not going to contribute much to the party. However, no edition promotes power gaming significantly more than any other because those with a drive to be the best will always attempt to be the best, no matter how small the gap between "the best" and "average" is. It isn't a matter of absolute power comparison; it's a matter of superlatives. The power gamer wants to be better than you, and he can do that in any edition - unless, of course, every class and spell and skill are all of exact value. I think we all know that's never been completely true.
...


Emphasis mine.
This is equally true in other editions. If you play a wizard in 2E with a 9 intelligence, whose only spell he or she prepared today was magic missile, you're probably not going to contribute much next to the 18/64 paladin next to you, and the party's str 15, dex 15, int 13, cha 15 bard (who levels faster than you, nyah nyah :smalltongue:).

That said, in your example, I blame the complete warrior samurai player for him not contributing equally. If everyone is useless, then everyone can contribute to being equally useless. However, adventures will typically reward this with the chance to re-roll more characters, or starting the adventure over. Unless the DM pulls punches or plays monsters and bad-guys as intentionally stupid to compensate for really poor characters (read: EASY MODE), then there will be penalties for this "not-power-gaming".

Maybe I should invite board members to join me in a game on OpenRPG sometime. I will run the Red Hand of Doom adventure, and you grab some buddies to play a CW Samurai, PHB Monk, NPC class Adept, and CA Ninja. You might be able to do it. It'd be interesting to watch.

*goes to get a glass of water.*

[Gametime]

It's that part of the game design where the player is rewarded for rules mastery, and the reward is having a more powerful character. This was supposedly part of the design philosophy for 3e, and I would say that it was clearly not the case in AD&D.

But you've offered no evidence that it wasn't the case in AD&D. It's not as clear as you seem to think it is.


I didn't claim that they were; I just said that I personally was not convinced that it was nostalgia interfering rather than just a much lower incidence pf powergaming in 1e AD&D.

Fair enough.


I see this thrown around, and while it's a true statement, it's a bit misleading. The internet has been around in one form or another for quite a while, it's just more popular now. While playing 1e AD&D in the mid 80s, I had USENET, and I know for a fact that there were thousands of people in some of the groups I wound up reading/posting to; heck, there were thousands of people talking about D&D in some of the local BBS forums.

There was quite a bit of overlap between the gaming crowd and the BBS/Usenet crowd, so it's really not very surprising that it was a popular topic of conversation.

Sure, but the expansion of the internet did bring it to more and more people. There were gamers weren't on Usenet, after all, and in general I think it's safe to say they'd optimize and power game less efficiently due to a lower level of dialogue with other players. The more you're exposed to other players and their ideas, the more you understand the game.


you're arguing against a straw man here. I never said there were none then, just that I ran into them less often.

Only because you put up a straw man. If the implication isn't that your experiences are representative, then there was no reason to reply to the original point at all. If you realize that the anecdote won't alter anyone's perceptions, why mention it?

[Ashiel]

It's that part of the game design where the player is rewarded for rules mastery, and the reward is having a more powerful character. This was supposedly part of the design philosophy for 3e, and I would say that it was clearly not the case in AD&D.

I call bull-crap on that one. There's a ton of system mastery with previous editions. Every freakin' ability score meant something completely different from the other (beyond the fact higher = better). Someone who didn't know the system might not realize that having anything higher than a 16 in Constitution didn't do much for non-warriors, or that most games didn't reach high enough levels for race level limits to matter. How about the fact if you're a human fighter who dual classes into wizard, you get no XP if you swing your sword that adventure? You might decide, "Hey now, maybe this is a bad option." and avoid that junk.

How about when you notice that fighters have nothing on Paladins and Rangers unless certain splat-rules (read Grand Mastery) were included, meaning that Paladins and Rangers get all your abilities and more. They get less XP, but if they knew to put their highest scores in strength, they might be getting a bonus to their XP gains to help alleviate it.

The only reason AD&D may have experienced less benefit for rules mastery is because so much stuff was lacking or left out, or left to the individual to formulate themselves. And I say may because there's still plenty that system mastery in previous editions can do for you. It's one of the reasons PC games based off the system (like the holy grail of PC gaming, Baldur's Gate I-II) have entire articles and guides built around weighing the benefits of different class kits, racial values, experience charts, and pros and cons to different options.

BS, BS I say! :smallmad:

[Gametime]

No, I think it's quite clear that in his thesis he's talking about a game where you choose between lots of options that have, in and of themselves, vastly different power levels rather than a game where you have options that have no clear advantage in power the others. The former game promotes power gaming much more than the latter, because it makes power gaming easy; this is especially true when the game design encourages that sort of min-maxing (rewarding of rules mastery) rather than discouraging it.


I disagree. I think that a game in which vastly different power levels exist encourage optimizing, because if some people play good characters and others don't the ones with weak characters will have less fun. 3rd edition can be effectively played in a few ways, but ultimately you should either all be optimizing or not optimizing at all; a party of monks, samurai, and truenamers can be plenty fun, if the campaign is built accordingly. A party of conjurers, Clericzillas, Planar Shepherds, and a truenamer is going to be much less enjoyable for the truenamer.

But power gaming isn't concerned with being efficient. It isn't concerned with meeting challenges. It is concerned with being the best. We have two scenarios to consider here: the innate power gamer and the influenced power gamer.

With regard to the former (let's call him Andy), he wants to be the strongest. This can manifest in any number of ways; he'll probably choose the strongest class (or at least what he perceives to be the strongest class), the best race for that class, the best spells or abilities that class can get, and so on. These factors are present in all editions of D&D. What matters isn't that the best class is so-and-so "power units" above the next best class, for the power gamer; wizards could be only slightly better than fighters, but the power gamer wants THE BEST. Any edition has a best, by however slim a margin, and the power gamer will pick it.

With regard to the latter (let's call him Bob), we have a hypothetical player who isn't already interested in playing the best class. Your argument seems to suppose that this player won't be attracted to the best class unless the power disparity is sufficiently large; that is, assuming wizards are a tiny bit better than fighters in AD&D*, he might still play a fighter, but if they're hugely better than fighters in 3rd he'll always play a wizard.

