Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

PaizoCon 2014!

Video Games Make Power Gamers


Gamer Talk

1 to 50 of 104 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Has video game caused us to think differently? I see all of these threads with people trying to bend or twist the rules, to make their PC have that extra umph.

I mean come on, infinate threads. Theres only one infinate that I know of and thats the universe. Infinates hould only be theoretical, never used in a game.

Why can't people be happy playing just a generic PC anymore instead of being power gamers?

Taldor

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules, Tales Subscriber

There have always been power-gamers.


Most of those kinds of threads are theoretical - people enjoy theorycrafting, but it doesn't mean they play those characters. Most people aren't terribly fond of rocket tag, and playing those CharOp beasts would lead to that veeeeery quickly. Thus sayeth Pun-Pun, thus shall it be. ^_-

That said...I certainly wouldn't want to play a "generic" PC, personally...I do like to optimize to an extent, but moreso I want my characters to be fun to play, not cardboard cutouts.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

You know I don't say much around here but threads like this really get to me.

First off as was said most of the real crazy builds are theory. Thought experiments if you will. Its done as a fun pass time now and then.

I have to say the line "Why can't people be happy playing just a generic PC anymore" makes me want to facepalm. Why the heck would anyone want to play "generic"? For a great deal of people the fun in this sort of thing comes from options, Ideas, Concepts and diversity.

Also keep in mind these are hero's and adventurers you are playing. Their life and lives of others are on the line here. The thought that they should NOT try and be the best they can be is well laughable.


It's basically because of this.


By generic I meant a straight LV20 build. NO prestige, no multi classing.

I don't think there is anything worng with customizing your PC. Feats,skills, traits, weapons, armor.

Its when you take it to the next level. Those people ruin the game for me.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
g0atsticks wrote:

By generic I meant a straight LV20 build. NO prestige, no multi classing.

I don't think there is anything worng with customizing your PC. Feats,skills, traits, weapons, armor.

Its when you take it to the next level. Those people ruin the game for me.

Why? Why does someone enjoying more diversity offend you so much? For that matter what makes you think that the way you think it should be played is somehow more valid then others? Which is clearly not the case since the game was made with these options intended.

I am more then happy to leave everyone to play how they wish to play and have no issue if you want to play a stripped down game. But coming on here to bag on people that do not share the same view as you and call them "powergamers" is well petty.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion Subscriber
g0atsticks wrote:

By generic I meant a straight LV20 build. NO prestige, no multi classing.

I don't think there is anything worng with customizing your PC. Feats,skills, traits, weapons, armor.

Its when you take it to the next level. Those people ruin the game for me.

A straight level 20 Wizard with the right feat/spell choice can make you go cry at night without any prestiges or multiclassing involved. Core Rulebook only.

Your problem seems to be that you're coming from 1E/2E era mindset and you're now in this strange new world where the amount of player options has gone exponentially up. And it all seems like some crazy mountains of cheese to you. But it's OK, what did change in the game with 3E (and subsequently 3.5E/PF) is that the players have far much more freedom to make choices regarding their characters, choices that do matter not only in aesthetic terms but also in rules terms.

And since at the core D&D is a game about killing monsters, there will be always people who will try to be the best at it. Just in previous versions of the game they couldn't really do much about it apart from picking optimal stats and optimal weapons, and nowadays there are far more choices to be made.


Stome wrote:
g0atsticks wrote:

By generic I meant a straight LV20 build. NO prestige, no multi classing.

I don't think there is anything worng with customizing your PC. Feats,skills, traits, weapons, armor.

Its when you take it to the next level. Those people ruin the game for me.

Why? Why does someone enjoying more diversity offend you so much? For that matter what makes you think that the way you think it should be played is somehow more valid then others? Which is clearly not the case since the game was made with these options intended.

I am more then happy to leave everyone to play how they wish to play and have no issue if you want to play a stripped down game. But coming on here to bag on people that do not share the same view as you and call them "powergamers" is well petty.

is this a one way street? aren't you ragging on me for my opinion? america. f yeah.


g0atsticks wrote:
Stome wrote:
g0atsticks wrote:

By generic I meant a straight LV20 build. NO prestige, no multi classing.

I don't think there is anything worng with customizing your PC. Feats,skills, traits, weapons, armor.

Its when you take it to the next level. Those people ruin the game for me.

