Hi can anyone explain why people want to powergame ?
I've never understood the point in it I mean where is the sense of achivement in completing an adventure
When you have a character that at any time was in no real danger
I mean I just don't get it and in my experanise most powergameras are not above cheating on the odd dice roll when there super characters don't quite do as much damage as they want
So sorry for the rant but can anyone offer an explanation as to why these players think it's ok to bend the rules so much
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Your "experanise" is but one "experanise" among a nearly infinite amount of different "experanise"s.
I've experienced many different reasons why people want to bend the rules. Sometimes they do it for an advantage, sometimes they want to do it for an RP character concept, sometimes they just want it to fit their build better.
Every type of player is equally likely to cheat. A Powergamer may not want to lose, but an RPer may not want their character to die.
Unless you have data to prove the contrary (and the plural of anecdote is not data), then your entire post is nothing but a commentary on your own unique "experanise" with pen and paper gaming.
Not to mention that word powergaming doesn't even have an agreed definition. What one person calls powergaming I might call "not building your character like an idiot".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why do players do <fill in any sort of behavior here>?
Maybe because they think it's FUN. Roleplayers come in all different kinds, and some of them think it's fun to play in one way, while others think it's fun to play in another.
(Of course, if a player is having fun at other players' expense, then it may be time to have a talk with that player.)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Its also worth noting that there is a definite sliding scale in the whole power gamer debate. One persons "power gamer" is frequently anothers "optimiser" or is even a "roleplayer" who just hit upon a nice build or rolled some good stats.
There is an obsession on this board with making everyone play the game the way you want too that at times goes overboard. I personally do put a little effort into making sure my character is both effective in combat and has some form of out of combat party contribution. I dont like sitting there watching others play the game for extended periods of time. There are definitely people on here who call that power gaming, because I put even a scintila of effort into the crunch and did not focus totally on the fluff.
My advice to you OP is this. Unless it is happening at your table and is having an impact on your fun...let it go. You dont know these people and how they have a good time does not have to conform to your standards.
If it is happening at your table and causing you not to have a good time...please elaborate on your post as there are hordes of people here more than willing to offer advice and insight on how they have handled the problem in the past and help you get back on your way to enjoying the hobby we all share.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
You can call it system mastery. I call it system abuse.
Or I could also call it system abuse (with "it" being the PCs you described) and you could read closely enough to see that the two posters you quoted weren't denying the existence of what you describe, but rather saying that the term "power gaming" shouldn't be applied to it.
Don't let your self-righteous zeal get in the way of seeing that we actually agree, alright?
The effort it takes to make sure people don't brand you a "powergamer" is sometimes more than the game is worth! Like, I'm putting together a character, and I've got my backstory done and spent an hour and a half on my character sketch, and my dude is lookin' all groovy, and then I go to pick feats... and realize that I've put down "Two-Weapon Fighting" ('cause I drew a picture of my guy with a rapier and main-gauche and a big hat with a giant peacock feather in it), and my character is a rogue. So what will happen is, one of the other players MIGHT help me flank, and if he does, I MIGHT get off two sneak attacks in one round, and then people will start ranting about how I'm a no-good Powergamer and should be burned at the stake for ruining everyone's fun. So I go back and change it to "Improved Feint," because it seems like a swashbuckl-y thing to do, but then I realize that a successful feint will allow me to sneak attack, so that's no good, either. So eventually I change my class to "commoner" and pick "Skill Focus (Profession: Useless Fop)" as my feat, and hopefully they'll let it slide.
And of course I die during the first encounter, but at least I'm not a dirty powergamer!
A powergamer that cheats is called a cheater. Pretty simple term.
People that just maximize stats enjoy doing well in combat. Quite understandable. Same reason one likes rolling 20s more than 1s.
Some people also enjoy seeing if they can construct the character they imagine using the rules as written, and still have the said character not be helpless. Often this is a real challenge, because D&D/PF is a fairly rigid class- and level-based system as opposed to a build-your-own thing like GURPS, and some character concepts really don't map well to what the developers had in mind.
The problem is that, to do so, you often need to take a class or archetype that is called something other than what you're envisioning. For example, if I want a character whose training and discipline allow him to go into a meditative state in combat in which he barely feels wounds, I'd want to use the barbarian class mechanics (rage) to best model that in game terms, but then people get up in arms about how barbarians aren't disciplined and how a trance isn't a rage, and my idea therefore makes no sense and I must be a dirty no-good powergamer out to ruin everyone else's fun.
Honestly, I was kind of tempted to start a thread asking "What is the difference between Powergamer, Optimizer, Min/Maxer and Munchkin", but I didn't know if it would come across as trolling.
