Results 31 to 60 of 484
Thread: "Power gamer" hate?
-
2018-05-16, 03:33 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2012
-
2018-05-16, 03:35 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2015
- Location
- Berlin
- Gender
-
2018-05-16, 04:18 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2006
- Location
- NYC
- Gender
Re: "Power gamer" hate?
The most broken stuff in 3.5e tends to be in the PHB / DMG / MM1 -- stuff like candles of invocation, wish & gate, bindable Outsiders & Elementals with (Su) wish, Druids, Clerics, etc. so it's odd to call the core design less swingy than later stuff like Warlock, Shapeshift Druid, Warmage, etc.
I want you to PEACH me as hard as you can.
-
2018-05-16, 06:35 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2013
Re: "Power gamer" hate?
One problem with power-gaming is that it's symptomatic of a childish approach to TTRPGs i.e. treating like them a video game that you can win by just being more powerful than everyone else in the game. Sooner or later most players realise that you're never the biggest badass in the multiverse and in fact it would be pretty boring if you were, at least in the standard D&D model of gaming. So they tend to explore other reasons why they game, and tend to end up as better gamers as a result.
-
2018-05-16, 06:45 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2010
-
2018-05-16, 07:01 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2014
- Location
- Avatar By Astral Seal!
Re: "Power gamer" hate?
I feel like we're working on different definitions of "Power Gamer" here.
You seem to be thinking of what, to me, is a munchkin. A munchkin will do anything to get more power, probably disregard roleplay, might very well cheat, and generally has the sole goal of MOAR POWER! at the expense of others' fun.
A power gamer is merely someone who's more mechanics first, and likes to be powerful at what they specialize in. But, some key differences are that they're willing to keep it in line with the group's genera; power level, will try to pick a niche that isn't covered, and will DEFINITELY not cheat.
I mean, at least when it comes to 5E, I tend towards more mechanics first. I still roleplay just fine, but my thoughts are not usually "I want to play this type of person. What mechanics fit that?" it's "I want to play with these mechanics. What character fits that?"I have a LOT of Homebrew!
Spoiler: Former AvatarsSpoiler: Avatar (Not In Use) By Linkele
Spoiler: Individual Avatar Pics
-
2018-05-16, 07:23 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2010
- Location
- Dallas, TX
- Gender
-
2018-05-16, 07:40 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2018
Re: "Power gamer" hate?
Wow, thanks everyone for the great responses. There's no way I'll be able to address everyone, but I feel like everyone had some great insight to offer.
I don't want to misrepresent anyone, but I think this might be a useful summary of a lot of what has been said:
Above all else, keep harmony in the group
1. As with most things in tabletop RPGs, there are very few things, to include power-gaming/mechanical optimization, that are inherently bad, provided that they don't disrupt the harmony of the group. As long as you're "power gaming" while also keeping the needs of others in mind (i.e.: not being a "d*ck"), you're okay, most of the time.
2. As far as the terms themselves, "power gaming" - (the practice of mechanically optimizing PCs) - is not inherently bad (assuming it follows point 1), but "munchkining" can encompass, in addition to "power gaming," a whole different combination of behaviors, such as a willingness to (unreasonably and frequently) complain to the DM, whine, rules lawyer exclusively in one's own favor, etc., which are almost always toxic.
3. It's recommended to think of your PC as a "person," and not just a combination of scores.
(I personally think every optimizier/power gamer - including me - should have a compelling backstory justification for every weird multiclass combo/choice they make. If you can't make a convincing case for why it makes sense to have a paladin/warlock/bard/sorcerer, you probably shouldn't make one)
-
2018-05-16, 08:04 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2013
Re: "Power gamer" hate?
But I just stahed. STAHTED.
Sure that's fine. That way, you can have a group of 'power gamers' who are playing a fun, balanced campaign with highly optimised characters, far be it from me to be Captain Badwrongfun.