I would argue that this player isn't really attracted to power gaming. He doesn't seem interested in being better than the other players, or in trouncing the encounters; he just doesn't want to suck. That's perfectly understandable, and not really power gaming at all. What he's doing is optimizing; as I said, optimization is a spectrum. It's an attempt to be competent. The player isn't rejecting fighters because he power games, but because a fighter is poor enough to prevent him from gaming at all.

I see no reason why Bob should choose a wizard over, say, a warblade, or a factotum, or a wildshape ranger, if all he's concerned with is power disparity. Remember, that's why he cares - because 3.5 has higher power disparity between classes. In AD&D, according to you, he could pick any class. But a power gamer only cares about power disparity insofar as it crowns a single class "best" - he'd power game regardless of edition. For Bob to become a power gamer just because he started playing 3.5, his motivation would suddenly have to change from "I'll play any class that does well enough." to "There's no reason to play any class that isn't the best." I fail to see why this would be the case; sure, fighters might suck in 3.5, but there are tons of other classes that do just fine without being the best - like the fighter in AD&D, they aren't top of the heap, but they're respectable.

I posit that power gaming is a function of what we want out of the game. A game system can't force power gaming unless all the options except the best are literally unplayable. Even if power gaming becomes "easier," that just means it's easier STILL to optimize without power gaming - to make a good character that isn't great. Why doesn't Bob just do that, in your scenario?

*Note: "Wizard" is here a stand-in for "arbitrarily powerful class." "Fighter" is likewise a stand-in for "arbitrarily weak class." The examples above are not meant to accurately represent the disparate power levels between the two.

[AtwasAwamps]

Power-gaming can occur in any game, not just RPGs. My sister power-games when she racks up +30 extra lives passing through stages on Super Mario World, using tricks she's learned playing, so she doesn't have to start over when she gets defeated by the big-bad of the next castle (IF she gets defeated). She'll grab the cape of the fire flower because it's better against more enemies and allows her to slow-fall and fly, so she can more effectively deal with the traps and enemies. She carries a spare cape in case she looses her first. Sounds kinda like someone rackin' up their stats to avoid re-rolling to me, and definitely power-gaming. She does pack the fire-flower in aquatic stages because it slaughters the annoying fish, and the cape provides little help in such stages. Also, she'll be the first to tell you that the only Yoshi worth having is the blue one, and she upgrades ASAP. Super Mario World encourages Power Gaming.


...I have a crush either on you or your sister, I'm not sure which right now. And I'm sigging the last sentence.

[Jayabalard]

I call bull-crap on that one. There's a ton of system mastery with previous editions. Every freakin' ability score meant something completely different from the other (beyond the fact higher = better).I'm not clear on what that had to do with system mastery; what scores you had were strictly due to good/bad luck in rolling.

Race, Class, gender, name, alignment, starting equipment. There's really not much there, if anything, to optimize; most of them have no direct effect on game play so there is no optimal choice; the rest tend to be highly situational, so there's generally not an optimal choice for them either.


But you've offered no evidence that it wasn't the case in AD&D. My recollection is that there was text clearly aimed discouraging this behavior, in several places in both the PHB and DMG. There also has not been (to my knowledge) a 1e game developer that came out in an interview and talked about how they added in good and poor choices in an attempt to reward game rules mastery.


Only because you put up a straw man.Not at all.

If the implication isn't that your experiences are representative, then there was no reason to reply to the original point at all.Because I had different experiences than the person I disagreed with, and there are a lot of people who frequent this board who have no direct experience with 1e AD&D when it was the current edition. They get to see people talk about different experiences, and draw their own conclusion.


If you realize that the anecdote won't alter anyone's perceptions, why mention it?uh, what?

I wouldn't expect anyone who played 1e AD&D to go with my experience rather than their own...though I guess it is possible, especially if someone didn't have any particularly strong experiences at that time. But there are a lot of people who had no direct experience with that, and they might find such anecdotes (both mine, and starbucks') useful.

[Pharaoh's Fist]

I

Not at all.

You kinda did.

[Jayabalard]

You kinda did.in what way?

[9mm]

Duck Hunt. Similar to Donkey Kong, this game has no customization factor. Besides the overwhelming desire as a child to shoot that snickering dog, you can't change or develop anything other than a high score. You can't upgrade to different types of guns, get a better rate of fire, or even shoot something besides ducks, so again, this game really doesn't encourage power gaming (and also is very balanced). Duck Hunt does not encourage Power Gaming.


Incorrect, the existence of the lightbulb trick allows power gaming if you choose.

[Ashiel]

I'm not clear on what that had to do with system mastery; what scores you had were strictly due to good/bad luck in rolling.

Race, Class, gender, name, alignment, starting equipment. There's really not much there, if anything, to optimize; most of them have no direct effect on game play so there is no optimal choice; the rest tend to be highly situational, so there's generally not an optimal choice for them either.

My recollection is that there was text clearly aimed discouraging this behavior, in several places in both the PHB and DMG. There also has not been (to my knowledge) a 1e game developer that came out in an interview and talked about how they added in good and poor choices in an attempt to reward game rules mastery.

Not at all.
Because I had different experiences than the person I disagreed with, and there are a lot of people who frequent this board who have no direct experience with 1e AD&D when it was the current edition.

An elf gains a +1 dexterity and a -1 constitution and gains a bonus against magic, gains bonuses when wielding bows, has infravision, immunity to sleep, resistances to enchantments, etc. In 2E you may not know it from the get go, but non-warriors gain no benefit for having a constitution higher than 16, but a higher dexterity improves your reaction times, thieving skills, ranged attack rolls, armor class (which stacked with actual armor benefits), and more. By tacking a 17 in your con, -1 for being an elf for 16, you could hit a higher dexterity with no real losses assuming you weren't playing a warrior type. Even if you were playing a warrior type, you're probably still coming out ahead.

Positioning your ability scores, because you understood the way certain ability scores adjusted your saving throws, or affected secondary factors with your character (such as the duration of charms and how they worked on them) could influence how you build your character. You're using rules mastery to build more effective characters.

