|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Treantmonk made an interesting and important distinction in another post that I thought could be interesting to explore.
The difference between and optimized and a power gamer.
To me, it is all about intent.
An optimizer seeks to make his character as effective as possible at something within the context and intent of the game.
A Power Gamer loops for loopholes to get around rules, or bends rules to the most favorable reading, regardless of intent.
An optimizer realizes that by Min/Maxing they are optimizing one aspect of the character while understanding that necessarily weakens another area. My Barbarian is strong, but dumb. My Wizard is smart but boorish, My Sorcerer is charming, but weak.
A power gamer seeks to find loopholes that allow them to be all things at all times. They will rules lawyer ways that they don't have to take penalties or play the character as rolled. They metagame away holes in their design and cow their DMs.
To use a sports analogy, is is the difference between Hank Aaron and Barry Bonds. Both hit a lot of home runs, one was taking an illegal substance to do so. When Sammy Sosa bat cracked and the cork came out, why would you also be surprised he was taking steroids.
And following that logic, I can play happily with an optimizer. I have no time for a power gamer.
A power gamer is trying to "win". The rules are simply obstacles to be beaten on the path to "Winning".
An optimizer understands that the rules are the game. Like Golf, you are trying to beat the course, not the DM. The DM is just an official, the rules are the rules. If you "bend" the rules, or the intent of the rules you aren't "winning". If you find a weak DM, or one who doesn't know the rules, you aren't "winning".
House rules are different, as it is still an established guideline all play by, enemies and friends.
Thoughts.
Hmmm, I'm a little hesitant to be so harsh when most folks use these terms interchangeably. I also question some of the traits you are adding such as rules lawyer, metagamer, and even cheater, which are not necessarily inherent in powergaming. (I think)
I feel that most of us have both aspects (and more) active in our gaming minds at any time. "optimization" is all about degrees - everyone does it to some extent. We might make an organic set of abilities, feats, class and race, then powergame the hell out of our skills or spells. Or we might powergame just a little here and there.
For me personally, it comes down to the intention of the rules, and the expectations of the group. And while both of these are fairly vague and open to interpretation, there is also some concrete information about intention of the game - see "The Most Important Rule" in the getting started section.
Careful with definitions though:1) Min/Max or Optimization: Make a character that performs mechanically well in contributing to combat challenges with the rest of the group.
2) Powergaming: Make a character more powerful than the rest of the group.
Not synonymous terms, and although labeling optimization as powergaming usually just stems from not understanding the term or the goal, it can be offensive to label optimization as powergaming to those that optimize but don't powergame.
|
IMO problems tend to occur more with players who are, essentially, unable (to some extent) to play sub-optimally -- you read the rules, it's usually pretty obvious how to create a particularly effective character, which spells/feats/weapons/whatever naturally complement one-another; why would you consciously choose to play sub-par?
They'll recognise the RP and fluff side of things, and may well have well-rounded characters, but everything is shaped by the basic avoidance of anything that isn't the strongest option available. If the rules say your football team fields 11 men at a time, why would you choose to field only 10?
On the other hand I don't see the traditional "power gamer" problem very often. While it may be a bigger issue -- players going out of their way to bend/break the rules, mine the internet for obscure powers & rule interpretations, and in general try to "beat" the GM, the game, and the other players -- I think it's also a lot rarer.
Maybe when you first start playing, particularly if you're part of a group that's all (or mostly) new to the game without anyone particularly experienced, you approach it competitively. But I think most people who have that attitude either stop playing or change as they come to appreciate that pure win/lose actually detracts from your own enjoyment of the game in the long run.
In my experience the worst (or perhaps most accomplished) power gamers tend to be about 16-20, been playing for 2 or 3 years, and have probably only played with 1 or 2 groups. The groups they've been playing with have led to their play styles being directed in certain ways, and exposure to new gaming groups provides the opportunity to change -- some broaden their play styles & recognise there's more to gaming than maximising DPS, others may retrench and stick with the groups that better suit there playstyle.
Joining a new gamng group is potentially a massive change for a relatively inexperienced player, and for many leaving school/starting university is the first real opportunity they have to game with a couple of new groups, or even just to try out other systems. At this point they often discover how concentrated their previous group's play stle was, and how directed it may have been to re-inforcing particular play styles -- the new group's GM tells them that they don't use a particular splat book or 3pp, that a particular rule is interpreted differently, or that particular group dynamics are the norm or unheard of.
By way of example... a few years back I played in a 3.5 campaign where most of the group were university students, mostly 2nd & 3rd years, some post-grads. A 1st year joined the group, he'd played for 3 or 4 years at school, knew the rules well, but he started out with his PC all planned out (through multiple PrCs) to 20th level, he said the character didn't really kick-in until about 9th or 10th level. The GM explained that not only would the campaign probably finish at about 15th level, but also that it would take around a year-and-a-half to get there.
The new player had come from a group where power-gaming was the norm (more than that it was almost a requirment within the group), they never played at "low" levels (below double digts), and had had all of their play directed to support that play style. In many regards we simply weren't playing the style of game he wanted to play, and because all of his gaming experienced had previously been confined to one group of half a dozen people he didn't sufficient external perspective to see how to play the game in a different style.
