| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
As the title states, my question to the rest of the gamer community out there is: To power-game or not to power-game?
Lately all I see on the forums (especially in advice) are things along the lines of:
1) How do I build the best _____ ?
2) What is the best ____ ?
3) Casters are so much better than ____
4) Where is the ____ love?
5) Why do _____ archetypes suck?
6) Why can't I do ____ with ____ ability to make me more powerful?
7) Build me an invincible _____
8) My GM hates us, s/he TPK'd us!
9) And my favorite: Oh noes! ______ is broken!
So it really got me thinking:
* Why do so many people play to "win" nowadays?
* Where did the flavor and imagination go to?
* When did people stop building for concept(s)?
* Is ____ really that broken if played RAW?
My thoughts are that the generation of gamers has truly changed and want to make these uber heroes that will completely destroy and derail any attempt made by Paizo through AP's or a GM to run an interesting game. It's really turned to more of a video gamey type of thing rather than the danger lurking everywhere and things can truly kill PC's if they aren't careful.
Don't get me wrong, I like to play a powerful hero who is good at what they do too, but I also like to have a chance to fail and roll up a new one every once in a while. I like the different archetypes out there, I like the options to actually create a nice little background and play an completely unique character rather than God-Wizard 23045502...
What are your thoughts?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think a lot of people have always wanted to win and always will. People often hark back to the good old days with rose tinted glasses, but they weren't actually any better, just different.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
buzzword, trope and fallacy bingo scoring:
42 pts - power gaming brought up and used as a generalization for multiple terms
56023 pts - video gamey (used negatively)
6 pts - generations of gamers examined and segregated
0.5 pts - background and creativity are mutually exclusive from optimization and system mastery
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As the title states, my question to the rest of the gamer community out there is: To power-game or not to power-game?
Lately all I see on the forums (especially in advice) are things along the lines of:
1) How do I build the best _____ ?
2) What is the best ____ ?
3) Casters are so much better than ____
4) Where is the ____ love?
5) Why do _____ archetypes suck?
6) Why can't I do ____ with ____ ability to make me more powerful?
7) Build me an invincible _____
8) My GM hates us, s/he TPK'd us!
9) And my favorite: Oh noes! ______ is broken!So it really got me thinking:
* Why do so many people play to "win" nowadays?
* Where did the flavor and imagination go to?
* When did people stop building for concept(s)?
* Is ____ really that broken if played RAW?My thoughts are that the generation of gamers has truly changed and want to make these uber heroes that will completely destroy and derail any attempt made by Paizo through AP's or a GM to run an interesting game. It's really turned to more of a video gamey type of thing rather than the danger lurking everywhere and things can truly kill PC's if they aren't careful.
Don't get me wrong, I like to play a powerful hero who is good at what they do too, but I also like to have a chance to fail and roll up a new one every once in a while. I like the different archetypes out there, I like the options to actually create a nice little background and play an completely unique character rather than God-Wizard 23045502...
What are your thoughts?
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.
so people are seeking ways to make their characters last longer to preserve the time they spend roleplaying them.
if there is a system that really didn't support roleplay, it was the 1e meat grinder. 2-3 PCs typically died every 4 hour session, and character creation was a lot faster. the whole reason leveling was faster, was because characters were more likely to die. so in 1e, most characters didn't earn a name until they were 3rd-5th level, and didn't earn much of a backstory till 10th level and up.
the problem with meatgrinder old school dungeons on older systems, was that death was extremely commonplace, attributes meant a lot less, static bonuses were harder to get, and hit point values were much lower.
evocation spells were highly dangerous.
Although I've been gaming since ~1990, I've almost always balanced viability with concept. I've had too many conceptually wonderful characters die because of a simple lack of combat viability. So I don't really think it's a new attitude.
It might have become more prevalent - and I'd be interested to know if the older generation of gamers are somewhat at fault. As we've gotten older, we all tend to learn the systems better; that leads to creation of more challenging encounters, which requires the next generation of gamers to optimize their characters just a little more to stay alive.
[edit]
thing is, a dead character has no concept, you cannot roleplay a dead character...
