| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the thing is though, yes you can create a backstory for a min-maxed
character however if the min-maxing is the focus and then the idea for
the character is built around that it can never be a well rounded RP
character.
It isn't bad per say, I won't have them in my groups but it is fine, just
never going to be a well balanced character and in my experience over the
years the players very rarely have much more invested into their characters.
Which all pretty much inevitably end up as gimick characters with stat blocks.
I would also like to mention that just because someone isn't powergaming
doesn't mean that they are creating well rounded roleplaying characters
either.
I remember when I first started playing pathfinder and had taken a back
seat to just sit and see what the group was doing and what the changes from
3.5 were at the time and sat and listened to the GM at the time telling
all the players exactly what to play and how to play it. To the point of
mapping out their future levels and optimization. And I can see this as
a huge trap that people can fall into.
As I said before though, a good GM will always adjust the difficulty to
match what they want it to be anyway to whatever the party composition
is so -shrugs- overly optimizing doesn't really do much in the long run.
Infact amusingly enough when I was younger and powergaming was the norm
in the groups I was DMing and playing in there were more player deaths
purely because the DM couldn't give quarter lest it be a cakewalk -laughs-
|
It isn't bad per say, I won't have them in my groups but it is fine, just never going to be a well balanced character and in my experience over the years the players very rarely have much more invested into their characters. Which all pretty much inevitably end up as gimmick characters with stat blocks.
That's a pretty big assumption right there. Why can't you have an idea for a mechanical concept that flowers into a very interesting idea for a character?
All the classes have very mutable fluff, so it's not hard to design something with mechanics in mind and get a very full and flavorful character out of it.
I for one really liked Moll's Beast/Vivi, and I love the idea of building one with a similar sense of mutilation exploration.
Too many people think that mechanics have a lot to do with how a person RPs, and they really don't. And even if they did, if the person is having fun, why bother them about it? It always feels like too many people are trying to push their way of playing as "The one true way!" (not saying you are grog, this is more of a general annoyance), and it just gets old, especially when it's someone saying "Power gaming ruins RP."
Mechanics CAN have a lot to do with RP, just not in Pathfinder. For games like Cortex or the FATE system, there are mechanics that support an emphasis on character concept.
What is so terribly awful about a group of players saying "*this* is the way our table plays and, if you don't like it, find another table"?
Too many people think that mechanics have a lot to do with how a person RPs, and they really don't. And even if they did, if the person is having fun, why bother them about it? It always feels like too many people are trying to push their way of playing as "The one true way!" (not saying you are grog, this is more of a general annoyance), and it just gets old, especially when it's someone saying "Power gaming ruins RP."
The biggest problem is that this isn't a table. The forums are common ground and there is most certainly no right way to play here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've had a few character concepts I really liked.
-A half-orc Gunslinger based off the original Django film (Was flipping through Ultimate Equipment finding gear for a different character, saw the coffin, made my decision, heh)
-A frying pan-wielding wandering 'chef' who worked as a bounty hunter (Monk of the Empty Hand)
-A qingong Hungry Ghost Sensei who was an old man who helped people with advice, and through around burning rays (In retrospect, it was basically Uncle Iroh, lol)
I like optimizing. But I don't powergame--I simply want to make my concept workable. And sometimes my concepts are based off of game mechanics (like seeing the Qinggong Monk's cool ki spell-like abilities). Or sometimes I plan my character a couple levels ahead in mechanics. Both of which are things seen as heresy by the 'roleplayers' in my group.
A lot of the viewpoints on this matter, on both sides, are based on perspective. Some people come onto these boards and see what they think is people powergaming and min-maxing. It's often people saying 'how do I make this concept work,' but not always, and it doesn't always seem like it. And that makes some people think everybody here is a powergamer, even when it's often that people come to these boards with the parts that are often easily assisted, i.e. the mechanics.