Going back to those who can't play sub-optimally, they're not trying to win, they're not in a race to hit level 30 CoDzilla, they're not trying to beat the rules -- they just play be the rules as efficiently and effectively as they can. Which is fine so long as you're in a balanced group where everyone has a similar level of knowledge of the rules,but presents significant problems when you've got less experienced or more casual players involved. And while you're trying to teach the new players, you're also having to get some of the more experienced players to pull their punches so that they don't dominate things.
|
|
Hmmm, I'm a little hesitant to be so harsh when most folks use these terms interchangeably. I also question some of the traits you are adding such as rules lawyer, metagamer, and even cheater, which are not necessarily inherent in powergaming. (I think)
I feel that most of us have both aspects (and more) active in our gaming minds at any time. "optimization" is all about degrees - everyone does it to some extent. We might make an organic set of abilities, feats, class and race, then powergame the hell out of our skills or spells. Or we might powergame just a little here and there.
For me personally, it comes down to the intention of the rules, and the expectations of the group. And while both of these are fairly vague and open to interpretation, there is also some concrete information about intention of the game - see "The Most Important Rule" in the getting started section.
Careful with definitions though:1) Min/Max or Optimization: Make a character that performs mechanically well in contributing to combat challenges with the rest of the group.
2) Powergaming: Make a character more powerful than the rest of the group.
Not synonymous terms, and although labeling optimization as powergaming usually just stems from not understanding the term or the goal, it can be offensive to label optimization as powergaming to those that optimize but don't powergame.
I more want to propose that optimizer shouldn't be a negative term, while power gamer should be.
One is working within the framework and context, one is trying to exploit it.
I more want to propose that optimizer shouldn't be a negative term, while power gamer should be.
One is working within the framework and context, one is trying to exploit it.
In all seriousness, I'm inclined to agree with your layman's working definition of both terms. But if history is any indication, I'm also inclined to agree with Gorbacz on the inevitability this discussion will bring.
With that in mind, I'm just going to sit back, eat some popcorn, and watch the eventual derail. But I wish you luck, sir. :)
Power Gamer: Trying to be the best, intentionally and blatantly abusing rules and loopholes to "beat the game". Pun-Pun, Locate City Nuke etc. Beating other characters, even optimized ones, at their own game, even if your class(es) dictate that your field of specialization should be a different, or even opposing, one. Detrimental to the game.
Optimizer: Trying to be good at what you do, within the framework of the rules, to contribute to a party so they might succeed in their goals. You do what you do very well, but you are utterly incapable of overstepping another character's field of specialization. (Exception being spells trumping skills, which IMO is a design flaw.) An asset to a party.
Power Gamer: Trying to be the best, intentionally and blatantly abusing rules and loopholes to "beat the game". Pun-Pun, Locate City Nuke etc. Beating other characters, even optimized ones, at their own game, even if your class(es) dictate that your field of specialization should be a different, or even opposing, one. Detrimental to the game.
Optimizer: Trying to be good at what you do, within the framework of the rules, to contribute to a party so they might succeed in their goals. You do what you do very well, but you are utterly incapable of overstepping another character's field of specialization. (Exception being spells trumping skills, which IMO is a design flaw.) An asset to a party.
I like where you're going with those.
Power Gamer: Intentionally and blatantly abusing rules and loopholes to "beat the game". Beating other characters at their own game. Focusing solely on the power of your character rather than the character of your character. Detrimental to the game.
Roleplayer: Trying to portray a character's personality with little or no regard for the rules. Building a character and taking actions which, although fun or interesting conceptually, are largely ineffective at solving concrete problems encountered by the party, especially combat.
Optimizer: Trying to be good at what you do, within the framework of the rules, to contribute to a party so they might succeed in their goals. An asset to the game.
I think what we usually mean by "optimizer" is someone who pays attention to both aspects of the game, the rolls and the roles; who is prepared to participate in both combat and conversations.
Power Gamer: Trying to be the best, intentionally and blatantly abusing rules and loopholes to "beat the game". Pun-Pun, Locate City Nuke etc. Beating other characters, even optimized ones, at their own game, even if your class(es) dictate that your field of specialization should be a different, or even opposing, one. Detrimental to the game.
Optimizer: Trying to be good at what you do, within the framework of the rules, to contribute to a party so they might succeed in their goals. You do what you do very well, but you are utterly incapable of overstepping another character's field of specialization. (Exception being spells trumping skills, which IMO is a design flaw.) An asset to a party.
I like where you're going with those.
Power Gamer: Intentionally and blatantly abusing rules and loopholes to "beat the game". Beating other characters at their own game. Focusing solely on the power of your character rather than the character of your character. Detrimental to the game.
Roleplayer: Trying to portray a character's personality with little or no regard for the rules. Building a character and taking actions which, although fun or interesting conceptually, are largely ineffective at solving concrete problems encountered by the party, especially combat.
Optimizer: Trying to be good at what you do, within the framework of the rules, to contribute to a party so they might succeed in their goals. An asset to the game.
I think what we usually mean by "optimizer" is someone who pays attention to both aspects of the game, the rolls and the roles; who is prepared to participate in both combat and conversations.
