I've been playing D&D for something like seven years now, and am fairly familiar with the 3.5 races, feats, and classes. Recently, I was talking with one of the other gamers in my group (I'm a player, not the DM) about a character I was thinking of running, and she accused me of being a power gamer and min-maxing. We play in FR, and I was thinking of playing a sun elven evoker/fighter and eventaully get the Bladesinger PrC. Bladesingers eventually get the ability to ignore spell failure in heavier armors, so I was going to see if I couldn't get mithril breastplate since it's decent armor. I was also planning to get a few of the new sudden metamagic feats out of the Complete Aracane. While I thought I was simply utilizing the race, class and feat combination, my friend thought I was power gaming and min-maxing, which is something I REALLY don't want to do. I just thought I'd ask everyone else's opinion on it: when does utilizing the rules change into power gaming and min-maxing?
I don't think you're min-maxing. The PrC you want does what you want to do. You could run a warmage and get the same benefits as class abilities.
I think that some key-points of min-maxing inlcude trying to get things to work better than they're supposed to and/or taking so-called penalties that don't matter to your PC so you can strengthen something else.
A human fighter/ranger with Vow of Poverty wielding a quarter staff with Two-Weapon combat style is more likely to be min-maxed than an elf that takes six levels to get a PrC.
|
I always saw the difference between playing a min-maxed character and one who is just utilizing the rules is the reason behind it. Did you have a reason to go down those lines of classes and feats or were you just crunching numbers to see how powerful a character you could make?
I think this is why its always such a debate whether a character is min-maxed or not. For example in the last campaign I ran we had a half-orc barbarian who I instantly deamed as min-maxed. His damage output, even at low levels was ridiculous and both his int and cha were below 10. The only reason I let him get away with the character was because of how hard the campaign itself was going to be.
But then as we played I saw he had put alot more thought into the character then just damage. He was an orphan himself and so he used to sit around and tell stories to the towns children(though not very good ones) complete with shadow puppets. The children learned of the dangers of the gobbley bird. All in all he was a character, much more then a set of numbers of the paper.
All characters are striving to be the best at something, thats what makes them heroes. The rules of the game do what they can to mitigate anyone becoming all powerful by forcing you to lower or ignore some abilities to raise others. I think what shows you to not be a min-maxer is the reason why your character did that.
If you want to show your GM you are something else then tell him why your character chose to walk that path. Decide on key moments in his history when he took to study such damaging forces while ignoring some of the more interpersonal pursuits for instance.
More then anything, make sure your character isn't simply some combination of the damage per round he can deliver coupled with the length of time he can maintain it.
Wow... That was long winded. Ok, lecture over.
|
Min-maxing, power-gaming, munchinising - who cares? Are you having fun? Forget the labels, that is the key thing. If your DM has a problem with it, either explain your choices or get a new game.
What you are suggesting seems reasonable to me. In terms of character creation (at a mechanical level) there is lots to be said for experimenting with character/PrC/feat combinations - that is how you find out what works, and what doesn't, and what really is too unbalanced to play.
Personally, I hate this labelling thing that (some) people want to do. It's an excuse for petty people to put others down. It annoys me profoundly. Even if you are "power-gaming" - so what? It's a game.
DMs who don't like power-gamers are DMs who don't like giving their PCs choice, and almost see them as intruders in their campaign/plot-line - i.e. they actually might make a difference. That is bad DM-ing, not bad playing.
OK, rant over - but this subject winds me up.
i have to agree with everyone else here. IT all depends on the reasons for your character to take those levels and prestige classes. We had a player who was an elf fighter get to level 15 then multiclass as a wizard merely to get a toad familar so he could increase his constitution score. That is just "Cheesey".
He finally realized that no self respecting elf, well maybe a drow, would want a toad familiar.
That said again what are your character's reasons for the classes. And Yes, are you all having fun regardless? Even if you were doing it just to try and make the best character ever, are you having fun? That is what really matters.
A!
Sorry but powergaming exists. If it's a name, it's a name to describe a real phenomenon. The reason it matters in a game is that power-gamey characters can mess things up for the rest of the players. They tend to be created from a mindset of players wanting to compensate for some real-life deficiencies, and so tend to be overbearing bullies in character, and because they lack real motivation or fleshing out they tend to just do stupid things for no reason, because after all it's just a "game" so why should people do internally consistant things and not just kill the bartender. Idiots.
That said, there's a difference between a power-gamer, and a player with a powerful character. The big central idea here is whether or not the character is a means to an end or not. Is his backstory just a stretch so the character can take certain levels? Are his attitudes just an excuse for him to get something the player wants him to have? If the GM were to rule that your character would go a different way in his classes based on your description of how he is, and he's right, would that make you go "sweet!" and start swapping levels for story, or would it make you furious and scrap him only to create another rambling story that hopefully will con the DM into letting you play some ridiculously powerful thing.
That's the test there. The concept presented doesn't sound like power-gaming necessarily--but it doesn't really sound like a fully fleshed out character to me either. Start with the character, start with WHO he is, and let that guide you to WHAT he is--and you'll be beyond reproach and have a lot more fun too.
