Good for you I guess?
I suppose if your GM is running some of the easier APs as written or is pulling the punches that works just fine.
But it really can't be said that MAD classes are very good with a low PB and no dumped stats.
Power Gaming is when you put your personal character build above the fun of the rest of the group, generally designing for one outcome and creating something that makes the game less enjoyable for everyone else involved.
It varies from group to group and GM to GM. Some groups live for the math and don't care about things making particular sense. Power gaming in that group might be less of a problem than making the group have to do "boring" roll play.
Some groups believe integration of concept is important, and so selecting concepts that are jarring to the setting are...well...jarring to the setting.
Other groups believe in teamwork over individual success.
In short, if people in your group say you are a power gamer, you probably are, for that group. And if you put your personally fun over the group, that also makes you kind of a selfish jerk.
I'd fave this, but you mixed Powergamer with Munchkin.
|
Good for you I guess?
I suppose if your GM is running some of the easier APs as written or is pulling the punches that works just fine.
But it really can't be said that MAD classes are very good with a low PB and no dumped stats.
Nice so we play wuss mode or our GM sucks.
Anyways to your point some gamers tend to have dumping issues with point buy. Personally I would go the array route instead of increasing the point buy. In my experience all increasing the buy and lowering the bottom does is give them more points to use while dumping. If all your stats go from 16 and 7 to 20 and 10 then really all you did was raise the bar and 10 is now the new dump.
Power gaming is a playstyle. It means that you are designing your character in a manner to attempt to dominate the game. The more powerful your character is, and the easier it is to handle the challenges of the game, the more satisfied a power gamer is. By necessity, Power Gamers are channeled into a mere handful of the 'most effective' builds if they are serious about their style. Tropes would include Uber Charger and God Mage. Such builds can be over-the-top effective at their roles and have glaring holes otherwise, as long as they are so effective at their one trick that it doesn't matter if they aren't good at other things.
Power Gamers can make things difficult for others because they are so dominating. what is a hard fight for others is easy for a Power Gamer, and so they tend to become bored as they look for challenges. Unfortunately, things that challenge the Power Gamer tend to wipe other play styles.
PFS recently had an article about the final module in season 4. There's an option to 'play up' for the final module, to satisfy all those gamers out there baying for a real challenge for their people. Power Gamers tend to enjoy playing up, as it gets them faster, stronger, and probably have the general opinion that most modules and AP's are not that hard to people who actually know the rules.
OPTIMIZING is 'build style'. Optimizing is making sure to emphasize your strengths and cover your weaknesses. Optimizing does not necessarily mean you are building a 'dominant' character. Optimizing a rogue is not the same as Power Gaming with a rogue (which would be difficult). Optimizers try to make the very best with the tools they have available. The contrast with Power Gamers is the focus on the 'best build of all builds' for the Power Gamer, while the Optimizer tends to focus 'best build for this purpose with these limits'.
Contrast Optimizer vs Power Gamer: An optimizer will play a direct damage mage, and build an extremely effective dealer of direct damage (the PF Blaster Mage build is...
I said something almost identical, but I will go with Aelryinth's version because he said it better.
I use a non-standard system for determining stats but it's basically a point buy and most people end up getting one 18 and one 8. I make sure there are plenty of roleplaying and combat challenges so no one is able to drop their stats below 10 and never feel the drawback. I don't mind it.
The only problem with this is that some players I know would generate a mathematical singularity or DIV/0 error if you put it in a spreadsheet...I'm gonna make a math formula for this:
(time spent talking mechanics) + {time spent gushing about how badass their char build is)/(time spend actually roleplaying - time spent arguing with gm that their character isn't broken)= power gaming quotient
That's not a bug, it's a feature.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd fave this, but you mixed Powergamer with Munchkin.
No I didn't.
The two aren't mutually exclusive.
I define a munchkin as someone who is under the misguided idea that you can "win" the game and throws fits when the game is "changed" because they feel "cheated" that what they thought was going to "win" all the time, doesn't. They are in a personal "battle" with the GM that will inevitably lead to conflict, because they don't get that a GM isn't trying to "win" or "beat" the players. If they were, they would easily, as they control the world. But to the Munchkin, anything that appears that they are weak against is the GM being out to get them, rather than the narrowly focused build they made having glaring weaknesses.
Munchkins are almost always powergamers, but not all powergamers are munchkins.
Powergamers are more trying to beat the other players and show off how "smart" they are. Some are also munchkins, who are trying to beat the GM and the players, and some are just people who want to "impress" the other people at the table, and in the process ruin the game for everyone by making a group game all about them.
