Am I the only one who is running into people who do things that don't make sense for their character (or at the very least they can't/won't explain) to the point of meta-gaming?
I'm not saying you should only play optimized characters at the cost of role play, but it seems some folks are so determined to not be a power gamer they will use out of character knowledge to make their PC weaker, thus showing they aren't power gaming. Just off the wall stuff like a character spending 3 months of down time studying under a fencing master then taking skill focus profession basister, with nothing related to that in their back story or any of the games. I'm thinking they guy did a great job of role playing weapon focus feat and BOOM! some crunch that is only justified by the phrase, "Well I don't want to be a power gamer."
|
The only time I've inverse-power-gamed was because I was playing with much less experienced players and I didn't want my character to outshine theirs.
A few points I usually make to my players about such things (when the need arises):
* If you do not completely sacrifice sensibility of the character to get the power, it's probably alright. If you're reaching a bit far on something I'll let you know.
* Only those who are really good at a profession take ranks. Just doing the job for a few months doesn't necessitate that.
* Your characters have 8 hours of travel and 8 hours of sleep in a day. Generally, the other 8 hours are spent practicing your various abilities and talking to the other characters. This is usually where your feats and skills come from, not from some ancient master on the mountain-top, and also why your characters usually know each-others strengths and weaknesses (barring anything you choose to hide).
* Character downtime is for crafting, making social connections and (maybe) research, not for making up excuses to take a feat (unless those feats explicitly require such actions). You can perform such activities if you wish, but there will be no mechanical benefit or drawback to doing so, and you should not expect any brownie points for it.
* Inverse meta-gaming is just as bad as meta-gaming and the former does not make up for the latter. To avoid meta-gaming of either sort, make a personality for your character and remind yourself "Given the knowledge they have here, what would my character do? What would they invest their time and effort in learning (as opposed to just doing)?" Usually it's not that hard to decide. If your character is in an 'I'm not sure what to do!' state, then just have them do something instinctual (usually "smash it" or "run"). If they pick "smash it" then have them use their trademark whatever-it-is (many mages would try Fireball, for example).
off the wall stuff like a character spending 3 months of down time studying under a fencing master then taking skill focus profession basister, with nothing related to that in their back story or any of the games. I'm thinking they guy did a great job of role playing weapon focus feat and BOOM! some crunch that is only justified by the phrase, "Well I don't want to be a power gamer."
That is trolling, plain and simple. If someone were doing that in my game, they'd be out of the game. It's an insult to the GM.
I get regular powergamophobia where they think that fun characters need to be ineffective (I always laugh at them when I play my effective characters that are fun at the same time!). It's a silly misconception, but beyond making no sense, it at least makes sense. (Yes, you read that right!)
But munchkinising the character in order to make him ineffective? That's sabotage. It's being contrary for the sake of being contrary, and giving the GM grief to show him how little you think of his work and efforts.
There are plenty of fun and awesome choices in the game that aren't optimal. Just pick those instead.
I played with a dude who played a bard who never wore any armor because he was a seaman in his background. That's ok as long as you're on sea, but he refused to wear an armor even in the effing DESERT! He also never used Inspire Courage, because he was to busy ''faking death'' in battles, at least when he wasn't incounscious for real.
The dude said to me that he played bards for 20 years and that he ''knew'' how to play them...
he refused to wear an armor even in the effing DESERT!
Dude, armor is hot on a good day... On a bad day (say, wandering around in the desert), it is even worse.
|
Let players do what they want as long as everyone is having fun. Really optimal and sub optimal are just silly things to argue about as long asnit does not get n the way of the game. I have never crunched the numbers for any character and they have always turned out fine. There are others in my group that I know are doing the math thing. No one seems to care.
I played with a dude who played a bard who never wore any armor because he was a seaman in his background. That's ok as long as you're on sea
Only a coward fails to wear armour on a ship. This guy was definitely not an Ironborn! You should have baptised him.
You know, head under water until he stops moving, and then push it out of his lungs again.
but he refused to wear an armor even in the effing DESERT!
Well, that does make sense. You don't want to overdress in the dessert. Killing heat and all that.
He also never used Inspire Courage, because he was to busy ''faking death'' in battles, at least when he wasn't incounscious for real.
Nonsense like this can be cured quickly: Enemies sometimes make sure dropped victims are dead, so the cleric can't just heal him and put him back into the fight.
It usually takes no more than two or three characters dying in that fashion to make people reconsider their tactics.
he refused to wear an armor even in the effing DESERT!Dude, armor is hot on a good day... On a bad day (say, wandering around in the desert), it is even worse.