Why? Why does someone enjoying more diversity offend you so much? For that matter what makes you think that the way you think it should be played is somehow more valid then others? Which is clearly not the case since the game was made with these options intended.

I am more then happy to leave everyone to play how they wish to play and have no issue if you want to play a stripped down game. But coming on here to bag on people that do not share the same view as you and call them "powergamers" is well petty.

is this a one way street? aren't you ragging on me for my opinion? america. f yeah.

No in fact I am not and if you would have taken the time to read my post you would see that. I have no problem with how anyone wants to play well anything. Now start to insult people for not liking it the same way you do is what I have a problem with.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

I get what you're saying. Just about every advice thread on the forums dealing with a character that doesn't specify Core Rulebook only is gonna be full of suggestions regarding combining two different archetypes from two different source books, playing an odd race from the Advanced Race Guide, equipping the character with weapons and magic items found in obscure splat books, and a feat progression that uses feats from seven different Player Companions. I agree that this is annoying, and personally wouldn't want to game with someone like that.

I mean, it was the biggest issue with me when my group tried 4th edition. Every level there was basically the right choice for a power, or the wrong choice. Certain class/race combinations could simply not be played. Certain feat choices were a given. It got to the point that every ranger looked the same, every fighter looked the same, etc etc

You see that sort of thing in Pathfinder now, where two-weapon fighting is the weaker option and isn't recommended in 90% of the cases, and then if you do it you best be rocking dual kukris. Everyone seems to use the same two or three archetypes over and over again for each class. If I see another suggestion for a high Dex character using Dervish Dance I'll scream. It's like every high Dex character wants to get frisky with a scimitar.

Having a diverse character and having a character optimized by using a diverse set of options are two different things.

Osirion

martryn wrote:
If I see another suggestion for a high Dex character using Dervish Dance I'll scream. It's like every high Dex character wants to get frisky with a scimitar.

Even if the character was a pure bard with the Dervish Dancer archetype?


martryn wrote:

I get what you're saying. Just about every advice thread on the forums dealing with a character that doesn't specify Core Rulebook only is gonna be full of suggestions regarding combining two different archetypes from two different source books, playing an odd race from the Advanced Race Guide, equipping the character with weapons and magic items found in obscure splat books, and a feat progression that uses feats from seven different Player Companions. I agree that this is annoying, and personally wouldn't want to game with someone like that.

I mean, it was the biggest issue with me when my group tried 4th edition. Every level there was basically the right choice for a power, or the wrong choice. Certain class/race combinations could simply not be played. Certain feat choices were a given. It got to the point that every ranger looked the same, every fighter looked the same, etc etc

You see that sort of thing in Pathfinder now, where two-weapon fighting is the weaker option and isn't recommended in 90% of the cases, and then if you do it you best be rocking dual kukris. Everyone seems to use the same two or three archetypes over and over again for each class. If I see another suggestion for a high Dex character using Dervish Dance I'll scream. It's like every high Dex character wants to get frisky with a scimitar.

Having a diverse character and having a character optimized by using a diverse set of options are two different things.

sick of seeing monks of many style. This is the reason we only use 4 core books at my house AND WE STILL HAVE PEOPLE COMPLAING IT ISN't ENOUGH. seriously!?>

you have over 1000+ pages to build a single PC and you still don't have enough.

People use to much power now and not enough brains.

Everyone knows that more brains dominates power. Knowledge is the power of the thinking man.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Quote:
Even if the character was a pure bard with the Dervish Dancer archetype?

Obviously every feat, every archetype, and every obscure race has it's place. I guess the main issue is people taking choices for their characters that don't make thematic sense from their character's point of view. I mean, role playing game, anyone? ROLE PLAY!

A few weeks ago there was a thread where someone posted their PFS character, and asked if people thought the GM would allow his character at the table. His build used 7 different books.

1. Core Rulebook
Ok, so far so good.

2. Advanced Player's Guide
Not a big deal. I allow everything in there.

3. Inner Sea World Guide
*shrug* Whatever. Take your Dervish Dance.

4. Pathfinder Society Field Guide
...I guess it's a PFS game, so...

5. Inner Sea Magic
Wait, I thought this was some sort of fighter class.

6. Pirates of the Inner Sea
Pirates? What? How are pirates involved?

7. Faiths of Purity
Oh, come on now!

I own five of those books, and I think I've seen a copy of Inner Sea Magic somewhere, but Pirates of the Inner Sea? I've not even heard of this one. Is that another of those Player Companion books? How are pirates, magic, and faith all combined to make some sort of defensive dervish fighter class? And how do you explain your character's backstory? Is that not important anymore?


martryn wrote:
Quote:
Even if the character was a pure bard with the Dervish Dancer archetype?