Similar, but not the same.
|
|
To further the Optimizer vs Powergamer vs Munchkin difference.
The optimizer makes everyone better. He tries to make sure that the character they are playing makes the whole party better, and as a result the party is ready for anything they may come up against and each person in the group has a role to play that showcases what they do best.
The Power gamer makes themselves look good, even if it means others don't have a good time or the party as a whole isn't improved. The game is about him, he is the hero, you are the sidekicks there to serve him.
The Munchkin believes they know how the game works and there is a formula which they can follow that will let them win, and if the GM throws anything that deviates from the formula and exploits a weakness or asks them to do anything they haven't prepared well for, or God Forbid actually has Role Playing, it is because the GM is "cheating" and out to get them.
Nice so we play wuss mode or our GM sucks.
That's not what I said.
A GM who pulls his punches because his players are poorly optimized is a good GM, not a bad one. Vice versa one who raises the difficulty for optimized parties instead of b**&*ing about how his players can take on CR+1 challenges and wants to know how he can nerf them.
Anyways to your point some gamers tend to have dumping issues with point buy. Personally I would go the array route instead of increasing the point buy. In my experience all increasing the buy and lowering the bottom does is give them more points to use while dumping. If all your stats go from 16 and 7 to 20 and 10 then really all you did was raise the bar and 10 is now the new dump.
There i always going to be a lowest stat. That's a fact in all PBs and all arrays that aren't the same stat across the board while banning racial stat mods.
Dumping a stat is dropping it for the extra points. You don't get that when that's not in play.
I always thought Munchkin and Powergamer were two words used to describe the same thing, at least in the contexts I've seen.
|
|
In my experience, a power gamer is trying to impress everyone while a munchkin is just trying to win.
Munchkins are much more...creative with the reading of the rules.
Like I said, not mutually exclusive, but Powergamers tend to not realize they are annoying. They are trying to impress, after all.
Munchkins tend not to care. They think they are better than you anyway, and if you don't agree with then you are dumb.
No matter how much clarity you add to the name-calling, it's still name-calling.
Names and labels can be useful, especially when a type of behaviour and player is seen over and over.
Not every player is a rare and beautiful snowflake.
Min-maxing is optimizing, not power-gaming. Min-maxing is building a character. Power gaming is playing that character in a dominating way.
Power Gamers can be annoying, but can also be reasoned with. Munchkins are Power Gamers gone bad, and you either bring them to heel or have to get rid of them.
==Aelryinth
Heh, I think most people's definition of these terms is entirely based on the context they first encountered them.
My own definitions are similar to some offered here but not exactly the same. Not that it matters I suppose, but it would be nice to have some clarity in the generally accepted definition of terms just for the sake of conversational convenience.
At the very least I'd like to be able to know when the terms are used, whether the use is complimentary or derogatory. Right now I can't tell.
"You're powergaming!"
"Well, thanks! Glad you noticed!"
"What, no man, powergaming is badwrongfun!"
"I thought that was munchkining?"
"No munchkining is just like optimizing"
"I thought optimizing was goodrightfun."
Sigh...
For me personally I tend to view optimizing as a positive endeavor. Power gaming is more or less neutral to me. I don't think it adds to or detracts from the game. It's just a situation where a gamer is more focused on numerical as opposed to conceptual goals. Munchkining I view as when power gaming or optimizing is done by an immature player and the behavior I dislike is more related to general immaturity than how they build their characters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or you know, you could look it up on wikipedia and use that definition.
Or take it apart.
It's GAMING focused on POWER.
For me optimizing and powergaming and munchkin are functionally the same thing in terms of intent... I want to build a badass worldwrecker. I want to be the best at what I do.
The RESULTS arent even the determining factor.
The determining factor is THE TABLE'S REACTION TO IT.... How well your gm can roll with it... How interesting is the campaign now that you've created an AM BARBARIAN ZENARCHER gestalt...
The trouble is its a moving target. Different tables have different capabilities of keeping the good times rolling. Some gms can keep things engaging and intersting and awesome no matter what you show up to the table with. Some gms cant even stomach a character that has a dump stat.
Or you know, you could look it up on wikipedia and use that definition.
Or take it apart.
It's GAMING focused on POWER.
Yeah, power over everything else, with a whole lot of wrought.
For me optimizing and powergaming and munchkin are functionally the same thing in terms of intent... I want to build a badass worldwrecker. I want to be the best at what I do.
The RESULTS arent even the determining factor.
The determining factor is THE TABLE'S REACTION TO IT.... How well your gm can roll with it... How interesting is the campaign now that you've created an AM BARBARIAN ZENARCHER gestalt...