Some people here have had problems with what they see as 'powergamers' (sometimes they are, sometimes it's just an 'average' optimization in a very unoptimized party, sometimes it's other issues). Other people, like me, have had plenty of problems with 'roleplayers.' Both sides have the same issue--the extremes can make the game unfun--but it's important to note that not everybody is part of the extreme. Powergamers can know the ins and outs of the system by heart and know the most optimal feats and know how to break the game, while not doing so (in fact, plenty of times where I see people truly, intentionally breaking the game, it's for the fun of finding humourous loopholes, like Pun Pun, or the Sohei Monk/Gunslinger/Weapon Master Fighter who can flurry with a firearm at range and add full strength and dexterity to the attacks). And roleplayers can come up with fun characters without caring about optimization, and focus on noncombat roleplay encounters, and have fun with interesting characters, without being snob jerks who yell at you for wanting to play a Duskblade in 3.5 because only powergamers play the class, and it's impossible to roleplay. Or call you a powergamer for selling a +1 longsword, rather than keeping and using it, because you used it in an encounter as an emergency and you don't have proficiency. Or call you a powergamer for not putting your one skill point for the level in swim, when you swam across a river once during that level.
hears my 2 copper on it you have groups that play for the challenge or power game this is fine if the game is meant to be hard mode i have played in may a game like this an they can be fun on the other side of the coin you have your rpg with want to win not trough damage out pout but quick thinking and story. also very fun
what is not fun is a group were you have one or two people out of the 6 players power gaming why the other 4 are not.
this leads to problems for gm making battles that are a challenge for the 2 power gamers but still allow for the 4 base player to shine
i could right a pages on this but i want in the end lest just say this if people in the group are power gaming power game if they are not don't if you see you ac is 8 point higher then the next highs in the groups maybe drop you ac some.
This isn't a table, so the opinions of people here have no impact on us. That's why I didn't think Jolly was referring to people here. Because people here are irrelevant to our games.The biggest problem is that this isn't a table. The forums are common ground and there is most certainly no right way to play here.What is so terribly awful about a group of players saying "*this* is the way our table plays and, if you don't like it, find another table"?
Too many people think that mechanics have a lot to do with how a person RPs, and they really don't. And even if they did, if the person is having fun, why bother them about it? It always feels like too many people are trying to push their way of playing as "The one true way!" (not saying you are grog, this is more of a general annoyance), and it just gets old, especially when it's someone saying "Power gaming ruins RP."
Jolly's post seemed to refer to posters on the forum to me and in general I wouldn't assume a forum post was referring to a specific group unless the poster said so. Of course, if what's posted here is completely irrelevant, why post at all?
These behaviors don't exist in a vacuum. If powergamers all kept to themselves, there would be no problem, but it seems like all too often it is the standard operating procedure in the community. These kinds of players spring up everywhere regardless of whether they are wanted there or not. People keep saying it doesn't affect everyone, but it does, whether it's intentional or not.
Also stop assuming that people who want to lessen the focus on optimization and game mechanics are saying you need to make a completely useless character with no pluses and that you should feel bad for having system mastery. Nobody is saying that besides the strawman you are arguing with in your head. Sure having a build that is good and actually rping are technically not mutually exclusive, but this kind of play by its very definition entails putting mechanics over rp. People who don't roleplay much in roleplaying games tend to focus on mechanics, that's just the way it is.
A lot of powergamery types seem to have trouble grasping what people think is wrong with powergaming, so perhaps there needs to be a thread about that too if one can handle all the defensiveness.
A lot of this is the GM's fault in failing to be a proper gatekeeper as regards which characters are acceptable for his table.
i could right a pages on this but i want in the end lest just say this if people in the group are power gaming power game if they are not don't if you see you ac is 8 point higher then the next highs in the groups maybe drop you ac some.
this could be the case but if a player want to power game there very little that can be done even saying core book only you can get power full builds and the more limits you put on players the more they seem to want to push back on the limits you have placed
at the end of the day it up to the group to come to a agreement over what type of game they want and what the want to get out of it
that being said people are not hive mind's and everyone will have a different view on what is ok in a game and what is not
I think it's a non-issue (in that any approach works if everyone at the game is happy with it). I think the main issue is when someone in one "camp" speculates about why someone in the other does what they do.
I'm squarely in the non-optimising, rules-ignorant, story-is-most-important, myguysucksbecauseroleplay! etcetera etcetera corner. However, saying to someone skilled at character building 'you're just trying to win' seems as insulting or dismissive to me as when some people tell me 'you just want to play story hour' or 'maybe you should find a different game'.
I can play my way, they can tell me how to make my character more effective. Who really cares?
|
I still contend it is really not the power gaming aspect that is the problem. I have two powergamer/optimizers in my gaming group right now. Both of them usually wait to see what classes are going to be needed, they are the first two people that the other players turn to with questions, and they are the first two PCs to jump in front of a bullet or waste an action to help the party.
They are not about the "big win" or being OMFG amazing, but rather focused on the party succeeding and everyone at the table being an active part of that. More to the point they make sure everyone FEELS they are part of the success. Their individual characters are very strong, but they are more the "with great power comes great responsibility" model.