I forgot to mention that we traveled during night time to avoid the burning sun.
The only time I've inverse-power-gamed was because I was playing with much less experienced players and I didn't want my character to outshine theirs.
+1
I have had to 'play down' in order to deal with weak dms and inexperienced fellow players. I created a 'trip-master' Fighter back in the day in order to let the squishies in our party shine, but the dm paniced when we aced three straight '+' encounters. He banned all 'trip' weapons for a bit, not realizing that I had not been using one. He spent so much time keeping a 3.0 Fighter from dominating the early game, he was utterly blind-sided by 3 new players both coming into their characters' own and blossoming as players. Last time we played, I felt like a dragging muffler!
The big problem, IMHO, is the miss-use of the whole 'meta-gaming' idea.
I am 100% in favor of Anti- Powergaming.
Was there some sarcasm in here or something that I missed?
|
|
I am 100% in favor of Anti- Powergaming.Was there some sarcasm in here or something that I missed?
Absolutely none.
Never had a player work that hard to not be considered a power gamer but i understand why someone would want to be consider to be anti powergamer. The super optimazation guy in the group of normal people tends to make everyone else feel inferior at times especially if he is capable of doing their jobs better than them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Absolutely none.I am 100% in favor of Anti- Powergaming.Was there some sarcasm in here or something that I missed?
Oh.
In that case, I'm 100% in favor of anti-anti-powergaming.
Absolutely none.I am 100% in favor of Anti- Powergaming.Was there some sarcasm in here or something that I missed?Oh.
In that case, I'm 100% in favor of anti-anti-powergaming.
He's Anti-Powergaming according to the definition given by Wikipedia. On Wikipedia, you can read: "Powergaming (or power gaming) is a style of interacting with games or game-like systems with the aim of maximising progress towards a specific goal, to the exclusion of other considerations such as (in videogames, boardgames, and roleplaying games) storytelling, atmosphere and camaraderie." Who wouldn't be against THAT?
However, the Stormwind Fallacy teaches us that optimization and roleplaying (or storytelling, or atmosphere, or camaraderie) are not mutually exclusive. The definition given by Wikipedia is kind of narrow and probably not mainstream.
He's Anti-Powergaming according to the definition given by Wikipedia. On Wikipedia, you can read: "Powergaming (or power gaming) is a style of interacting with games or game-like systems with the aim of maximising progress towards a specific goal, to the exclusion of other considerations such as (in videogames, boardgames, and roleplaying games) storytelling, atmosphere and camaraderie." Who wouldn't be against THAT?
People who think that's less than okay that we consider it okay to be against someone else's preferred style of play.
It's okay to not share their preferences. Being anti-those-preferences, though? That doesn't sound cool to me.
It is to be in your own group you dont have to flame someone for it or even call them out in public but you can be against someones style when it comes to making a group unless your have a limited player base.
Am I the only one who is running into people who do things that don't make sense for their character (or at the very least they can't/won't explain) to the point of meta-gaming?
I'm not saying you should only play optimized characters at the cost of role play, but it seems some folks are so determined to not be a power gamer they will use out of character knowledge to make their PC weaker, thus showing they aren't power gaming. Just off the wall stuff like a character spending 3 months of down time studying under a fencing master then taking skill focus profession basister, with nothing related to that in their back story or any of the games. I'm thinking they guy did a great job of role playing weapon focus feat and BOOM! some crunch that is only justified by the phrase, "Well I don't want to be a power gamer."
I've got a player who's been anti-power gaming for years, but is otherwise a great player; he really gets into the spirit of the game. His choices often puzzle other gamers. Starting at 3rd level, he built an Inquisitor 2 / Monk 1. He intends to go Inq 11 / Monk 4 (2nd Darkness AP). Despite rolling high stats (we use the grid method & don't use point-buy anymore), including 17 STR, doesn't make up for the +1 BAB. Although his character carries a great axe (half orc), he doesn't use it, and this character eschews all ranged weapons. Everyone started with 2,250 gp to buy stuff - including magic, and my good buddy bought an Amulet of Natural Armor +1 for 2k. However, everything he does has an internally consistent logic to it. He approaches PC creation like an actor does a role, ignoring mechanics that might contradict his interpretation of his badass character. But we don't say anything about this to him. He's stubborn as hell, and has literally been playing D&D since the game began. As long as he's having fun, I don't have a problem with it. I'm looking for little opportunities here and there to help him out.
Where things get very difficult is when you have maniacal, uber-munchkins, who treat your game like a video game, and guys like my friend in the same gaming group. Try balancing a party like that! And it was even worse a situation when we were using the Hero System! Other options for inducing similar headaches include hitting yourself in the forehead with a 2x4, or drinking an entire case of Gordon Biersch's Bavarian Hefeweisen - one of the worst beers I've ever tasted.