If the only reason you're bothering with the fighter and bladesinger levels is to wear armor, why not try a twilight mithral shirt? No arcane spell failure, no movement restriction, and no armor check penalty. And quite a few more spells to boot.
|
|
Sorry but powergaming exists. If it's a name, it's a name to describe a real phenomenon. The reason it matters in a game is that power-gamey characters can mess things up for the rest of the players. They tend to be created from a mindset of players wanting to compensate for some real-life deficiencies, and so tend to be overbearing bullies in character, and because they lack real motivation or fleshing out they tend to just do stupid things for no reason, because after all it's just a "game" so why should people do internally consistant things and not just kill the bartender. Idiots.
Personally, I wouldn't call that power-gaming, but sabotaging the gaming experience. That is hardly what the original poster suggested - he wanted to take a PrC and some feats, not roleplay killing children.
We need a sense of perspective here. Actually, because something has a label doesn't mean it can be satisfactorily defined in a meaningful sense - that's a philosophical point, but it's true (take an example I have studied - everyone thinks they know what musical talent is: they don't, it is actually completely impossible to define objectively). The power-gamer is in the eye of the beholder. I also assume most of us roleplay to exercise more power in an imaginary universe than we do in the real one.
I'm a DM, and I DM for power-gamers. And we have a good time. It can be a little frustrating whe they don't concertrate too hard on the role-playing stuff, but we are all there to have fun. The problem in "power-gaming" comes when you have an unbalanced character who hogs the limelight in a games-mechanical sense. But I would never say, prima facie, that a character cannot be played just because it seems highly effective. If it is unbalanced, you have an issue, but the character needs to be played first for this to be made clear.
As I said in my less measured rant before, a lot of DMs think that they have created a setting and that they allow the players there on sufferance (see a comment by Mark Chin - in a very intemperate response to a jokey post by me in the Am I A Munchkin thread - where he said the rules only exist to allow a DM to realise and present his campaign world, a view I utterly disagree with). They dislike power-gamers because, as they have effective characters, they might disrupt the cherished plans of the DM. That isn't the player's fault - I think that is actually terrible DM'ing. The DM should be able to work out what to do, and be flexible, if the PCs deviate from his plotline.
Players are there to have fun too. The only limit is that EVERYONE must have fun. The only issue with an effective character is whether it is so effective it overshadows the other PCs, and detracts from their enjoyment. That is when it becomes an issue. Frankly, a prima donna roleplayer can be just as much of a pain, a subject which gets a lot less coverage.
If a guy is playing because it makes him feel good to have a powerful character - great. I would want that guy to have fun. I don't care, frankly, what his motivation is. Some players should lighten up. It's a game. You don't need a detailed character conception - you just need to have a good time. You want to detail your character's childhood neuroses - great! You're not doing it because you are a better player, though, you are doing it because that is how you enjoy playing the game. Hey - not everyone is the same!
We need a sense of perspective here. Actually, because something has a label doesn't mean it can be satisfactorily defined in a meaningful sense - that's a philosophical point, but it's true (take an example I have studied - everyone thinks they know what musical talent is: they don't, it is actually completely impossible to define objectively). The power-gamer is in the eye of the beholder. I also assume most of us roleplay to exercise more power in an imaginary universe than we do in the real one....As I said in my less measured rant before, a lot of DMs think that they have created a setting and that they allow the players there on sufferance (see a comment by Mark Chin - in a very intemperate response to a jokey post by me in the Am I A Munchkin thread - where he said the rules only exist to allow a DM to realise and present his campaign world, a view I utterly disagree with). They dislike power-gamers because, as they have effective characters, they might disrupt the cherished plans of the DM. That isn't the player's fault - I think that is actually terrible DM'ing. The DM should be able to work out what to do, and be flexible, if the PCs deviate from his plotline.
I guess I'm pretty solidly in the Mark Chin camp (based just on what I've read from him in the past and his quote here). Rules do only exist to assist in telling the story. They give structure and consistancy to things which would otherwise be amorphous and hard to pin down. Other than that I'd be just as glad to be rid of them. I certainly don't see them as where my fun in roleplaying comes from at all.
That said, I don't think that means that games are all about the DM getting his way at the player's expense. That is indeed bad DMing. In fact I'd say the best DMs put the characters at the center of their games--telling their stories, that the characters should be the engine that makes a the game go.
As far as the philosophy of word meaning, I'm a utilitarian. Words are tools. Their meanings are not bolted onto them somehow. I've been in the same boat you talked about with "musical talent" trying to nail it down--but then I think that's the first step in effective communication; getting your terminology straight. For me, the main thing that makes a character power-gamey has nothing to do with their effectiveness. Characters can in fact be highly effective and still wonderful characters. I'd argue that a power-gamey character is a means to an end, the story side a two-dimensional fascade to justify beefy stats and combinations of abilities to make them able to do things that are "kewl". Kewl being defined as stuff with really high numbers attached to them.
So do I paint everyone with this brush? Nope, but there are guys out there at whom this brush is painted. Does that make me a better roleplayer than them? Hey, man we're all playing a game here--it's not really about better. Mostly its about the kinds of players that add or subtract from my enjoyment of the game, how deep and interesting the stories are beyond the bodycount involved. If you're happy with the kinds of stories you tell then awesome. Sweet. Then you're doing what you should be doing because you're all having fun.