Obviously every feat, every archetype, and every obscure race has it's place. I guess the main issue is people taking choices for their characters that don't make thematic sense from their character's point of view. I mean, role playing game, anyone? ROLE PLAY!

A few weeks ago there was a thread where someone posted their PFS character, and asked if people thought the GM would allow his character at the table. His build used 7 different books.

1. Core Rulebook
Ok, so far so good.

2. Advanced Player's Guide
Not a big deal. I allow everything in there.

3. Inner Sea World Guide
*shrug* Whatever. Take your Dervish Dance.

4. Pathfinder Society Field Guide
...I guess it's a PFS game, so...

5. Inner Sea Magic
Wait, I thought this was some sort of fighter class.

6. Pirates of the Inner Sea
Pirates? What? How are pirates involved?

7. Faiths of Purity
Oh, come on now!

I own five of those books, and I think I've seen a copy of Inner Sea Magic somewhere, but Pirates of the Inner Sea? I've not even heard of this one. Is that another of those Player Companion books? How are pirates, magic, and faith all combined to make some sort of defensive dervish fighter class? And how do you explain your character's backstory? Is that not important anymore?

HERE HERE! you are always welcome at my table.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

First, I think any thread that uses a term like power gamer should first define the term as the author sees it. Ask 10 people on these forums what 'power gamer' means and you will get 15 different opinions (I have at least 3 myself).

No, I do not think video games make power gamers.
NOTE: At this time I define 'power gamer' as - someone who mixes and matches diverse options to optimize X capability. And no, I do not think power gaming is a 'bad' choice.

Video games usually have a relatively smaller number of options for builds. So people that have never played an RPG and are coming to this from some big name video game usually do not spend weeks poring over umpteen books and half a bajillion threads to find the 4 options that tag-up well to really punch-up X power.

Actually the things I think lead to the most power gaming are the people that have a lot of time to think about the game, few people to talk with about the game, and not much time to actually play the game. It is difficult for me to really spend much time planning any RP aspects because I don't have future details. However, the rules are available to think about how I can make my character (or next) more effective.

However, I do think video games have hurt a different aspect of the game. Role playing. Some of the online game communities really push the RP aspects, but many more do not. There are often a very limited number of pre-programed 'RP' choices that often make no real difference in the progress of the game. So it is run out to 'grind' through some more monster kills, sell the loot, heal up, rinse-and-repeat. Many of those players have little or no concept of what to do in a really open PnP type open environment. I have seen people sitting and waiting for me to give them a list of what choices they can make at this time.

But they can and usually do learn over time. But some of them do not really want to learn to RP. For them, the escape is to not have to think about anything. I think that is reasonable also. It just doesn' sit as well in most PnP games.

Shadow Lodge

Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

When building characters for games I wish to play in I've always adopted the "build to the concept" model, and I heavily suggest the same when people make characters for games that I run in.

Sometimes this ends up with optimized characters and sometimes it doesn't. Usually this involves diving into this book or that book to find the rules/archetypes/feats/spells that would best adapt to the concept being played.

Are there powergamers out there? Of course. Is everyone who builds a diversified or versatile character a power gamer? Certainly not.


I never really understood the idea that less books somehow limits optimization or powergaming. Yes it will more than likely result in less powerful character, but does not lessen the fact that optimization will occur. You can brake the game with just the corebook if you want to, just in not so many ways as if all books were open. It really doesn't matter since I am pretty sure nobody would bring Pun-Pun to a game taking it seriously.

On the topic of multiclassing, now I am not sure if I am in the minority here, but at our table IC no character is fighter-thief, most likely they are a hired killer, thug, dirty fighter or something like that. Now granted we play in the way that it has 0 meaning what the description of anything is and just use the mechanics and make the flavor to fit the concept. Of coarse the new flavor has to make sense with the mechanics no taking assassin class with the explanation that you became a pacifistic scholar.