Cheers! <8D
He's Anti-Powergaming according to the definition given by Wikipedia. On Wikipedia, you can read: "Powergaming (or power gaming) is a style of interacting with games or game-like systems with the aim of maximising progress towards a specific goal, to the exclusion of other considerations such as (in videogames, boardgames, and roleplaying games) storytelling, atmosphere and camaraderie." Who wouldn't be against THAT?People who think that's less than okay that we consider it okay to be against someone else's preferred style of play.
It's okay to not share their preferences. Being anti-those-preferences, though? That doesn't sound cool to me.
Everyone can have their own preferences. However, according to this defenition, which I'm not saying is an accurate definition of Powergaming, all powergamers are against storytelling, atmosphere and camaraderie, which would make them absolute jerks when you think about it. I don't know about you, but I don't play with jerks. However, I count some powergamers in my gaming groups. The fact that your character is optimised doesn't have anything do to with your roleplaying skills, your contribution to the storyline and the way you act toward the other PCs (see Stormwind Fallacy).
However, according to this defenition, which I'm not saying is an accurate definition of Powergaming, all powergamers are against storytelling, atmosphere and camaraderie, which would make them absolute jerks when you think about it. I don't know about you, but I don't play with jerks.
Hmmm, I see your point.
Perhaps, then, it's the Wiki article that needs a bit of fine-tuning from a perspective that was absent during its last editing pass? ;p
However, according to this defenition, which I'm not saying is an accurate definition of Powergaming, all powergamers are against storytelling, atmosphere and camaraderie, which would make them absolute jerks when you think about it. I don't know about you, but I don't play with jerks.Hmmm, I see your point.
Perhaps, then, it's the Wiki article that needs a bit of fine-tuning from a perspective that was absent during its last editing pass? ;p
Not really. That is the definition jells almost perfectly with the common usage of powergamer, from every group or club I have ever played with or been a member of.
I have nver known the term powergaming to be used to describe optimising. It has always refered to a destructive disregard for setting, story and the expectations of ones fellow players, to achieve greater power. Powergamers is a guy who brings a duel malorian wielding Solo's with tens in everything, to a street level game about net-activism, propaganda and underground media, and proceeds to total city blocks as a way to solve the parties problems, while the rest of the group stares in disbelief about how much the powergamer has missed the point of the campaign, and then justifies his position on the team as 'oh, a media team needs a body guard right?'.
That seems to me a very mainstream definition of power gamer, and it is distinct from optimiser. So yeah, I am anti-spoiling other people fun so you can live out a power fantasy. So I'd fairly happily say I am an Anti-power gamer.
Everyone can have their own preferences. However, according to this defenition, which I'm not saying is an accurate definition of Powergaming, all powergamers are against storytelling, atmosphere and camaraderie, which would make them absolute jerks
I think that's actually a pretty decent, though not complete, definition of powergaming. It certainly brings up what is bad about powergamers.
I think the other important part of the definition is the desire by powergamers to "win" a RPG, especially when this means "beating" the DM or outshining the other members of the party.
I don't know about you, but I don't play with jerks. However, I count some powergamers in my gaming groups.
This reminds me of poll results of Congress. People regularly respond that Congressmen and Congresswomen are terrible, but their own personal representative does a good job. ;)
I've been a heavy-handed anti-powergamer for years, and the irony is I have to constantly defend my choices in character creation and provide proof that a character I rolled up is genuinely a character I want to play, and not some mechanical gimmick.
Maybe I just got lucky on a few feat combos back in the day, but in a group I gamed with for a long time, I was constantly berated and teased about being a powergamer. In the past, even when I did wind up with an over-powered character, I usually either retired the character, or just scaled that character back, both voluntarily. Sure, let's just overlook the 15+ page backstories, family trees, flaws(not the kind that grant feats), hand painted mini's, etc. If my character had a neat trick or combo he could do, I had a detailed explanation, usually typed out, where he learned how to do it, along with the rules in the game that made it possible. I used to hang out on CharOp boards just to learn what combos NOT to try and do in game. I constantly hamper and weaken my characters just to try and show my other players that I'm not trying to be the mechanical nightmare they make me out to be.
Over the years it's not gotten much better. Even recently, we started our first real Pathfinder game(in this group) and I wanted my character to use a Scorpion Whip. I got so many snide looks and remarks, you'd think I just rolled up CoDzilla. Apparently a weapon that is statistically weaker than a dagger(x2 crit, not 19-20 x2, just has reach) is too game-breaking.