It's not about counting neuroses, but neither is it about YARG! ME HAVE BIG AXE! LOOK HOW BIG IS! (Vwakoom!)
|
|
We're probably closer in viewpoint than maybe appears. I disagree, frankly, on the "rules are only there for the DM to describe the world" stuff - why do we have a PHB? Character creation can be a lot of fun (back-story, planning development, and so on) without actually going near a DM. How you do that (either choosing feats or writing a detailed history of the characters family, to give extreme examples) depends on taste.
I also think that if you can't be bothered with all of the background stuff and just want to play a guy with a big sword (woo-hoo, now that really deals with my inadequacies!) being told that you are somehow failing as a roleplayer is unfair. I think it is what you do at the table which makes the difference. Which is why I think that the original poaster was being done a great disservice by his DM - he was just suggesting some mechanical ideas for his character, and got branded a "power-gamer". He hadn't even played the character by that point.
I certainly agree that the game is DULL DULL DULL without roleplaying. Even if players are not the most natural roleplayers, a lack of some sort of immersive story narrative just makes the whole thing a rather tedious hacking session. But, on the other hand, there is quite a lot to be said for a character who whacks things with a big sword and doesn't worry about it too much - Conan was hardly in touch with his feminine side. If I want to play a Conan, or (more realistically) someone at my table wants to, I'm completely relaxed about it. Nothing perks up my group more than a spot of table-top violence.
Ultimately - and this is my beef - I just don't see what is wrong with power-gaming if everyone is happy. There seems to be this feeling that somehow it's wrong - see the original post, which basically boils down to "I'm not a power-gamer, am I?".
If people play games in which violence never happens, and all of the issues are resolved by negotiation, cleverness andsubterfuge, then I think you could say that they are not power games. But violence is a key part of the game - the PHB is virually all about combat, player character abilities are almost all keyed to combat, the xp system is keyed to combat. So we are all playing a game which simulates us killing people - it is all about power and vicarious violence. We are all, to an extent, power-gamers - we are all getting a kick from this. And it matters in this debate because it is in combat that the power-gaming issues matters - an over-poked character construction shows up in exactly this context.
If a character is unbalanced, that may be more a fault of the rules than the player. If something is seriously a problem, then the DM should act to prevent it if it is hurting the game and others enjoyment. But power-gaming and bad roleplaying are not, in my book, synonymous. If I want to play someone who has rather simple motivations, gets a kick out of killing his enemies, and likes being rich and powerful, I don't see the problem. If I ruined everone's enjoyment doing it, it's an issue. But in and of itself, it isn't.
I'm a DM, and I DM for power-gamers. And we have a good time. It can be a little frustrating when they don't concentrate too hard on the role-playing stuff, but we are all there to have fun. The problem in "power-gaming" comes when you have an unbalanced character who hogs the limelight in a games-mechanical sense. But I would never say, prima facie, that a character cannot be played just because it seems highly effective. If it is unbalanced, you have an issue, but the character needs to be played first for this to be made clear.
My biggest problem would be whether the characters have managed to get things completely out of whack in terms of play balance. 3.5 can only be strained so far before it begins to break down and there are certain class/feat/race combinations that manage this. Usually this is about focusing all power into one ability. Its not that the DM Can't compensate but that the compensation starts limiting the DMs options excessively. I've read on these forums about a crazed example of mid level spell caster builds involving meta magic feats that basically allow a mid level party to dish out many hundreds of hps worth of damage a round. In the end the DM can either always use creatures with at least 600 HPs in the hope that the creature lasts more then two rounds or ones that are pretty much only use creatures immune to magic. Neither option is really viable - the problem is the characters wandering around with Tac Nukes.
My rule of thumb is your a munchkin if the DM can't use the same tactic your using back at you because its a virtually automatic TPK.
I have another issue as well in that Munchkin builds are busted when not all the players are power gamers. There is a matter of balance in kinds of adventures and sessions. A player who's character is one dimensional tends to be a problem whenever the focus of the adventure is not the next fight. Other players that have put points into non combat skills and their characters background deserve time to focus on this. For players that have also created a somewhat rounded character that's not really a problem since they can probably interact even if they are not the focus of the current situation. But a pure combat build usually sacrifices everything to be a pure combat build. They have nothing to do or say if what's going on does not involve killing something - and they usually start to get unhappy, it is after all pretty boring to sit and do nothing. Conversely once the fight begins they dominate the scene to the point where its not much fun for the rest of the players. In other words the DM is faced with a dilemma where his players actually don't want to be together. One or more players wants to fight all the time while the other players feel like second fiddle in a fight and want to do other stuff. At any given time the DM has some players that are unhappy - hard to run really great sessions when some of the players are always feeling useless.
|
|
I have another issue as well in that Munchkin builds are busted when not all the players are power gamers. There is a matter of balance in kinds of adventures and sessions. A player who's character is one dimensional tends to be a problem whenever the focus of the adventure is not the next fight.