Oh and no videogames have absolutely nothing to do with it. Although like Kydeem de'Morcaine mentioned it probably has affected roleplay. My personal opinion is that one thing that has an effect is that RPG means totally different thing in video games than in table-top. Super Mario RPG as an example has the RPG in it's name solely because of the mechanics of the game not because there is any role to take. But in my experience the difference is explained to those with scewed image pretty quick.

Osirion

3 people marked this as a favorite.

1) Video games are not the cause. People want to get better at the games they play, no matter what they may be. Learning the system and mastering it is part of the fun.

2) Sometimes I need many books to work with the concept I want. Who are you to tell me that my concept isn't good enough for you because I use multiple sources? I'm sorry if my swashbuckling fighter pirate with a dash of magic isn't GENERIC ENOUGH FOR YOU. I was going for a bit of flair, but whatever >_>


The trouble here is that you're actually dealing with two different games.

Character creation in Pathfinder is a deck-building game. You get a set of limitations to abide by, and a huge library of modular rules bits to combine in order to achieve what you want. Some people set their sights on effectiveness, others aim to embody a theme, and some do both.

Then there's the roleplaying game. A separate thing. You also have a set of limitations, but in Pathfinder this is determined by how well you played the deck-building game. Other games don't necessarily work this way, or work like this to varying degrees. Older versions of D&D involved much less choice — there was a crap-shoot game as step one instead of a deck-building game. You rolled your dice, which determined your attributes, which more or less determined which character type you'd play.

The OP is partly right, there exists a type of player who focuses on the deck-building game as though that was all there was to it. That's sad to me, but if it's fun for them, who am I to judge?

There's another type of player who hates the deck-building game and wishes it would go away. These people are also failing to enjoy Pathfinder to its full potential. It's quite possible there's a game out there that will suit their needs much better.


g0atsticks wrote:
Theres only one infinite that I know of and thats the universe.
Einstein wrote:
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.

On a side note, pathfinder comes from d&d, wich himself is an evolution of wargames. I for one still consider a player someone who enjoys rolling dices more than giving life to his character.

Cheliax

2 people marked this as a favorite.
g0atsticks wrote:

People use to much power now and not enough brains.

Everyone knows that more brains dominates power. Knowledge is the power of the thinking man.

Having read your posts up to this point, I now have to stop taking you seriously.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Quote:
2) Sometimes I need many books to work with the concept I want. Who are you to tell me that my concept isn't good enough for you because I use multiple sources? I'm sorry if my swashbuckling fighter pirate with a dash of magic isn't GENERIC ENOUGH FOR YOU. I was going for a bit of flair, but whatever >_>

I'm not saying roll a generic character. You can easily play a swashbuckling fighter pirate with a dash of magic using one or two books. Generally if you're using a book to pick out a single feat, and you do this multiple times, you're guilty of over-optimizing.

Shadow Lodge

I solve this by the following.

Bring It On.

and

Anything the Players can do, the GM (and thus the NPCs/enemies) can do.

Perhaps surprisingly, the only thing my players have as a whole turned down since the implementation of these rules was the "20-20-20-dead" houserule. And my standard home game is an "anything goes" 3.5/PF hybrid. So make of that what you will.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
martryn wrote:


I'm not saying roll a generic character. You can easily play a swashbuckling fighter pirate with a dash of magic using one or two books. Generally if you're using a book to pick out a single feat, and you do this multiple times, you're guilty of over-optimizing.

And if you listen to both Eric Clapton AND Turisas, you're a bad person.

If you wear both cotton AND nylon, you're a bad person (that one is in the bible, btw).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There's a Ranger archetype I like, because I like shouty leader-type fighting men.

With this archetype, I can give my allies a combat bonus against a designated target, instead of having favored enemy. And instead of having Hunter's Bond, I can give my allies extra bonus when flanking. Also, at level 7, I lose a minor ability I don't care about in exchange for another minor ability I don't care about, but I'm not taking the 7th level of Ranger anyway.

This is all the archetype does. so, I'm making my gruff shouty ranger-sergeant. He likes game meat, dark beer and soft beds. He dislikes crackers, rum and hammocks.

The name of the archetype? Freebooter. It's from Pirates of Golarion. Mechanically, it's a perfect fit for my shouty ranger-sergeant (who is not, never was, never will be, a pirate).

