Downsides to powergaming. (My experiences)


Gamer Life General Discussion

Silver Crusade

I want to talk about my personal experiences with powergaming and how it can actually ruin a game.

I've had several games that I was running, and playing in, break down because of powergaming.

Powergaming is okay as long as everyone is doing it and the DM's game is built for it. When one or two people powergame and the DM hasn't prepared for it then you can run into some trouble.

Let's be clear that I'm not talking about optimizing, I am talking about stretching the rules to their limits and finding obscure combos that, while legal, still go beyond the normal boundaries of the default game.

When you have the one or two PC's that can drop most anything in one or two hits then you can have other melee guys in the party that start to feel left out or inadequate.

The worst part was the DM not being able to handle it or the game turning into a DM vs the powergamers campaign where the DM has to throw stuff that would annihilate the other PC's but would only challenge the powergamers.

These are a few reasons why I don't want powergaming to go on at the table I'm playing at because it runs a high risk of ruining "everyone's" fun.

Grand Lodge

I think its all a matter of perspective and communication.

Your 'powergaming' may simply be anothers 'optimised' build but seems so retardedly overpowered that it appears game breaking.

It also comes down to working with your fellow players - tell them the goal is not to win the DPR Olympics or see what sort of 'sick' combo's you can make but instead build a character.

Based on a lot of other threads I see on the forums there are a few things that make it easier to reign in.

1) 15pt-20pt builds - 15 being the low end and 20 being the high end. 25pt builds (or higher) will lead to your characters stats beating the curve. AP's are built on four 15pt builds - play them with four 25pt builds and its a different experience.

2) Limit materials - Core rules ONLY is the most fundamental way to do that - me personally? I also allow the APG and the POSSIBLY the Classes (not spells AND not feats apart from the most basic related to a class ie extra arcana) from UC and UM.

As soon as you open up ALL the materials? You are facing a whole new monster.

3) Re-jigger the NPCs - In the APs they aren't build as optimised, nor are they built wholely and soley to take scalps... players some times are. Don't be afraid to re-evaluate your encounters and add the advanced template or change the feats. The goal is to challenge your players.

4) Find ways to succeed out of combat - If all you every tend to have is 10 mins of roleplay followed by combat and all plot points are solved by combat? Then characters can and will optimise for that part - by making it more than combat you force your players to split skills, stats, feats and resources to cover multiple bases.

It comes down to preferred play styles.

Assuming that the game isn't set to killer mode? I am happy with a low power 15pt build game. 20 is nice (I play PFS) and I find 25pt to be just wierd and 'too rich for my tastes' (it makes me feel strange when I see ppl talking about 25 or higher play but thats just me). Others? If they don't see two 18's on their sheet? They just don't feel heroic.

And thats ok... you just need to work with the players to find what they feel comfortable with and want from a game.


In my campaign, the real downside to powergaming is that it's a tremendous waste of time and effort. I reject characters that are over the top, power-wise, and those who slip through find themselves twiddling their thumbs a lot while the rest of us roleplay.

My campaign is only about 15%-25% hack. So in a typical 6- to 8-hour session, the 1 or 2 hours of "action" they get is usually not enough for most power gamers. Especially since with the present systems, that boils down to 2 or 3 combat encounters.

My experiences in other people's games have given me the impression that powergaming always devolves into the metagame.

There are players who talk about their characters, about how cool this background is, or about that one's connection to the game world, or about how this NPC or that PC was so cool to interact with.

And then there are people who talk about builds, and how this one or that one can get the job done better, and how cool they are when "combat finally starts".

In my experience, the downside of powergaming is that it tends to damage or destroy immersion for me, no matter whose campaign I'm in.


Helaman wrote:
It comes down to preferred play styles.

As does basically everything, but it is still worth reminding folks from time to time.

shallowsoul wrote:

...When one or two people powergame and the DM hasn't prepared for it then you can run into some trouble.

...The worst part was the DM not being able to handle it or the game turning into a DM vs the powergamers campaign where the DM has to throw stuff that would annihilate the other PC's but would only challenge the powergamers.

These two things are were I also target my advice for GMs that want to know how to handle power-gamer players.

1 - remember, and embrace, that you can't possibly actually BE prepared as the GM no matter how much effort you put into it. The players WILL do something you weren't expecting, and it is perfectly okay to just let it happen, incorporate it into the game, and keep on playing.

There is literally nothing a group of players can do, other than quit playing, that causes trouble for a campaign - everything else is just them giving their input into where the campaign should go.

2 - The game only ever turns into GM vs. Power-gamer when one assumption is made: that the GM is supposed to challenge the power-gamer's character.

I say "No, GM, don't do that it doesn't work."

Let the power-gamer's character tear through the opposition like cheese cloth over, and over, and over, and over again - there are really only two outcomes: A) That's what the player likes, so he enjoys the campaign thoroughly... and if other players are having trouble enjoying the campaign, you can focus on alleviating that while never having to mess with the power-gamer's area of power.

B) The player wants his character to be challenged, realizes he isn't, and adjusts his character building strategy until he is challenged by your campaign. I have had my entire group, who used to have a very adversarial GM, make this very adjustment because I absolutely refuse to play the "arms race" style of game they were used to (then: 3.5 45 point buys optimized for heavy combat survivability; now: 15 point Pathfinder characters with a focus on versatility).