So maybe this is a good place to ask? What's the difference, in simple terms.
I think it's a bit like geek vs. nerd--people bicker about differences where there aren't really any.
That being said, I have noticed some distinctions.
Min/Maxers are what the name implies: gamers who minimize certain stats to maximize other ones.
Optimizers are just people who make decent characters. 'Optimizer' is the nice way to phrase all the other terms here.
Munchkins are people who make freakishly overpowered characters. This is generally a negative term, from what I've seen.
Powergamers are people who focus on powerful characters. But this definition is the most debatable.
"Monte Haul" is different -- its use in conjunction with D&D was from an old Dragon magazine article entitled "Curing the Monte Haul Malady," which opened with an anectode about some idiotic campaign in which a PC used a push spell (for newbies, that's basically a mage hand) to push the god Thor off a wall, supposedly killing him. Of course, the hammer Mjollnir didn't fall, so the PC kept it, and went on to destroy the entire campaign. The moral of the story was for the DM to be stingy with the number and power of magic items they allow the characters to acquire, and for them not to allow stuff that breaks the game.
Notice that it was specifically called out as a DM failure, not a player one.
Thanks cleaver.
At kirth gersen you know what's funny?
In the new thread about ultimate equipment, there's a post where someone calls it the Monty Cook syndrome instead of Monte Haul... I can't figure out if he was being funny or not.
Hi can anyone explain why people want to powergame ?
I've never understood the point in it I mean where is the sense of achivement in completing an adventure
When you have a character that at any time was in no real danger
I mean I just don't get it and in my experanise most powergameras are not above cheating on the odd dice roll when there super characters don't quite do as much damage as they want
So sorry for the rant but can anyone offer an explanation as to why these players think it's ok to bend the rules so much
Some GM's run adventures so hard you have to "powergame".
What is powergaming to one person is not powergaming to another person.Cheaters are more likely to be munchkins than powergamers.
This makes me want to create that post defining powergaming so everyone is using the same definition.
Honestly, I was kind of tempted to start a thread asking "What is the difference between Powergamer, Optimizer, Min/Maxer and Munchkin", but I didn't know if it would come across as trolling.
So maybe this is a good place to ask? What's the difference, in simple terms.
I am about to do so. :)
No I am not trolling.
You should.
Make one defining GM Fiat too. Actually make a whole lexicon of gaming jargon. Make wik or something.
That whole charm person thread went to hell because people who actually agreed with each other didn't know what the other meant by GM Fiat..
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
LOL @ powergameras. Godzilla better look out.
I don't think the OP was speaking of system abuse, but more along the lines of my definition of a powergamer. The player(s) the OP are complaining about are trying to get all the power they can legally(RAI not RAW).
Wasn't this all covered already in the thread with baal?
I think it's a bit like geek vs. nerd--people bicker about differences where there aren't really any.
That being said, I have noticed some distinctions.
Min/Maxers are what the name implies: gamers who minimize certain stats to maximize other ones.
Optimizers are just people who make decent characters. 'Optimizer' is the nice way to phrase all the other terms here.
Munchkins are people who make freakishly overpowered characters. This is generally a negative term, from what I've seen.
Powergamers are people who focus on powerful characters. But this definition is the most debatable.
A geek is a nerd with social skills. Sheldon = nerd. Leonard = geek.
I think it's a bit like geek vs. nerd--people bicker about differences where there aren't really any.
That being said, I have noticed some distinctions.
Min/Maxers are what the name implies: gamers who minimize certain stats to maximize other ones.
Optimizers are just people who make decent characters. 'Optimizer' is the nice way to phrase all the other terms here.
Munchkins are people who make freakishly overpowered characters. This is generally a negative term, from what I've seen.
Powergamers are people who focus on powerful characters. But this definition is the most debatable.
Interesting. How about phrasing the question like this:
"Why do some players want to make characters that are very powerful, more so than the norm."
To which my answer is, "Beats me."
The way I look at it:
Optimising your character to make it more powerful makes it better at overcoming threats. It also makes it stand out against the other characters if the other players do not do this, which can be a problem.
If everyone does this, the DM has to up the ante to challenge the team.
So doing so to make your character more 'survivable' isn't the reason to do it. Doing so to be more powerful than the other PCs shouldn't be the reason to do this.
This is why I try to make characters that are interesting rather than optimized; so long as they are effective at their role, I'm happy.
I like characters who are interesting, but I also like characters who are effective in combat. I generally shy away from going for 'optimal' builds, though, unless I'll be playing a unique role.