There wasn't much to do with characters past ability scores, races, and classes (the the multitude of kits if you had expansion material, though the 2E PHB came with several sub-classes included); but that doesn't mean one couldn't power game there.

As I pointed out in my previous post with the Game vs Game examples, one could easily conclude that in fact more options invite more power-gamers. If people are only allowed one option, they cannot pick the optimal option in that given situation.

However, D&D, in my humble opinion, has always been about options. If not for options, then why are we playing D&D over Donkey Kong, Duck Hunt, and World of Warcraft? :smallannoyed: (Note: I've played WoW, I like WoW, but there are less options in World of Warcraft than in D&D. If I want to fight monsters, go on quests, and do it my way, I play D&D.)

EDIT:

Incorrect, the existence of the lightbulb trick allows power gaming if you choose.
Educate me? :smallbiggrin:

[9mm]

EDIT:

Educate me? :smallbiggrin:

the way Duck hunt works involves the screen turning black for a split second every time you pull the trigger, with the ducks being replaced with a white circle, the zapper uses a sensor to determine whether it's pointed at a bright, white source of light. If yes, duck dies, if no duck doesn't die. Now if you put the Zapper against a nice friendly turned on lamp with the sensor pointed at the bulb, you won't miss, ever. In other words you can exploit the weakness of inherent technology for an optimum result; see using any badly written ability for a D&D parallel.

[Ashiel]

the way Duck hunt works involves the screen turning black for a split second every time you pull the trigger, with the ducks being replaced with a white circle, the zapper uses a sensor to determine whether it's pointed at a bright, white source of light. If yes, duck dies, if no duck doesn't die. Now if you put the Zapper against a nice friendly turned on lamp with the sensor pointed at the bulb, you won't miss, ever. In other words you can exploit the weakness of inherent technology for an optimum result; see using any badly written ability for a D&D parallel.

Hahaha. Brilliant. I'd personally consider that somewhat like fudging dice rolls though, but I get your point. We learn something new each day.

EDIT: Wait, how does it tell which duck you shoot?

[Jayabalard]

Positioning your ability scores, Yes, if you'll note, I didn't list this as part of the game that had options in it, because it might not be something that you had any control over. The earlier you go, the more likely you were to be using some sort of "in order" rolling scheme.


ve played WoW, I like WoW, but there are less options in World of Warcraft than in D&D. If I want to fight monsters, go on quests, and do it my way, I play D&D.There's more roleplaying in D&D; there are FAR more build options in warcraft than there was in 1e AD&D or OD&D due to talent trees in WoW.

[Tyndmyr]

Yes, if you'll note, I didn't list this as part of the game that had options in it, because it might not be something that you had any control over. The earlier you go, the more likely you were to be using some sort of "in order" rolling scheme.

Rerolling the set due to bad ability scores or suiciding your character for the same reason was a common way of getting around this. Enough random results, and eventually you'll get one you like, at which point you start playing with all due paranoia.

[AtwasAwamps]

This thread has gotten remarkably off-topic, hasn’t it?

[Ashiel]

Yes, if you'll note, I didn't list this as part of the game that had options in it, because it might not be something that you had any control over. The earlier you go, the more likely you were to be using some sort of "in order" rolling scheme.

There's more roleplaying in D&D; there are FAR more build options in warcraft than there was in 1e AD&D or OD&D due to talent trees in WoW.

Yep, like there are more options in basic D&D than there are in Donkey Kong, which is actually my point. You apparently equate options to power gaming. If that's the case, then yes you are correct. Role-playing can exist in anything (including Donkey Kong - think about it), and I've been in role-playing groups on WoW. There are role-playing games that use no mechanics, and thus either have A) no options, or B) unlimited options, depending on your views.

However, I do not equate options with power gaming. I equate options with options, and generally I like options. It's one of the main reasons I dislike playing older editions of D&D (or newer, humorously, but that can of worms is for another day). I see power-gaming as something that has always and will always exist, and I feel it is independent upon anything beyond the ability to make mechanical choices. You however are equating options to power-gaming (though somewhat indirectly), which is, I believe, beyond the scope of what I'm interested in discussing at the moment. :smallamused:

You may want to check out the D&D: Shadows over Mystara, and D&D: Tower of Doom arcade games. They're fun, and they offer a lot of classic D&D sword & sorcery goodness that we all love. Pick a character and play. The most you can choose is changing your color (which interestingly changes the spell selection of the casters by a little bit, but they mostly play the same for the most part). It's a great game (one of the best ever, IMO).

[Tyndmyr]

This thread has gotten remarkably off-topic, hasn’t it?

It's page seven. Im amazed we're still talking about power gaming at all. By now, I'd expect it'd be about the virtues of squid in 4e as DMPCs or some such.

[Ashiel]

This thread has gotten remarkably off-topic, hasn’t it?

It depends on your view. Understanding the concept or nature of power gaming is, I think, a very important factor in discussing it in its various forms (be they effective or ineffective). :smalltongue:

[Gametime]

I think the problem here is that Jaya isn't actually arguing that the editions offered more or less power gaming opportunities, but that the developers themselves encouraged or discouraged it based on text in the DMG and what we can infer from their intentions.

To this, I can only respond that you are giving Wizards of the Coast far too much credit if you think the consequences of the rules systems they design are purely intentional. I would bet large quantities of money on Wizards intending all the classes in the PHB to be balanced.

[Gametime]

It's page seven. Im amazed we're still talking about power gaming at all. By now, I'd expect it'd be about the virtues of squid in 4e as DMPCs or some such.

Squid as DMPCs are clearly inferior to most breeds of sea turtle.

[Tyndmyr]

Squid as DMPCs are clearly inferior to most breeds of sea turtle.

Pfft, the players will just lash them together with human hair for use as a raft.

[Akal Saris]

I loved the video game power gaming post =)

For the record, while I loved Donkey Kong, Donkey Kong 2 was my favorite SNES game, and it had dixie and diddy. Diddy had a slightly longer roll (nice against bosses, especially the end boss), Dixie could levitate/fall slowly - very nice for completing stages.