Power gamers do not always = self-centered annoying jerks, it just so happens that a lot of self-centered annoying jerks are power gamers. This confusion is what leads to a lot of bias against number focused players.
I once played in a game where one person was massively optimised for combat while the others were a lot less serious combatwise and were more concept-driven builds.
It was a lot of fun because whatever combat challenge the DM threw at us we could safely sit back and do whatever we wanted to do that we felt was fun. That involved me, the rogue, trying to sweet-talk some mook into betraying their employer (into their grisly deaths) and a warlock (it was a 3.5 game).
It only worked because the rest of the group didn't compete for the 'spotlight' though. I was a changeling rogue with some 40+ bonus on Bluff and Diplomacy so noncombat challenges were a blast to deal with too.
So the DM used a lot of tricky, politically-driven scenarios to get us all feel challenged. Sometimes, rolling 50s on your Diplomacy isn't quite enough when the fate of a kingdom is on a balance (massive circumstance penalties is what the DM said). We got into a lot of complicated quests such as one where we sneaked through the enemy's line (or cut through, when what we met were 'small scouting forces') and planting a damning document to frame the enemy general for treason.
Figuring out the right incentives/connections to frame the general was an entirely another adventure too! Turns out, he had a mistress in the kingdom we were fighting for... had a good fun forging the dates of a few loveletters to look more recent >:3
So all in all, Power-Gaming isn't a bad thing in essence. What's more important is the DM's ability to keep the spotlight on each of the player characters at opportune times so they still feel like they are contributing memebers of the team. I remembered the above scenario because I was the main character in resolving the issue, for example. The Power-Gamer we had later said he 'now want(ed) to play a rogue later'.
I love optimizing. Heck, I probably build 5 times as many characters than what I actually get around to play with. Others in my group have varying levels of optimizing skill, so sometimes my characters are a bit too good.
The solution? I help optimize their builds if they ask for help. It's sort of perfect; they provide the concept, background, know how to roleplay it and so forth, I help them fully realize the concept by making a character that functionally works!
But yeah, to me, Pathfinder is two different games:
1) Building
2) Actually playing the g*%#!+n game already
I love both and wish I could do "2" more often, but I often default to "1" while anticipating "2."
|
I actually hate optimizing a lot. I feel that the need/desire to be the best at whatever you are deciding to be puts you on a railroad of feats and achetypes and abilities to get to the desired level of "greatness" in that area.
However, I am increasingly seeing GMs who are ramping up encounters due to a perceived power level increase in players which is forcing me to either work towards optimization or sit around frustrated that I spent another evening of "roleplaying" locked in 2 combats where I wait for my turn, roll an almost impossible to make for the non-optimized save or attack, and spent the night essentially exercising my patience.
I just want to have fun and fight monsters and see exotic/magical locations with my oddly eccentric, non-optimized character and feel somewhat heroic instead of feeling like I spent 3-4 hours playing a game where I leave frustrated and unfulfilled. I do that for 8 hours a day at my job. My leisure time should be less difficult to enjoy.
I actually hate optimizing a lot. I feel that the need/desire to be the best at whatever you are deciding to be puts you on a railroad of feats and achetypes and abilities to get to the desired level of "greatness" in that area.
However, I am increasingly seeing GMs who are ramping up encounters due to a perceived power level increase in players which is forcing me to either work towards optimization or sit around frustrated that I spent another evening of "roleplaying" locked in 2 combats where I wait for my turn, roll an almost impossible to make for the non-optimized save or attack, and spent the night essentially exercising my patience.
I just want to have fun and fight monsters and see exotic/magical locations with my oddly eccentric, non-optimized character and feel somewhat heroic instead of feeling like I spent 3-4 hours playing a game where I leave frustrated and unfulfilled. I do that for 8 hours a day at my job. My leisure time should be less difficult to enjoy.
So talk to your group. Talk to them as people and see if you can come to some kind of compromise. Seriously, sit down as a group of (I assume) friends and see if there is a way you can all have fun.
|
|
So talk to your group. Talk to them as people and see if you can come to some kind of compromise. Seriously, sit down as a group of (I assume) friends and see if there is a way you can all have fun.I actually hate optimizing a lot. I feel that the need/desire to be the best at whatever you are deciding to be puts you on a railroad of feats and achetypes and abilities to get to the desired level of "greatness" in that area.