For instance, if the party is in major need of a front-line fighter, I'll happily optimize my paladin. Because the party's been getting TPKO'd a lot in this game. But if there's already a melee rogue, I'll just make my paladin as I'd originally planned. In other words, I only optimize the other players need me to.
But I'm not sure that's quite true. I generally go for feats and suchwhat that compliment my build if I haven't any other idea. If I want my orc paladin to get Skill Focus (sailing), sure. But if I've no idea, I will always take Power Attack or Weapon Focus. I won't look for suboptimal feats to take.
In closing, I don't make an effort to down-power my character beyond the concept I already have. I feel that "concept" is the only handicap you should deal with. Once you've dealt with it, optimize away.
Hopefully that made sense.
By the way, I actually agree with you a bit about the social problems with optimizing. But I also feel players should have the freedom to design at least a portion of their characters without worrying about whether their fellow players will be annoyed. Backstories, personalities and alignments are generally good to watch.
But statistics seem pretty safe. If the other players choose to not optimize, they are choosing to make weaker characters. That's fine. That's awesome. But it's also their choice. By the same token as "I should down-power my character so I don't outshine the other players," surely one could argue "I should power up my character so the others don't have to power down". Or, alternatively, "I should power up my character so the party doesn't get wiped out on account of consisting of a mute wizard, a pantophobic barbarian, a moronic rogue, and a slow and frail cleric".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My friends totally forgot I'm a jackass after I owned them at D&D five years ago.
It helps that we haven't spoken for five years.
I have had a player complain an animated object table was too difficult back in 3.5.
I sunder the table. Do I win the game?
It always works for me in Monopoly.
But what if a powergamer uses a bludgeoning damage weapon does the powergamer need a point?
Don't be ridiculous. The slashing weapons deal more damage for only slightly more gp.
Interesting topic!
My personal definition of power gaming, before reading this thread, was as follows: There are multiple motivations (IE: ways to have fun) behind why people play role playing games. A power gamer derives their entertainment by getting the highest kill count and/or doing the highest damage.
I see no problem with that motivation. I do not think that someone with that motivation is a poor player, nor would I mind playing with someone like that. Every group needs a hard point in battle- someone who the rest of the group can rally behind, or who can charge ahead to create openings, or who can be the iron core that can support the party while occasionally taking large chunks out of the big bad. If a power gamer derives their fun from being 'that guy,' more "power" to them!
But as the thread continued, I noticed that there is a trap there. It's okay to be hard point, but if you're using that position to steal the thunder of everyone else, it becomes a problem. I think that's the balance that everyone must be made aware of, and that's the trap that has given so much negativity to the term. If a player builds a God of Battle and impatiently urges the party to get to the 'good part' (IE combat), that's something completely different than power gaming.
Somewhere around here there is an essay that says a person can optimize their character to be incredibly effective in battle while also getting the most out of the role playing end. I think that's the ideal that everyone on both sides of the roll-play versus role-play divide should strive for.
I've seen a few comments from people who present a very good case for the other side of the equation: once you learn the most effective methods of combat, it feels like you have to deliberately dumb down your character's battle strategy so that you don't unconsciously steal everyone else's thunder. I can see the point these posters are making, and it's a fair conundrum. My initial thought was: make an awesomely optimized character... designed to support the rest of the party. I rather doubt I'm the first person to come up with the idea, so my question to people with that dilemma is: how did the optimized support character go? Are they a practical method of splitting the balance, or are there problems when putting such a character in action?
blunt arrows?
Minmaxed bards are lots of fun. :)
Wasn't this all covered already in the thread with baal?
No Baal's argument was different, and he was not trying to listen to anyone.
To answer the OP in the capacity I think he is asking his question, some people do that crap because it's validating. They think it makes them better than the GM or the other players... that's how they get their jollies. It's not about them ever being in jeopardy. Different types are into overcoming challenge, or the thrill of beating the odds. They may derive pleasure strictly from stacking the rules a certain way and thrilling in how imbalanced, or elegant, or however they choose to view it works out. Some people have other priorities.
But look at it this way, some people when they figure they'll face opposition can't wait to get stuck in. They don't over think it, or they figure their instincts will carry the day pitted against their opponents. The power gamer doesn't think this way. He may think that anybody who doesn't deliberately research the situation, and tools available to yield every possible advantage is lazy, or a fool, or just "limited" in a capacity they are gifted. They may not be able to appreciate the drama of the battle that is playing out far beneath them, because they've basically decided to bring a sniper rifle to the party... racking kills in their game within a game, lording in their DPS from miles away from threat, or passion other players might have.