My real-life schedule got mixed around and I saw the opportunity to leave the group. Good riddance.
Yep, I'm an anti-power gamer.
Josh, did your flaws actually cause anything bad to happen to your character during the game itself, or was it all roleplaying and backstory(i.e. the classic 18/00 STR fighter/barbarian/whatever who was deathly afraid of large bodies of water in a forest campaign?)? Did your 15+ page backstories mesh well with the people around you? Why did you type out long explanations on why your character could do what you could do? And why did you forget to mention that the Scorpion whip has disarm and trip *in addition* to reach? Because all of these things, without the details, do make it sound like you are a power gamer, albeit an unintentional one. I've played with a guy like that before, and he didn't think he was a power gamer either until it was explained to him.
Yep, I'm an anti-power gamer.
Josh, did your flaws actually cause anything bad to happen to your character during the game itself, or was it all roleplaying and backstory(i.e. the classic 18/00 STR fighter/barbarian/whatever who was deathly afraid of large bodies of water in a forest campaign?)? Did your 15+ page backstories mesh well with the people around you? Why did you type out long explanations on why your character could do what you could do? And why did you forget to mention that the Scorpion whip has disarm and trip *in addition* to reach? Because all of these things, without the details, do make it sound like you are a power gamer, albeit an unintentional one. I've played with a guy like that before, and he didn't think he was a power gamer either until it was explained to him.
Yes, my various character's flaws came up in play quite a bit. If my character as anti-social and had poor diplomacy, you can bet there were times I'd be up to talk to an important NPC and almost get the party killed. Sometimes saying too much, sometimes too little. Choosing some kind of flaw that has no effect in-game or no visibly negative impact on the character through either role-play or mechanically is pointless, and an attempt at a rules subversion at worst.
I didn't mention trip or disarm with the whip because I had no intentions of doing either. We rolled first level characters, and my character was an Inquisitor of Calistria. I wanted to use my deity's favored weapon, but one that would at least deal some kind of damage in combat.
The overly long, drawn out back stories were just what came to mind when I was writing about my characters. No, it wasn't 15 pages every time, but I would just write and include significant events in the character's life that made them the way they were, or better explained what led them to a life of adventure. I was practically spoon-feeding my DM's ideas to exploit and use if they wanted, completely optional. I got tired of players would lock-up their backstories so tightly that the DM isn't "allowed" to dare do anything negative to them. I'm all for anything that makes the story more interesting than "Go here, do this, fight that guy, here's some XP's".
I've had no inhibitions about sacrificing my character to save the party, and have done so many times, particularly when the DM throws something really powerful at us we aren't prepared for. As I mentioned above, the few times I did wind up with a character that was really powerful, I'd talk with the DM about it and usually retire the character. I figure that's about as anti-powergamer as it gets.
Yep, I'm an anti-power gamer.
Josh, did your flaws actually cause anything bad to happen to your character during the game itself, or was it all roleplaying and backstory(i.e. the classic 18/00 STR fighter/barbarian/whatever who was deathly afraid of large bodies of water in a forest campaign?)? Did your 15+ page backstories mesh well with the people around you? Why did you type out long explanations on why your character could do what you could do? And why did you forget to mention that the Scorpion whip has disarm and trip *in addition* to reach? Because all of these things, without the details, do make it sound like you are a power gamer, albeit an unintentional one. I've played with a guy like that before, and he didn't think he was a power gamer either until it was explained to him.
Yes, my various character's flaws came up in play quite a bit. If my character as anti-social and had poor diplomacy, you can bet there were times I'd be up to talk to an important NPC and almost get the party killed. Sometimes saying too much, sometimes too little. Choosing some kind of flaw that has no effect in-game or no visibly negative impact on the character through either role-play or mechanically is pointless, and an attempt at a rules subversion at worst.
I didn't mention trip or disarm with the whip because I had no intentions of doing either. We rolled first level characters, and my character was an Inquisitor of Calistria. I wanted to use my deity's favored weapon, but one that would at least deal some kind of damage in combat.
The overly long, drawn out back stories were just what came to mind when I was writing about my characters. No, it wasn't 15 pages every time, but I would just write and include significant events in the character's life that made them the way they were, or better explained what led them to a life of adventure. I was practically spoon-feeding my DM's ideas to exploit and use if they wanted, completely optional. I got tired of players would...
Okay, now that the dark edges of the map have been drawn in a bit, I would say you aren't a power gamer, though you like things optimal. A minor sin in my book, but not one worth causing trouble in the game for you.