Donkey Kong 2 encourages power gaming.

[AtwasAwamps]

I loved the video game power gaming post =)

For the record, while I loved Donkey Kong, Donkey Kong 2 was my favorite SNES game, and it had dixie and diddy. Diddy had a slightly longer roll (nice against bosses, especially the end boss), Dixie could levitate/fall slowly - very nice for completing stages.

Donkey Kong 2 encourages power gaming.

That's Donkey Kong Country. The original Donkey Kong featured Mario jumping over barrels to save some random hussy who wasn't even royalty.

[Ashiel]

I think the problem here is that Jaya isn't actually arguing that the editions offered more or less power gaming opportunities, but that the developers themselves encouraged or discouraged it based on text in the DMG and what we can infer from their intentions.

To this, I can only respond that you are giving Wizards of the Coast far too much credit if you think the consequences of the rules systems they design are purely intentional. I would bet large quantities of money on Wizards intending all the classes in the PHB to be balanced.

Well I read in an article by one of the 3.5 designers back when it was coming out that they were overhauling several of the PHB classes because game testing and heavy amounts of feedback were suggesting problems with some of the classes. They altered the bard (heavily), ranger (heavily), monk (pretty heavily), and some of the other classes a bit. They specifically called out that they felt the Fighter was obviously powerful enough and just fine.

However, if you recall, the boards at the time were discussing all the "1337 borked h@x" fighters were capable of because of stuff like Whirlwind Attack + Great Cleave + bag of rats (which didn't really work). Fighters got nerfed hard when they didn't need to. Some of their feats didn't work together anymore, and Improved Critical + Keen, which was a staple for fighters no longer stacked - arguably because vorpal was tied to critical hits, but was changed to natural 20s only in 3.5, but resulted in a double nerf where they tried fixing things in different places.

Truthfully, the casters still ruled the school, but it wasn't as obvious then. There's evidence that suggested that, yes, they intended it to be a well balanced system. I'm sure that those who designed the previous examples of D&D wanted it to be a well balanced system (I mean it was born from a war game. Ever wonder why elves are immune to ghoul paralysis? 'Cause the powerful high cost elven units were getting slaughtered by cheaper undead units, and they added the immunity that stuck). However, that didn't stop the existence of plenty of balance issues such as humans vs demi-humans; but I digress.

[Beelzebub1111]

I know AD&D did (2e), multiclasses almost always was better than single classing (unless human who can't multiclass).
Because you ended up with twice as many hit-points for some reason, with the same amount of experience. It's insanely stupid.

[Zaydos]

I loved the video game power gaming post =)

For the record, while I loved Donkey Kong, Donkey Kong 2 was my favorite SNES game, and it had dixie and diddy. Diddy had a slightly longer roll (nice against bosses, especially the end boss), Dixie could levitate/fall slowly - very nice for completing stages.

Donkey Kong 2 encourages power gaming.

That's Donkey Kong Country 2, which brings up that Donkey Kong Country (where you could play Donkey or Diddy) also encourages power gaming as Donkey could kill some enemies Diddy could not and pound the ground for free stuff but Diddy could jump further and higher and moved faster.

So does Super Mario Bros the Lost Levels as Luigi can jump further but has worse traction, and Super Mario Bros 2 where I always choose my character on usefulness to the situation at hand.

[AtwasAwamps]

This puts me in mind of a story about a good friend of mine. This good friend of mine had a favorite baseball game for the N64. This particular game was based around Ken Griffey Jr…it featured this particular player prominently and was in fact named after him.

Naturally, this made Ken Griffey Jr. the very best player in the game…next to one other. Barry Bonds, in fact, had higher stats than Mr. Griffey in this particular game. Faster, stronger, and so on…made to represent his higher stats in the past season before the game’s release. However, because this was Mr. Griffey’s game…Ken Griffey Junior ran faster, hit harder, and did everything better than the supposedly superior Mr. Bonds.

Well, this got my friends britches in a bunch. You see, he LIKED Barry Bonds and felt that his favorite player was getting horribly gypped. Thus, he made it his mission to make sure that Bonds had a perfect season whenever he played, while KGJ was allowed to have an ALMOST perfect season. This became more and more difficult as the game kept attempting to put Ken Griffey ahead in stats, meaning that very slowly, the computer made sure that KG hit every time he swung, and shot everything he swung out of the park. Which had my friend desperately swinging before the ball came anywhere near the bat, swinging at obvious out-of-reach pitches, and generally flailing wildly whenever KGF was at bat (because naturally, KGF was on his team for greater control of the results!), and resetting the game if Barry Bonds didn’t hit a home-run whenever he was at bat.

Note that all of this was while my friend was playing the Baltimore Orioles. Because he’s insane like that.

[RebelRogue]

Yep, like there are more options in basic D&D than there are in Donkey Kong, which is actually my point. You apparently equate options to power gaming. If that's the case, then yes you are correct.
It's clearly a prerequisite for power gaming.

[penbed400]

I had a player once who thought that a Swordsage 3/Ranger 4/Duelist 2 was going to break my adventure through the Tomb of Horrors due to its sheer damage output. It was something like 65 damage, he was counting every dice as maxed out though so the average was more around 33 and that was if he hit on every attack, got every possible bonus and used up some stances/maneuvers. This was cute when I considered how many things a straight Wizard 9 could do. Baleful Polymorph, Dominate Person, Magic Jar, Cloudkill, Phantasmal Killer. Or even if you wanted to do straight damage a Slow Maximized Orb of Acid would do 72 damage with no save or SR.

[Serenity]

Not to mention that damage is generally unhelpful in the Tomb of Horrors, where there are exceedingly few monsters compared to Traps of Instant Death.

[Ashiel]

It's clearly a prerequisite for power gaming.

So, we can conclude that X game is better than Y game because you can do less and have fewer options with X than Y. Since options equate to power gaming, we should therefor remove options to reduce power-gaming. Therefor, the worse a system is at defining something or providing options, the better it will be to avoid power gamers (since people apparently think they are bad).