Agreed. I am an optimizer, but I start my characters with two perspectives:
- What do we need? And then find a class or "role"- How can I make an interesting character out of this? And then make a character, often sacrificing a little power to make my character work. Preferably in a way that offers synergy.
|
|
Agreed. I am an optimizer, but I start my characters with two perspectives:
- What do we need? And then find a class or "role"
- How can I make an interesting character out of this? And then make a character, often sacrificing a little power to make my character work. Preferably in a way that offers synergy.
Exactly. There isn't enough discussion of synergy on here. It isn't just what your character does, it's what your party can accomplish as a result of that contribution.
Cross posted from a similar thread.
A) Optimization : There's nothing inherently wrong with optimization, provided it's not taken to extremes. That is, like all other things, optimize in moderation. It makes perfect sense for a concept of a dumb as rocks half-orc with little socialization to boost his physical stats and put his lower stats into the socials. There's nothing inherently wrong with this. So long as that is the character concept, and it's played that way, no harm no foul. If, on the other hand, you criple the character mentally to boost him physically, to the point where he should have never survived childhood (say, 6 INT, 6 CHA, 6 WIS), then it's a problem. A half-orc in a typical orc or human society with 6's in all mental stats is going to get himself killed. He's going to be stupid, repulsive, and he's going to be too dumb to avoid ticking off the wrong person. Some gang is going to kick him to death in a dark alley, and no amount of strength helps against a dozen other kids your own age beating you with rocks and sticks behind the wood shed. Half-Orcs are already looked down on and bullied by humans and orcs, they aren't going to survive actively egging people on. Same goes for the elf wizard who has a 6 str and 6 wis combined with an 18 dex, 12 con, and 20 int. He's an autistic weakling who's probably going to kill himself with magic, since he's not wise enough to use his power responsibly.
B) Gimping : There's nothing inherently wrong with gimping your character to an extent, as long as you again do it in moderation and have a good reason for doing it. Giving your wizard a 16 int at first level and putting the 18 you had into dex or con is not going to make your character useless, and the AC or HP boost will make you more survivable at lower levels. You're going to have a lower save at higher levels, but with stat items and leveling bonuses, you're probably not going to be all that less powerful. Just don't take it to extremes. For example, don't make your wizard work with a 12 INT and a 16 str and 18 con. That's taking it to extremes. If you plan on going eldritch knight and focusing more on fighting, then that is a different story obviously. It could even be you're going the route of 'Wanted to be a wizard, but washed out of wizard training and ended up using his natural talent for combat' and end up as an eldritch knight. That's perfectly fine then, you're not gimping, you're building a specific concept.
C) Roleplaying : Gimping does not equate to roleplaying (although I admit if you're gimping your own character you're likely doing it for character reasons), nor does optimizing equate to hack & slash powergaming (As the flip side of the coin though, every powergaming hack and slasher is an optimizer). This coin of 'All gimpers are roleplayers' and it's opposite side of 'all powergamers are optimizers' leads to large groups of people pigeonholing all roleplayers as gimpers and all optimizers as powergamers. All doplphins are whales, but not all whales are dolphins. If someone optimizes and roleplays well, then that's fine.
IMO
Optimiser
Someone who designers their character to maximise/ specialise in a certain areas. Whilst minimising other areas to pay for this. They are able to fulfill a certain role that the party requires and help the overall plot.
Power Gamer
Someone who designers their character to maximise/ specialise in a certain areas. Whilst the areas they have had to minimise to pay for this are purposefully negated. This can be achieved by forcing the party to play to their strengths and does not preclude roleplaying or 'what my toon would do'.
Examples of this is low Cha - 'but i am pretty'
low Cha/Int barb - 'i am stupid,dumb and start fights'
|
I would say the bending and abusing of rules falls squarely in the realm of munchkins. Power gamers are more like the rules lawyer in that they game the system. They get as much power as they can from the rules...but only within the rules. The difference between the two is the character concept. Optimizers start with one and use the rules around that while the power gamer starts with the mechanic and then make one (or not at all).
Min/Max, Power Gamer, Optimizer, all are different terms to me.
Take a sample case of playing a Commoner:
Min/Maxer - won't touch it, to many negatives
Power Gamer - will use any and all tricks to avoid being a commoner, failing that, turn it into a combat king
Optimizer - will out farm everyone else in town
Both Min/Maxer and Power Gamer tend to be related combat mechanics, while Optimizer is more general in massaging any part of the game that has numbers attached to it, even if it is just to be "the best" pig farmer.
I generally agree with the OP, though I put less stock in intent as I do action.
A power gamer seeks to exploit loopholes in the rules to make themselves superior to everything. Power gamers have to be rules lawyers, but they are the worst kind of rules lawyer, the one that uses the rules only to his own benefit. Power gamers don't enjoy (or enjoy less) the non-crunchy aspects of the game - story, roleplaying, these things are left as an aside for the power gamer. Even combat itself is secondary to the power gamer - the power gamer just wants to create a thought experiment that cannot be possibly defeated.
