no... how is it meta gaming if the Dm says, no you cant do that. The DM by nature is meta gaming... almost all the time... Hes the...<cut>what if there is no way for a player to create the type of character he has envisioned without muti-class dips.
for example, I once played a bored noble with excessive ADD...
he was trained in house by the family's man at arms and was an avid hunter Fighter 2, Ranger 2 levels) he would also spend nights out in the city womanizing, getting into trouble, and even ran with some shady sorts (Rogue 4 levels), now soon after starting a "proper" adventuring life (after being kicked pout by his father) he became obsessed with magic and started to study a little magic under one of his adventuring companions (Mage: Divination.. you can't surprise me now!).. but quickly lost interest after a few months and fell back into style with new found vigor... remember ADD (Duelist)
Rogue/Fighter/Ranger/Mage/Duelist
Now I have my two-weapon (Rapier/Short Sword) swashbuckler character who can not be surprised and has a nice reflex save evasion and uncanny dodge.. who can not be surprised.
not stupid crackly.. yet in character.. heck I did not even look at Archtypes.. Two-Weapon Warrior, Swashbuckler, or Shadowcaster which would all fit him very well (did I mention.. half-elf (drow)... result of an illicit affair... very long story of why he was even taken into the noble house in the first place)
Dude, I get it... How the heck do i build this concept. Multi class has existed since ADnD (not the way it is now... it was really kinda messed up, which effectively just made different classes)
I'm not saying THOU SHALT NOT DIP. I'm just saying it's like crack, some people are drawn to it, a take it to crazy extremes and are always trying to exploit and rules exploit. I find it annoying.
I usually refer to "dip" as a 'bad' word because when I'm talking about it, it looks like CN barbarian/rogue/sorceror who changes alignment to lawful good then goes monk/cleric/paladin.
So IF something WILD happened in game and that was roleplayed out.... I'd probably tell stories of "remember Tims character? the guy who had the mid life crisis? that was AWESOME!"
But if someone comes to the table with the intention of making it from the start and expects to be able to just flip alignments to make his predetermined build work.... sigh.....
If you come to the table with. ok so I got the CN ADD guy (which to be honest If i were to build a world I would have special elf rules to support this) So he's going to take like 2 levels in 5 things etc etc Id say cool.
Ive also known people to come to the table and say Ive got this character I want to play and he's going to be a bard/barbarian/inquisitor...because thats the only way I can build him.... but since we start out at level 1 he's a barbarian... hmm ok. He's not really 'himself' as envisioned until 5th level, but hey that's a rules.
I usually just envison stuff like that mulitclassing and role playing,,,,, the power game dip... I don't allow at the table (unless there was this one time everyone was making a "break the rules character" and trying to nuke everything as fast as possible.... that lasted like three game sessions, but we did do it on purpose and EVERYONE tried to out do the other person as far as...your character can do WHAT? WHY are you combining cleric/illusionist and alchemist? ohh.....wow)
On a side note I was thinking of playing a drow descended half elf who was like a multi generational throw back.... 2000 years ago this Drow and this guys great great great whatever got togther to knock boots, down through the family line there has been lots of half elves and elves and then POOF out pops my character.... no one really knows much about nothing....
I havet worked on the origin much. I know traits can skip generations IRL.... think it would be kooky. a Half Drow with NO connection to the darklands. Never even HEARD of them...
On a side note I was thinking of playing a drow descended half elf who was like a multi generational throw back.... 2000 years ago this Drow and this guys great great great whatever got togther to knock boots, down through the family line there has been lots of half elves and elves and then POOF out pops my character.... no one really knows much about nothing....
I havet worked on the origin much. I know traits can skip generations IRL.... think it would be kooky. a Half Drow with NO connection to the darklands. Never even HEARD of them...
I like it...
use poison isn't an integral build or balance point issue for either class.
A horse for a cavalier is.
Ten zillion people complain I cant switch out mount, I cant bring mount into dungeon, I wont play a cavalier in this campaign it has too many dungeons and then to say discarding mount = choosing not to use poison........ hmmmm
I'm a typical person and I understand how statistics and quantitative experimentation works.
Understanding how statistics and quantitative experimentation works automatically makes you a non-typical person. I wish this were not true, but unfortunately it is.
To me level dipping was almost always a sign of power gaming. I rarely encountered a player who level dipped for role playing purposes. It was almost always some mechanical advantage they were seeking.