Is this bad roleplaying? Not only do I not think so, I don't even think it's a matter of taste, I think it's a matter of not being a f#@&ing idiot.

Silver Crusade

I was born in the eastern land of Tian Xia, unfortunate enough to manifest the taint of oni blood from somewhere in my family's past. Given the importance placed on ancestry in that country, my existence was a shame to my entire family, and they tried to kill me to preserve their family honor. My mother took me away to protect me, and they now speak as though she had died in childbirth.

She began a trek toward the Inner Sea, hoping to get me to the eclectic city of Absalom where she thought I'd have my best chance at a decent life. We were shunned everywhere we sought shelter, forcing my mother to walk endlessly through the wilderness while taking care of her young son. No matter what happened, she always took care of me, never wincing at the sight of me like everyong else. From her I learned love and goodness.

Then she died.

We were almost to the Inner Sea when years of fatigue and malnutrition caught up with her. I was twelve.

A wandering priest of Iomedae saw me as I mourned her at the unceremonious grave I'd dug, and took pity on me. He said the good he'd seen in me should be cultivated, and he took me back to Absalom with him to study in his faith. Eventually, I became a full-fledged cleric of Iomedae. Now I travel the world with teams of Pathfinders, always trying my best to protect them from evil and bring them home safely.

Not wanting to disgrace my family from afar, I stopped using their name and took the name Thomas. Someday, I hope to return home and bring honor to my family. But not yet.

This is a PFS character made with Core, APG, UC, ARG, Blood of Fiends, a convention boon, and the ISWG. His pre-racial stats are 14/14/13/13/12/12. How does he fit into the ideas of powergaming versus roleplaying discussed in this thread?

Osirion

martryn wrote:
Quote:
2) Sometimes I need many books to work with the concept I want. Who are you to tell me that my concept isn't good enough for you because I use multiple sources? I'm sorry if my swashbuckling fighter pirate with a dash of magic isn't GENERIC ENOUGH FOR YOU. I was going for a bit of flair, but whatever >_>
I'm not saying roll a generic character. You can easily play a swashbuckling fighter pirate with a dash of magic using one or two books. Generally if you're using a book to pick out a single feat, and you do this multiple times, you're guilty of over-optimizing.

This is one of the most blatantly incorrect statements I've ever seen.

Let's say I wanna play a Magus with a Shield. I decide to take the Skirnir archetype because it easily fits with my concept.

Off the bat, I've got 3 sourcebooks: Ultimate Magic, Ultimate Combat, and the Core Rulebook. If I really want to specialize in shield combat, I'll probably take the Bashing Finish feat from the Advanced Player's Guide.

I've already grabbed from 4 different rulebooks just to play my concept. Am I being a munchkin just to play a character the way I want to (One who is CLEARLY unoptimized)?

Shadow Lodge

Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Thomas, the Tiefling Hero! wrote:
This is a PFS character made with Core, APG, UC, ARG, Blood of Fiends, a convention boon, and the ISWG. His pre-racial stats are 14/14/13/13/12/12. How does he fit into the ideas of powergaming versus roleplaying discussed in this thread?

Off hand I find nothing wrong with the character. The backstory is nice and it's clear that you put a little thought behind your character. I don't see anything powergamer-y about the character although other than you telling us what books were used and his ability scores we don't have that much to go on.

If you are looking for a deeper breakdown of powergaming versus roleplaying then it might be good to see what you picked from the different books.

Personally, if one of my players came to me with a similar character and background to this, I'd probably let them play it because even if it was overly optimized you are already showing that you lean towards serious role playing.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
theporkchopxpress wrote:
I don't see anything powergamer-y about the character although other than you telling us what books were used and his ability scores we don't have that much to go on.

That's kind of the point. Some folks in this thread have decreed that using more than a couple of books is a red flag of powergaming and would ruin their fun and is diametrically opposed to "ROLEplaying".


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Pawns Subscriber
g0atsticks wrote:

Has video game caused us to think differently? I see all of these threads with people trying to bend or twist the rules, to make their PC have that extra umph.

I mean come on, infinate threads. Theres only one infinate that I know of and thats the universe. Infinates hould only be theoretical, never used in a game.

Why can't people be happy playing just a generic PC anymore instead of being power gamers?

A long post (I *never* ramble...) with MY definitions, and my response to the original question.