However, I am increasingly seeing GMs who are ramping up encounters due to a perceived power level increase in players which is forcing me to either work towards optimization or sit around frustrated that I spent another evening of "roleplaying" locked in 2 combats where I wait for my turn, roll an almost impossible to make for the non-optimized save or attack, and spent the night essentially exercising my patience.
I just want to have fun and fight monsters and see exotic/magical locations with my oddly eccentric, non-optimized character and feel somewhat heroic instead of feeling like I spent 3-4 hours playing a game where I leave frustrated and unfulfilled. I do that for 8 hours a day at my job. My leisure time should be less difficult to enjoy.
I am moving shortly(soon as the house sells) so it really wouldn't matter...
We rotate GMs to let people's creativity come to bear and it is just a matter of my playstyle doesn't match up with the current GMing style. We usually have 2 campaigns alternating at a time, a few weeks on one, a few weeks on the other so we don't get GM burnout and such so I just need to wait for the switch over.
Sure having a build that is good and actually rping are technically not mutually exclusive, but this kind of play by its very definition entails putting mechanics over rp. People who don't roleplay much in roleplaying games tend to focus on mechanics, that's just the way it is.
A lot of powergamery types seem to have trouble grasping what people think is wrong with powergaming, so perhaps there needs to be a thread about that too if one can handle all the defensiveness.
I don't agree with the first statement (build-focused necessarily trumps RP) but the second statement is pretty interesting!
Of course there IS a large set of players that are more interested in the "crunch" of the rules than the RP portion. For everybody who says "Yeah, but it's a ROLE PLAYING game", they might respond "yes, a role-playing GAME". They might just be attracted to the game aspect. So you might, of course, get people who are, in fact, just there to roll dice and build characters.
OTOH, there might be a lot of people who could care less about game mechanics and just want to role-play. Players to whom the mechanics, and talk thereof, are pretty tedious.
You might have more of the "rules first" players simply because Pathfinder's an extremely complex game with a lot of rules. For somebody who finds mechanics fun, it's great. For somebody who would rather invest in the narrative, it might be tedious and get in the way of storytelling. I wonder if the "narrative heavy" players don't tend to just gravitate to more rules-light, narrative systems?
In this sense, then, a lot of the "why do players today only care about winning" is selection bias. Pathfinder's rules-heavy nature has attracted that subset of gamers because it's made character building into one of the main attractions of the game. Players who prioritize other aspects of role-playing might be playing more rules-light, narrative heavy games like Nobilis or Spirit of the Century.
What's powergaming and what is over the top in the sense of building a character is all a matter of opinion. A majority of this thread is a heaping pile of generalizations built on a negative premise.
* Why do so many people play to "win" nowadays?
Most games are, and historically have been, played to be won. In our case, an open ended game played for the sake of enjoyment still usually involves a desire for a good showing on the part of the player, and most people want to understand the pitfalls of the system to at least meet whatever their minimum performance expectations happen to be, this is usually so they can match performance to concept.
* Where did the flavor and imagination go to?
The question is based too much on personal taste and assumption for me to really answer, and being a loaded question was designed to be answered in a way to affirm your preexisting idea of what entails proper role play. However....3X has given players options that 20 or 30 years ago in OD&D/AD&D were only in the realm of DM fiat and house rules, so you see a heavy emphasis of working within the rules to meet player concepts and expectations. You also see so many conversations about it here because rules and a venue to discuss and further understand them work hand in hand.
* When did people stop building for concept(s)?
It never stopped. I see it all the time on these forums. Why are you not seeing it?
* Is ____ really that broken if played RAW?
Purposefully obtuse and rhetorical.
What's powergaming and what is over the top in the sense of building a character is all a matter of opinion. A majority of this thread is a heaping pile of generalizations built on a negative premise.
True, it's a matter of opinion, but when isn't something on these boards such? I repeatedly said that I wasn't bashing it or trying to say anything negative about power-gaming. I simply want to understand the allure and mindset of doing it all the time from people who consider themselves power-gamers to the point that they are treading into the loopholes and grey areas of the rules which aren't strictly defined.
Most games are, and historically have been, played to be won. In our case, an open ended game played for the sake of enjoyment still usually involves a desire for a good showing on the part of the player, and most people want to understand the pitfalls of the system to at least meet whatever their minimum performance expectations happen to be, this is usually so they can match performance to concept.