I never discouraged it, banned it or even really questioned it, I would just ask the player to document in their backstory why their wizard suddenly developed an interest in rogue, or whatever.
I have not yet encountered level dipping in any of my Pathfinder games. So far every character in all of the groups we've played have stuck with one class. I take that as a sign that PF has done a pretty good job of discouraging level dipping for mechanical reasons.
Of course there is always a mechanical reason to dip. In 3.5 i used to constantly come up with multiclass builds, and the class dips were to get mechanical advantages, but only to mitigate the disadvantages caused by the flavour of the character i wanted to make. One of my craziest ideas and unarmored two-handed weapon fighter. I went over Swashbuckler, Monk, Fighter, champion of corellon and duelist and what i came out with on the other end was far from an optimized character.
On a side note I was thinking of playing a drow descended half elf who was like a multi generational throw back.... 2000 years ago this Drow and this guys great great great whatever got togther to knock boots, down through the family line there has been lots of half elves and elves and then POOF out pops my character.... no one really knows much about nothing....
I havet worked on the origin much. I know traits can skip generations IRL.... think it would be kooky. a Half Drow with NO connection to the darklands. Never even HEARD of them...
That sounds VERY cool.. kind of like the way Arcanis handles dark-kin
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm a typical person and I understand how statistics and quantitative experimentation works.Understanding how statistics and quantitative experimentation works automatically makes you a non-typical person. I wish this were not true, but unfortunately it is.
To add something similar:
There are 10 kinds of people:Those who understand binary
and those who don't.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure if it's already been mentioned (there's a lot of posts I skipped after the first several pages), but...
The idea that multi-classing = "more power gamer" and that single classed = "less power gamer" is a bit absurd. I can prove it as well. There is less multiclass variance in character builds these days, but why is that?
Because single-classed is now just as much powergaming as multiclassing was in 3.x. To elaborate, in 3.x you had a lot of classes with many "dead levels", where you didn't really gain anything worthwhile other than maybe a +1 BAB or +1 to a saving throw. Multiclassing cut down on dead levels heavily. In 3.5 one could multiclass Ranger, Barbarian, Fighter, Cleric, and Blackguard easily within core, with no dead levels for most of your career. As long as your base classes were within 1 level of one-another (such as 2/2/1) you didn't suffer XP penalties, and prestige classes ignore XP penalties for multiclassing (due to multiclassing being required to enter them).
Meanwhile, single classes often looked like this: Paladin. Notice the many dead levels. The fairly mediocre abilities (barring early bits of awesome such as divine grace and aura of courage). This led to a joke that the Paladin class was only 3 levels long (because nothing you get after that point is really worthwhile, and you could get far more out of multiclassing into Paladin 3 / Cleric 17 while retaining pretty much identical flavor).
Now let's look at Pathfinder's Paladin. Notice that this Paladin not only lacks dead levels, but has abilities that increase in power and significance as they gain levels. Instead of suffering diminishing returns, you see a rather continuous gain. More like the aforementioned multiclassed Blackguard. At all points is he gaining power by being a single-classed Paladin. Paizo goes a step further and allows you to get an extra +1 HP or skill point if you declared this class your favored class (or the very power-gamey racial favored options, allowing you to do things like add +1 to sorcerer spells-known every level).
In essence, those who understood the system to a fair degree (or had someone to hold their hand) would often use multiclassing to get the character they wanted (and sometimes people want strong heroes, because it's hard to roleplay a corpse). Nothing has changed other than single-classing is now viable. It has nothing to do with power-gaming. Today, running Paladin or Ranger 20 is just as power-gamey as dipping 10 different classes, and may even come out as stronger in the end. These days, with all the single-class incentives floating around, it's arguably more power-gamey to not multiclass. :P
Concerning Full-Casters and Prestige Classes
In 3.x, there was a running gag that classes like Wizard, Cleric, and Sorcerer were only 5 levels long. The joke came in the fact that such classes basically always prestige-classed out of their base class and into something else (often multiple times). This wasn't because of power gaming, but because of common sense.
See, wizards, clerics, and sorcerers in 3.x didn't really get any incentives to stick with their class. Beyond their spells, they got very little in the way of class features (sorcerers got nothing other than a familiar, clerics only got turn undead which sucked, and wizards just got a bonus feat every 5 levels). Since prestige classes allowed them to acquire class features while also progressing the one reason they were their original class in the first place, it was a no brainer to multiclass. Thus anyone who knew what they were doing would end up looking like Wizard 5 / Loremaster 10 / Archmage 5. The reasoning behind this is simple.