An optimizer seeks to make his character the best he can be within the context of the game. An optimizer enjoys the mathematical pursuit of making a powerful character, but that is not his goal. The optimizer enjoys roleplaying, or some other aspects of the game besides the thought experiment of creating a powerful character. Optimizers don't have to be rules lawyers, though the best of them are.
The line is thin. But generally, I like playing with optimizers, and I get a visceral reaction out of power gamers. (I have both at my table, and have had to physically restrain myself at times when dealing with the power gamer player.)
|
|
I would say the bending and abusing of rules falls squarely in the realm of munchkins. Power gamers are more like the rules lawyer in that they game the system. They get as much power as they can from the rules...but only within the rules. The difference between the two is the character concept. Optimizers start with one and use the rules around that while the power gamer starts with the mechanic and then make one (or not at all).
Rules lawyer falls into the bending category for me. The DM is the Judge or you need a new DM.
If you are "gaming" the system, you aren't following the rules. Every good DM I've played with approaches rules lawyers with the same response "If you want to play it that way, I can guarantee you will face something in the not to distance future who will play it that way."
Takes a lot of strange rule interpretation out of the game when you know you'll be facing it in return.
|
|
I generally agree with the OP, though I put less stock in intent as I do action.
A power gamer seeks to exploit loopholes in the rules to make themselves superior to everything. Power gamers have to be rules lawyers, but they are the worst kind of rules lawyer, the one that uses the rules only to his own benefit. Power gamers don't enjoy (or enjoy less) the non-crunchy aspects of the game - story, roleplaying, these things are left as an aside for the power gamer. Even combat itself is secondary to the power gamer - the power gamer just wants to create a thought experiment that cannot be possibly defeated.
An optimizer seeks to make his character the best he can be within the context of the game. An optimizer enjoys the mathematical pursuit of making a powerful character, but that is not his goal. The optimizer enjoys roleplaying, or some other aspects of the game besides the thought experiment of creating a powerful character. Optimizers don't have to be rules lawyers, though the best of them are.
The line is thin. But generally, I like playing with optimizers, and I get a visceral reaction out of power gamers. (I have both at my table, and have had to physically restrain myself at times when dealing with the power gamer player.)
In my experience, power gamers tend to be people who fail in life and so try to "win" at gaming.
Optimizers tend to be the same type of people who succeed in life, as they want to be successful in the context and understand you can't "win" a role playing game in the same way you can't "win" interpersonal relationships.
I'm an admitted optimizer (and Rules Lawyers, but that's a topic for another day), I enjoy playing characters that are very good at what they do but don't attempt to bend or warp the rules to my benefit. As Ciretose meantioned, my philosopy as a Game Master to trying to game the rules is that anything the player's can do so too can the game characters.
I play Dungeons and Dragons, Pathfinder, and similar games because I want to feel in someway like a hero (or villian) that's worthy of having an epic story written about them. Heroic Fantasy in otherwords. My process in doing so is imagine the kind of character that speaks to me as a worthy addition to a great novel and then I use the rules of the game to shape and mold my character into that.
I'm not looking to be Gandolf or Conan at first level, but I also don't want to be spearcarrier number 5.
To me munchkins are players that want to win at the game.
As an optimizer I don't want to win, but I also don't want to lose.
To quote my first Dungeon Master: "You can't roleplay when you're dead."
|
|
I'm an admitted optimizer (and Rules Lawyers, but that's a topic for another day), I enjoy playing characters that are very good at what they do but don't attempt to bend or warp the rules to my benefit. As Ciretose meantioned, my philosopy as a Game Master to trying to game the rules is that anything the player's can do so too can the game characters.
I play Dungeons and Dragons, Pathfinder, and similar games because I want to feel in someway like a hero (or villian) that's worthy of having an epic story written about them. Heroic Fantasy in otherwords. My process in doing so is imagine the kind of character that speaks to me as a worthy addition to a great novel and then I use the rules of the game to shape and mold my character into that.
I'm not looking to be Gandolf or Conan at first level, but I also don't want to be spearcarrier number 5.
To me munchkins are players that want to win at the game.
As an optimizer I don't want to win, but I also don't want to lose.
To quote my first Dungeon Master: "You can't roleplay when you're dead."
This is one of the reasons I love variant classes and push for more options. That way you can have variety and flavor while still being able to be effective.
Each class does require some focus on some skills to be effective, which is why you have different classes for different things.
There's a pertinant lethal weapon quote on this. Its about the difference between a brown noser and something else.
Depth perception.
Its not a matter of what you do its how far you go with it.
For whatever it might be worth, I agree with TM and the OP, but this is an oft repeated subject, which just goes round and round with no discernible beginning or end.
To quote my first Dungeon Master: "You can't roleplay when you're dead."
Sometimes. That depends on the DM and the campaign. I've found that it's hard to rule out anything in a game that depends on imagination.
This is one of the reasons I love variant classes and push for more options. That way you can have variety and flavor while still being able to be effective.
There's a lot to be said for having options. I always push for out of the box builds.
Each class does require some focus on some skills to be effective, which is why you have different classes for different things.
I almost agree. "Effective", IMHO, doesn't always depend on breadth or amount of skill, but the proper application of such skill and a bit of luck. In a game where die rolling and role playing are involved, having a +5 vs. a +1 doesn't make you more effective, but it makes you have a better chance at being so. I've seen min-maxer/powergamer/optimizers fail alongside witty or lucky sub-optimizers.