I do the same thing. I optimize to the point where my PC's aren't a liability to the group and can actually succeed, but I am not playing the game to "win." I'm playing for the adventure, the role-playing, the unknown story to be written. I don't want an invincible character personally, I want someone who has that chance to fail, to give up their life in the service to the group, or to go on to the end of the campaign and save the world/planes/whatever.
The question is based too much on personal taste and assumption for me to really answer, and being a loaded question was designed to be answered in a way to affirm your preexisting idea of what entails proper role play. However....3X has given players options that 20 or 30 years ago in OD&D/AD&D were only in the realm of DM fiat and house rules, so you see a heavy emphasis of working within the rules to meet player concepts and expectations. You also see so many conversations about it here because rules and a venue to discuss and further understand them work hand in hand.
Not so, if you look at the boards most of the time you won't see things dealing with the fluff of PC's anymore. Most of the posts you will see are layered in how to make the best PC possible. Again, not a "bad" thing and I'm not bashing it. Perhaps people already have their fluff figured out and are not asking for advice/ideas on that stuff, but I would find it refreshing if 90% of the posts weren't about just the crunch.
It never stopped. I see it all the time on these forums. Why are you not seeing it?
Perhaps we are reading the forums at different times. I won't argue the point with you, but my own observations are quite to the contrary.
Purposefully obtuse and rhetorical.
I'll clarify. It wasn't purposefully obtuse nor rhetorical, it was an attempt to get a discussion going on what people perceive to be broken. I've seen so many posts on the forums complaining about how X, Y, or Z is broken. Rather than someone taking the time to actually read the RAW, look up errata, or use common sense they complain that it is broken or make an attempt to use flawed logic to fit X, Y, or Z into what they wish it to be and purposely break it. Now I know there are a few things out there that do need further explanation and get it from the developers, but there are also quite a few people who want something to be such a way so bad that they purposely exploit it.
Anyhow, I'd like to get back to the conceptual characters/ideas that people are now talking about as I'm done with the power-gaming discussion and it's a dead horse now to me so I'm done beating it.
A couple of character concepts that I've been tinkering with in my head:
1) A platinum haired human swashbuckler with a narcissistic complex. He has a 70's pr0n star mustache and constantly plays with it (no pun intended!) to make sure it's always perfect.
2) A long-haired "hippy" druid who is all about the peace and love. He smokes special leaves and always talks with a slow drawl "heyyyy mannnn, how's it goin'?" Don't kill his trees or plants though or he'll get pretty upset and shape-change into a grizzly!
ub3r, if you want a reference for #2, look at the elves in Overlord 2.
I don't agree with the first statement (build-focused necessarily trumps RP) but the second statement is pretty interesting!
Of course there IS a large set of players that are more interested in the "crunch" of the rules than the RP portion. For everybody who says "Yeah, but it's a ROLE PLAYING game", they might respond "yes, a role-playing GAME". They might just be attracted to the game aspect. So you might, of course, get people who are, in fact, just there to roll dice and build characters.
OTOH, there might be a lot of people who could care less about game mechanics and just want to role-play. Players to whom the mechanics, and talk thereof, are pretty tedious.
You might have more of the "rules first" players simply because Pathfinder's an extremely complex game with a lot of rules. For somebody who finds mechanics fun, it's great. For somebody who would rather invest in the narrative, it might be tedious and get in the way of storytelling. I wonder if the "narrative heavy" players don't tend to just gravitate to more rules-light, narrative systems?
In this sense, then, a lot of the "why do players today only care about winning" is selection bias. Pathfinder's rules-heavy nature has attracted that subset of gamers because it's made character building into one of the main attractions of the game. Players who prioritize other aspects of role-playing might be playing more rules-light, narrative heavy games like Nobilis or Spirit of the Century.
I'm not saying that. I may believe it's a tendency among people I see, but that's different. Mechanics and winning over rp is the literal definition of powergaming(on wikipedia anyway). If that's not happening, it's not powergaming. Problem is in some cases it's fuzzy whether it's happening or not. Perhaps some people can't even fathom how that can happen.