Well, unless you're playing Wraith: the Oblivion...
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So it really got me thinking:
* Why do so many people play to "win" nowadays?
* Where did the flavor and imagination go to?
* When did people stop building for concept(s)?
* Is ____ really that broken if played RAW?
Those people don't post threads on the forum asking for help, they don't need it. Except sometimes for outside input on group drama.
I'm really looking forward to this thread devolving into Stormwind Fallacy- laden debates! Cannot wait!
Although I've been gaming since ~1990, I've almost always balanced viability with concept. I've had too many conceptually wonderful characters die because of a simple lack of combat viability. So I don't really think it's a new attitude.
It might have become more prevalent - and I'd be interested to know if the older generation of gamers are somewhat at fault. As we've gotten older, we all tend to learn the systems better; that leads to creation of more challenging encounters, which requires the next generation of gamers to optimize their characters just a little more to stay alive.
[edit]
thing is, a dead character has no concept, you cannot roleplay a dead character...Well, unless you're playing Wraith: the Oblivion...
that is my point, and Wraith; is an exception to the general rule in that it is an RPG designed for playing dead people.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@FD - Sure there are a lot of people who look back with rose colored glasses, and maybe it's the internet age we live in where the 'winning' mentality is much more visible.
@Lincoln Hills - Pretty much what I think of when I replied to FD, internet age where everyone has a smartphone in their pockets and the newer generation of gamers are always online so perhaps the older generation isn't piping up about their stuff since they are actually off playing their games rather than trying to build the next epic hero.
@Lamontius - No real reply to you since I am not going to get into an argument with you about my post above. It wasn't meant as an insult as it seems you have taken it.
@Lumiere - A lot of us in my group have a stable full of character concepts who we'd love to play at some point and I don't think I'll ever have enough time to play all of the characters I've thought up! So when I lose a PC even if I put hours/weeks/years into it, I look forward to playing the next PC and seeing what kind of adventures they will experience.
@Xaratherus - As I said too, I like a PC who is good at what they do and stands a chance at surviving for a while, but I don't get upset like some of the posters on the forums about a PC death or a TPK because that's how the dice gods fated it to be. It's also true that as people gain more mastery that they get better at creation of characters and sometimes their concepts work in conjunction with the creation/builds.
Overall, to me a lot of it comes down to quite a few people having this sense of entitlement when it comes to their PC's and character creation. They believe that no matter what they should always win and/or there should never be a TPK.
I personally like a challenge. My group uses flaws and/or drawbacks to give even more human qualities to our characters.
@Lumiere: I was joking\being flippant. :)
@Uber; i do that too
but my issue, is that with Weekly William, i tend to die a week before the new level. which leaves me leveling up but very behind on wealth.
and i see crafting as necessary, not just to get the appropriate items, but to afford all those utility items nobody wants because they are busy with the big 6, can't get my monk his flask of endless Sake or his personal monastery if he has to buy an AoMF at full price.
@Lumiere: I was joking\being flippant. :)
haha! Hard to tell via text here the joking, so most people take it at face value.
buzzword, trope and fallacy bingo scoring:
42 pts - power gaming brought up and used as a generalization for multiple terms
56023 pts - video gamey (used negatively)
6 pts - generations of gamers examined and segregated
0.5 pts - background and creativity are mutually exclusive from optimization and system mastery
How many points is "sense of entitlement" worth?
So it really got me thinking:
* Why do so many people play to "win" nowadays?
* Where did the flavor and imagination go to?
* When did people stop building for concept(s)?
* Is ____ really that broken if played RAW?
1. People have always played to win forever thats people for you.
2. Mainly into character concept and backstory and personality, I may be playing generic cookie cutter martial build 314 but I am also playing as Timas the Bull a drunken murder hobo with a love of bad puns and reputation and backstory a mile wide. A character who will gleefully choose the harder road because it is more fun.
3. People haven't stopped building for concepts but a lot of concept nowadays include excellence or competence as part of character identity which requires some building to be possible in game.
4. Yes there are many things that are poorly balances some of them like simulacrum which break sections of the game (game economy, action economy).