1: It doesn't harm the concept of a character. Unless extra baggage above and beyond what is expected are applied to the classes, they are merely mechanical building blocks. Class is a metagame concept, and so there's little that you would see on the "in universe" side of things that would reveal that a character had levels in X or Y class, beyond any features (which are often fluffed to taste anyway) that would indicate.
2: It's human nature. If I offer someone a meal that comes with 1 cheeseburger, or a meal that comes with an identical cheeseburger, a drink, and some french fries, and your choice of a desert for the same investment, it seems natural that most people will choose the latter because it is a better deal. Such was 3.x multiclassing.
Closing Statements
Multiclassing has nothing to do with powergaming beyond merely being a better option in 3.x. Powergamers didn't disappear in Pathfinder, they're just playing more single-classed characters because it is mechanically viable to do so. The same thoughts and considerations that went into building complex multiclassed characters in 3.x still exist and are alive and well in Pathfinder, just now it's not as commonly noticed because other alternatives exist.
If anything, Pathfinder has actually made multiclassing more attractive than ever. Gone are XP penalties, and you get a +3 bonus to a skill if it's a class skill on any of your classes. Traits be damned, multiclassing is awesome. A Ranger or Ninja/Rogue dip will net you tons of class skills and enough skill points to dip 'em (the +3 class bonus is kind of like having Skill Focus). So while there are now more reasons to stick with a single class, multiclassing itself is also much more convenient for those who want to. Win/Win.
There are 10 kinds of people:
Those who understand binary
and those who don't.
Lolz I c what u did thar
Lolz I c what u did tharThere are 10 kinds of people:
Those who understand binary
and those who don't.
I don't get it...
@ ashiel not that multi class = more power gamer, it's a recognizable symptom of one. Ive cited several examples. It's the stated intent TO power game, the absurd reject when told no, and the instance that they are somehow smarter and you are somehow less so because you cant see the brilliance of their 'build' that makes the "power gamer".
It's attitude.
Ive seen some dips that made me ask why, and got legit answers. Never has a non powergamer said.... blah blah blah huge explanation of mechanical bonuses and synergies blah blah blah....but that's always the power gamers explanation for why the weird dips.
Again there is nothing WRONG with powergaming, I find it annoying. AND if I say no, or some other people who I've heard say no (usually in reference to some splat book I/they havent seen with a class/feat unknown) there's a huge underlying accusation feeling going on sometimes that is directly verbally expressed.
Pshaw just going to make me say MORE no.
(dont get me wrong sometimes I enjoy seeing some build that exploits some odd detail that is likely unforeseen by game designers.... doesn't mean it HAS to be allowed or else I wont play in your stupid world, where nothing makes sense, carry on carry on blah blah carry on)
I don't get it...Lolz I c what u did tharThere are 10 kinds of people:
Those who understand binary
and those who don't.
In our common decimal system the numbers 10 mean ten. In the binary system the numbers 10 mean two. So if you understand binary you know that there are two kinds of people. Those who understand binary and those who don't.
not that multi class = more power gamer, it's a recognizable symptom of one.
You may as well say, "Wearing a Cloak of Resistance is a symptom of 'power gaming.'" You are basically arguing that anything that gives a mechanical advantage without an obvious character background/development reason is power gaming. Do you have a character that wears a Cloak of Resistance? Can you justify it beyond its mechanical benefit? Maybe... but, probably not.
It's attitude.
Never has a non powergamer said.... blah blah blah huge explanation of mechanical bonuses and synergies blah blah blah....but that's always the power gamers explanation for why the weird dips.
It seems at least one person in this fictional example conversation DID have the wrong attitude from the start.
Again we see the "If you make any choice whatsoever to further the advancement of your character, you are powergaming" argument.
This is just a silly and/or disingenuous argument. There is a clear understanding among the gaming community between "building" a character and "power gaming". Otherwise such terms as "power gamer" "Min-maxer" and "munchkin" would not exist.
There is, and likely always will be, some debate over where the line is drawn between character "building" and "power gaming". But to assert that any choice taken for any option available other than randomly picking something is "power gaming" is taking the defense of power gaming to a ridiculous level. It would be more reasonable to simply say "there's nothing wrong with power gaming."