If the game is still plenty interesting and awesome, then you're optimized.
If the game is easy and starts getting boring, you're powergaming...
If your party can sit down and kick back and watch your character single handedly obliterate an entire encounter without them and such things make everyone at the table bored and the gm has decided to just stop trying... Thats munchkining. The trouble is its a moving target. Different tables have different capabilities of keeping the good times rolling. Some gms can keep things engaging and intersting and awesome no matter what you show up to the table with. Some gms cant even stomach a character that has a dump stat.
As a dm, I don't like powergaming, but do like dump stats. A dm can really use that and challenge the character once in a while (sorry, you have to make a charisma check, or you could walk away and cause great offence).
Yeah, there might be a fair bit of fear in it. That makes sense to me, because in my experience the powergamers are also the ones cheating on the dice. They didn't want to leave anything to chance.
Ha ha ha. They think everyone else was born yesterday.
As a dm, I don't like powergaming, but do like dump stats. A dm can really use that and challenge the character once in a while (sorry, you have to make a charisma check, or you could walk away and cause great offence).
Dump stats are a min/maxing thing more than a straight power gaming issue. Also, Don't you use the social skills in your game? Not offending someone when walking away is an etiquette check which is the diplomacy skill.
PS: Cheating is a Munchkin thing. Munchkins will cheat as far as they can get away with it. Power gamers don't usually cheat in my experience. Mostly because I don't see power gaming as a negative thing, more of a play style choice... one that only has negative connotation if the rest of the group are non-optimizers.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So in which category does a half-giant barbarian 1/psychic warrior 1 with expansion fall, considering he can do 4d6+12 damage at level 2?
"One trick pony?"
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Optimizing is when I do it.
When someone is being annoying, it's powergaming.
If it's someone I don't like, he's a damn munchkin.
That is the forum definition, just check every other thread.
So in which category does a half-giant barbarian 1/psychic warrior 1 with expansion fall, considering he can do 4d6+12 damage at level 2?
Same category as a half-giant barbarian 2 who has a caster friend to cast Enlarge Person? Almost the same category as a half-giant psionic warrior 2, that can do 4d6+9 at the same level, but can do an extra time a day?
That isn't even a particularly powerfull build, man.
Ungrateful munchkins...
|
So in which category does a half-giant barbarian 1/psychic warrior 1 with expansion fall, considering he can do 4d6+12 damage at level 2?Same category as a half-giant barbarian 2 who has a caster friend to cast Enlarge Person? Almost the same category as a half-giant psionic warrior 2, that can do 4d6+9 at the same level, but can do an extra time a day?
That isn't even a particularly powerfull build, man.
Actually, with the interceptor path, he can expend his psionic focus so it doesn't cost him any power points. Add the Psionic Knack trait to double the duration just in case, and the Killer trait if I remember correctly. Weapon Focus (Greatsword) and Extra Rage for the finishing touch.
Leave the cheese at the door (4d6+12, what an embarrassment). The hobby is better without it.
Leave the cheese at the door (4d6+12, what an embarrassment). The hobby is better without it.
Well, since the vast majority of his enemies would be just as dead from a 2d6+6 attack, it's mostly about numbers anyway, not effectiveness.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Leave the cheese at the door (4d6+12, what an embarrassment). The hobby is better without it.
"Cheese".
This term is so overused it's not even funny any more.
Especially in regards to something like a 4d6+12 weapon swing at level 2, when a level 1 Barbarian can whip 2d6+10 out of his ass while Raging with no buffs whatsoever anyway.
Drop an Enlarge Person on him and he'll do the same. Or an Inspire Courage. Or a Bless. Or a...
|
|
Okay, to be honest I only played Xurtr the Half-Giant for a oneshot and the GM actually liked him a lot. And not just because I failed my will save on that Murderous Command spell. He was very effective with his +10 greatsword attack doing 4d6+12 damage pretty much anywhere. I played him for laughs, and his moment of awesome was a coup de grace. We had fun, and that was what mattered.
While it is true that at his level he wouldn't need to do 4d6+12 damage to get most foes down, he is more adept at taking down the BBEG.
Xurtr isn't the kind of character I'd normally play. I usually try to balance offense and defense somewhat, and I like to have more than one option in battle.
If cheese is being used over and over, by multiple parties to signify powergaming and cheap exploits, then many people are clearly aggrieved.
Do not try to deny the cheese, when the walls are the walls of the larder!