It would, then, be logical to say that we could make the perfect edition of D&D by limiting everything to 1 class, 1 race, with a preset set of ability scores (no rolling nor point buy nor method by which an option could be present), with set skills and abilities, and let everyone play that. We will have healed D&D by making an edition that does not encourage power-gaming.

Who's with me!? :smallbiggrin:
*waits for applause*

[Foryn Gilnith]

[1. General] [F0ryn_61LN17H] /sarcasticclap
[1. General] [Z0W0B0W0] LF enchanter in SW need 100 hp chest got mats


It would, then, be logical to say that we could make the perfect edition of D&D by limiting everything to 1 class, 1 race, with a preset set of ability scores (no rolling nor point buy nor method by which an option could be present), with set skills and abilities, and let everyone play that.

This is why I love Wushu.

[RebelRogue]

So, we can conclude that X game is better than Y game because you can do less and have fewer options with X than Y.
No, not at all. I'm just stating a plain fact. You need options in order to have a chance to find one that is vastly better than the average.

[Tyndmyr]

No, not at all. I'm just stating a plain fact. You need options in order to have a chance to find one that is vastly better than the average.

True. It is necessary, but it is not sufficient.

And of course, taking all the options away in an attempt to prevent it, well...that sacrifices the options, which for many people, makes the game vastly less fun.

[Ravens_cry]

Far be it from me to say someone plays the game wrong, but if there's no real options, why not play a video game? Part of the appeal to me of pen and paper role playing games is the freedom it offers, even compared to option rich computer games like Nethack, which attempt to emulate pen and paper dungeon crawls.

[NemoUtopia]

I treat power-gaming usually as an intellectual exercise. For example, asking questions like "Just how high CAN I get my AC against all different types of attacks?" and going from there. When powergaming is clearly an attempt to win a game that isn't an arena/gladiator style game, though...and often, even when it is...I remind the other person that it IS a game and you don't win it, you play it. I actually have not pulled out one of my power-gaming exercises to play [or those of any other]...and often just play straight core class. With fluff feats. Because I know that I'm always trying to be efficient and such, so only intentional inefficiency will counteract it. What's REALLY funny though, is the few times I've come across ineffective power gamers:

*Setup is low level FFA Arena*
Warmage player: "Pffft, you're a straight wizard? You don't stand a chance."
*I quirk my eyebrow, having already prepared long-duration buffs to cast early in the fight. We 'meet in the center' after I've gained one 'kill' with a simple magic missile against a monk as a vulture move and he's gained two [maybe three] from his spells and spear*
Warmage player: "Ha, see? Just us now, you don't stand a chance. I'll reach you and get you with a [OP non-core] spell."
Me: "Funny, I'm out of spells for today. Too bad it doesn't matter."
Warmage: "Out of spells?! Hah, yeah it doesn't matter, you're toast."
Me: "No, it doesn't matter because I'm an elf and you're at half-maximum longbow range without cover. Nice spear though."

Yes, the core wizard using arrows and transmutation spells kicked the warmage to the curb. :smallwink:

Ineffective powergamers can usually be summed up in one way: they get caught up on one specific, powerful option to the exclusion of all else. As a result, they usually forget to shore up obvious and glaring weaknesses, which I have no trouble being a dastardly bastard DM or player about exploiting to bring them down a peg and reward those truly playing.

[Optimator]

For the record, while I loved Donkey Kong, Donkey Kong 2 was my favorite SNES game, and it had dixie and diddy. Diddy had a slightly longer roll (nice against bosses, especially the end boss), Dixie could levitate/fall slowly - very nice for completing stages. /B]

Diddy also climbs ropes faster than Dixie.

[Ashiel]

No, not at all. I'm just stating a plain fact. You need options in order to have a chance to find one that is vastly better than the average.

Sorry, I was trying to combine several different points from several different posts to create a certain brand of humor. I think I failed, unless you chortled a bit at the silliness of such a concept. I don't actually believe such a thing would be a good idea.

And yes, optimization and power-gaming both tend to require options. "Munchkinism" however might not, since it is usually associated with cheating (either by bending rules or through other methods). But yeah, it is hard to make better mechanical choices without mechanical choices to pick from. :smallsmile:

[The New Bruceski]

I would say that Powergaming, in and of itself, is not destructive even when doing so puts one above the other players.

It's when said powergamer GLOATS about it that it quickly becomes intolerable. This occurs easily enough and is so memorable that many people think it's a necessity of the powergamer label. It is not enough to simply be awesome, everyone else must KNOW how awesome you are, and how much they aren't. When someone goes for this and fails is when you get the reverse-gloating anecdotes you see here.

[Dragonmuncher]

So... how did Duck Hunt know which duck you were aiming at?

[Kesnit]

I would say that Powergaming, in and of itself, is not destructive even when doing so puts one above the other players.

It's when said powergamer GLOATS about it that it quickly becomes intolerable. This occurs easily enough and is so memorable that many people think it's a necessity of the powergamer label. It is not enough to simply be awesome, everyone else must KNOW how awesome you are, and how much they aren't. When someone goes for this and fails is when you get the reverse-gloating anecdotes you see here.

I was about to disagree with you and say there is a risk of OOG destruction whenever a PG plays with a non-PG and had an example in mind. Then I realized you were right.

I played a short-run, LVL 18-19 campaign as a pure Hexblade. The other player was a WIZ/Cleric/True Necro and the DM had helped him put together some really OP undead cohorts. (One was so OP - I think she was a LVL 28 Rogue/Assassin/Something - that the player ended up refusing to use her in melee - with her uber epic dual short swords - and used her as an archer.) The TN didn't bother me though. He just played his characters (he's a great RP-er) and his powerful cohorts without making a spectacle of himself.

It was the DMPC's who, thanks to memorizing the MIC, homebrew, and some tricks I never could understand, were the only ones who could consistently finish encounters. And the DM was always so proud of his builds. And (in hindsight), they always had just the right ability to solve any problem. (Go figure...) :smallfurious:

[Jayabalard]

So, we can conclude that X game is better than Y game because you can do less and have fewer options with X than Y. Since options equate to power gamingNope; while I agree these particular straw men are much easier to argue against, I don't think anyone has claimed that options = power gaming; nor do I recall anyone saying that less options = better game... just that options are required for power gaming, and that games with less options tend to have less opportunities for power gaming, especially when those options have small variability in power level.