And there is nothing "wrong" with power gaming. Except when it creates inter-party problems, leads to GMs having to work overtime to deal with the power gamer, or when the power gamer has pushed the game so far that it leads to irreconcilable differences with the GM about rules interpretations.
I think most of us GMs have dealt with some or all of those over the years, which is why this comes up on these boards.
|
So, the only way to not be a "power gamer" is to consciously decide to make the least beneficial choice?
How does one create a PC that is flavored as being really good at something, without committing the atrocious act of "powergaming"?
Is a focused metagaming choice of the weakest path the only way?
A flavorful PC need not be purposefully crippled to be flavorful.
To claim otherwise is a complete falsehood based on bad experiences blinding one's judgement and ability to make logical observations.
So, the counter-argument to "If that's true, then all mechanically beneficial choices are 'power gaming," is "it's only power gaming if you make the arbitrarily wrong combination of mechanically beneficial choices, which I can't quantify or enumerate, but I know when I see it."
Seriously?
So, the counter-argument to "If that's true, then all mechanically beneficial choices are 'power gaming," is "it's only power gaming if you make the arbitrarily wrong combination of mechanically beneficial choices, which I can't quantify or enumerate, but I know when I see it."
Seriously?
Hey, it's good enough to satisfy the US Supreme Court.
So, yeah. I can pretty much tell by looking at a character's sheet whether they qualify as a "power gamer" character or not. In most cases it's not so much about a single thing, as it is a clear pattern of exploiting rules to gain the highest possible advantage.
The internet makes this easier since there are so many documented power gamer tips online that when you see five of them on one sheet you kinda get the picture...
Power gamer = starts by trying to build the most powerful combat character, and then designs a personality, backstory, and motivation afterward (if at all.) If a powergamer has a cool character idea but finds out it is mechanically weak, he is likely to discard it and build a more powerful character
Character gamers = starts by creating a backstory, personality, and motivation, and then constructs a build to best flesh out the character. Feats, skills, and class abilities may not be "optimal" during combat, but they fit the character perfectly.
Now, I am not saying that powergamers are "worse" at roleplaying than character gamers! An optimal build with a well-crafted backstory and personality to back it up can be just as fun to roleplay with as a character who is built up from the backstory.
But I think it's pretty clear that some players take option A (build mechanics first, add backstory later) and some take option B (write backstory first, add mechanics later.) And some players are very reluctant to ever play a mechanically weak character. So I don't consider "powergamer" to be a judgement, it's just a description of the route someone tends to take when building their PC.
There are plenty of reasons why either type of player would multiclass. Power gamers are more likely to multiclass to become more powerful (better, stronger abilities) while character gamers are more likely to multiclass for flavor (more, cooler abilities.)
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Wow I multi-class nonstop I think it makes the character more interesting instead of having the 1 class to focus on, but like I said I wasn't really going to argue I just saw this thread and wanted to put my 2 cents in.
I don't think there's anything 'wrong' with multiclassing for fun. On the other end of things, I prefer one class.
@ ashiel not that multi class = more power gamer, it's a recognizable symptom of one. Ive cited several examples. It's the stated intent TO power game, the absurd reject when told no, and the instance that they are somehow smarter and you are somehow less so because you cant see the brilliance of their 'build' that makes the "power gamer".
It's attitude.
And I disagree. It hasn't vanished. It has been around forever. It hasn't even lessened. The only reason it was a "symptom" of "power gaming" is because most power gamers are going to learn the system that they are playing. If the system rewarded multiclassing, then power gamers would multiclass. Now the system heavily rewards single classed builds in most fields due to some game changes and incentives towards using only one or two classes (the favored class options for example).
The only difference is that their power gaming is more strait-forward.
Ive seen some dips that made me ask why, and got legit answers. Never has a non powergamer said.... blah blah blah huge explanation of mechanical bonuses and synergies blah blah blah....but that's always the power gamers explanation for why the weird dips.
Mechanical reasonings for dips are all that is needed. Classes do not, have not, and should not, have some sort of strange prerequisites to enter. The beauty of the d20 system is it gives much of the freedom allotted in more broad systems like GURPS but in a tidy class-based system that allows you to build the character that you wish to play with your little toolkit. If someone dips barbarian because they want rage and fast movement, that is all that is necessary to say.