1) I can see your point about people always wanting to win and that never changing. Perhaps I should have phrased it differently. I meant that TTRPG's aren't about winning, at least to me they aren't, they are about having fun at the table with some of your friends and going on an adventure together where you don't know if your PC will live or die.
2) True, but I also see a lot of people that just say I want my PC to be like Captain America (for example - NOT bashing him) and then go out to build a crazy optimized PC that has that specific personality.
3) I also like to work within the concept and then build from there, I like to have a competent PC, but I don't need to be min/max or super optimized to achieve this and/or live.
4) I'll give you that there are a few things that unbalance the game, but for the most part it seems Pathfinder is pretty well balanced and very well supported by both the developers and the community.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How nice of you to respond thoughtfully to ub3r_n3rd's concern over the RPG turning into a futile, time-consuming arms race rather than a pleasing pastime.
I think you hit the nail on the head right there very succinctly!
Because you don't go to a game forum to flesh out your concept and back story? You go to a game forum to find out how to make the most out of the rules framework your concept and back story are draped over.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Those people don't post threads on the forum asking for help, they don't need it. Except sometimes for outside input on group drama.
Because you don't go to a game forum to flesh out your concept and back story? You go to a game forum to find out how to make the most out of the rules framework your concept and back story are draped over.
I'm pretty sure that sums it up. The message boards are not a representative sample of gamers and should not be taken as such.
Also, I'm pretty sure most people really have no idea just how strong that rose tint really is.
Edit: As to the question the title of the thread asks, there's no one right way to play the game and you should do whatever is most fun for your group.
|
The development of a great background story is my favorite part and I love that feeling when you finally finish and can't wait to meet the other characters at "ye olde tavern".
That being said, I do like to use whatever is available to me to increase my survivabilty. Our group has gamed together for a long time and we all have a feel for cheese.
Example I am building a blaster wizard based primarily on brewers guide. I received some advice to mix magical lineage and waying spellhunter.
My initial reaction was yeah that's cool, but the waying spellhunter does not fit with the background I have established, so sadly I must bid it adieu.
As the title states, my question to the rest of the gamer community out there is: To power-game or not to power-game?
I powergame because it is fun. It is enjoyable to build a character who is competent and can have an impact on the world and the story. In my opinion, powergaming is only problematic if the people around the table (and this includes the DM) are powergaming at wildly different levels. One can powergame and roleplay with the same character, so it's not like that's an issue.
Most in this thread are talking about powergaming from the perspective of a player. I think there is something to be found in looking at it from the perspective of a DM. As a DM, I like it when my players optimize their characters. Then, l can optimize my encounters without being forced to fudge dice or kill any PCs. Besides me enjoying building powergamed---that is, challenging---encounters, my experience is that it is more fun for players as well.
Anecdotally, in the campaign I finished running a few weeks ago, I made an encounter with, among other NPCs, a decently optimized fetchling vampire summoner. I even did cheesy things like dump her Con in the point buy because undead. When talking with one of my players afterward, he mentioned that he had rather enjoyed the encounter. The fact that the encounter was long and challenging (his kobold paladin almost died twice) made finally smite-charging the fetchling to death more satisfying.
As a player it is fun to be big damn heroes, but you only feel that way if you are facing challenges worthy of that. And of course your character has to be capable of that. Powergaming on the part of the DM and the players is how to achieve that.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not to powergame. Powergaming entails putting mechanics over roleplay which means a lot of mechanics talk I don't have the patience for. Most people who I consider powergamers do little to no actual roleplaying, even if they say they do. They may cry 'badwrongfun' when someone complains about their playing "style", but I don't really see what's fun about it.
I had a sigline on another board that summed up my approach.
"Build 'em like a powergamer, play 'em like a roleplay".
When I am not at the table I will build the most efficient character I can build, within concept - but my concepts usually involved someone very good, or trying to be the very best at something.
When I am at the table, all of my decisions are done through the character's POV. If I know something as a player that the character would have no idea of, I'll walk into something.
Building min/max ish and playing in character are not mutually exclusive.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Powergaming is built into 3e/PF. 'System Mastery', aka 'we're going to sprinkle in terrible options so players can feel good about not selecting them' was deliberately cooked into the system. A certain degree of powergaming is considered necessary for the play of the game, by the people who created it.