I personally like some of the rules light systems(haven't tried those two), but you get people trying to powergame in some of these more rules light systems more often than I'd like. But that's that basically saying 'why don't you play something else'. I could say why don't you go do some dueling in an MMO. On one hand it's a bit mechanics heavy but on the other hand there's a ton of lore and it's something a lot of us are familiar with (both mechanically and conceptually). I actually like building characters, I just don't like it when I can find few people who will actually roleplay them or not go with the same generic no-personality tough guy every time.
power gaming, i can understand. you can't roleplay if you happen to be dead.
just don't use builds intended for theoretical numerical exercises. below are examples that especially irk me.
any of Pun-Pun's thousand variants at progressively earlier levels
that speed build that moves at a base speed of Mach 9
the darn Jumplomancer with +8,000 Jump (a diplomacer that uses jump to mimic diplomacy)
Fred the Diplomancer (+72 diplomacy at level 6)
the Ubercharger (way more damage than the rules intended.)
Trixie the Party Favor (heavily multiclassed support build that involves a pixie Marshal who grants massive bonuses to her allies on just about everything by virtue of having a massive charisma. a mini's handbook Marshal isn't bad on it's own, it is when used in the abomination that is Trixie the Party Favor, that gets ludicrously overpowered when what is normally a +3-+5 to a lot of things becomes a +13-+15 to everything)
ub3r, if you want a reference for #2, look at the elves in Overlord 2.
Never heard of Overlord 2 or the elves therein. I had to use my Google-fu to see what you were talking about :P
@magnumCPA
Sorry, I hope you don't think I was criticizing you with my post. I was using your quote but certainly wasn't trying to criticize you in any way, nor was I trying to imply that you are a certain "kind" of player-- be it a "narrative" or "optimizer" kind of player or whatever. The internet's pretty bad at conveying tone, and I wasn't trying to peg you as a "low system-mastery, story-time non-powergamer" or imply that you'd have more fun playing another system. Hope I didn't offend!
Your post just made me think about what people find "fun" about different kinds of games. I would consider Pathfinder a "rules-heavy" game, and so it might appeal to a certain subset of players who are attracted to the rules-heavy nature. So that sense perhaps there might be something to what the OP was saying about people treating PF as a numbers puzzle, or as a game that can be "won"? A game that's built on numbers might appeal to people who enjoy that sort of thing, while people who enjoy a more narrative approach might be playing something like Nobilis.
What are your thoughts?
- If you take one wrong feat you have to wait 2 levels to get the right one AND with every level you get, the next level comes later. so it´s better to plan the character before in details and till lvl 10+ when you start.
- I look for MinMaxing / PowerGaming but don´t do it completly. It´s just nice to know what you CAN do. With a little of MinMaxing / Powergaming you can do some "wrong things" and still have a good character ;-)
- There is so much time without roleplaying and so I think about what I can do next and how the character can grow in the future.
(btw.: I play a elf barbarian with int and dex 16, str 14 and con 10 ...)
I concur with much of what Rover said above. With the following caveats:
The evolution of TTRPGs is not some sort of arbitrary activity that leaped from Gary Gygax's head like Athena from Zeus. There is cause and effect involved.
The early versions of D&D were vague in many areas, sometimes deliberately, sometimes just because the concepts themselves were still developing. The end result was that characters had only a few specific attributes that were generated directly from rules. This was good because it allowed for a wide range of personal interpretations and characters could be quite varied and interesting based on the same underlying stats. This was bad because it led to many disagreements about how a particular character could perform certain activities.
So the rules were expanded to help players and GMs make characters that were agreeable under a wider range of circumstances. New classes were created, new sub-classes and individual characters were given more options to choose from at character creation and as the character leveled up. This was good because it allowed for more predictability in character growth and power. This was bad because it removed the open-ended character concept building and replaced it with essentially choosing from a set of allowable menu items.
The very nature of adding rules is that those rules will be incomplete, contradictory and exploitable by clever people with an agenda. The more rules you have, the more potential you have for exploitation. The more rules you have, the more some players will tend towards existing templates. The more rules you have the more some players will find ways to optimize their characters based on those rules.
For the most part the current style of game play has very little to do with differences in the PEOPLE playing the game, and everything to do with the way the rules have been written, interpreted and exploited by generations of gamers.
All GM are free to put restrictions on the power level of characters their games, but they don't have to do so. That's more a matter of personal preference and GMing style. What matters most is whether the various players at the table have characters who are roughly equivalent in power or to each other, if they do not, if they are OKAY with having characters who are uneven in their optimization. A character who is balanced in one campaign may be horribly unbalanced in another. The GM always has the power to ramp up or down the difficulty level of adventures and encounters to ensure that any given group of PCs is appropriately challenged. So Party A consisting of three PCs who are heavily optimized may face GM challenges considerably tougher than those faced by Party B, consisting of six PCs who are fairly unoptimized. As long as both sets of players are having fun, neither can be said to be doing it "wrong".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Seriously? Did you have to walk up hill both ways in the snow to the game too? I played AD&D, thats how I started, and there was certainly PLENTY of rollplay as opposed to roleplay. In fact, I think the modern era allows for a far greater depth of storytelling and character development, because characters last longer (anyone remember what a gygaxian dungeon was like? There were times we didnt bother coming up with names for new characters because they wouldnt last 20 minutes), and because the greater freedom of creation allows you to play the character you want to be instead of the character the dice force you to be.