Oh, and there's probably at least one person saying that if a game has lots of options, and those options have a very wide range of power advantages/disadvantage, and the game designer says they put these elements into the game to encourage rules mastery by rewarding players by giving them more powerful characters, then that game (by it's very design) encourages powergaming more than a game where these statements are all false.

[Zincorium]

I was about to disagree with you and say there is a risk of OOG destruction whenever a PG plays with a non-PG and had an example in mind. Then I realized you were right.

I played a short-run, LVL 18-19 campaign as a pure Hexblade. The other player was a WIZ/Cleric/True Necro and the DM had helped him put together some really OP undead cohorts. (One was so OP - I think she was a LVL 28 Rogue/Assassin/Something - that the player ended up refusing to use her in melee - with her uber epic dual short swords - and used her as an archer.) The TN didn't bother me though. He just played his characters (he's a great RP-er) and his powerful cohorts without making a spectacle of himself.

It was the DMPC's who, thanks to memorizing the MIC, homebrew, and some tricks I never could understand, were the only ones who could consistently finish encounters. And the DM was always so proud of his builds. And (in hindsight), they always had just the right ability to solve any problem. (Go figure...) :smallfurious:

See, the thing is that TN is dramatically inferior to Mystic Theurge- except it has 'necromancer' in front of it, which is actually important to some people. And there is a reason that there are strict limits on the amount of undead that can be controlled- if you break those limits, things get out of hand.

And that's a really stupid way to DM. I'd leave rather quickly, and my absence may not even be noticed.

[Ashiel]

Nope; while I agree these particular straw men are much easier to argue against, I don't think anyone has claimed that options = power gaming; nor do I recall anyone saying that less options = better game... just that options are required for power gaming, and that games with less options tend to have less opportunities for power gaming, especially when those options have small variability in power level.

Oh, and there's probably at least one person saying that if a game has lots of options, and those options have a very wide range of power advantages/disadvantage, and the game designer says they put these elements into the game to encourage rules mastery by rewarding players by giving them more powerful characters, then that game (by it's very design) encourages powergaming more than a game where these statements are all false.

You must have missed this post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7813573&postcount=222) where I said the post you're quoting from was a joke. However, if you want to discuss what it implies, then I'll gladly jump in.

In short, someone (maybe you) maid the claim that 3.x encourages power-gaming and system mastery over previous editions. Someone suggested this was because 1E/2E had fewer things you could optimize, and that discouraged optimization (or some-such). I pointed out in this post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7810281&postcount=185) that all editions of D&D, and indeed many other games, encourage power gaming and system mastery. Considering that power-gamers are by no means a new thing, there's a logical problem that emerges.

Now, the biggest actual difference from previous editions is that 3.x has more options. More options create more chances for better - on average - effects. You have the option to take the Run feat, and you have the option to take Great Fortitude. The former is a good option in a fairly small set of situations, while the latter provides a stable benefit to a character's survival (it helps against poison, disease, death magic, level drain, etc). Now, it's likely that many will prefer Great Fortitude over Run, but does that mean we should take the option for Run? No, because there were players in a recent thread discussing Run that really love the feat. Should we then reduce the benefit of the Great Fortitude feat so it will be a less appealing choice when compared to Run? Again, no, because again this feat provides a viable option, and to argue it is bad is to argue that Run is good, when they're just very different.

Older editions of D&D had fewer of these choices, and fewer options in general for defining your character. You couldn't use these options to be stronger, so you used existing options (such as kits, cleverly placed ability scores, and races that had synergy with your choices). The only logical way someone could claim that it's innately better because it encourages power gaming less is because it has less options.

Point based systems are notorious for having potential balance issues, especially without system mastery. Why? Because you can build your characters with far less limitation. What's the benefit? More options.


Oh, and there's probably at least one person saying that if a game has lots of options, and those options have a very wide range of power advantages/disadvantage, and the game designer says they put these elements into the game to encourage rules mastery by rewarding players by giving them more powerful characters, then that game (by it's very design) encourages powergaming more than a game where these statements are all false.

Re-quoted for focus:

I would like to know where exactly that the game designers said they intentionally put unbalanced elements into the game to encourage people to power-game. I, threw mere observation, could guess that they put a lot of really pointless and/or poorly designed, or flavorful but inefficient options in the game to "fill it out" so to speak; but I don't recall reading in any of the books (or in any web articles on WotC) that they had some sort of ulterior motive.

[The Glyphstone]

I would like to know where exactly that the game designers said they intentionally put unbalanced elements into the game to encourage people to power-game. I, threw mere observation, could guess that they put a lot of really pointless and/or poorly designed, or flavorful but inefficient options in the game to "fill it out" so to speak; but I don't recall reading in any of the books (or in any web articles on WotC) that they had some sort of ulterior motive.

I know they specifically said this about Magic: The Gathering. I'm not sure if they ever said it was their intention in D&D though.

[Jayabalard]

You must have missedNope; missed is not the correct word.


In short, someone (maybe you) maid the claim that 3.x encourages power-gaming and system mastery over previous editions. Someone suggested this was because 1E/2E had fewer things you could optimize, and that discouraged optimization (or some-such).No, I think it was said that it contained fewer options, those options had a much narrower difference in power, and that the language of the books and other materials strongly discouraged the type of min-maxing that is kind of integral to the game in 3e. There's a mention that there was a much stronger stigma associated with that behavior: people hadn't tried to separate out terms optimization, powergaming, and munchkinism (which I still kind of regard as a double-speak-ish solution at best). And that all of these things together led to less powergaming in earlier editions.


I would like to know where exactly that the game designers said they intentionally put unbalanced elements into the game
It's referenced in this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=79809). It came up in some of the initial skirmishes of the 3/4 edition war.

[Ashiel]

I know they specifically said this about Magic: The Gathering. I'm not sure if they ever said it was their intention in D&D though.