Agreed, of course. But arguably the problem is not the build per se, but the player who doesn't appreciate what he has done. If you have a combat monster PC, you are not going to shine in non-combat situations. It is a matter of good roleplaying and good manners not to hog the situation if your character is not so good in it, or cannot shine. As I said in the previous post, bad roleplaying and power-gaming are not the same, but I can see that one could lead to another with a selfish or unthinking player.
|
In the end the DM can either always use creatures with at least 600 HPs in the hope that the creature lasts more then two rounds or ones that are pretty much only use creatures immune to magic. Neither option is really viable - the problem is the characters wandering around with Tac Nukes. My rule of thumb is your a munchkin if the DM can't use the same tactic your using back at you because its a virtually automatic TPK.
I have come across this so many times. A lot of it has been a learning experience as a DM. Often times I still am surprised at what will create a TPK. Finding a balance is often hard for a DM and if there is a really powerful character or two in the group, it can make this even harder. Even to the point where it may feel like the DM is picking on the really powerful character just to put them in their place.
That being said -- I see two things here -- Power-Gaming Characters and Power-Gaming Players.
Power-Gaming Characters -- I really don't have a problem with this and this feels much more like the original poster's question. This would be looking at the different races/classes/feats/prestige classes/etc and seeing what combinations will and can produce. This could be really cool or really lame. Sometimes the people who do this will create characters that appear vastly underpowered but play them well just to show that "it can be done". This activity might convince a DM to not allow certain combinations because it makes creating an even playing field very difficult, but is just the growing pains of the DM. (The current articles on WotC's site talking about polymorphing address this a bit.)
Power-Gaming Players -- This is a difficult group to play with. I played Warhammer with someone who brought loaded dice. I have played with similar people in Champions and in D&D. This is the kind of person that has to win no matter what. They know how to do some kind of Vegas Rolling to get the results that they want. They want the most powerful characters/items/magic/etc. that they can possibly get their hands on just so that they can "win". They are almost NEVER players that support the group. If you think in terms of basketball -- they are "ball-hogs". They don't create a character because of a "neat" combination, or because of generating interesting role-playing encounters, or because it might be something different -- they create characters that will never get touched and will destroy the opposition.
Bottom line -- I don't feel that the original poster is a power gamer. I do think that he is working on building a powerful character, and that if the DM doesn't want to allow it, he should come up with a specific reason(s) why the character is too powerful to allow in the campaign. I also feel that the player needs to come up with a plausible story line/back story to allow the combination to happen.
Regardless -- I've said it before and I will continue to say it -- Get Together, Roll Some Dice, Have Some Fun. If any of these things are not happening, figure out why, address the problem, and move on.
While I thought I was simply utilizing the race, class and feat combination, my friend thought I was power gaming and min-maxing, which is something I REALLY don't want to do. I just thought I'd ask everyone else's opinion on it: when does utilizing the rules change into power gaming and min-maxing?
Just for clarification, is your friend the DM telling you that you can't play this character or are you just worried about being labelled something based on your character level progression?
As ever,
ACE
Sorry but powergaming exists. If it's a name, it's a name to describe a real phenomenon.
This is called reification. Suggesting that an abstraction is a concrete reality simply because it has been given a name is a logical fallacy. A label is no more than that, especially when ten different people will give ten different definitions of said label, provided they even understand the jargon involved. "Powergaming" is only a problem if it somehow hinders the enjoyment that you or anyone else is having at the gaming table. As to the OP's dillemma, I would say that you are simply trying to design a character that fits with the cultural flavor of the race you have chosen while also trying to make your character capable and effective in combat. In D&D, both of these goals are admirable. Present your DM with a backstory that explains the character's path and makes him/her come alive for the DM. If you cannot do that, then perhaps you should try a different concept.
I like the idea that all players are power gamers.I guess I Dm for power gamers. It is players (and DM's) that hog the spot light that drag me down. People play for different reasons. A Dm should be able to recognize that and be flexible enough to accomodate it.
A player Power gaming isn't a problem, it is a Dm who fails to acomodate a Power gamer that it becomes a problem.
This is called reification. Suggesting that an abstraction is a concrete reality simply because it has been given a name is a logical fallacy. A label is no more than that, especially when ten different people will give ten different definitions of said label, provided they even understand the jargon involved. "Powergaming" is only a problem if it somehow hinders the enjoyment that you or anyone else is having at the gaming table.
Quoted for truth and i'm going to expand on this to one solution to this issue, something that i've posted on in this forum a number of times and what i was trying to get from my previous post here. The only reason this scinario can be a problem in any gaming system (D&D or otherwise) is if the GM allows it be a problem. The qualities of a GM that can trigger this manifest are (but not limited to): laziness, ignorance, narrow-mindedness, dictitorial, etc. Please keep in mind that this is one kind of philosophy of gaming that many don't ascribe to, but it is a very simple solution to many problems that are discussed on these boards.
As ever,
ACE
\ (power gamers) tend to be overbearing bullies in character, \
Unfortunately I have seen this happen in a game I ran a long time ago. One player had a tendancy to create powerful characters, and then with knowlegde of the rules and creative thinking lorded over the other players (on in particular) being just as Grimcleaver has said, a bully. Not to get into the bloody details, but there wasn't really anything that any one else at the table could do to stop him. I being a young GM at the time (about 15 if I remember) didn't see the problem for a while, and even when I did, I wasn't sure how to handle it. Fortunately, things got better as we all matured, but there were still some hurt feelings around the table that took time to go away.