If I had to guess, and get inside your "Powergameras" (sic) heads, thats what I figure. My distant second guess is a Powergamera is a giant flaming/flying turtle that fights godzilla and Mothra.
Ya tony...you're just talking about cheaters. A true powergamer would never cheat; indeed, it is against the Code and the Purpose. A powergamer does their best to work within the rules and maximize the power of their character. In some instances, this is done to maximize the concept they are looking to play. A powergamer spends too many hours on rules mastery and character building to cheat; that would defeat the purpose entirely.
There are also many types of powergamers. Some just want to find the absolute boundaries of a system and see how far they can take a rules-legal character. Others(I fall into this category, aka a Ronald. See below for explanation) want to see how far a concept can stretch; to assess every possible option within the boundaries of a concept and make the most powerful, interesting, durable, and awesome character to roleplay(unless that concept involves being weak somehow, but even that must be maximized, leveraged, and awesome). It's about using the system to the best possible effect. IMO, why else would you play a game with rules and NOT use them to your best advantage? I used to play with a DM that would punish players for using what's available to them if he deemed it too powerful, because it "broke" the game...it was boring and stupid. If you just want to roleplay, find a freeform system. If you want a game with rules, it's a waste of the system and the designers effort for you not to use every feat, skill point, spell, and character option, and use these to represent your concept the best you can.
Well that was an interresting thread I'm just amazed at how eaasy it ias to get some people to rise to the bait
The words fish and barrel spring to mind but just to the guy with the rouge doing two weapon fighting
I wasn't aware that a rouge could do more than one sneak attack a round because if he can then a 15th lvl rouge with 2 weapon fighting
Could get 4 attacks each doing 8d6 extra damage thats the same damage as 8 scorching rays
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well that was an interresting thread I'm just amazed at how eaasy it ias to get some people to rise to the bait
The words fish and barrel spring to mind but just to the guy with the rouge doing two weapon fighting
I wasn't aware that a rouge could do more than one sneak attack a round because if he can then a 15th lvl rouge with 2 weapon fighting
Could get 4 attacks each doing 8d6 extra damage thats the same damage as 8 scorching rays
And it's been like this for the last 12 years! Amazing, I know, there are people who still play this broken powergaming cheese cheater game, one would assume everybody would move on by now, sheesh!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wasn't aware that a rouge could do more than one sneak attack a round because if he can then a 15th lvl rouge with 2 weapon fighting Could get 4 attacks each doing 8d6 extra damage thats the same damage as 8 scorching rays
Yes. That's four instances of putting bad cosmetics on your foe.
I've played with a lot of "powergamers," and I sort of understand the attraction to pumping out max numbers at all times, but it really just comes down to what players find fun. "Fun" is different for different people.
For the powergamers I've played with, it's the satisfaction of seeing their concept put into play, and seeing it achieve constant success against all odds. It's a ego boost. "My character is so badass! It's invincible!" They treat every encounter like another notch on the bedpost, so to speak. Maybe this player has low self-esteem, and this sort of play makes them feel bigger, makes them feel superior in ways that normal, mundane life doesn't let them.
Another possibility, is that maybe at some level, be it subconscious, or straight up blatant, the player sees the game as a kind of competition; maybe they are there to prove they can outdo the DM, or maybe they just need to be the "best" out of the other players t the table. This could lead back to the self-esteem issues I mentioned above, or maybe they just enjoy competing, and treat the DM like an opponent in a game of Magic: the Gathering.
The possibilities are really endless, as no two players are exactly alike. We can speculate on similarities, but really, every player plays a certain way for their own reasons.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well that was an interresting thread I'm just amazed at how eaasy it ias to get some people to rise to the bait
The words fish and barrel spring to mind but just to the guy with the rouge doing two weapon fighting
I wasn't aware that a rouge could do more than one sneak attack a round because if he can then a 15th lvl rouge with 2 weapon fighting
Could get 4 attacks each doing 8d6 extra damage thats the same damage as 8 scorching rays
...
You trollin'?
There is much to parse in your statement, but just to start: when comparing the damage of those two things, you may want to account for rolling to hit. A ranged touch attack is not even a little bit like a melee attack from a mid-BAB d8HD class taking an additional -2 and completely starved for functional melee feats. Just sayin'.
Hay guy's no harm intended it just seems that threads that are about how the game is broken or how you can exploit a loop hole get the most comments
For the record I have no problems with how anybody plays the game as long as EVERYONE is having fun
Oh and fleshgrinder I know I can't spell I'm dyslexic so don't take the piss