I have trouble imagining how it could be fun to play a character who isn't at least competent.
And, as stated above, one's ability to roleplay and one's ability to optimize have no relation to one another. Being good at one doesn't make you bad at the other, and anybody who says otherwise is full of bullfeces.
As the title states, my question to the rest of the gamer community out there is: To power-game or not to power-game?
Lately all I see on the forums (especially in advice) are things along the lines of:
1) How do I build the best _____ ?
2) What is the best ____ ?
3) Casters are so much better than ____
4) Where is the ____ love?
5) Why do _____ archetypes suck?
6) Why can't I do ____ with ____ ability to make me more powerful?
7) Build me an invincible _____
8) My GM hates us, s/he TPK'd us!
9) And my favorite: Oh noes! ______ is broken!So it really got me thinking:
* Why do so many people play to "win" nowadays?
* Where did the flavor and imagination go to?
* When did people stop building for concept(s)?
* Is ____ really that broken if played RAW?My thoughts are that the generation of gamers has truly changed and want to make these uber heroes that will completely destroy and derail any attempt made by Paizo through AP's or a GM to run an interesting game. It's really turned to more of a video gamey type of thing rather than the danger lurking everywhere and things can truly kill PC's if they aren't careful.
Don't get me wrong, I like to play a powerful hero who is good at what they do too, but I also like to have a chance to fail and roll up a new one every once in a while. I like the different archetypes out there, I like the options to actually create a nice little background and play an completely unique character rather than God-Wizard 23045502...
What are your thoughts?
Firstly I think some people have different perspectives on Powergaming in general. Personally I don't see people wanting to be "the best" at their particular trade as a Powergamer, even if they take extreme steps to reach it. I consider those Maximizers. Powergamers, to me, are people that will forgo entire systems in order to be "the best" period. For example, a Maximizer that wants to be a heal-bot would do everything they could to be "the best" healer, even if it was against their characters concept (i.e they want to be a Cleric but are convinced the Wizard is a superior healer). A Powergamer would make a Druid because they're inherently superior to everything else (not saying they are; just an example), and then try to make the Druid a supreme generalist that can do everything and do it better than anyone.
So when I see things like "How do I build the best _____ ?", I'm not necessarily throwing them into my Powergamer category. More so since asking how to build the best of a certain thing usually implies they want to be the best at their characters focus and not "I want to not need my party members" -- usually.
As for why Powergamers seem to be abundant now (disregarding that way back in ye olden days you didn't have the Internet to so easily allow millions/billions of people with different play styles to be exposed so to speak, that's an argument for another day), I think it comes down to the mentality of the system shifting from role playing to gaming. Not that I'm trying to imply that "back in the day..." it was some kind of purity role playing simulation, but I think as you add more numbers to the system you're going to entice that inner mathematician that wants to see bigger numbers. I also think the times have changed the way people approach PnP -- especially ones like Pathfinder and D&D which heavily favor combat. That coupled with most people in general not wanting to fail due to societal pressures that have ramped up lately. You can't say that no one Powergamed back in the early editions of D&D, but I think it would be fair to say that more people on average do it today than they would have back then (if both periods had the same amount of people playing and "exposed".
I haven't had much of an issue with the Powergaming trend myself, as I only play with a certain group of fellows and they're the hardcore role playing type. Now they are Maximizers (Note: Not min/maxers, just Maximizers), but that's primarily because we carry characters over to as many adventures as possible (we have a supremely slow advancement rate, by choice). The idea is to roleplay the characters as they exist in a virtual world and not so much a "game". Because of that my players grow extremely attached to their characters, spending countless hours refining them (one player has essentially written a small novel for his characters bio) and try to treat them as their "one-and-only" PC for all time. Obviously this does not always work out and people have died, but they make new characters with the same "one-and-only" mentality. Anyways, those are the main reasons my players try to maximize their characters. They don't sacrifice role playability for more power though, everything must work within their characters concept -- they just try to squeeze everything they can from those concepts via any logical means possible. I think most people (that aren't hardcore Powergamers) are probably like that though, with the exception of the people that like gimping themselves for whatever reasons they have (not that I have a problem with it, just making an observation).