Okay, now that the dark edges of the map have been drawn in a bit, I would say you aren't a power gamer, though you like things optimal. A minor sin in my book, but not one worth causing trouble in the game for you.
It's not even about being optimal, I just want to be effective at something my character can do. It was for the Carrion Crown AP, and we're fighting lots of undead. I modeled my character after Gabriel Belmont from Castlevania: Lords of Shadow and I wanted a whip that could actually hurt undead.
I think in the case of my group, it's been an anti-arms race of character creation. It got to the point I was afraid to even use feats like Power Attack or even Weapon Focus in some games for fear of being called a min/maxer. If I wasn't shooting myself in the foot every session, I was doing it wrong. The other players became walking gods in many games, and nobody ever gave them a second thought. I won't be returning to this group any time soon, but there are a few players in it I already miss. :(
While that wiki-article was intersting and seems to fit the general opinion of powergamers, here's my take on powergaming and anti-powergaming.
Power-gamers are those players that enjoy manipulating the rules of the system to their benefit so as to create a character that is a HERO from inception, EXCEPTIONAL from the get-go, and don't feel as thougn they have to PROVE themselves or EARN ACCOLADES for there characters. These are the players that get angry when their characters get captured, stripped of gear, or get killed, and upset about it, because they chose to not run away or surrender.
Anti-powergamers are those that view a character as not being a HERO or EXCEPTIONAL until they have "paid-their-dues" and actually seek to EARN ACCOLADES after several levels of gaming. These are the players that see running away and surrender as viable options, that get nervous if their character gets knocked out, that see being captured as just another challenge.
I am a GM that while I don't set out to kill players, I do create scenarios where it's pretty obvious that the best choice is to either run away or surrender, that standing your ground and fighting can result in character death. Me personally, as a player, I've fallen between both categories of Powergamer and Antipowergamer as I've defined above. As a GM, I hate powergamers and love antipowergamers. These days, in the rare instances that I am just a player, I fall into antipowergaming.
Regardless of one's outlook, definition, or perspective between powergaming and antipowergaming, it's all just different sides of teh same coin, both of which is no less fun because it does not coincide with personal perspectives of what is enjoyable for gaming.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While that wiki-article was intersting and seems to fit the general opinion of powergamers, here's my take on powergaming and anti-powergaming.
Power-gamers are those players that enjoy manipulating the rules of the system to their benefit so as to create a character that is a HERO from inception, EXCEPTIONAL from the get-go, and don't feel as thougn they have to PROVE themselves or EARN ACCOLADES for there characters. These are the players that get angry when their characters get captured, stripped of gear, or get killed, and upset about it, because they chose to not run away or surrender.
Anti-powergamers are those that view a character as not being a HERO or EXCEPTIONAL until they have "paid-their-dues" and actually seek to EARN ACCOLADES after several levels of gaming. These are the players that see running away and surrender as viable options, that get nervous if their character gets knocked out, that see being captured as just another challenge.
I am a GM that while I don't set out to kill players, I do create scenarios where it's pretty obvious that the best choice is to either run away or surrender, that standing your ground and fighting can result in character death. Me personally, as a player, I've fallen between both categories of Powergamer and Antipowergamer as I've defined above. As a GM, I hate powergamers and love antipowergamers. These days, in the rare instances that I am just a player, I fall into antipowergaming.
Regardless of one's outlook, definition, or perspective between powergaming and antipowergaming, it's all just different sides of teh same coin, both of which is no less fun because it does not coincide with personal perspectives of what is enjoyable for gaming.
Heroism is in no way dependant on being exceptional, in anything but ones will to take risk to achieve something,usually something of moral or intellectual worth. Physical exceptionality does not make one a hero by default. In fact, a paraplegic auther in a call of cthulhu game, struggling against the cosmic horrors of the mythos, to preserve humanities ignorance and sanity for another day, but who loose their families, friends and sanity, ultimately becoming a threat to humanity themselves is a far greater hero than a solar exalted who spends all day every day beating up mooks with unparralled cosmic solar ninjitsu. What makes a power-gamer a problem is that they decide that the level of physical or metal awesomeness that is the default for the setting is not powerful enough for them, so they use the give within the character creation system, intended to allow players to customise their characters to fit their concept, to make a character which is on a higher power level that the assumed base line.
This causes problems for everyone. It generates issues for suspension of disbelief, when players see the character who is a character who would be unable to function in day to day life, because their exceptionalness comes at the cost of social skills, a trade and having learned to swim, any semblance of intelligence, and one hundred other things. It is a truism that Powergames in DnD often play the equivilant of idiot savants of martial combat, with social and intellectual savants which suggest they should have serious learning difficulties.