Yeah I agree, the people I played 1st and 2nd edition with didnt bother coming up with character backgrounds, doing so is silly when you have no idea what your character is going to be until after you roll it up. And then when you started playing, why bother coming up with one when you are likely to be dead in a few sessions? (seriously people, did you read 1st and 2nd edition modules? If not go download a copy of the Temple of Elemental Evil or Tomb of Horrors).
1st and 2nd were not about roleplaying at all, they were about dungeon crawls and trying to survive.3rd+ lets you make a character you want to play, and thus be able to build a background and theme for the character and has a much higher survivability than previous editions.
People that dont at least make a half-ass effort to optimize their character just kind of piss me off. Adventuring parties arent forced together, they arent childhood friends going out adventuring. They are people that are putting themselves in life and death situations where they have to rely on those with them to stay alive. Why the hell do you think your party would take along Daisy the 5 con, 10 str, 20 int fighter that put all her level up feats into skill focus and her combat feats into things that dont help her fight, wears leather armor and fights with a dagger because she is pretending to be a rogue since that was her "cool character idea"?
Its great that people that play horrible characters think they are "role-playing" but this is a role-playing game, and the rest of the party is role-playing adventurers, which is a job that demands a minimum level of competency to succeed at.
Basic way to make a character:
1. think of the basic concept of what you want to play, keeping in mind that you are playing an adventurer, so playing Timmy the blind, mentality handicap, quadriplegic with a big heart might not be the best idea.
2. create the basics of that concept and take the minimum required items to be that concept.
3. finish off with abilities that allow you to function in the world and as an adventurer, adjusting step 2 if needed.
4. flesh out the character background based around what you ended up with.
This works out well for pretty much everyone as the power gamers are at least power-gaming around a concept and should come up with a background to match what they made, and the "role-players" have a playable character instead of a horrible useless waste of space that would never be taken on adventures.. and normal players are already pretty much following these steps with or without knowing it anyways.
Eh there's pluses and minus to powergaming. So many factors in place. Yes part of it is the gms fault but its also the players fault as well. And really sometimes its nobodys fault really bc they didnt do anything bad per se. Sometimes certain players in a grp want their character to be the destined hero right from the get go while the other players are playing reg joes who thru circamstances become heros. Sometimes its the dm who has allowed a certain build and just wants the players to have fun so they dont restrict or watch and dictate every single feat someone takes or spells bc they feel its the players character.
Tbh heres what I really think is where powrrgaming really shines or fails and its synergy. If the whole grp is power gaiming then its works well. If 1 person outta the grp is power gaming and the rest is basically just playing then its where it can start becoming a problem. I believe if players who powergame just at times sit back and share the spotlight instead of hogging or taking away oppertunitys for others to shine ...then really it wouldnt bevthat big of a problem. Ur a massive mound of human flesh muscle....u dont always have to go charging at the enemy that u know ur gonna one shot, u could every once in awhile instead of unleashing ur fury so others can quake with jealousy at ur awesome might, u couod actually use a few rounds everyso often just basically placing urself in positions to which ur party has better advantages. Or instead of one shotting everything, every once in awhile grapple or etc so that the other players have time to shine and make it easier for them.
Just players gotta work together and play together. Share the spotlight.
Think of a character like a car.
The rules, abilities, stats, and so on are the engine/drive train.
The RP, flavor, back story, and so on are the paint, interior, stereo, etc.
Out in the world nobody sees your engine. But it's effect exists. Of course you can have the grand daddy of engines and a horrible looking car.
They work together.
Also a good power gamer helps the rest of the party min/max. They look for ways to increase the power of the party as a whole.
Very true, but sadly a gm can do so and it can still happen because differences of opionions. Ioften have this problem in my grp as in I tell them that u do not start off as these mystical nbeasts reincarnate nor are u a prophesied hero either, that u are a normal smo and I still have problems with certain playerw because they try to get the most bang outta their character by going above and beyound but in the rules by selecting and figuring out ways to get feats and abilities sooner etc etc. They feel they are not powergaming because to some they feel ur powergaming when u have incredible equipment and not by making the most perfect setup ability and stat wise type of ur class.