That said, I have dealt with a few players in the past that were true Powergamers and I found myself not liking that play style very much. To each his own, but I don't enjoy playing with nor playing as someone that negates the purpose of the other players. I prefer that team work dynamic!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I maintain that munchkins/optimizers/powergamers/min-maxxers (label them how you will, they're all really the same. Using broken or exploited loopholes and level-dipping combinations to "win") have always been around.
However, the combination of the "MMO Generation" and PFS gameplay (not knocking it, but it's a contributing factor) have evolved into a "If you aren't putting out <X> DPS with <X> action economy, you are shunned from the group". Which devolves into a "If you aren't <X> class with <X> abilities, you suck" mentality. Which further devolves into a "Why does <X> class or <X> role suck so bad?" The simple answer is, it doesn't.
PFS contributions to this are obvious. The nature of the limitations here demand you pull your weight at the table, in combat and in social scenarios. That naturally leads to competitive gameplay and forum debates.
Where the MMOOMFGBBQROFLCOPTER crowd comes in is the statisticians. The tank needs to generate <X> amount of threat or the party dies. The DPS needs to contribute <X> amount of damage or he isn't invited to the raid. The healer needs to pump out <X> amount of heals per second or the tank dies and you have TPK. There are even third-party apps to calculate it for you (Omen, Recount, etc...).
These gamers gravitated that mindset to the tabletop, combined it with the pre-existing condition known as munchkin, and it leads to the threads you see here.
|
As a gamer that primarily GMs, I could care less whether folks power game or not. I care more whether they try to play the game in a fashion that is compatible with the enjoyment of the rest of the players and supports and synergizes with the GM. Most of the problems I have experienced with power gamers or (more disruptive even!) heavy roleplayers is they act like they are playing their character in a FPS scenario. What and how you play affects the other people at the table.
I would much rather see players work towards a more powerful and "uber" group gestalt. Playing a seagoing worshipper of Besmara in a Osirian or Ustalav campaign, or playing a CN dhampyr necromancer in a group with a paladin and LG cleric is being annoying. Trying to build the highest DPS character or god wizard who rocks the battlefield in a game where you are the veteran player and you have four inexperienced players is being annoying.
You want to know what promotes new players being focused on power gaming? Learning to play this game in a group with one or two limelight stealers with gamemastery who make the others feel inadequate and useless instead of supporting their learning and working together. Or new players with good aligned characters learning to roleplay their characters in a game with a CN mind controller whose background story requires that no one ever disagree with him.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yep. The Lone Wolf. He'll get you every time. He will sit back as you read the party hook, fold his arms, and become the spoiled, entitled one who demands that you and everyone else justify why HE should lower himself off of his lofty cloud and work as a team. He's the one who creates his character last, wants to know what everyone else is playing, and create something completely out of line with the party. Just because he thinks he can. And then justifies it by "roleplaying in character".
I love DMing for the Lone Wolf. I have a knack for creating story hooks that he can't refuse. After all, if he does, he'd have to admit that he's not playing in character.
But, I digress. Those are not "power-gamers" or "munchkins".
Agreed...perhaps my post was a little derailing. My main point was that "power gaming" isnt really a problem, its the personality and intent behind the power gaming (or roleplaying, to be fair) that is the real issue.
I pretty much agree on this. Power gaming is more than the an itself. I once figured I could probably tell who's a munchkin based on the way they talk alone. Like if they constantly brag about how badass their character is, that's a sign. If they get into long winded arguments with the GM about mechanics or how their character is totally legit, that's another sign. If their attitude consists mainly doing whatever it takes to get the most xp or most treasure, there's another sign. If their character has no real personality beyond them being an extension of the player to gratify their need for violence and treasure, there's another sign. It's in the way they gush about the latest overpowered new stuff. Many of them are bad winners and sore losers. I don't think you even need to actually look at the mechanics in a lot of cases.