I don't think there's any percentage in arguing about exact definitions...much more importantly, it's one of those things that's a problem when it's a problem whether it's called being a 'power gamer' or a 'munchkin' or 'goddamit who invited Eric again? It's always Eric.'
-
2018-05-16, 08:12 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2014
- Location
- Avatar By Astral Seal!
Re: "Power gamer" hate?
I think there's something to be gained by using common terms. To me, a power gamer is someone who is more mechanics first and into optimization, but won't disrupt (or at least, will try not to disrupt) a game. A munchkin is someone who takes optimization too far (and can quite easily take non-optimization too far, such as by cheating) and refuses to adjust to the table.
I have a LOT of Homebrew!
Spoiler: Former AvatarsSpoiler: Avatar (Not In Use) By Linkele
Spoiler: Individual Avatar Pics
-
2018-05-16, 08:52 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2007
Re: "Power gamer" hate?
It's an irregular noun which declines like so:
I'm an optimizer.
You're a power gamer.
They're a munchkin.
(More serious response later when I'm not on my tablet.)Play your character, not your alignment.
-
2018-05-16, 09:08 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2013
Re: "Power gamer" hate?
Of course, clarity of language is useful. I'm not convinced that there is consensus on what constitutes a power-gamer vs. a munchkin in TTRPG terms but your definitions look reasonable. In this lexicon, 'power-gamer' is a neutral term whereas 'munchkin' is negative. Works for me.
-
2018-05-16, 09:41 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2016
- Location
- The Frozen North
- Gender
Re: "Power gamer" hate?
I think this warrants some merit because there are good power players and bad power players. Nobody minds the good powerplayer because he shares the spotlight with the group and gets the group out of trouble during these "clutch" moments. Nobody minds because he's the combat monster in a group of stealth PC's that is happy to be plan B when things fall apart. He contributes to the fun, immersion and roleplaying that the rest of the group values that he also brings a mechanically strong character.
The problem with a bad power player isn't that he's a power player, it's just he's a bad player. The bad power players I've played with had issues and the power playing was the least of their issues. Player usually become problematic when they disrupt play or make the game less fun. It's THAT GUY, he shows up with 5 eighteens and of course his STR is 18/00 because he has all the luck. He disregards the rules to make mechanicly stronger character. When a player shows up with his character who is a vampire draconic half drow and half tiefling and tells you that his last GM allowed him to play the character then you have met THAT GUY. He tries to twist the rules in insane ways and misunderstands abilities for his own benefits. He doesn't care about the rest of the group having fun and disregards teamwork....he may be playing the tankiest guy in the group but when that troll shows up he doesn't want "eat that kind of damage" and runs after a goblin. You know the guy that pockets the magical item while the group isn't looking, it's him....it's THAT GUY!.Optimizing vs Roleplay
If the worlds greatest optimizer makes a character and hands it to the worlds greatest roleplayer who roleplays the character. What will happen? Will the Universe implode?
Roleplaying vs Fun
If roleplaying is no fun then stop doing it. Unless of course you are roleplaying at gunpoint then you should roleplay like your life depended on it.
-
2018-05-16, 09:47 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2011
Re: "Power gamer" hate?
Oh. Gotcha. I played with someone like that, actually... Specifically with lizardman to boot.
So, if I've spent the past 20 years in the "couch potato" lifestyle, show up for a casual game of doubles tennis, and one of the four of us is a world-class tennis champion...
I strongly agree, with the caveat that, in the right group, Thor and a sentient potted plant can be fun for all. So long as people don't have an expectation of balance, balance isn't required.
Have you ever consisted how fun it is for the person playing Thor for you to bring a potted plant?
At most of my tables, the answer is "great fun", because then Thor knows I'm not stepping on his toes, but ymmv.
Dude, you not only did a great summary, you even managed to not malign rules layering carte Blanche. Kudos!
-
2018-05-16, 10:42 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2010
- Gender
-
2018-05-16, 10:43 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2018
Re: "Power gamer" hate?