I play Magic the Gathering casually (I used to play competitively, but I lost the heart to after an incident at a tournament), and I know what you're talking about here, and it's true, I do remember this coming up during an article involving cards and their various abilities, on the WotC website. :smalleek:

That being said, I really hope that whomever suggested that the designers for 3.x D&D intentionally place balance issues into the game to encourage power gamers and reward system mastery - especially when so many different splat-books are written by different (and often freelance) writers - doesn't use this as their citation, or I will be sorely disappointed. :smallannoyed:

It's interesting conversation at least. :smallsmile:

[Kesnit]

See, the thing is that TN is dramatically inferior to Mystic Theurge- except it has 'necromancer' in front of it, which is actually important to some people. And there is a reason that there are strict limits on the amount of undead that can be controlled- if you break those limits, things get out of hand.

It wasn't the TN part of the class that was a problem. (He didn't do a lot with his casting, as the player likes playing blaster-casters.) It was the huge number of HD of undead that he was controlling. (I don't know the class very well, so have no idea if he was going over the max.) He had the aforementioned 28(?) HD Rogue, as well as a 15(?) HD intelligent undead with class levels. Plus a few lower-level Rangers and Rogues that we killed and he animated.


And that's a really stupid way to DM. I'd leave rather quickly, and my absence may not even be noticed.

Thankfully, the campaign was short-lived. Soon after, we switched to an RP-heavy Vampire: the Requiem game (run by the guy who had played the TN). Since the power-gamer DM did not know WoD at all, he managed to build a gimped character - and thought he was all-that. :smallbiggrin:

Actually, that story would fit into this thread... He built a melee-focused Gangrel, but rather than focusing on using his claws, he statted out to use a katana, including points in Craft (sword) so he can make his own weapons. The character's social skills were poor, and he was rather unintelligent. (Low intelligence makes the Gangrel clan weakness even more apparent.) All he could do on a regular basis was swing his sword. (But with a low Stamina and DEX, he didn't last long since he got hit a lot and had low health.) However, WoD is not nearly as combat heavy as D&D, so he spent many gaming sessions just sitting there because there was nothing his character could do.

(Before someone says the ST should have taken that into account, WoD really does not have the combat focus that D&D does. The player was offered help in building his character, but said he knew what he wanted. The other 4 players had characters that were statted out for more than combat. Plus, the player is just a really bad RP-er and not very creative with his abilities.)

[Ashiel]

Nope; missed is not the correct word.

No, I think it was said that it contained fewer options, those options had a much narrower difference in power, and that the language of the books and other materials strongly discouraged the type of min-maxing that is kind of integral to the game in 3e.


It's referenced in this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=79809). It came up in some of the initial skirmishes of the 3/4 edition war.

Hah, I've been ninja'd!

Ok, cool. This is a much better example than I expected. I went and read the post you meant, and I'm left a little unimpressed. For example, in the post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4287084&postcount=1) you've linked, I read the quote of the guy paraphrasing Monte Cook, and the quote by Monte Cook he's speaking about. I noticed a striking difference.


Originally Posted by T. Foster
But remember that, by Monte Cook's own admission, they included a bunch of intentionally "sub-optimal" options and advice in the 3.0 rulebooks as a way to encourage "rules mastery" among the player-base -- that those players who studied the rules (or hung out at the Character Optimization board at WotC) would be "rewarded" by having a real advantage over the casual players who just (foolishly) followed the advice in the books.

That attitude (which seems to have been carried over directly from Magic: The Gathering) was one of the biggest turn-offs of 3E for me, because at this point in my life I have zero interest in "mastering" a ruleset, but neither do I want to be stigmatized as an "inferior" player by my decision not to do so (nor do I want to kowtow to some rules-geek for his condescension-laden "help").


Originally Posted by Monte Cook's blog
Magic also has a concept of "Timmy cards." These are cards that look cool, but aren't actually that great in the game. The purpose of such cards is to reward people for really mastering the game, and making players feel smart when they've figured out that one card is better than the other. While D&D doesn't exactly do that, it is true that certain game choices are deliberately better than others.

Toughness, for example, has its uses, but in most cases it's not the best choice of feat. If you can use martial weapons, a longsword is better than many other one-handed weapons. And so on -- there are many other, far more intricate examples. (Arguably, this kind of thing has always existed in D&D. Mostly, we just made sure that we didn't design it away -- we wanted to reward mastery of the game.)

I would note, in my interpretation, that Monte Cook is suggesting that they don't do it like Magic the Gathering, but that some choices are deliberately better. He he also points out, further down, that they didn't want to "design away" these things, which he explains were always a part of D&D. :smallamused:

Also, his example of the Toughness reminds me of the Run example I made in my last post, though it does have some key differences that I will be considering in regards to the conversation.

Thank you Jayabalard. I shall think upon this. :smallsmile:

[Melamoto]

Not to be too upfront, but this is getting really off-topic. Can't you just create a new thread to discuss customization and powergaming in?

On a related note, I once had a player who was worried that his gestalt Fighter//Monk would break the game.

[Arakune]

It can, but on the wrong direction.

[Gametime]

No, not at all. I'm just stating a plain fact. You need options in order to have a chance to find one that is vastly better than the average.

Options are a prerequisite for power gaming. It does not follow, and in fact is not the case, that more options lead to more power gaming. I've already discussed this at length, so I won't go into it here, but in short the more options you have the more noticeable a power gamer becomes. If the difference between the baseline and the best is the difference between 1 and 2, you won't notice the power gamer much. If it is the difference between 1 and 10, you will.

A power gamer will power game even if the benefits are relatively small. It is in the nature of power gaming to seek superlative levels of power, regardless of their absolute relation to more balanced choices.

[Gametime]

I would note, in my interpretation, that Monte Cook is suggesting that they don't do it like Magic the Gathering, but that some choices are deliberately better. He he also points out, further down, that they didn't want to "design away" these things, which he explains were always a part of D&D. :smallamused:

Also, his example of the Toughness reminds me of the Run example I made in my last post, though it does have some key differences that I will be considering in regards to the conversation.