There's a saying: "I'd rather be lucky than good."
Hm. My interpretation of "power gamer" is just someone who loves powerful characters (whether they're optimized or not). So someone who plays a level 1 minotaur vampire were-tiger with a +5 holy avenger in a level 1 game is a power gamer, but not necessarily an optimizer.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Optomizer: A term that power gamers and min-maxers created to make them feel better about themselves.
I'm sure when it too gets a negative connotation that a new term will be invented. Such is the PC way.
Min-Maxer: Make the best out of what you have.
Power Gamer: Be the most powerful you can.
The way I see it, the difference is that the Min-Maxer wants to play the game at an optimal level, while the Power Gamer wants big numbers, regardless of whether he gets them with the rules or without the rules.
I think the OP's working definitions are pretty solid but here is my take.
Optimizer: Someone who uses system mastery (understanding of how the various options and mechanics of the game work together) to make their choices for character options. They may not always take the exact most effective option, but they will choose what works best for what they are trying to do.
Power Gamer: It's all about power. This person wants to defeat challenges as effortlessly as possible, and isnt really concerned with how that happens. They scour through rulebooks to find combinations that have the maximum effect and will always seek to circumvent any limitations on their character.
Now the question is, where do you put munchkin? Personally I see munchkin as the extreme side of powergaming but not exactly the same. This is usually someone who is actively trying to circumvent the rules for the most absurd powerlevels possible.
Munchkins were power gamers until more of them started cheating. That's when you saw the real split and Munchkin take on a much more negative line.
I'm even starting to see a split between "combat" optimization (which non-crunchers see most vividly) vs "concept" optimization. Especially as "concept" optimizers like myself try to explain to people like Riggler why our number crunching is desirable and positive.
To quote my first Dungeon Master: "You can't roleplay when you're dead."Unless the DM lets you play a ghost.
Whomever said anything about a character? :o
I removed a post and a reply to it. If something needs to be moved, please flag it as "Thread in wrong forum."
I've come from groups of people that have talked about this fairly frequently and at length, thanks to influxes of new players.
The disagreement that I have with your terms is that it combines the mechanics of building a character, with the method of playing a character. In that sense, I feel it's necessary to create terms to differentiate these things, where necessary.
For example, a lot of you are stating that a powergamer should be somebody who creates a character to peak perfection and plays to win. This is actually a combination of two things: Both optimizing and playing to win as two separate concepts.
Here's the understanding that I hail from:
Min/maxing and Optimizing: Equivalent words. Used to describe a person who builds and mechanically develops a character to achieve the greatest strengths at the cost of having the lowest weaknesses. Essentially, the architecture of a character is created to yield the most overall legal power. This descriptor may be compatible with other descriptors. Mostly associated with power-gaming.
Gimping: A method of building and developing a character that is meant to mechanically represent a character's non-combat strengths, even when presented in a system that is combat-oriented. For example, in D&D, 'gimping' may be not only putting ranks into Craft: Baskets, but also taking Skill Focus for it, when the player has no plans for a high score in this skill other than representing that he's "really, really good at making baskets". Detrimental to combat-oriented combat systems because it throws off the balance of power. This descriptor may be compatible with other descriptors. Most associated with role-playing.
Of note is that the two previous descriptors are not binary. Obviously, you are not just "one or the other". Even within a descriptor, there is a sliding scale wherein a person can optimize a little or a lot, gimp a little or a lot, or neither.
* * * * *
Power-gaming: The playstyle of playing to win, and making choices in-play to support that. Expect these characters to be played with a possibly-heartless tactical precision. A paragon power-gamer will not eat food that is presented to him, even by friends. He must check every floor and doorway for traps before he goes in first. Expect this character to keep his Amulet of Fire Resistance, even if some of his countrymen are going to have to walk through a burning valley to escape encroaching warbands. This player's priority is success, through survival and victorious battle. Most often associated with min/maxing.
Roleplaying: The act of playing to express one's character and interact with the world. Expect these players to treat their characters as separate beings with opinions, biases, preferences and goals. Whereas a power-gamer may approach situations with the questions "How can this help me win?" or "How could this cause me to lose?", a roleplayer will ask questions like "What would I do in this situation?" or "What would my character do?". Most often associated with gimping.
Of note is that the two previous descriptors are not binary. Obviously, you are not just "one or the other". Even within a descriptor, there is a sliding scale wherein a person can roleplay a little or a lot, powergame a little or a lot. It's even possible for a roleplayers to make very gamist decisions for practicality ("I don't think I'm going to eat this") or for a power-gamer to roleplay when success or failure isn't at stake.
With these descsriptors, you end up with some unique combinations.
The FOUR EXTREMES, minus gaming styles involving cheating, could be interpreted as follows:
Minmax/Powergaming: A person who builds and plays a character to win.
Minmax/Roleplaying: A person who builds a character to be effective, but uses that character to experience and change the setting. The extreme that is probably the closest to the 'average' gamer.