Thanks. I think there's a big difference between "Trying, to a reasonable (therein lies the rub!) extent, to stay faithful to the rules of the game/table, so everyone has a similar expectation of what is possible in the world," and "Trying to squeeze the language and meaning of the rules to give my character an edge, while generally not caring about other's enjoyment."
Power Gamer:Munchkin :: Rules Faithful:Rules Lawyer?
-
2018-05-17, 12:16 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2009
- Location
- Boston, MA
- Gender
Re: "Power gamer" hate?
Last edited by Dimers; 2018-05-17 at 12:17 AM.
-
2018-05-17, 12:48 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2010
Re: "Power gamer" hate?
Unless everyone is a power gamer, power gaming makes the game much harder for the DM and less fun for the non-power gamers. I'm currently in a game where this is an issue. I joined a but late and made a character at a power level similar to my friends character which he described to me. However, once I joined the game I realized he was WAY more powerful than anyone else int he party, and I'm actually slightly more powerful than he is. He and I basically destroy encounters while the other players have almost no meaningful contribution in combat. If the DM makes a monster that can even hit us or can possibly avoid/resist our attacks, it is invulnerable to the other characters and can't miss them at all. If I had known the party balance beforehand, I would have made a much less powerful character because it wasn't my intention to make other people feel useless.
Basically, it's best to avoid much optimization unless the rest of the players are also optimizers. If you're playing with non-power gamers and playing on god mode is the only way you can have fun, group tabletop may not be for you. If you just enjoy squeezing every ounce of power out of a character, pick some ****ty classes and try to optimize them to be functional.
-
2018-05-17, 01:18 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2014
Re: "Power gamer" hate?
And SIGNIFICANTLY more to be lost.
The time and energy spent getting to "common terms" is far and away not worth it.
Lurk enough on these boards and you'll have seen plenty of discussions that have devolved into pointless rhetoric of how one's usage of a particular term differs from another's and people bickering about insignificant crap just to one-up each other.
Things would be so much better if people avoided terminology arguments. Instead, if there is a misunderstanding be verbose about the point you're trying to convey, rather than about redefining another person's misuse of terms.
Personal opinion is fine, but the previous blanket statement doesn't contribute much.
I'm with Quertus on this one. Balance is overrated. Also, see Snowbluff axiom.
My attempt at non-awful fumble rules
Arcane Archer minimal fix (maybe not so minimal anymore)
Reworking the Complete Adventurer Tempest PrC
Expanding the Pathfinder Called Shots system
Keyboard shortcuts for d20srd.org
Guide to Optimizing To-Hit
Obscure Psionic Power Index
🕷
-
2018-05-17, 01:58 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2018
-
2018-05-17, 02:19 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2014
- Location
- Denmark
- Gender
-
2018-05-17, 04:58 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2018
Re: "Power gamer" hate?
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
-
2018-05-17, 05:43 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2009
- Location
- Ebonwood
Re: "Power gamer" hate?
I don't think that I've ever once played in a campaign that had a clear win condition. Even ones with an obvious main antagonistic force (which was far from all of them) were never obvious in how they would actually be beaten. Most people I've played with aren't intent on winning the campaign so much as they are intent on experiencing the campaign (and by logical extension, survive it). I doubt it's that unusual for players to view a campaign as a story expressed through obstacle courses rather than obstacle courses contextualized with a story.
Now obviously in the shorter term, "survive the campaign" does imply "win the encounters." But playing to not lose is a relevant philosophical distinction from playing to win. The implied onus to excel is significantly more lax, and all that's really needed is to not be actively incompetent (which really should not be that hard).If asked the question "how can I do this within this system?" answering with "use a different system" is never a helpful or appreciated answer.
ENBY
-
2018-05-17, 06:29 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2013
- Location
- Sweden
Re: "Power gamer" hate?
The problem with "compelling backstory" is who decides? Also, when it is clear that the backstory is only created as a means of, as you put it, "justification" for a really weird mix of stuff that makes the character a certain power-level, has the player really thought of the PC as a person?