I'm not trying to say that that is what you are trying to do Tiferet, quite the oposite really! Sounds like you could spring board that character concept into a full fleshed out character with not too much effort.
I guess I'm just saying that if there is any "most virulent" form of power gaming, its comes packaged similar to the situation I described above.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I love this thread. The munchkin/True Roleplayer discussion never gets old.
Seriously though, can't we sticky this conversation once and then not have it ever again. I suppose I'm tilting at windmills and that this is a topic of conversation so inherent to the hobby that it will be discussed at least once per week for as long as geeks have access to the internet, but there are only so many times that I can stomach being lectured at with great pomposity about the One True Way to game.
|
|
Sorry but powergaming exists. If it's a name, it's a name to describe a real phenomenon.
This is called reification. Suggesting that an abstraction is a concrete reality simply because it has been given a name is a logical fallacy.
Wait a minute - just because reification has a name, does it really exist in reality?
Hmmm, maybe I should lie down in a darkened room and try to think about something else.
|
|
I love this thread. The munchkin/True Roleplayer discussion never gets old.Seriously though, can't we sticky this conversation once and then not have it ever again. I suppose I'm tilting at windmills and that this is a topic of conversation so inherent to the hobby that it will be discussed at least once per week for as long as geeks have access to the internet, but there are only so many times that I can stomach being lectured at with great pomposity about the One True Way to game.
I'm inclined to agree, though I suspect it's actually all my fault, as I went off on one after a fairly gentle enquiry from the initial poster. Sorry everyone for boring you all with a pet hobbyhorse subject.
|
|
Ironically, I've also seen it go the other way round, where the roleplayer-type hoses everything up for the rest of the group by doing the utterly most stoopit thing because that's what their character would do. I never get too bent about it either way, just keep chopping orcs and kicking doors.
Also, I've seen the DM's eyes glaze over when the "roleplayers" are debating every possible angle of attacking two orcs guarding the entrance of a cave in-character.
So, sezz oye, "can I do something?"
The DM sezz, "yes, please do."
"I run at the orcs screaming the battlecry of my dwarven forefathers."
Sometimes a power-gamer can be a logjam-freeing plot device, too. We all just need to refrain from overdoing it; remember that too much of any good thing can give you atherosclerosis, hypertension, and chronic gastrointestinal problems.
And I can sit back and relax, and think up my devious plans, when the roleplayers are keeping the npc's busy by chatting them all up. I prolly shouldn't talk to them ennyhoo, unless everybody else WANTS to get in a fight with them.
Wait a minute - just because reification has a name, does it really exist in reality?Hmmm, maybe I should lie down in a darkened room and try to think about something else.
Must... not... contemplate... paradox... AUUUGGH!!!!111
Agreed, of course. But arguably the problem is not the build per se, but the player who doesn't appreciate what he has done. If you have a combat monster PC, you are not going to shine in non-combat situations. It is a matter of good roleplaying and good manners not to hog the situation if your character is not so good in it, or cannot shine. As I said in the previous post, bad roleplaying and power-gaming are not the same, but I can see that one could lead to another with a selfish or unthinking player.
OK but in the end we still end up with something of a dilemma in terms of the game. Sure sometimes players have to sit back and relax as other players do what they are good at. That's just common courtesy. That said at best your dealing with players that are essentially at cross purposes. Some players are feeling less then really useful in the combats while the players with the combat builds are not really useful outside of it. Almost no matter what the DM does there is a situation where some of the players are not really thrilled about what is going on right now. Makes it tough to run great sessions. If everyone has more balanced characters then the situation is much improved. Everyone can have a good time in either circumstances. Everyone is important in and out of the combats.
That said I think in many ways its the DM that gets him or herself into these types of situations. One should probably try and run a plethora of different types of encounters from the beginning as that will encourage the players to try and diversify just for their own fun.
We're probably closer in viewpoint than maybe appears. I disagree, frankly, on the "rules are only there for the DM to describe the world" stuff - why do we have a PHB? Character creation can be a lot of fun (back-story, planning development, and so on) without actually going near a DM. How you do that (either choosing feats or writing a detailed history of the characters family, to give extreme examples) depends on taste.
Well if we disagree, it's probably not like a huge opposition, so much as bickering around the details. I totally agree that mechanics only roleplay would be about the dullest thing on earth. Likewise I'm cool with a live or let live philosophy toward powergaming (though I'm ever stalwart in my crusade to evangelize them to my way of gaming whenever I get the chance and they seem worth the effort--heh) I certainly wouldn't mind if every roleplaying game out there was a sweeping heart-stirring epic that gave people goosebumps just hearing about it, but I'm not cramming it down anyone's throats either.
Rules exist. They're there in the PHB to help give stucture and form to the stories being told, and in their way they are a lot of fun. A good mechanic has a certain beauty to it--especially if it feels like the thing that's actually happening. I have to say though that people get too caught up in worshipping RAW sometimes. I've done entire games without a single blessed die-roll, just adjudicating based on likelyhood of success and what would be more fun in any situation and the games have met with rave response. Likewise I've spent whole sessions with characters just talking to each other without an ork to be seen for miles around. Violence is a great subject for storytelling, but hardly the only one--in fact as often it's the reactions of the characters and NPCs to the violence that is so interesting. How it affects them, changes them. I've had stories that felt less like games and more like art. Those are the games that leave me buzzing and glad I am part of this hobby.