Some people view their characters as these mythical beings who are destined to conquer the world and feel they are a reg smo because they dont havevthe godlike equipment yet nvm thatthey have built a perfect character and have came up with combos that are legal that break the game etc.
I dare id put more of the responsibilty of it on the player because the gm isnt there to dictate what legal things u can do or to bar legal actions/feats/etc strictly because u are gonna use it in a way that breaks the game or to outshine the rest when someone else could use same feator ability and it wouldnt.
Thats why I say if u are powergaming, do 2 things and most likely u wouldnt have any problems.
1. Leave a weakness of some sort, either stat wise or flavor wise.
2. Just because u can steal the spotlight by doing ur "normal" actions, doesnt mean u should always do them. If ur character is so beefy it can oneshot almost anything ur gm throws at ya, doesnt mean u should always do so. Instead of just swinging and oneshotting, everyone in a while just try to trip or grapple or even position urself in a position so the other person can gain flank. Take out minions while the party works on the main baddy. That way its giving the impression of other players shining and contributing.
Doing those 2 things and id even agree with just doing the second one, will fix ala lot of the problems groups have with powervaming when everyone isnt doing so. It will also greatly lessen the amount of work a gm has to do to go above and beyound of making sure their are encounters for the others to shine.
*shudder*
Also a good power gamer helps the rest of the party min/max.
Hehe.
It helps that we have been playing with a DM who could let us triple class Gestalt and have gear equal to twice the recommended GP limit and not break stride. Really it doesn't matter how powerful a group is if the DM is good enough that the game never feels east, safe, or dull.
*shudder*
Also a good power gamer helps the rest of the party min/max.Hehe.
It helps that we have been playing with a DM who could let us triple class Gestalt and have gear equal to twice the recommended GP limit and not break stride. Really it doesn't matter how powerful a group is if the DM is good enough that the game never feels east, safe, or dull.
Here rely is the crux of the matter. If the DM is familiar with the games and all the tricks, he can say "I have been on your side of the table and optimized every class 9 ways to Sunday, nothing you have will surprise me." Then Power Gaming has minimal effect.
If the DM isn't familiar at all with the game, then anything that isn't Fighter 20 will have them jumping at shadows.
prototype00
What bugs me is the people on the forums who seem to think that role-playing a concept and power gaming are mutually exclusive. You absolutely CAN do both. And the Venn Diagram of concepts where they intersect can be quite fascinating, actually.
thing is, a dead character has no concept, you cannot roleplay a dead character, and in a party of player characters, nobody wants to neither be the dead weight, nor carry the dead weight.
I think this actually MAKES the OP's point, rather than refuting it. The idea (to many people) is JUST to have fun. Some people DO WANT to play characters with serious limitations, and some people DO enjoy the RP experience of playing the characters who support (and occasionally berate) those others.
In my home campaigns prior to 2000, I saw some people make pretty bad character choices (including a 2e bard with stats so low he couldn't cast spells), and I can't think of a single time anyone complained. They just played their own character; if that involved saving the weak link and yelling at him in character, so be it.
What bugs me is the people on the forums who seem to think that role-playing a concept and power gaming are mutually exclusive. You absolutely CAN do both.
That's true, but what bugs me is people thinking you HAVE to power game or you're not "doing it right". You don't HAVE to do both, as long as your table is having fun.
Also a good power gamer helps the rest of the party min/max. They look for ways to increase the power of the party as a whole.
Once again, though, that's assuming power gaming equals better gaming. I think fun equals better gaming. If people are having fun power gaming that's great. But it's no inherently better or worse than not power gaming. I would have no fun power gaming (I'm a very non-competitive person), so I don't play in games like that. When I have played in games with one power gamer, I find that person is more than happy to show off how cool his character is while I play the sidekick. I'm good with that.
I had an interesting talk with a player last night about why she should or should not make a weapon choice for her character based on the optimal choice. She was lamenting that the best choice was not what she wanted but instead wanted a weapon for flavor.
I told her that "there comes a time when optimization ceases to be fun."
This sounded very familiar...
So I expand...
There comes a time, Player, when optimization cease to be fun, when getting every plus one loses it luster, the character sheet becomes a prison to creativity, and all that is left is a person’s love for the game.