If it is simply up to the DM to decide what makes for a compelling backstory, many power-gamers would get very upset if they say "no". Also, a backstory can be "technically possible" even though it isn't very "plausible". It is very hard as a DM to decide where to the draw the line of exactly how plausible a character's backstory should be.
I've found that most power-gamers work with the end goal (the character build) first and comes up with the backstory second. Which is contrary to how some others like to do it, which is to start with the backstory and then see what character build makes sense for it. It is not an intrinsically wrong way to do it, but it can create group clashes.
Basically, as so many others have said, power-gaming isn't bad, not inherently. There are plenty of groups out there who are full of power-gamers.
The reason why I think you have encountered "power gamer hate", is due to an inability of many power-gamers to adapt to the theme, tone and power level of the group they come to. They'll just make their über-powerful character, without regard for the rest of the group. Which is why many people have developed an instinctive dislike for this type of player.
I personally am quite similar in mind to kyoryu. One person power-gaming either means the other characters will be overshadowed, or everyone has to power game. Since neither of these options are something I want personally when playing, they (power-gamers) match poorly with my play style.
Interestingly enough, not all power-gamers are good optimizers. I have encountered one in particular who wasn't a very good optimizer, but he was most certainly a power-gamer (though I would say, not a munchkin). I certainly have the skills to optimize, I just most often choose not to. So being a power-gamer doesn't automatically make you an optimizer, imo.
In my view, a munchkin is someone who sees their character as just a set of numerical scores. 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). An optimizer is someone who uses system mastery to accomplish some goal or another.
I can be an optimizer, and sometimes I am (depending on the goal). I can optimize to power-game, but I choose not to (as it doesn't really interest me). I can, however, not see my character as just a set of numerical scores. Not even, ironically enough, when playing munchkin.
-
2018-05-17, 07:51 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2016
Re: "Power gamer" hate?
That is more a D&D specific problem.
My other point of reference being Savage Worlds, those two kinds of players are fine to have in the party with each other. Magic is cool and melee is cool.
Games like D&D that are centered around resource management get into the problem of limited resources classes just being better than at-will classes because the at-will power is vastly over valued.
-
2018-05-17, 11:40 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2010
-
2018-05-17, 12:00 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2014
- Location
- Denmark
- Gender
Re: "Power gamer" hate?
A workable group dynamic is not overrated, however. Without it .... you quite simply cannot play.
-
2018-05-17, 01:55 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2014
Re: "Power gamer" hate?
True and...
...true(sorta).
And there's different kinds of balance too. Balance between the player and the world, balance between him and the rest of the party. The latter is where Keen's point comes in. If you'd be focusing on anything, focus on that.
But it's only sorta true, because "simply cannot" isn't true. It only makes it more difficult. Or you gotta have the right player. One who's primary incentive doesn't clash with an imbalanced party(e.g. can derive enjoyment out of the game without being numerically competitive).
My attempt at non-awful fumble rules
Arcane Archer minimal fix (maybe not so minimal anymore)
Reworking the Complete Adventurer Tempest PrC
Expanding the Pathfinder Called Shots system
Keyboard shortcuts for d20srd.org
Guide to Optimizing To-Hit
Obscure Psionic Power Index
🕷
-
2018-05-17, 02:42 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2014
- Location
- Denmark
- Gender
Re: "Power gamer" hate?
Without a working group dynamic - your group doesn't work. That's ... I mean, it's a circle argument, you can't really argue against it.
Group dynamic can be a lot of things, and yes, I'm sure you can have a working group dynamic that isn't based on balance - which I'm guessing is the point you're making? And yes, I agree, in an imbalanced group it's harder to build a working dynamic.
So .. I'm not sure we disagree. You can easily have a working group dynamic with equally optimized or powered characters - high or low. Less easily with inequally built ones. The greater the disparity, the greater the difficulty. But it's not insurmountable.
-
2018-05-17, 03:00 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2011
Re: "Power gamer" hate?
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.
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?
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.