It causes problems for the DM, who find has to struggle harder and harder to provide challanges that challange the power gamer, but which do not kill the non-powergamers. it causes problem for players who, despite having made a character which fits well into both the bases assumptions of a campaign and makes sense within the shared imaganed space, finds themselves over shadowed by the powergamer. And so on, and so on.
Ofcause, the same can be true at the other end. Power gaming isn't the only problem. There are a small number of people who consistently play blow the expected level of a campaign, the kind of people who play a call of cthulhu character in an exalted game. But they are from my experience, infinitely less common than power gamers.
However, according to this defenition, which I'm not saying is an accurate definition of Powergaming, all powergamers are against storytelling, atmosphere and camaraderie, which would make them absolute jerks when you think about it. I don't know about you, but I don't play with jerks.Hmmm, I see your point.
Perhaps, then, it's the Wiki article that needs a bit of fine-tuning from a perspective that was absent during its last editing pass? ;p
Not really. That is the definition jells almost perfectly with the common usage of powergamer, from every group or club I have ever played with or been a member of.
I have nver known the term powergaming to be used to describe optimising. It has always refered to a destructive disregard for setting, story and the expectations of ones fellow players, to achieve greater power. Powergamers is a guy who brings a duel malorian wielding Solo's with tens in everything, to a street level game about net-activism, propaganda and underground media, and proceeds to total city blocks as a way to solve the parties problems, while the rest of the group stares in disbelief about how much the powergamer has missed the point of the campaign, and then justifies his position on the team as 'oh, a media team needs a body guard right?'.
That seems to me a very mainstream definition of power gamer, and it is distinct from optimiser. So yeah, I am anti-spoiling other people fun so you can live out a power fantasy. So I'd fairly happily say I am an Anti-power gamer.
Ok, I have always used the terms Powergaming and Optimization like if they were interchangeable. However, if the definition in Wikipedia is spot on, then I guess I'm anti-powergaming. I wouldn't not even describe myself as an optimiser, but I don't mind playing with them while I prefer playing well-rounded characters. However, I don't like players who play characters that are SO useless that they turn an appropriate encounter level into a TPK.
He spent so much time keeping a 3.0 Fighter from dominating the early game
So did the game itself! :P
Hefeweisen
Hefeweizen.
|
|
While that wiki-article was intersting and seems to fit the general opinion of powergamers, here's my take on powergaming and anti-powergaming.
Power-gamers are those players that enjoy manipulating the rules of the system to their benefit so as to create a character that is a HERO from inception, EXCEPTIONAL from the get-go, and don't feel as thougn they have to PROVE themselves or EARN ACCOLADES for there characters. These are the players that get angry when their characters get captured, stripped of gear, or get killed, and upset about it, because they chose to not run away or surrender.
Anti-powergamers are those that view a character as not being a HERO or EXCEPTIONAL until they have "paid-their-dues" and actually seek to EARN ACCOLADES after several levels of gaming. These are the players that see running away and surrender as viable options, that get nervous if their character gets knocked out, that see being captured as just another challenge.
I am a GM that while I don't set out to kill players, I do create scenarios where it's pretty obvious that the best choice is to either run away or surrender, that standing your ground and fighting can result in character death. Me personally, as a player, I've fallen between both categories of Powergamer and Antipowergamer as I've defined above. As a GM, I hate powergamers and love antipowergamers. These days, in the rare instances that I am just a player, I fall into antipowergaming.
Regardless of one's outlook, definition, or perspective between powergaming and antipowergaming, it's all just different sides of teh same coin, both of which is no less fun because it does not coincide with personal perspectives of what is enjoyable for gaming.
+ A lot
My views exactly.
I am anti-powergaming. I don't see how "optimizing" and "powergaming" become synonymous though. Optimizing is a subjective term that implies there is a goal that you're attempting to achieve. I optimize all of my characters to suit my character vision.
I had a barbarian/dragon shaman in an Eberron campaign. I only wanted the dragon shaman levels for the breath weapon (dragonfire adept has 1/2 BAB), and I was obsessed with fire, so that was his theme. He was going to have a flaming weapon, and was going to work on "binding" an elemental to aid him in freeing his people from slavery. The whole slavery thing was a touchy subject though, and as such the character wasn't going to enslave the elemental, but attempt to strike a deal with one. I was also looking at elemental grafts, etc...
"Optimally," he was going to be a living firestorm. I don't consider that powergaming, as I'm quite sure going straight barbarian would have been far more "optimal" if my focus had been damage output.