Not to say a little happy head lopping ever hurt anyone. Tromping around smashing stuff and squishing badguys is its own kind of fun too.
The conversation reminds me of a funny situation in the game I'm playing in (as opposed to the one I DM).
So the DM gives us the relivent sections of Arcana Evolved, tells the players what the point buy is (31) and sends us off to make our new characters. Well based on prevous experience with other DMs we all make the best possible combat builds we can. Its made tougher and maybe more extreme sense we are used to more points so we really trash everything to get our combat build put together.
Well come the first session the DM throws us the curve ball...this is not a combat orientated campaign. We can kill monsters like nobodys business but every one of us is enept out of combat - and not a little inept really really inept. Half the players have 7 or less for charisma. I have a high charsima but my inteligence is 8 and my wisdom is 6.
So we start to get into some crazy scenes...
Here is the kind of thing that befalls us. There is a female aristocrat that has some secrets that we want. We can't muscle her because she has to many guards and its the middle of town. So one of the players suggests that my character seduce her. "But then what? Maljar has an intellegence of 8 and a wisdom of 6. Even if I sweep her off her feet its not going to matter. I mean she can tell me the dark secrets of the continent as pillow talk and her secrets safe with me...I'm to stupid to realize that I have just heard the dark secrets of the continent. I'll make her a little martini man from the olive and the toothpick and present it to her as a gift right after she makes the deep dark revilation. Some one smarter has to seduce her". "Yeah but no one who's smart has even average charisma" responds one of the other players - my cat man is a mangey cur. I'd piddle on her carpet".
So another player pipes up "What we have to do is get Maljar to seduce her and then listen in." "What!" I say. "No really. We'll break into her mansion and hide under her bed. Then you do your thing - you sweep her off her feet. That way when she tells you the dark secret even if your too dumb to realize that what you've heard is significant we'll be under the bed scribbling it down. "Geeze - she's going to think she has mice under the bed with all that scratching but OK thats the plan then".
Tiferet, I don't think you're necessarily power-gaming. It all depends on how you run the character, of course. I don't see a problem with sitting down and saying,"This is a prestige class I like for this reason, and here's a cool piece of equipment that would go great with this character." Things may work out differently while you're playing the character, but that's how it goes. For me, I always like to see organic characters that are as much defined by the campaign as by the player. That's to say, not having projected feat and skill point allocation spreadsheets done before hand so that if you find yourself in a campaign heavily featuring aberrations or the undead, or if you find your character getting into a lot of close scrapes for a particular reason, you can adjust your character as though they are learning. It all comes down to focusing on the character that they are now as much as on the character they may become when they hit a certain level.
While I thought I was simply utilizing the race, class and feat combination, my friend thought I was power gaming and min-maxing, which is something I REALLY don't want to do. I just thought I'd ask everyone else's opinion on it: when does utilizing the rules change into power gaming and min-maxing?
Well here's mine:
Opinions are like butts. Everyone has one, they come in all shapes and sizes, and most of 'em stink. And that goes for your friend's as well. Now, sure, they're your friend and you naturally weigh it more heavily than some one you don't know (like me). But friends can be, and shockingly often are, wrong. Feel free to tell her so if you think she is, too. Tactfully, of course. She /is/ your friend after all. She might even see how judgemental she's been and change her tone.
There's been good advice so far in this thread. And there's a few general points I agree with and think you should give considerable weight:
1) Examine your motivation - Are you looking to hog the limelight and show off your uber-kewl madness at the expense of your fellow players? Or are you looking to create a niche for yourself that you and the others will benefit from and enjoy? If the latter, I'd say you're off to a good start.
2) Fun - You think the character's going to be fun to play? You think others will have fun interacting with you/it? If so, then no harm no foul.
3) Talk to your DM - Let him/her think about your concept and address any concerns they might have. If they don't see a problem with it, then you're in the clear. Heck, during the discussion some ideas might even be seeded between you both that'll spark some adventures or scenarios everyone will like.
4) Defined by Society - In the end, what's is and isn't appropriate for your game group is defined soley by your game group. You shouldn't use anything said in this thread to justify being stubbornly at odds with your fellow gamers. Stand up for your ideas/principles/happy-fun-time as needed, but don't create unnecessary friction.
Hopefully, you'll find something useful in all this rambling of mine, Tiferet. If so, then I've done what I set out to do. :)
Glad I could contribute to your collection of quotables. :)
I'm not sure where I first heard it, or I'd give credit where it's due.
All right, I had to just skip about the lower half of this, so if I become redundant, I apologize.
First- Aubrey, if someone doesn't roleplay, but rather is a simple jumble of numbers, then yes, they are failing as a roleplayer. Are they playing the game wrong? Not necessarily. But the fact is that they fail at roleplaying, in the same fashion that a deep-immersion roleplayer fails at being a munchkin. If they don't do it, they don't do it. Someone else who does is therefore better at it than they are.