Power gamers exist. They always will. They exist in every walk of life, for every game you play. Now some of them are the kind who want to be skilled at the game (often grabbing "builds" off the internet but not really understanding them) and those who are skilled at the game. These are often the same types of players who, if interested in fighting games, are going to learn combos, practice counters, and learn how and when to cancel out of a move to follow through with another. They're the guys who are going to know that if they are standing X feet from their opponent the opponent can't hit them, and then punish the opponent when they "whiff" and miss.
Power gamers can be good things too. I would ascribe to being a "power gamer". This knowledge can be used to help people fill out the concepts that they want without falling behind. An example I've used many times on these boards involves a duelist samurai-type character based on Rurouni Kenshin. This character is exceedingly difficult to create using classes for most. The character is a very fast, skilled swordsman, who hits incredibly hard, wears little to no armor, and is said to move so fast as to be difficult to see and react to. Now I had a friend who is not exceptionally familiar with D&D/Pathfinder, but he wanted a character that is something like this for a game I was running. I proposed a multiclass build which he was at first skeptical of.
Barbarian 1 / Fighter 2 / Rogue 2 / Undecided X + the feat Cloak Dance.
He was dumbfounded that I suggested the barbarian class to him, but I asked him to trust me a bit and see it in play. The barbarian class level gave him decent combat ability, the enhanced speed, and the ability to enter a state of focused anger (which is in keeping with the character very well, or in fact almost every major martial character in most stories). The fighter levels were simply for more weapon skill, allowing him to specialize in his field effectively. The rogue levels offered him some benefits that rewarded his lightly armored nature (evasion) and sneak attack that represented his surprise iaijutsu striking, and made Stealth a class skill. Finally, qualifying for Cloak Dance, he could attain Concealment anywhere that he was by using a move action, and then Stealth when he gained concealment. This mechanically represented his ability to move so quickly - in short bursts - that you couldn't follow him with your eyes easily. Naturally, he would cloak dance->move->next round->full-attack+initial sneak strike.
He was decent at damage and mobile enough to be a quick threat, while having a few tricks here and there to take opponents by surprise. Other things he eventually took included Catch Off Guard to use his sword in strange ways or to fight with his sheath, etc. I made sure that he had enough synergy that he wouldn't be entirely upstaged by the frothing barbarian in the party (single class and kicking ass).
I myself consider myself a power gamer. I don't make characters that are going to be inept. I have a strong belief that adventuring is and should be dangerous and not just everyone does it. D&D is a social and teamwork oriented game. If I make a character, even one that is quirky, I want them to be able to properly pull their own weight, and power gaming helps to do that. Knowledge is power.
I think your problem is you're attributing things to a label that doesn't mean what you think it means.
You may as well say, "Wearing a Cloak of Resistance is a symptom of 'power gaming.'" You are basically arguing that anything that gives a mechanical advantage without an obvious character background/development reason is power gaming. Do you have a character that wears a Cloak of Resistance? Can you justify it beyond its mechanical benefit? Maybe... but, probably not.
...
So, the counter-argument to "If that's true, then all mechanically beneficial choices are 'power gaming," is "it's only power gaming if you make the arbitrarily wrong combination of mechanically beneficial choices, which I can't quantify or enumerate, but I know when I see it."
Seriously?
+1 sir.
Or are you seriously arguing that powergaming, which has been complained about pretty much since the start of the hobby, simply doesn't exist?
Bigfoot and Nessy stole my dice.
Powergamer= a person who ALWAYS plays a certain way, and that way is to ALWAYS use the highest combination of rules to the most efficiency in every character they build.
it's not even efficiency really because it's 75% of the time involving something obscure other people haven't tried, and there is no clear no/yes answer on it. So the gravitate toward that combination and insist the rules be interpreted in the most favorable way to make that combo work.
Powergamers don't play say a fighter and just use feats. If they were to play a fighter it would have to be a combo, a vision, what this guy was going to pull off at 13th level of more and would have to have some obscure feat from vudra that was included in a supplement meant for a one eyed grasshopper.
For example dervish dance:
"Ok explain to me how your Drow Fighter, who you want me to let you play because he has escaped from the parklands blah blah blah, weak backstory, would know Dervish Dance at level one?"
The Power Gamers answer is, the feat is in print and should be allowed for anyone to take. Regardless of flavor, where it came from and how he learned it....