Different character: a female rogue (spy archetype), optimized for social interaction (flirting, lying, and sweet-talking her way out of trouble). Her backstory set her up to be a traveling merchant, but I left enough room in her stats for surviving in combat and not being useless to the party. She took dodge and mobility as opposed to skill focus: bluff or diplomacy (because I felt that those would not only make the character useless to my party, but also cause her to dominate social encounters, thus powergaming). To me, she was optimized, because I was able to do the things I wanted to do with her stats.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am anti-powergaming. I don't see how "optimizing" and "powergaming" become synonymous though. Optimizing is a subjective term that implies there is a goal that you're attempting to achieve. I optimize all of my characters to suit my character vision.
+1
I'm the same way. I've built 6th level characters that could deal 194 points of damage in a round (0.32% chance of that actually happening, but it can, and he does 45 points on an average round) just using the core rule (go Earthbreakers!), and I didn't even have to use two-handed weapon fighter to do it.
But that particular character's concept was heavily defined by "He smashes things real good." His giant hammer of whomping is an extension of his whole personality - he's this tactless, blunt and overbearing bonehead with no real awareness of how forceful he is. Is he optimized for being a hammer-based fighter? Heck yeah, he is. But is he powergaming?
No. If I was powergaming, I would carry a composite longbow built for my 20 Str (plus enchantments) and not have thrown feats into throw anything and ranged crush - because awesome as an earthbreaker is, it's a pretty lousy ranged weapon. But it doesn't make sense to my vision of the character for him to carry anything but his hammer, and he's the kind of guy who would totally throw his hammer at something if he couldn't hit it up close.
I also put a feat into Improved Sunder, even though its a seriously suboptimal feat (because sundering is not usually the best tactic), because he seems like a sundering sort. I knew the character was the sort who would be more likely to sunder a wizard's wand and demand he surrender than to do the most effective tactic and just knock him dead (and at his level there are few APL balanced NPC wizards who could survive one round of his full-attack).
That's very different than the guy (in my last group) who picked the clearly never playtested Sea Serpent (from Stormwrack) as the animal companion of his completely-not-sea-related-at-all druid because it quickly develops a sick AC that's impossible to hit (I was the GM, and I didn't manage to hit that damn snake with a single non-critical attack over seven levels of play.) and its poison is super-effective. Why did he have a Sea Serpent? Because it was the best mechanical option. He never even tried to explain it in character terms. It was all mechanics.
That's power-gaming. And every character this guy made was built around some mechanical exploit that made his character better than every other character in the group. Everyone in the group thought it was total cheese and resented the way he manipulated the rules, but this player was providing a place to play, so they wouldn't let me kick him out or piss him off. And telling him he wasn't allowed to use half of his complete collection of WOTC splats (of the four other players, 3 were playing straight core book, and one had two splats) because they were broken and introduced way too much power-creep was a deal-breaker for him, so I had to just put up with his nonsense. Eventually I got so sick of it I left the group and it disbanded without a GM.
I'm in a weird place on this: one game, before we played, the players and the DM where having dinner. The dinner turned into a b#~%@ session with the DM stating everything he hated, that players occasionally did. I ran with as many of those as I could. (Things like playing cross sex, and going for a prestige class that "randomly gained magic powers") Creating a character that was pretty far from optimized, including taking skill focus twice. (These where 3.5 days so it wasn't nearly as good).
The first time she was ever in combat she closed her eyes, and screamed in fear at the top of her lungs, suffering the penalties as appropriate.
Now I'm sure some of you would have kicked me out for these actions, but it turned into one of the best characters I've ever played and the favorite character of the DM.
I still recreate her in new versions just because of how much fun she was to play.
Now I'm sure some of you would have kicked me out for these actions
What, for making a character whose only purpose was to piss off me as a GM?
Nah! Killed you and buried you in the foundation of the house maybe, but not kicked out! :P
Am I the only one who is running into people who do things that don't make sense for their character (or at the very least they can't/won't explain) to the point of meta-gaming?
I'm not saying you should only play optimized characters at the cost of role play, but it seems some folks are so determined to not be a power gamer they will use out of character knowledge to make their PC weaker, thus showing they aren't power gaming. Just off the wall stuff like a character spending 3 months of down time studying under a fencing master then taking skill focus profession basister, with nothing related to that in their back story or any of the games. I'm thinking they guy did a great job of role playing weapon focus feat and BOOM! some crunch that is only justified by the phrase, "Well I don't want to be a power gamer."
I suspect... yes. You are likely the only one who is seeing something so ridiculous.
I think very few have seen the "inverse power-gaming" (thanks, StabbittyDoom!) that you speak of.