Gimp/Powergaming: A failure of concept. If it could be said to exist, it would do so in the sense of a person who wants to powergame, but they are too unfamiliar with the system to pull it off with a flourish. Since they will probably try anyway, and make mistakes because of incorrect memory or rules interpretations, probably will be viewed as a member of the cheater archetype.
Gimp/Roleplaying: A person who builds and plays a character to experience and interact with the world. Typically enjoys taking character flaws, like being one-handed, having lost an eye, or being hunted by a powerful organization. This player tries to use the architecture of the system to make their characters inherently more interesting -- after all, before characters even enter play, if you are given the choice of asking either a very buff barbarian or a one-eyed swordsman his life's story, a lot of people will ask about the lost eye.
Stereotypes for these players are the belief that the system is subservient to the roleplaying, and to have a disdain for combat since personal interaction is what they find most interesting. Frequently fall victim to Stormwind's Fallacy, or the idea that having a character that is flawed or ineffective is inherently more interesting than a character that is not flawed that is played just as well.
---
The alignment axis parallel was an accident, I swear.
I think that a lot of the definitions thrown out here are pretty good (even and perhaps especially CoDZilla's), but to me there will never be completely accepted definitions and there will always be a lot of overlap, so it is always best to explain what you mean when you use them.
I also don't find any of them to be inherently insulting or derogatory (except munchkin). They simply describe different playstyles that may or may not be good and/or acceptable at any given table. To me any of them are fine, so long as everyone agrees to play that way. Where the problems occur is when some want to powergame and others don't within the same group. The solution, IMHO, comes with good DMing to set clear expectations and control abuses and flexibility on the part of the players, to compromise and sometimes go along with what the majority at the table wants, perhaps with the promise that next campaign we do it their way.
With these descsriptors, you end up with some unique combinations.
The FOUR EXTREMES, minus gaming styles involving cheating, could be interpreted as follows:
Minmax/Powergaming: A person who builds and plays a character to win.
Minmax/Roleplaying: A person who builds a character to be effective, but uses that character to experience and change the setting. The extreme that is probably the closest to the 'average' gamer.
Gimp/Powergaming: A failure of concept. If it could be said to exist, it would do so in the sense of a person who wants to powergame, but they are too unfamiliar with the system to pull it off with a flourish. Since they will probably try anyway, and make mistakes because of incorrect memory or rules interpretations, probably will be viewed as a member of the cheater archetype.
Gimp/Roleplaying: A person who builds and plays a character to experience and interact with the world. Typically enjoys taking character flaws, like being one-handed, having lost an eye, or being hunted by a powerful organization. This player tries to use the architecture of the system to make their characters inherently more interesting -- after all, before characters even enter play, if you are given the choice of asking either a very buff barbarian or a one-eyed swordsman his life's story, a lot of people will ask about the lost eye.
Stereotypes for these players are the belief that the system is subservient to the roleplaying, and to have a disdain for combat since personal interaction is what they find most interesting. Frequently fall victim to Stormwind's Fallacy, or the idea that having a character that is flawed or ineffective is inherently more interesting than a character that is not flawed that is played just as well.
---
The alignment axis parallel was an accident, I swear.
Impressive. +1 Indeed.
And accurate, I feel. I identify myself as a Min-max/Roleplayer, I find both equally important, as I feel I would be a burden if I did not pull my weight, but I also need to feel that my character is "alive" so I may experience genuine immersion.
And I can identify the other members of my gaming group easily enough as belonging to one of the four categories, and the inherent conflict that arises from the difference in perspective.
The system just ate another very-big post of mine, and that makes me sad :(
But to be clear before I start arguments, the descriptors are supposed to be more or less extremes. A lot of people would find themselves between descriptors. For example, with Gimping vs Minmaxing --
Recently I had to consider a feat for my Bard, who is a clergyman of a death god. What I wanted was Snowflake Wardance, but that didn't make sense for the character. Taking Snowflake Wardance under that condition would indeed be Minmaxing.
However, even though I took a feat that was also powerful instead, does not mean that I was still Minmaxing; it is logical for adventurers to become effective at what they do. On the same token, even though my character didn't take the absolutely-best feat available to him, doesn't mean that he was gimping. Much like an alignment discussion, this action was neither gimping nor minmaxing.
...To me any of them are fine, so long as everyone agrees to play that way. Where the problems occur is when some want to powergame and others don't within the same group. The solution, IMHO, comes with good DMing to set clear expectations and control abuses and flexibility on the part of the players, to compromise and sometimes go along with what the majority at the table wants, perhaps with the promise that next campaign we do it their way.
I wish there was more info printed in the books, (or online) where the designer/developers specifically addressed this. What should I change if I want to just tell a cool story, and what should I change if I want a "Max Power" campaign.
Really these issues are only a problem if people are not on the same page.
With that said, it is not possible, or even desirable to have all options be of equal value. There will always be ways to exploit the system, especially in the context of an ongoing campaign. I would much rather play a game with a clause that basically says, "Subject to GM's discretion" then one that tried to be 100% balanced.
Being a fairly new player to DnD and coming from a Diablo 2 background, most people would probably classify me and my DM as power gamers, I contend otherwise as defined below. However in our discussions of what things should be off limits, I think I found out where the negative impression of power gamers comes from.