It's not just the act itself, it's the player. Many of them claim to be solid roleplayers, whatever that means, so that somehow absolves them or whatever, but once again, those claims usually turn out to be false. Anyway, banning specific things in the game is not going to do much, because this player already has it in his head that he's going to get the biggest numbers and he's going to win.
Yep. The Lone Wolf. He'll get you every time. He will sit back as you read the party hook, fold his arms, and become the spoiled, entitled one who demands that you and everyone else justify why HE should lower himself off of his lofty cloud and work as a team. He's the one who creates his character last, wants to know what everyone else is playing, and create something completely out of line with the party. Just because he thinks he can. And then justifies it by "roleplaying in character".
Ugh I'm in a game with someone who sounds exactly like this right now. Were yours all sorcerers too?
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's not just the act itself, it's the player. Many of them claim to be solid roleplayers, whatever that means, so that somehow absolves them or whatever, but once again, those claims usually turn out to be false. Anyway, banning specific things in the game is not going to do much, because this player already has it in his head that he's going to get the biggest numbers and he's going to win.Dude, a person doesn't need to be "absolved" of being a power gamer. Its neither wrong nor a crime.
Also. Munchkin does not equal power gamer. Optimizer does not equal power gamer. A power gamer is a power gamer.
Also, you seem to admonish that you don't even know what a solid roleplayer is, "Whatever that means", so how can you say whether its true or not?
You seem to be one of those roleplayers who comes onto the forums for the sole purpose of saying how terrible anyone with any measure of system mastery or who attempts to use that system mastery by equating all people who build effective characters to jerks who go out of their way to ruin games.
Please stop coming in here to spread lies. Its disingenuous and annoying.
Seriously, why does some "old school" gamer always have to stop in and tell us about why the new generation is awful? And why is it always video games (MMOs mostly) that make us all awful?
Every time I see a thread like this, it's about how the past was better, how new players can't roleplay (we can only ROLLPLAY!), and it's seriously annoying. It's like the game has somehow magically changed in the past 10-20-30 years!
New players are going to play the way that makes them happy, and that may not be to the archaic standards that the legendary roleplayers of old enjoy, but it's no one's job to keep those traditions alive but them.
Eh I find no joy in powergaming, I do it in video games and do it well
but I get no joy doing it in RP sessions...
This is not to say that nobody should do it -shrugs- rollplayers can be
rollplayers even if they don't care as much as roleplaying and ofcourse
when you build a character all about maximum min max combat efficiency
that will never be roleplay compatible, or atleast not roleplay focused.
BUT as I said that is fine, they aren't in the games I run and get booted
from other games I partake in if they have that desire to be better than
everyone else. (as I choose groups that roleplay)
I find often enough that it is the player dynamic and lack of an organised
/experienced GM showing the other side of the experience to players that
makes issues. And really survivability should never be an issue for a
party unless the GM is really inexperienced and cannot balance content.
Heck even for party members that are vastly outclassed by other members or
useless in a fight, a good GM can work around this.
Then again I am also a flexible GM who uses the ruleset as a guideline
and basis to play the game, if the wizard of the group magically ground
glass into a fine powder to utilise against his enemies then so be it,
depending on how the player decides to use it I will make it debilitating
as necessary.
Roleplay is Roleplay and Rollplay is Rollplay... Each can do as they
wish in my eyes, neither is right or wrong regardless of what I see as
more enjoyable.
I find CoD a very simplistic and dull fps lacking in true challenge
compared to Natural Selection 2, and would contest anyone who said
otherwise HOWEVER I would never tell them that they were wrong for
enjoying it regardless of my own inclination nor would I try and force
what I like onto them.
|
|
Seriously, why does some "old school" gamer always have to stop in and tell us about why the new generation is awful? And why is it always video games (MMOs mostly) that make us all awful?
Every time I see a thread like this, it's about how the past was better, how new players can't roleplay (we can only ROLLPLAY!), and it's seriously annoying. It's like the game has somehow magically changed in the past 10-20-30 years!
New players are going to play the way that makes them happy, and that may not be to the archaic standards that the legendary roleplayers of old enjoy, but it's no one's job to keep those traditions alive but them.
It is because tabletop RPG is old enough now to have players who started in their teens now still playing later in life.