IF you tell him no he can't have it at level 1, there is no conceivable way for him to have learned it, he grumbles or murmurs or even possibly has an outright fit.
I can't really site other examples, because you don't know it's coming. The guy gives you this character and you're like huh you can do that? And you look and you read and your excitement drains the more you read. What sounds like wow is more like ummmmmmmm, but again if you say, I'm not seeing that it reads that way, bang then you've got an argument.
Power Gamers don't accept GMs rule.
They only except the validity of their build.
Let's assume you are going to play with someone who does't DM much, they aren't all that familiar with the rules, do you bring to the table a character that exploits combat maneuvers, movement and action economy that the DM isn't familiar with?
Power gamers intentionally look for things they think they can get away with. Whether they are actually IN the rules, or are just the way they SEE the rules.
The Powergamer knows that the DM is less experienced and is going to rule the table with his teleporting trip grapple bullrusher.
Powergamers also DM, they are the type of people who bulldoze entire parties with their custom dungeons of insanity, all the while insisting that the nuclear bomb is a CR appropriate encounter for the party because it's not actually a nuke, it's an exploding, maximized, ectoplasmic tomato that does MORE damage than the nuke.
Wearing a cloak of resistance isn't powergaming. It's your cut of treasure, your party finds some stuff, the DM describes the cloak as having a silver lining and odd archaic runes woven into the fabric, The wizard detects magic on it. It's magic ooooh. I wonder what it does?
That night at the camp fire the wizard IDs stuff and realizes it's a lucky cloak that protects you from harm... mmmk you decide to take it as your cut.
You later find out , out of game that it adds to your saving throw bonuses. But...unfortunately, it doesn't stack with some other bonus you have. OH poo, you can trade it or sell it or give it to another party member who might be able to use it.
Pendagast, I've known part-time power gamers. Heck I've been ACCUSED of being a part-time power gamer.
Ashiel, I've played with at least one power gamer who was perhaps the most generous and helpful player in our group who leaned over backwards to help other players and whose character risked near-certain death to save MY character after my character had done something that would certainly qualify as "stupid enough to die for."
Now, the character he was playing when he saved my character was a character I explicitly told him he could not play in a campaign I was running because it was such a cheesy character, but he took that fine and just went with a concept I approved of.
So power gamer =/= bad person. The only reason I restricted his choices was because he was pulling the most overpowered options available from any conceivable splat book and the result was a character that would have literally made the rest of the party superfluous. So I told him "no." And he was fine with that.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
"Ok explain to me how your Drow Fighter, who you want me to let you play because he has escaped from the parklands blah blah blah, weak backstory, would know Dervish Dance at level one?"
"Ok, so no Dervish Dance. Since my drow fighter comes from the parklands, can I get an animal companion bear who steals pic-i-nic baskets?"
Okay, I take offense at the bit about building a mechanically strong character, and then building a backstory around it.
Before or after is irrelevant, neither way is objectively the better way.
Was this directed at me? Because if so perhaps you should actually read the entire post I wrote, specifically where I exclaimed "Now, I am not saying that powergamers are 'worse' at roleplaying than character gamers!"
Neither way is objectively better, I was just making an observation that there tend to be two types of players:
Powergamer: crunch comes first, build fluff around it. Never seen playing a weak character.
Character gamer: fluff comes first, build crunch around it. Willing to play a weak character.
I'm not saying one is any "better" than the other, they are simply different styles for how to build a character.
Here's the deal. If you come up with a character concept first, and then build the mechanics around the concept, the result tends to be a concept-driven character.
If you come up with a mechanically powerful character first, and then build the backstory to support it, the result tends to be a power-driven character.
And, at least in my experience, the power-driven characters sometimes have wildly improbable backstories that clearly are contrived to produce the desired power result.
That's just what I've seen.
And again, the only "problem" with power gaming is when one of the following three things happen:
1. The character completely overshadows the other characters in the party and makes them feel unimportant.
2. The GM has to spend an inordinate amount of extra time and effort just to try to deal with the abilities of the power gamer character which either impacts their real life or detracts from other parts of the GM job.
3. The player and GM do not agree on the rules interpretation which the power gamer is depending on for their character's gimmick(s) to "work" and that results in arguments and hard feelings.