Power gamers will go after power that tears at the fabric of the game. For example, there is an implicit assumption that instant death spells allow for saves. Yet back in 3.5e taking a simple 10/10 wizard incantrix build allow you to easily make death rays (empower, double ray, twin, quicken, maximize, easy meta on twin, quicken, and maximize, arcane thesis / metamagic school focus) and still have feats to spare. A straight 20 wiz could do it but wouldn't have much flexibility for luxuries. The problem with this is that the power gamer would probably complain the moment he came up against a power gaming NPC. Power gaming brings the game to the point where there is systematically no defense against the strategy and combat is STRICTLY determined by initiative (don't even get me started on arcane fusion cheese). Yet me and my DM made some gentlemenly agreements to avoid such things that destroy the game. While I am still playing a high powered build, I will not be going around 1-rounding level 30+ guys a few times a day.
Now power gaming does not even necessarily have to be planning out a 20 level build to destroy Elminster 3 times a day. Consider 3.5e polymorph, every level 9 caster could turn into a tendriculos and simply eat whomever they come across at that level (+23 grapple is more than enough to eat even fighters for a little while). It is simply the fact that such things don't require any fudging around with the rules at all yet clearly are destructive to particular balances in the game. So long as they don't start to destroy the game, power gamers are perfectly fine to have in a game. I'd even argue that they are healthy for the game because it raises the bar for DM's (leading to completely mundane traps that are easily capable of TPKing 20th level parties).
I have been known by my group to play on both sides of the powergamer/optimizer fence. I have the understanding that the game is unforgiving, despite the best character you may have its all on the dice roll. I look for interesting things to play as since I have been playing rpgs for many years. I like finding weaknesses and using them to my advantage, but I dont want to break the rules to do it. This frustrates my group a bit since I tend to out perform some of them, but we all have our roles. I am currently playing a 6th level Magus, he is average for damage both melee and arcane, doesnt outshine our casters or melee builds, but some members of my group were annoyed I couldnt pick something from the Core or APG, they state the Magus isnt finished and I agreed to a point. I pointed out to them that the Magus was released and reworked to be playtested and feedback to be given, its from the Paizo developers so I cant see what the issue is. This is probably the least powerful character (power gaming wise I have played) but I am enjoying his versatility and roleplaying I get to do with him and thats what matters.
They have a fight.
Optimizer wins.
Optimizer man.
Gerrard reminded me of something relevant to this discussion. The liabilities. The gimped characters who become a liability because they "don't want to munch".
I am playing in a game with a character that has con10 and focuses all his favored class bonuses on skill-points. He has already died twice, since the GM runs a pretty harsh game, but we have somehow managed to get him back both times. One was obvious fiat, but whatever. He really likes his character, and the GM pretty much told us that "three times' the charm" and he will not be brought back if he goes down again.
This is not really fair to the rest, I feel. Now we have to emulate the "escort missions" people love so much from videogames, in nearly every single combat. I had to refocus my character build from a melee focused paladin to a switch-hitter so I can effectively stay in one spot to babysit him.
So to all those "role-players" out there that think optimizers are the scum of the earth; you're welcome.
Oh yes, Gerrard, out of curiosity; what do you consider "average damage" for lv6?
|
|
With these descsriptors, you end up with some unique combinations.
The FOUR EXTREMES, minus gaming styles involving cheating, could be interpreted as follows:
Minmax/Powergaming: A person who builds and plays a character to win.
Minmax/Roleplaying: A person who builds a character to be effective, but uses that character to experience and change the setting. The extreme that is probably the closest to the 'average' gamer.
Gimp/Powergaming: A failure of concept. If it could be said to exist, it would do so in the sense of a person who wants to powergame, but they are too unfamiliar with the system to pull it off with a flourish. Since they will probably try anyway, and make mistakes because of incorrect memory or rules interpretations, probably will be viewed as a member of the cheater archetype.
Gimp/Roleplaying: A person who builds and plays a character to experience and interact with the world. Typically enjoys taking character flaws, like being one-handed, having lost an eye, or being hunted by a powerful organization. This player tries to use the architecture of the system to make their characters inherently more interesting -- after all, before characters even enter play, if you are given the choice of asking either a very buff barbarian or a one-eyed swordsman his life's story, a lot of people will ask about the lost eye.
Stereotypes for these players are the belief that the system is subservient to the roleplaying, and to have a disdain for combat since personal interaction is what they find most interesting. Frequently fall victim to Stormwind's Fallacy, or the idea that having a character that is flawed or ineffective is inherently more interesting than a character that is not flawed that is played just as well.
---
The alignment axis parallel was an accident, I swear.Add another +1
I also go for the Minmax/Roleplaying style. I want to be effective, but I also want to make sense in the context of the game. I don't find the two mutually exclusive. Some ideas don't work as well mechanically. Sword and Board isn't going to do as much damage as a two handed fighter, even with shield bash.
But the rules are like lego pieces. You take them and to make the best you can out of the different combinations available.
Oh yes, Gerrard, out of curiosity; what do you consider "average damage" for lv6?
Kamelguru, I compare average damage against those of my team and based off of what we are fighting.