I know for a fact I play the game with a lot more levity, complexity, and thought than I ever did when I was a teenager. In fact, I was one of those munchkin power gamers, just like every other teenager at the time and most of them now. Part of the game is realizing that 14 year olds play the game differently than 22 year olds, play the game differently that 50 year olds.
So sometimes the "old guard" if you will has remembrances of the very best things about gaming from way back when. We still had the same kinds of personalities and players, we just don't remember it that way. Also, we never had forums around to get on and b!&~! about how our GM totally ripped us off by not giving us matching pairs of +5 holy avengers and Hammers of Lightning Bolts. So perhaps we are getting it out of our systems now :)
I would also like to mention that there are many many young roleplayers
out there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wouldn't call myself an old school gamer, certainly not when I've been playing around 15 years and started playing with 2E AD&D (compared to some of you who have played for 30+ years). I also enjoyed playing WoW for a while and other fantasy genre console/PC games.
I'm also not saying power-gaming is bad nor am I calling anyone who does it any kind of names. It's funny that so many people take this as an insult. I merely started the thread to get some feedback from people because I've seen so many things lately on the forum that I'd classify as people trying to power-game, min/max, super optimize, or what have you. Again, not a "bad" thing and not meaning to insult people.
I wonder what the appeal is to creating characters that exploit loopholes, grey areas, and why so many people always want the "best" at the table. I also stated that I do play characters that are very competent at what they do, but I don't feel like I have to go to that next level of optimization to do so. With my characters, balance is what I strive for, balance in character creation and balance in a good story.
Another thing I'd like to add is that I also enjoy the challenge from the other side of the screen as a GM and play higher level games that involve gestalts to see what kind of crazy encounters I can come up with and what PC's can truly accomplish at those levels.
It's really an interesting discussion to be having with the rest of the community and I value everyone's thoughts on the subject matter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A power gamer will utilize every rule to enhance her character's viability and strength.
A munchkin will do the same thing, but will often step 'beyond' the rules and utilize loopholes or intentional misinterpretations of the rules as well.
buzzword, trope and fallacy bingo scoring:
42 pts - power gaming brought up and used as a generalization for multiple terms
56023 pts - video gamey (used negatively)
6 pts - generations of gamers examined and segregated
0.5 pts - background and creativity are mutually exclusive from optimization and system mastery
I'm crossing "Stormwind Fallacy" off of my bingo card. Who has "rollplayers vs. roleplayers"?
High levels of optimization doesn't make somebody bad at RPing. Making sub-optimal characters doesn't make somebody a good role-player. They aren't mutually exclusive.
But even if a player didn't RP at all and treated the game like a combat sim... what's wrong with that? Is that player having fun wrong?
@Thomas & Xaratheus - It's funny you guys say that because about a year ago my group had a guy in it who was really rules savvy. He was like an encyclopedia of knowledge it seemed as if he could tell you the book and approximate page number for just about everything.
We gamed with him for about a year and he'd bring in characters that he'd min/max and optimize quite a bit, but he'd always have a pretty good back-story and do fun character write-ups/journals. When a change in GM's, the new GM felt that the newer characters this other group member would build and bring to the table where stepping into the munchkin land and wanted some more story behind why he'd take something like 2 levels in X class, then 1 level in Y class, then another 2 levels in X class.
He thought that the PC should be 1 level in Y class and then 4 levels in X class as a more realistic way of building the PC out and following the back-story better. There were also some grey areas that weren't well defined in the RAW that the player would do with his characters which the new GM thought was stepping over the line again. They talked about it back and forth quite a bit in emails and finally the player decided to part ways with the group.
Anyhow, I felt as well that some of the little things that the other player did kind of stepped over the line, but not nearly as strongly as the GM. The GM harkens back to the more old school era and had a really hard time wrapping his mind around some of the super optimized stuff that the Player was trying to do. I think the GM has lightened up quite a bit now since the leaving of the other player and he's trying to acclimate to the newer way that people build out PC's.
So long story short, I can see the appeal to trying to keep it simple and the appeal to making a powerful character, but my PC's always strive for that balance.