Power Gamer. n. A player who chooses to either:
(a) Willfully ignore or misinterpret some rules of the game, or
(b) Willfully ignore the setting in which the campaign is set in order to gain some benefit for their character.

Power gamers are frequently characterized by 'discussions' with their GMs as to what should be allowed/possible/reasonable.

Extreme Examples:
- Back when AD&D came out, a group I knew thought it was perfectly reasonable that their 1st-level players be allowed to be lich lords, demigods, or young dragons. Then they complained that the modules for 1st-level characters were too easy. (I still remember my friend boasting that if his 4th-level character removed his mask and revealed his true face, any creatures seeing his visage would have to make 20 saves vs. death or die. My reaction was simply, "Wow. Grow up." And he's older than me.)
- In a recent thread, a player insisted that because a wizard can take 'a staff' as a bonded object 'at no cost', he was within his rights to take a Staff of the Archmagi as a 1st-level wizard.

Both of these examples are characterized by GM enablement: A competent GM would never allow such travesties.

Common Examples:
- In my Kingmaker campaign, one player keeps e-mailing me with requests like, "You know, in my character concept, I don't think my fighter would have spent any time learning a craft. Can I remove Craft as a class skill and add Acrobatics instead? And can I remove Profession and add Escape Artist"? In other words, trying to trade 'roleplaying' skills for 'combat' skills. As a GM, "No" is your friend. (And no, I didn't look up the e-mails, so if Acrobatics or Escape Artist are fighter class skills, please don't waste your time correcting me.)
- In our Runequest game, where you gain skills by successfully using them, we have one player who will come out with such gems as, "This round I turn invisible, pull out my crossbow, climb the tree, and shoot the bandit. Can I have checkmarks for climb and crossbow?" Most people have 5-6 checkmarks per session. He usually has close to two dozen because his character simply does random stuff in order to get checkmarks and game the system as written.
- In yet another power gamer thread, a player posted a 1st-level barbarian build and asked, "How is this power gaming?" His build was perfectly reasonable, except he took the "rich parents" trait and used the 1000 g.p. to buy a masterwork breastplate and masterwork nodachi. I'm sure he could come up with a cock-and-bull story to justify a Shoanti barbarian in the Cinderlands having 'rich parents' and an exotic Eastern weapon that he can treat as martial because that's what it says in Ultimate Combat, but as a GM I would disallow it as 'not in keeping' with the environment.

So we see that GM enablement is part of the problem, and the biggest red flag for me is if a player is constantly asking the GM, "Can I do this? Can I trade this for that? Can I buy this? Is this trait OK with you?"

=====
Now, on to video games.

All of our worst offenders are in their 40's, and spent their formative years without video games. In fact, my worst offenders are the ones who DON'T have video games -- my 3 best 'roleplayers', who are now working their way through Rise of the Runelords, also happen to be the three biggest video game 'addicts' of my entire group of 9 players. As someone posted above, video games limit your choices in character design AND limit your roleplaying ability, so I find that video game addicts make better players, because they're more interested in the roleplay than in the fights.

My 11-year-old son has (almost) never spent a day of his life without video games available to him, and plays Sacred I and II, Diablo II and III, and Call of Duty. Yet his Sverfneblin rogue is utterly stealing the show in our Kingmaker campaign with his roleplaying and his utterly epic 'translation' between the party druid and the mites. And the fact that he does all of 1d3 points of damage doesn't bother him in the least; he's in it for the roleplaying, not the DPR.

So I'm going to reject that video games have ruined gaming, because I saw power gamers ruining gaming long before video games were ubiquitous, and I'm finding that my video gamers are more fun to play with, because they're more accustomed to the "no means no" rigidity of the video game world and don't waste everyone's time arguing with me about what's possible in the middle of a major encounter.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

@NobodysHome:
I like your concluding paragraph. I would submit, however, that "power gamer" might not be the best term for what you describe. Seems off to me.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Pawns Subscriber
Jiggy wrote:

@NobodysHome:

I like your concluding paragraph. I would submit, however, that "power gamer" might not be the best term for what you describe. Seems off to me.

Well, like I said, if you're going to argue about it, you'd better define it first. So it's according to my own definition, but you're welcome to use different (more colorful) terminology if you so desire...