Helaman wrote:
1) 15pt-20pt builds - 15 being the low end and 20 being the high end. 25pt builds (or higher) will lead to your characters stats beating the curve. AP's are built on four 15pt builds - play them with four 25pt builds and its a different experience.

That helps, but it may have the opposite effect. The lower the point buy, the higher the chances a player (or 2, or 3, or all of them) will pick S.A.D. and/or powerful classes, like Wizards and Clerics. I've seen many times people saying things like "High point buy/Rolled great stats! I'll make an monk" and "Low Point Buy/Only one good score? I'll go wizard."

(Note that I don't think 20pt buy is low. 15pt is a bit too little for my taste, though)

Helaman wrote:

2) Limit materials - Core rules ONLY is the most fundamental way to do that - me personally? I also allow the APG and the POSSIBLY the Classes (not spells AND not feats apart from the most basic related to a class ie extra arcana) from UC and UM.

As soon as you open up ALL the materials? You are facing a whole new monster.

I partially disagree. There is more broken stuff in Core than in any other book. It's where the most powerful spells and metamagic feats are. Other books tend to favor less powerful classes. That said, simply liberating all material could be troublesome, so I'd say, do it in a case-by-case scenario. Tell the players they may choose whatever feat/spell they want, but that you'll analyze it and either green light/veto it.

I'm lucky to play with a group without heavy optmizers, so I let them have whatever they want, except a few select things. (there are no wish/miracle or teleport spells. I also banned Leadership, but that due to it slowing down the game rather than raw power, as we have 6 players).
I even buffed a few feats and feat chains (like TWF and Improved Maneuver)

Helaman wrote:
3) Re-jigger the NPCs - In the APs they aren't build as optimised, nor are they built wholely and soley to take scalps... players some times are. Don't be afraid to re-evaluate your encounters and add the advanced template or change the feats. The goal is to challenge your players.

This I completelly agree.

Helaman wrote:

4) Find ways to succeed out of combat - If all you every tend to have is 10 mins of roleplay followed by combat and all plot points are solved by combat? Then characters can and will optimise for that part - by making it more than combat you force your players to split skills, stats, feats and resources to cover multiple bases.

Again, totally agree. And it can't be said enough.

Helaman wrote:

It comes down to preferred play styles.

Like everything else in the game. If the players want a High-Powered Hack-n'-Slash, give it to them. Honestly, as long as everybody (GM included) is having fun, everything is okay.


What do you mean by powergaming?

Silver Crusade

wraithstrike wrote:
What do you mean by powergaming?

Other posters here seem to know what it is.

Why are you having trouble?


Actually they could be reading it several different ways, yet still giving the advice they are giving.

It could mean he is determined to make the best character possible, but he may not realize what he is doing.

It could mean he is determined to make the best character possible, despite knowing he is playing above the group's power level.

He might just be making a well optimized character, but not making the best optimal character.

He could be making a character that has few weaknesses. Some people hate that.

He could be the type that is willing to take on a weakness so that he can hyper specialize in one area.

Any of these could lead to the above posts from the other posters. Now I could assume, but since I like to be specific each one of the above would give you a different answer, if I were to respond.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

For the rest of you, which one of my above examples do you think is correct? Would you handle the guy that does not care, in the same manner that you handle the guy that might not know what is going on?

PS:I have only read the opening post, and there is no indication of malice from my reading of it.

The Exchange

2 people marked this as a favorite.

These downsides are not particular to powergaming. They are the downsides of having diffrent kind of people who expact diffrent kinds of things from the game seat around the same table. Let me revise the OP, except this time, I will talk about the disadvantages of a playstyle where strong "character builds" are not encouraged and most players build weak, non-combo-centric, regular characters that can actualy lose a fight (I will call them roleplayers):

"I want to talk about my personal experiences with roleplaying (as opposed to powergaming) and how it can actually ruin a game.

I've had several games that I was running, and playing in, break down because of roleplaying.

Roleplaying is okay as long as everyone is doing it and the DM's game is built for it. When one or two people Roleplay and the DM hasn't prepared for it by making extrea easy encounters, then you can run into some trouble.

Let's be clear that I'm not talking about sloppy character bulding, I am talking about creating characters that are not even trying to be powerful enough to keep up, choosing instead to be more intresting from a story perspective and including weaknesses and imperfections. While doing this is obviously legal, it is clear that the designers of the game expected people to put more effort into making a powerful PC.

When you have the one or two PC's that can never contribute to the party in any sort of combat (or any other challanging ecounter), evreyone is having less fun. The roleplayers always fail at what they try to do and the rest are fraustrated because they can't relay on some members of their team to pull their own weight.

The worst part was the DM not being able to balance the encounters between all characters, as the roleplayers will never be able to stand up to any sort of rough challange but the other players will get bored if encounter are too easy.

These are a few reasons why I don't want roleplaying to go on at the table I'm playing at because it runs a high risk of ruining "everyone's" fun. "

after all, it's a matter of perspective.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think the main problem with power games (how ever you describe them) is when you have a party with some power gamers and other who are not
As this often leads to an imbalance in the game (normally during combat).
Now I have nothing against well thought out characters who are good at there role, I do have a problem with players who use loop holes in rules to abuse power and make over the top characters and then use the excuses that "it's in the rules"
When they often know full well that it's an abuse of power

Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / Downsides to powergaming. (My experiences) All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in General Discussion