Now, of course any of those three would be a problem with a concept driven character too, but in my experience those sorts of problems are rare with concept-driven characters and much more common with power-driven characters.
So sure, neither is objectively "better" than the other, but one tends to have a far greater negative impact on the game.
Which is why the issue comes up on these boards and in games so frequently.
It can be denied, but that's just what it is. Denial.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pendegast, you are giving what has to be the most extreme example of what power gaming is. Your going beyond merely power gaming, and getting into the quality of the player's personal character.
While you are certainly justified in disliking a player who behaves in this manner, it does nothing to justify the assertion that wearing a Cloak of Resistance is healthy, normal "gamer" behavior, whereas level dipping is "power gaming."
Show me a power gamer build of just about any PC class/race combo of a high enough level, and I'll show you a character that's wearing a Cloak of Resistance. Howeverm not every power gaming, min-maxed character has level-dipped. So, which is more symptomatic of the power gamer, the Cloak or the level dip?
|
Okay, I take offense at the bit about building a mechanically strong character, and then building a backstory around it.
Before or after is irrelevant, neither way is objectively the better way.
Was this directed at me? Because if so perhaps you should actually read the entire post I wrote, specifically where I exclaimed "Now, I am not saying that powergamers are 'worse' at roleplaying than character gamers!"
Neither way is objectively better, I was just making an observation that there tend to be two types of players:
Powergamer: crunch comes first, build fluff around it. Never seen playing a weak character.
Character gamer: fluff comes first, build crunch around it. Willing to play a weak character.
I'm not saying one is any "better" than the other, they are simply different styles for how to build a character.
I read the whole post, I'm just saying that even if you didn't intend it, it came off awfully condescending.
I may have been a little harsh in my response, and for that I apologize.
So anyone who levels any single class under the pathfinder system, that has greater rewards for single class leveling over multiclassing, is a power gamer.
Multiclassing grants rewards at the cost of the greater rewards from other classes, such as spell progression, caster level, sneak attack dice, rage level. Even a single level dip prevents you from getting a capstone ability.
I have already addressed the fallacy that any attempt to advance a character that isn't either random or demonstrably a poor choice is "powergaming".
Many of us have already accepted that powergaming is difficult or impossible to define in any dictionary sense, but that we can recognize it when we see it.
I just gave you 2 separate defined entries. Why is your opinion better than Wikipedia or Urban dictionary?
If you can recognize something, you can define it or else you have no way of recognizing it.
I have no desire to get into yet another semantic argument with you Khrysaor.
The rest of us will carry on as if we are actually discussing the issue instead of playing with words and definitions.
So anyone who levels any single class under the pathfinder system, that has greater rewards for single class leveling over multiclassing, is a power gamer.
Multiclassing grants rewards at the cost of the greater rewards from other classes, such as spell progression, caster level, sneak attack dice, rage level. Even a single level dip prevents you from getting a capstone ability.
In 3x, some people dipped multiple classes from various splats to make ridiculously powerful builds. PF made single classes more desirable.
Multiclassing loses you your capstone and usually a favored class point. Any class skills from your new class become permanent class skills, now, so a rogue dip could be very good for a fighter type, if he wants to be good at more things, like stealth or social skills, etc.
I think the definition of "powergamer" has changed with PF. We just call them "summoners," now. ;)
I think the real conflict here is between "roleplayers" and "non-roleplayers". Virtually everyone will agree that it's more fun to play with roleplayers than non-roleplayers. While not all powergamers are non-roleplayers, most non-roleplayers are powergamers. The root cause is powergaming (which is fine) but the symptom is out-of-character decision making (which is not fine.)
By "non-roleplayer", I mean someone who makes in-game decisions via out-of-character talk, uses player knowledge instead of character knowledge, suggests "optimal" actions to other players instead of letting them make their decision in-character, and tends to shortcut roleplaying encounters by describing how they want an NPC interaction to end instead of how it should begin (e.g., "we convince the guard that we are envoys from the king" instead of "Hail, we come bearing news from King Regelius, we urgently need to speak with Commandant Martin.") These things increase the party's chance of "success" while decreasing risk to the party, but they also ruin the immersion.
Powergamers (those that will only play above-average-power characters) can tend to be closer to a non-roleplayer, simply because both are motivated by the same thing - "winning" the game. Powergamers optimize the build, non-roleplayers optimize the tactics (e.g., by using out-of-character conversation to set up charge lanes and flanking, suggesting what spells other players should cast, making decisions based on a spell effect even when they failed their Spellcraft roll, etc.) Powergaming and non-roleplaying can have the same root cause (optimizing power), but they are not necessarily linked.