Second- Power-gamer and munchkin are different terms; that difference happens to be whether or not the character/player in question is cohesive with the rest of the group/story. If they are, then it's a power-gamer. If not, it's a munchkin. I thought that was a well established point on these boards, but this thread seems to disregard the previosuly established conventions.
Third- Power-gaming and roleplaying aren't mutually exclusive. If I don't have a good, detailed story and history for my character and no means to express it, I feel no connection and can't play the character. However, I develop the same problem if I don't have a "good" feat/skill/class/race/ability selection that realizes the aspects of the character that I want to bring out and gives me a sense of direction.
Finally- Let's get back to the OP. If the story is solid, or that's the main aspect you're going for/lead with, then your accuser is wrong. If the main interest here for you (which you don't indicate is the case) is the ball of numbers you're making, then you are power-gaming. Nothing wrong with either one, so long as they mesh with your group and the campaign. Good luck with your fighter/mage type; it's one of my favorite archetypes! So ideal, yet so hard to pull off right.
|
|
All right, I had to just skip about the lower half of this, so if I become redundant, I apologize.
First- Aubrey, if someone doesn't roleplay, but rather is a simple jumble of numbers, then yes, they are failing as a roleplayer. Are they playing the game wrong? Not necessarily. But the fact is that they fail at roleplaying, in the same fashion that a deep-immersion roleplayer fails at being a munchkin. If they don't do it, they don't do it. Someone else who does is therefore better at it than they are.
Second- Power-gamer and munchkin are different terms; that difference happens to be whether or not the character/player in question is cohesive with the rest of the group/story. If they are, then it's a power-gamer. If not, it's a munchkin. I thought that was a well established point on these boards, but this thread seems to disregard the previosuly established conventions.
Third- Power-gaming and roleplaying aren't mutually exclusive. If I don't have a good, detailed story and history for my character and no means to express it, I feel no connection and can't play the character. However, I develop the same problem if I don't have a "good" feat/skill/class/race/ability selection that realizes the aspects of the character that I want to bring out and gives me a sense of direction.
Finally- Let's get back to the OP. If the story is solid, or that's the main aspect you're going for/lead with, then your accuser is wrong. If the main interest here for you (which you don't indicate is the case) is the ball of numbers you're making, then you are power-gaming. Nothing wrong with either one, so long as they mesh with your group and the campaign. Good luck with your fighter/mage type; it's one of my favorite archetypes! So ideal, yet so hard to pull off right.
Um, thanks. Wasn't that what I said?
As to the "convention" - that is how I see it, but I'm not sure everyone agrees - see the original post: "power-gamer" in that context was "bad".
Here is the kind of thing that befalls us. There is a female aristocrat that has some secrets that we want. We can't muscle her because she has to many guards and its the middle of town. So one of the players suggests that my character seduce her. "But then what? Maljar has an intellegence of 8 and a wisdom of 6. Even if I sweep her off her feet its not going to matter. I mean she can tell me the dark secrets of the continent as pillow talk and her secrets safe with me...I'm to stupid to realize that I have just heard the dark secrets of the continent. I'll make her a little martini man from the olive and the toothpick and present it to her as a gift right after she makes the deep dark revilation. Some one smarter has to seduce her". "Yeah but no one who's smart has even average charisma" responds one of the other players - my cat man is a mangey cur. I'd piddle on her carpet".
So another player pipes up "What we have to do is get Maljar to seduce her and then listen in." "What!" I say. "No really. We'll break into her mansion and hide under her bed. Then you do your thing - you sweep her off her feet. That way when she tells you the dark secret even if your too dumb to realize that what you've heard is significant we'll be under the bed scribbling it down. "Geeze - she's going to think she has mice under the bed with all that scratching but OK thats the plan then".
That would actually make a great scene for a movie. Using the not-busted guy to attract the aristocrat while the others break in and hide under her frou frou bed while he rocks her world. Then they're trying not to laugh as they scribe all they hear, especially when he reveals how conversationally empty-headed he is.
Reminds me of a scene from Heavy Metal where this big muscled bald dude named Den. Den is lying there in bed, after sex with this evil high priestess, and she, quite skillfully sated by the big man says something about how their love blah blah blah and something about the moon blah blah blah and says it's a sign.
"Yes," he replies slowly with dire understanding. "A sign."
Then you hear his narrative voice over. "I had no idea what she was talking about."
First of all, I'd like to thank everyone for all the feed back. ^_^ My friend who told me I was power gaming is not the DM of our group, sorry I wasn't clear on that in my first post. I got the whole idea for this sun elven bladesinger after reading over the PrC in the Races of Faerun book, and we happen to be nearing the end of our current campaign, so I was talking about character ideas with my friend and that's when she said I was power gaming. Personally, I don't like power gaming, I think it detracts from the game and at times, other people's enjoyment of the game as well, so I thought I'd get other people's opinions on the matter. (And what better place to do that then a messageboard?).
That would actually make a great scene for a movie. Using the not-busted guy to attract the aristocrat while the others break in and hide under her frou frou bed while he rocks her world. Then they're trying not to laugh as they scribe all they hear, especially when he reveals how conversationally empty-headed he is.Reminds me of a scene from Heavy Metal where this big muscled bald dude named Den. Den is lying there in bed, after sex with this evil high priestess, and she, quite skillfully sated by the big man says something about how their love blah blah blah and something about the moon blah blah blah and says it's a sign.