Actually, with the interceptor path, he can expend his psionic focus so it doesn't cost him any power points. Add the Psionic Knack trait to double the duration just in case, and the Killer trait if I remember correctly. Weapon Focus (Greatsword) and Extra Rage for the finishing touch.So in which category does a half-giant barbarian 1/psychic warrior 1 with expansion fall, considering he can do 4d6+12 damage at level 2?Same category as a half-giant barbarian 2 who has a caster friend to cast Enlarge Person? Almost the same category as a half-giant psionic warrior 2, that can do 4d6+9 at the same level, but can do an extra time a day?
That isn't even a particularly powerfull build, man.
Still not that big a deal. A barbarian with Enlarge Person cast on him is doing the same thing, and yours is actually worse for action economy, since you still have to spend a standard action to manifest your power insted of killing an enemy, whereas the regular barbarian can start killing things on round one. Your definition of cheese I call a competent character.
Heck the fact that he is multiclass makes him LESS optimized in the long run. Its' a power spike for the first five or six levels, but after that he is getting access to new rage powers or new levels of psionics a level later than he could.Leave the cheese at the door (4d6+12, what an embarrassment). The hobby is better without it.
Cheese. Ha. Yeah, cause being worse than a regular barbarian with minimal tactics is cheesy. Hilarious. You know what else must be cheese? Paladins. And rangers. And wizards. And basically anything that isn't fighter, monk or rogue.
And 4d6+12 really is an embarassment. If I did that character, he would trade Extra Rage for Power Attack and Weapon Focus for Furious Focus. There, 4d6+15 damage.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
3.5 L, I'm not what you would call an optimizer, nor a "power gamer" whatever that means...
but if you think 4d6+12 is somehow "cheese" I wonder what game you're even playing.
People like to make the numbers big, and there is nothing about the game that discourages that.
It is a series of games where the players don't do 4d6+12 at level 2.
The fixation on higher and higher numbers, and on ability and class combinations to get to them even earlier, is why we are in this mess of so much power gaming. I am not saying never do 4d6+12, but at level 2? Very excessive and too OP at level 2. It risks a greater power divide between the players that are like this, and which don't have a similar build, while also encouraging further power gaming later on to catch up (please, give me more stat and number obsession in games, please) and makes presenting balanced encounters more difficult. Shall I send in enemies that do the same amount of damage to the players at level 2? Shall we play rocket tag, would you like that? These are problems with pushing that power gaming build as ideal, good or necessary at level 2.
It is at the damage level to solo-smash encounters (SSE. Level up! New term coined)intended for a party of 2s, or 3s or 4s. If you stay up, you have the damage potential to solo whole groups of what you are meant to fight at your level. That type of damage at that time is not balanced. It isn't d12+10 (average of 16), it is higher than that (average of 24) and means you can one shot level 2 fighters or anything under 24 hp. Do you feel that challenge yet?
>:}
If you want to play and encourage rocket tag, go ahead. The game is however, poorer for it.
Recently, I reviewed The Secrets of Adventuring. It was a really solid book:
http://paizo.com/products/btpy8w6a?The-Secrets-of-Adventuring
What it did especially well was add a lot of classes, archetypes and feats, that did things other than increase damage or present new and higher damage modifiers (combine this class with this, and use this ability and you get an average of 24 at level 2, woot, did you win yet?). There were really useful abilities that weren't just about massive to hit or damage; and that was good to see, and a breath of fresh air.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well when it's something as simple as "My class + a buff allows it pretty much automatically", if the rest of the party is feeling like spectators they should probably up their game just a LITTLE bit.
TBH I find "Optimization is dirty I'm going to ENTIRELY build my character around this concept with no regards to in-game effectiveness whatsoever! Optimization is BAD! *sparkles and rainbows, GOOD ROLEPLAYING banner appears*" just as disruptive as "I'm going to find all the loopholes I can just to make my GM cry".
'Secrets of Adventuring' looks like a potentially interesting third-party product, 3.5 Loyalist, but you may want to contact them and ask them to correct the spelling in their product description. It projects a bad image when they allow SpellCheck to guess their grammar for them.
Sorry - back to the topic. I'm one of the GMs who dislikes seeing a "perfectly legal massive damage build" character at the table. Leaving aesthetics and fair play aside for a moment, I have the choice between having my NPCs act like chumps and give exactly the same amount of attention to the PC with a bazooka as they do to all the PCs with BB guns... or having them intelligently concentrate their fire to destroy the heavy-hitter, which provokes whines of unfairness from the "perfectly legally built" character. Not to mention making all the other players feel like they're spectators rather than participants.
Yeah, if people up the ante and want to one shot bosses and elites, then that is what will come the players way also, or the dm will let everything be a breeze.
Absolutely right on some of the remaining members of the party as spectators to the damage wave character.