It's entirely possible to always play very mechanically strong characters and still remain in character and add to the roleplay. Likewise, it's entirely possible to play a weak character and add nothing to roleplay. The only real connection is both optimizing character design and optimizing decisions/tactics with OOC knowledge are driven by the desire to be more powerful and to "win". There's nothing wrong with desiring to be powerful, and in fact it's far better to become powerful by an optimized build than by using OOC tactics.
tl;dr: There are two ways to play a powerful character - optimize the build, and optimize tactics. But optimizing tactics often means using OOC knowledge and ruining immersion. In my experience, those that prefer high-power builds (which is fine) also want to optimize tactics (which is annoying when it involves metagaming, which it usually does.)
edit: to get back to multiclassing, I think everyone will agree it's fine if you motivate the multiclass through roleplay. If you suddenly decide to take a level of Black-Blooded Oracle because the party cleric channels negative energy and you want healing, that's metagaming, powergaming, and bad roleplaying.
Pendegast, you are giving what has to be the most extreme example of what power gaming is. Your going beyond merely power gaming, and getting into the quality of the player's personal character.
While you are certainly justified in disliking a player who behaves in this manner, it does nothing to justify the assertion that wearing a Cloak of Resistance is healthy, normal "gamer" behavior, whereas level dipping is "power gaming."
Show me a power gamer build of just about any PC class/race combo of a high enough level, and I'll show you a character that's wearing a Cloak of Resistance. Howeverm not every power gaming, min-maxed character has level-dipped. So, which is more symptomatic of the power gamer, the Cloak or the level dip?
Well your style of gaming is different than mine. I have seen TONS of campaigns where there wasnt a single cloak of resistance in the entire party.
However I wouldn't have a fit if someone had one. I would consider if every character they ever had, had one, rather boring, but it doesn't create a problem until, for whatever reason they can't get one.
For example "it says in the rule book that a city of this size should have any magic item available up to X amount of gold readily available for me to purchase and I want to purchase it, I must be allowed access to it"
Then it becomes powergaming over a cloak of resistance. The only reason they are arguing for it so hard, is the functionality of the mechanics of their 'build' depends on it.
Hence where 'build' and 'dip' become words that makes one wince, because they are waiting for the inevitable powergaming backlash that so frequently accompanies those terms.
I really dont care if the guy is a bad 'role player' or if everyone calls each other Tim and Sara, instead of Rolf and Turgin Silverleaf.
I dont even care if every character the guy plays is named Rolf.
In fact, it's kinda funny.
Case in point I had a world once where elves were extremely rare and dwarves were neigh but extinct.
As such PC access to the races was restricted. Although I was going to allow half elf.
It was part of the flavor of the campaign.
One of the players HAD to play an elf because his 'build' depended on it. Dude play another character. I can't say "elves are extremely rare no one has seen one, they are creatures of legend, OH LOOK there is one right there"
I think we was going for arcane archer, so i said he could technically be a half elf, whose parents where both human as far as they had known, or some other backstory mysterious birth.
But oh NO he HAD to have the +2 to INT AND DEX.
Power Gamer.
That's all that mattered to him, the best mechanical advantages he could get, not that his character had to be an elf because the story he cooked up for him didnt make sense as a half elf of unknown origin...
I eventually just let him play it and dropped the whole elf rarity to the world flavor, which erased 75% of the meta plot and so we just wandered about doing quests here and there in random MMO fashion, because A) I just wanted to play and B) I couldnt come up with anything out of my hat right then and there, just nothing plot wise organically grew. The game ended after about 10 sessions.
IF I'm giving the most extreme examples of power gaming, it's probably because like Ive been saying only the most extreme examples are really an issue.
Some people build better characters than others, some people just have a better concept, some just have the right character for the right campaign, and it makes it look like the world is revolving around him.
In fact maybe, all mild versions of power gaming arent powergaming at all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Which means, for someone to avoid being negatively labled a "Power Gamer" (yes, there is a negative connotation to that phrase), they have to be able to demonstrate that there was a mechanically superior option that they elected not to take.
99% of level 1 characters are power gamed. (The margin of error is +/- 1%.)