"Yes," he replies slowly with dire understanding. "A sign."
Then you hear his narrative voice over. "I had no idea what she was talking about."
Glad you enjoyed it - It just reminded me of some interesting things the DM can do with/to power gamers/munchkins.
...While I thought I was simply utilizing the race, class and feat combination, my friend thought I was power gaming and min-maxing, which is something I REALLY don't want to do. I just thought I'd ask everyone else's opinion on it: when does utilizing the rules change into power gaming and min-maxing?
What choices would your friend not call power-gaming? As long as you're not doing crazy, stupid things like taking proficiency in a weapon that you won't be laying eyes on for another five levels, I think you're fine.
If the choices make sense for the character (not just for you), I wouldn't call it power-gaming (or whatever).
IMHO :)
Jack
In the groups that I've run or played in, I have always had the firm belief that heroes are set apart from normal members of society by either the gods or by fate: Conan, Achilles, Glorfindel, Fafhrd and The Grey Mouser... As a player, I *choose* to play a heroic character. As a DM, I run games for heroes and the true BBEGs are the epitome of what it means to be a villain. One of the trademarks of my games has always been that the players can use nigh well whatever sort of character they want but that the bad guys are also similarly advanced.
I specifically encourage (and will gladly *help*) the players to create characters who are the stuff of legends. A player who just sits there feeling sorry for themselves and their underpowered PC isn't having fun and might even be more of a liability than an asset to the rest of the party. However, this is not to say that the only stats that matter are the ones pertaining to combat.
I also make certain that there is a certain degree of verisimilitude to the character as a "virtual person". If skill and feat assignments over the course of a dozen levels results in a character who could only exist if he was grown in a government super-soldier project (one who has no other skills, hobbies or depth outside of slaughter) then a talking-to is generally in order. There is, after all, too much out-of-combat gameplay that takes place to allow the players to handicap their characters to the point where (when out-of-combat) they are then the bored, ineffectual lump. My plots are too involved for the players to be able to get away with over-emphasizing one area to the detriment of all other areas.
If the party easily blows thru rank after rank of goblinoids and undead, how do they know the BBEG isn't monitoring them all the while, taking notes on their tactics, dependencies and oversights? There are few bigger compliments that a DM can be paid than to see and hear his players talking about the nightmares they had about the arch villain and how much they genuinely *hate* that character for being able to thwart and manipulate theirs whether in combat or out. And for the players, so much sweeter is the success when the BBEG they have encountered time and again hasn't planned for a possible contingency and good finally prevails thru heroics and teamwork .
As a player then, it greatly irks me on those occasions when I'm the only player operating under the premise that their character is an actual hero. (And no, I'm not talking about Monty Python style joke campaigns either.) Generally, I favor characters that can operate as self-sufficient lone agents when needed but really thrive when they can help bridge the abilities of the other characters. Rangers, bards, mutli-classed rogues and even clerics are mainstays of my character creation process. Conversely, I can count on maybe one finger the number of times I've played a dedicated arcane spell-caster.
Back in 2nd Edition, I once had a single-classed Half-elven bard who was very skilled with a blade, very well-versed in the intricacies of social interactions and had a very versatile set of spells to increase her efficacy in all areas whether it be dungeoneering, combat, reconnaissance or persuasion. What she lacked for were the bulging biceps and bottomless pool of hit-points needed to be a frontal-assault, front-line warrior — that wasn't her purpose. Oddly enought then, rather far into the campaign, the DM allowed her to come into possession of a pair of Gauntlets of Ogre Power that granted 18/00 strength (~21 STR in 3rd Ed), perhaps as a way to counter...
One of the other players specifically set out to create a munchkin-character out of a human ranger. The fact that he actually named his character "Goku", of Dragonball Z fame, should not be over-looked. (Mind You, I had heard of neither DBZ nor Goku back then.) Long story short, he became extremely jealous that he wasn't able to single-handedly occupy the spotlight and could actually be outclassed in the right circumstances. Even so, my attractive and heroic female bard still thought he was cool, would talk him up to the enemy during face-offs and enjoyed both friendly contests with him (i.e. Who-Can-Kill-the-Most-Orcs-in-One-Turn™) and innovative uses of teamwork (bard, cast fly on Yourself then hoist me over the wall so that I can Goku-bomb the enemy commander).
Eventually though, he turned his nose up at any sort of teamwork and made his character become a borderline betrayer simply due to jealousy. The worst part though was when the other players (who didn't see their PCs as the heroes that Goku and the bard were) got turned off and tried labeling *me* as the munchkin even when I volunteered to let another player use the Gauntlet of Ogre Power. Why? They thought it would make the game go more smoothly if I just let Goku hog the adventure just as the player hogged the glory in Magic the Gathering, did the most shots at friends' birthday parties...
You get the idea.
In other words, it's important that even if everyone doesn't see eye-to-eye on what sort of game is to be played that they *at least* understand why the others are there and give due respect and consideration.
Anyway, I will agree with some of the others here, "Yes, this is truly a debate that's as old as the game itself." ;-)
/me relinquishes the soapbox