Example: Mangin our parties Fighter5/Rogue1 has TWF with dual bastard swords, his fighter feats are geared towards TWF and bastard swords. He can crank out 8 to 17 damage on one of his 2 attacks (+1 weapon, +2 weapon specialization, +4 Str,and a roll of 1 on his D10 for minimum with +1 weapon, +2 weapon specialization, +4 Str and roll of 10 on his D10) that adds up to 16-34 damage for two hits.With Power Attack he increases the damage with power attack for an additional +4 damage raising it to 12-21 per hit or two hits for 24-41 damage. Of course that is just the minimum and max damage and the chance to sneak attack but you see where its going.
My usual plan off attack with my Magus Alcoss is if engaged in melee he will do a regular attack with his +1 bastard sword and my minimum damage is 8 to 17. The break down of the 8 is +4 Str bonus (str boosting item) a roll of 1 on my D10, +1 bastard sword with another +2 from Arcane Pool use. The max damage is if I rolled max damage on all my rolls, again can fall any where in between.
I follow up my first attack with an attack with my Combat Scabbard from the Pathfinder Companion (Armory) as it can be done as a Swift Action with the Combat Equipment Feat and the prereq of Quick Draw which does 1d6+5 which is +4 Str +1 enhancement bonus or can be increased by +2 for my Arcane Pool use (again the enhancements I choose can change the damage greatly. Even though the scabbard attack provokes an attack of opportunity I will do it if I am feeling lucky, healthy or to help a hurt team member run off if they need to without withdrawing.
The finisher is my spell casting as part of Spell Combat (Magus ability) and use a spell that has a casting time of a standard action the spells depend on what I am fighting and what I have left to cast but against stronger foes I will do Scorching Ray for example (which I can cast close up and without attack of opportunity thanks to the Magus Arcana ability Close Range) all of that translates into an attack with my bastard sword ranging any where from 8-17, then my scabbard attack 6 to 11 regular attack or more as described by Arcane Pool use) then the spell so I crank out a minimum of 8+6+4 minimum damage if all hit on sword, scabbard and a really bad roll on Scorching Ray and a max of 17+11+24 max or anywhere in between.
I know I cant keep up that kind of pace and expect to last but when things get tight I can go all out, if I have my enhancements from my Arcane Pool up I can also buff my hit with Magus Arcana Arcane Accuracy by my Int Mod (+5) so I have a good chance of hitting what I attack. My pool is limited but I am an experienced gamer and can expect to last decently. I played last night and more then held my own for fighting a group of 8 guards with my party.
|
|
...To me any of them are fine, so long as everyone agrees to play that way. Where the problems occur is when some want to powergame and others don't within the same group. The solution, IMHO, comes with good DMing to set clear expectations and control abuses and flexibility on the part of the players, to compromise and sometimes go along with what the majority at the table wants, perhaps with the promise that next campaign we do it their way.
I wish there was more info printed in the books, (or online) where the designer/developers specifically addressed this. What should I change if I want to just tell a cool story, and what should I change if I want a "Max Power" campaign.
Really these issues are only a problem if people are not on the same page.
With that said, it is not possible, or even desirable to have all options be of equal value. There will always be ways to exploit the system, especially in the context of an ongoing campaign. I would much rather play a game with a clause that basically says, "Subject to GM's discretion" then one that tried to be 100% balanced.
I think it is subject to GM discretion. If someone is more powerful than everyone else in the group, and you care, you can subtly adjust the encounters to their weaknesses and the others strengths.
We did a roll 4d6 and drop one in a 3.5 where one guy got ridiculous stats. He is far and away the most powerful in the group for the first 10 or so levels, but no one got upset about it because everyone was still useful in their own roles, and while he shined he still had weaknesses like anyone else that the DM would exploit if he started getting cocky.
As long as you aren't playing with attention whores, it isn't an issue.
Accepting the terms Power Gamer/Optimizer as the ones to define the general schism:
An Optimizer thinks he has designed a good character. A Power Gamer knows that he has designed the best character.
-
Largely, it's a function of what's motivates your choices.
The population of the vocal portion of the internet aside, I think that most players occupy a baseline somewhere below Optimizer - they see a neat concept and run with it. It's not "gimping"; it's "oh, Sorcerer, hmm, that sounds neat. I think I'll do that." Unless something is wholly broken, they don't notice anything one way or the other.
Optimizers engage in a closer analysis. Some powers, spells, rules, maneuvers, tactics, et cetera work better than others. Some exist because combat is where it counts, others exist largely out of accident. An Optimizer has a good sense of many to all of these, and makes character design choices appropriately. In short, the role the player's understanding of the math behind the game increases, to the point where the math is dictating character choices that might - if the math weren't there - seem odd.
Power Gamers have taken a step past that. Power Gamers are wholly motivated by the math. This increasingly voids flexibility. There is one best way to do things, and doing it that one best way is the most important thing there is. There is One Best Build for each class, and some classes aren't even worth considering. There is One Best Way to fight an enemy. Failure to do that means that you're not playing the game right.
"I want to make a cool martial character with a two handed sword and a lot of awesome fighting techniques"
Optimizer: Warblade
Power Gamer: Cleric
;p