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

NobodysHome wrote:
Jiggy wrote:

@NobodysHome:

I like your concluding paragraph. I would submit, however, that "power gamer" might not be the best term for what you describe. Seems off to me.
Well, like I said, if you're going to argue about it, you'd better define it first. So it's according to my own definition, but you're welcome to use different (more colorful) terminology if you so desire...

I am indeed happy that you defined your terms first.

As for me, when I hear the term "power gamer", I think of someone who wants his gaming to involve/demonstrate power. "Power gamer". He wants some power in his gaming. Your examples of someone willfully bending rules or playing dragons in adventures written for normal 1st-level PCs are doing everything they can outside of gaming to try and ensure that their actual gaming requires as little power as possible.

Someone who has to bend the rules to remove challenges has just proven he has no "power". Someone who does his homework and masters the system (with all its limitations) in order to overcome challenges has just put some power into his gaming.

In my mind:
• Optimizing means making sure you're competent at what you do.
• Powergaming means that optimization (at least, my definition of it) is one of your major source of fun in the game.
• Min-maxing is pushing one or more capabilities to their limits while neglecting all else. This may or may not overlap with the previous two terms based on the rest of the party's ability/willingness to fill in the gaps. ("Min-maxed", by this definition, is usually non-optimal in PFS, where there's a lot of value in versatility.)
• Munchkins are those who just want more. This is probably what I'd call NobodysHome's examples. They don't need to master the system, they just want to be the biggest and baddest guys on the block, even if it has to be handed to them by GM fiat (like playing a dragon) or if they have to bend the rules to do it. Whatever makes them not have to deal with risk or loss.

There's my 2cp.


i should've chosen my words more carefully, but i am at work posting on here so time is always limited as I am busy except for a few moments in time.

I just finished reading everyones postings and let me clear some things up.

Sorry about the video games, sure it does hurt role playing, not increae power gamers. That does not mean that they still aren't out there.

Using a ton of books to me seems silly;maybe its just me, but I've never felt the "urge"(if your addicted like i am to this game) to use more than two books(no matter the game). Usually Core and Class coordinated book.

PHb & Complete Cleric or CRB & UM-------just examples.

It drives me crazy when people read more than is there. "reading b/t the lines" to gain more than they should. Yeah it says that, but pay attention to grammer or the careful wording. It does work both ways sometimes.

I don't always trust rulings from the internet(here), sure reasearch it, gather your argument, but handle it at your table.

Someone also mentioned that there are a lot of the same builds going around. True, oh so true.

Whoever said that a competant DM is needed to keep this crap in check is totally correct. I just see it on here all the time.

Best build that, or best build this. Lose your creativity because of the ease of information now a days i.e the internet.

I'm not trying to argue with anyone, or ruffle anyones feathers. Just pointing out that the game is full of these people. AND you know what. When you try to point them out, they deny it. Perhaps you'd consider me a power gamer and visa versa. Either way.

Friendly Topic/conversation.

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
g0atsticks wrote:
Has video game caused us to think differently?

Nope.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

3 people marked this as a favorite.
g0atsticks wrote:
I'm not trying to ... ruffle anyones feathers.

Not trying to ruffle any feathers? Yet so far you have:

1) Accused people of cheating (trying to "bend and twist the rules")
2) Stated that people who multiclass "ruin the game" for you
3) Implied that you're smarter than people who play differently than you

If you think people shouldn't be "ruffled" by someone flinging accusations of cheating, stupidity, and ruining the game, then you have a lot of growing up to do.

Paizo Employee Digital Products Assistant

Moved thread.


JrK wrote:
It's basically because of this.

Not to derail, but I want to respond:

Spoiler:
I disagree with the conclusion of this article. Yes, what the writer says is true, but it's not unethical or abusive. Psychological conditioning only works because the subject initially finds pleasure in a given stimulus. We as a community wouldn't play tabletop games unless we liked them, but because we do, we keep coming back.

It is addicting, yes, and some games focus on having as many "levers" as they can, but that doesn't mean that the developers are this evil masterminds who've figured out the human mind and are using their knowledge to slowly suck us dry. A lot of them just want to legitimately produce a good game, and one such as that -will- involve conditioning very similar to Skinner's research.


GeraintElberion wrote:
There have always been power-gamers.

And rules lawyers.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Removed my post as it was a response in defense of the community to the insulting post.

1 to 50 of 104 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Community / Gamer Life / Gamer Talk / Video Games Make Power Gamers All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.