Now I'm sure some of you would have kicked me out for these actionsWhat, for making a character whose only purpose was to piss off me as a GM?
Nah! Killed you and buried you in the foundation of the house maybe, but not kicked out! :P
He'd have an excellent seat for all subsequent games!!!
But no, I wouldn't kick you out. I have had people play characters like that in games that I have run and they haven't annoyed me. They HAVE annoyed other players, however.
Am I the only one who is running into people who do things that don't make sense for their character (or at the very least they can't/won't explain) to the point of meta-gaming?
I'm not saying you should only play optimized characters at the cost of role play, but it seems some folks are so determined to not be a power gamer they will use out of character knowledge to make their PC weaker, thus showing they aren't power gaming. Just off the wall stuff like a character spending 3 months of down time studying under a fencing master then taking skill focus profession basister, with nothing related to that in their back story or any of the games. I'm thinking they guy did a great job of role playing weapon focus feat and BOOM! some crunch that is only justified by the phrase, "Well I don't want to be a power gamer."
I suspect... yes. You are likely the only one who is seeing something so ridiculous.
I think very few have seen the "inverse power-gaming" (thanks, StabbittyDoom!) that you speak of.
I've encountered it as well. Usually in people who are attempting to step out of the power gaming mold.
Now I'm sure some of you would have kicked me out for these actionsWhat, for making a character whose only purpose was to piss off me as a GM?
Nah! Killed you and buried you in the foundation of the house maybe, but not kicked out! :P
He'd have an excellent seat for all subsequent games!!!
But no, I wouldn't kick you out. I have had people play characters like that in games that I have run and they haven't annoyed me. They HAVE annoyed other players, however.
Can I play in your game? I'm going to play a space cowboy. He used to fight in the resistance but they lost and he's not really on good footing with the fads because of that, and because of being the captain of a smuggling ship.
He's extremely loyal to his crew and tends to root for the underdog, but if you met him, you wouldn't call him a good guy.
His name is Malcolm Reynolds - but people call him Mal.
Typical quote: I aim to misbehave.
Now I'm sure some of you would have kicked me out for these actionsWhat, for making a character whose only purpose was to piss off me as a GM?
Nah! Killed you and buried you in the foundation of the house maybe, but not kicked out! :P
He'd have an excellent seat for all subsequent games!!!
But no, I wouldn't kick you out. I have had people play characters like that in games that I have run and they haven't annoyed me. They HAVE annoyed other players, however.
Can I play in your game? I'm going to play a space cowboy. He used to fight in the resistance but they lost and he's not really on good footing with the fads because of that, and because of being the captain of a smuggling ship.
He's extremely loyal to his crew and tends to root for the underdog, but if you met him, you wouldn't call him a good guy.
His name is Malcolm Reynolds - but people call him Mal.
Typical quote: I aim to misbehave.
Of course you can!!! I have nothing but the most amazing adventures in mind for your character! I do hope he can survive rapid decompression, however, as you will have to make checks for your rusting ship every round.
Of course you can!!! I have nothing but the most amazing adventures in mind for your character! I do hope he can survive rapid decompression, however, as you will have to make checks for your rusting ship every round.
No problem. My cohort - let's call her Kaylee - has maximised Engineering (max ranks, "The Ship Talks to Me" trait, skill Focus, and that +2/+2 feat I don't remember the name of, other stuff)and can make those checks without even rolling.
No problem. My cohort - let's call her Kaylee - has maximised Engineering (max ranks, "The Ship Talks to Me" trait, skill Focus, and that +2/+2 feat I don't remember the name of, other stuff)and can make those checks without even rolling.
Of course you can!!! I have nothing but the most amazing adventures in mind for your character! I do hope he can survive rapid decompression, however, as you will have to make checks for your rusting ship every round.
Sorry, but if there's a chance that something can go wrong on a failure, then you *have* to roll. Kaylee's not a demigod, she's going to treat 1s as failures. Also, I was wrong the other day, you have to make two checks every round to keep your ship afloat. And if you can't remember the name of the feat, then you can't take it!
|
Can we have a special musical session? :)
OT: Can't help but wonder if some "inverse-powergamers"(not all, some) might be doing so because theyu're trying too hard to prove they're not powergamers, for whatever reason. I mean it's not like there isn't a witch-hunt feel hanging over some circles concerning powergamers. Or "REAL Roleplayers" Or any number of extremes people are all too eager to lump others into at the first sign of stepping beyond the boundries of the One-Or-Few-True-Ways.
I mean, man....you see posters starting advice threads where they feel they need to apologize and reassure others that they are not really a/an ________. And then you consider the scene that makes them think they have to do that. :(