"Power gamer" hate?

[Quertus]

Harsh D&D truth: Virtually every player out there is playing to win. Certainly do several players prefer story-based character options, mechanical synergies, big bursts regardless of viability or streamlining the character to be ideally suited for the campaign at hand. But once everyone sits at the table, unless someone is a massive problem player who only wants to cause trouble, everyone is working together to fulfill the campaign's objective with their given characters - in other words, win the campaign.

The main "power gamers" with strong mechanical builds are actually experienced and mature players who know how to make self-sufficient characters capable of contributing in a variety of situations and/or to effectively contribute in their intended role. As for power imbalances, I strongly favor a bottom-up approach to boost the less capable players (not just by giving them freebies that the stronger players could potentially claim, but also by encouraging the other players to help them build/play their character effectively) rather than a top-down approach to weaken the build that's being effective (most of the time, the player isn't violating any game rules and it's not exactly antisocial to try and do your best in a situation for the sake of the team).

"Not stepping on toes" is a more troublesome scenario where I'd consider my approach to help the weaker characters more useful. In some systems and events, a player can end up with a class that's far more powerful/versatile than the other players, forcing them to step on eggshells not to make other players feel inadequate is saying "screw you for wanting to play this class". It can also hamper your IC roleplaying since you're making your character live in a world of cardboard, always taking care not to break something; to break someone*. If you're instead helping the lesser classes by pointing to more viable options that can keep up better, your other players can do more and your power player doesn't have to compromise their character.

If complexity is an issue and your players aren't capable of playing the game at a certain degree of competence, it's probably worth considering to switch to a lighter system with less moving parts in terms of mechanics.

*not ashamed for quoting Superman

So, I very much agree with a lot of what you've said.

I've definitely felt the whole "Superman-esque having to be careful not to break things when playing with less skilled players" thing. It's like walking on eggshells, and not terribly fun. And I strongly agree with uplifting the weak* as preferable to wielding the cursed nerf bat.

However, I question your initial thesis about playing to win, and actively disagree with your last paragraph.

Some people - such as myself - enjoy the moving parts, the complexity. Your purposed solution of moving to simpler systems is a detriment to such people, without even taking that into consideration. It's especially egregious if the people who are new to the system are among the ones who enjoy complexity.

Now, having players with different levels of player skill helps keep from having a party of Determinators. So that's a good thing. And players with the correct role-playing player skills can play down their system skill when playing a less skilled character. But it's awful dang hard for an unskilled player to play a skilled character - without help.

IMO, very few GMs have the inclination or skills to provide the help necessary to let someone without the appropriate** player skills play a skilled character.

In D&D 3.x,, when I see someone pull a boneheaded maneuver, I generally*** give their character a DC 5 Wisdom check. If they make the check, I tell them why I think that their plan is questionable. This way, really wise characters don't make foolish mistakes; other characters might.

Some might say I'm a **** for not giving them more help; IME, most GMs don't even go that far.

As a software developer, I can't fault you for blaming the tools, but there's a little more to the equation than that. Personally - and I'm highly biased here, mind you - I think you'll get more mileage out of fixing the wetware (especially the bit behind the GM's screen) than changing systems.

* Heck, I even had a character ascend to be the god of just that!
** here, I am primarily referring to system mastery (plus setting lore, I suppose), and secondarily to the (related) ability to judge the effectiveness of actions / make good choices.
*** sometimes, I realize I haven't told them something relevant, and just give them the relevant information, no check required.

A power-gamer is someone who does think of their character as a person, but they want to be a REALLY POWERFUL PERSON (and since power is relative, it means either relative to the rest of the party or relative to the world).

Hmmm... What word/phrase would you use to describe someone who has a concept for a character, that happens to be powerful in one system, but they'd just as happily play that exact same concept / character in a system where they'd be under-powered?

Balance is not binary. There's a wide range between "oh no, they do .2 more damage per round than me!" and "Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit".

And the question is, what is the size of the group's acceptable range? So, find the size and position of that range, and play within it.