Very intriguing. Notably, the sort of "power differences" he mentions are still present in 4th edition; it would be absurd to make every weapon equally good, for example. And that was certainly true in earlier editions.

This, if nothing else, should make clear a number of things. One, that options are not inherently bad; two, that a game system can be more or less balanced even if unbalanced elements exist within it; and three, that choosing the better option does not automatically make one a power gamer, nor do the options available define how power gamer-y you are being.

[Kurald Galain]

This, if nothing else, should make clear a number of things.
Four, that Monte's statement is a rather obvious CYA; and five, that balance is not nearly as important in a roleplaying game as internet forums like to claim. Note how many published roleplaying games don't care one whit about game balance.

[Gametime]

Four, that Monte's statement is a rather obvious CYA; and five, that balance is not nearly as important in a roleplaying game as internet forums like to claim. Note how many published roleplaying games don't care one whit about game balance.

But if we can't argue about how obviously unbalanced the games we love to play are, we'll be forced to do things like play the game instead of arguing about it! Think of the consequences, man!

[Viletta Vadim]

Four, that Monte's statement is a rather obvious CYA; and five, that balance is not nearly as important in a roleplaying game as internet forums like to claim. Note how many published roleplaying games don't care one whit about game balance.
Most of the games that don't care about balance are bad games. Case in point? RIFTS is generally regarded as a laughingstock in the roleplaying community; even its fans accept that it's not a good game, even if they've had tons of fun with it. Unchecked unbalance within a system causes major problems.

Now, if you take a game like Mutants and Masterminds? No, it's not quite balanced, but it's about as close as you can come within the genre and comes with a toolbox of balancing tools. And it's a good system for it.

Balance considerations are requisite for a good system.

[Captain Six]

Not to be too upfront, but this is getting really off-topic. Can't you just create a new thread to discuss customization and powergaming in?

On a related note, I once had a player who was worried that his gestalt Fighter//Monk would break the game.

Monk and Fighter have a surprising amount of synergy. The monk now has more health, more numerous and accurate attacks and enough bonus feats to finally feed its feat-starved self. If well built (admittedly a very big if) I would be frightened of this combo.

I agree it wouldn't break the game but it's not a bad choice.

[Gametime]

Monk and Fighter have a surprising amount of synergy. The monk now has more health, more numerous and accurate attacks and enough bonus feats to finally feed its feat-starved self. If well built (admittedly a very big if) I would be frightened of this combo.

I agree it wouldn't break the game but it's not a bad choice.

Fighter//Monk is BETTER than a Fighter or a Monk, but that's hardly enough to make it "not a bad choice." If the game you're playing in is low-powered, sure, but then it hardly makes a difference what you choose anyway.

A Fighter//Monk would still be well behind any of the ToB classes, with a well built Cleric who wanted to get involved in melee outstripping either considerably. If the caster classes are gestalt too, there's no contest.

[ScionoftheVoid]

Most of the games that don't care about balance are bad games.

Balance considerations are requisite for a good system.

"Bad" and "good" games in your opinion. Personally I don't care about balance in a game system at all. I do like to be at least competent, but I won't take the best option merely because it is the best. A badly balanced system might make it harder to keep all the players having fun, but it is only inherently worse in your opinion.

[Zincorium]

I think it's more how the game is presented. Certain games aren't balanced thematically, so comprehensive balance wouldn't be good for the game even if you could pull it off.

AD&D didn't even try and claim that different characters of the same level were supposed to be completely balanced- that's why you had so few level-based mechanics and the XP to level up was different for each class. The DM gave you treasure randomly or to match the game, and high level play was so rare that it wasn't examined too heavily.

With 3.0, suddenly a level 18 wizard and a level 18 fighter were treated identically by the rules- you got the same experience for defeating a monster, the same recommended treasure as reward, but it was all a wash because the imbalance remained the same from class abilities.

For me, point based generic systems are the worst for imbalance, because the points are all supposed to be worth the same, and characters with the same points should logically be equally capable, but I haven't yet seen a game with sound pricing across the board- it might not even be possible.

[Ravens_cry]

I doubt it is. I heard it took years for Valve balance out the classes for TF2, and their was STILL balance issues on release. With a point buy system, the possible builds are exponential. There's no way you can test them all. Add splat books to the mix, and you just make it even harder.

[Gametime]

I think we can all agree that balance is not inherently bad, and that of two theoretical game systems which can provide the same amount of fun, the more balanced one is preferable.

That said, balance only matters in games. Balance in the game system is useful only insofar as it tends to make balanced games more common and easier to achieve. The less balanced the game system, the more work you have to put in making your game balanced, and the more likely it is that a new group will accidentally play an unbalanced game and have less fun because of it.

I'd rather play a fun unbalanced system than an unfun balanced one, but balance does contribute to how easily I can enjoy a game.

[Fiery Diamond]

Quoted Stuff.

I see. I hadn't realized that was what Tiers were supposed to be used for. However, I see one (and really, only one) problem with this:

He is incorrect that Tier 6s cannot go off the road or surprise the DM; similarly his assertions about the inability to go off the road for the other low tiers. In fact, the ability to go off the road depends very heavily on how "wide" or "narrow" the road is. The narrower the road, the easier it is to go off of it. Any class can go off even the widest of roads, unless that road is a complete sandbox. This is because there are many choices that can be made by the character regardless of his class.

I do see how the Tier system could be useful as a tool for guesstimating how much assistance/restraining a character will potentially need to follow and stay on the road, however.

...
Spell-checker isn't yelling at me...since when did guesstimate become a real word?

[Tavar]

Really? The Tier six classes have abilities that allow them to get of the road? Please, give examples.

[huttj509]

Really? The Tier six classes have abilities that allow them to get of the road? Please, give examples.


"The orcs that attacked the town are in the blahdeblah mountains!"

Player: Ok, I'm gonna mount up and head away from the mountains as fast as I can.

Any class can simply ignore or refuse to do plot hooks, though that may break an unwritten agreement in the game.

[Tavar]

Right, but again, that's not an ability of the class, and therefore not what the Tier system looks at. Please, list abilities that the class gets that allows it to do so. Then you'll have a point.