Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Ashianyl 03-19-06, 12:33 PM	It got to a point where the DM was throwing creatures that were CR4 higher than the party's actual level that we realized things were getting out of hand. Battles were the usual outcome of any encounter as anyone who opposed our goals were in our way and would be brought down, one way or another. The dozens of books that WoTC produced was plundered for feats, spells, powers and magic items that would ensure our survival at all cost. We miss the days of where a dozen orcs were dangerous, the ogre deadly and the intrigue of the nobles and kingdoms mattered. So we have implemented the following fixes while allowing most books to remain open to return to those good old days. * Casters cannot use metamagic items or feats that would put the spell at a slot higher than what the caster can cast. * Persistance is banned. (spell management should matter to the spellcaster) * The chain of Polymorph spells, Shape Change, Metamorphosis and Greater Metamorphosis is banned. (following WoTC's decision) * Anticipatory Strike is banned. (cheap contingency) * Synchronicity is banned. (cheap counter-action) * Spikes is a Druid only spell. (cleric's damage output is too high at low levels when coupled with Divine Power, etc) * BoED and BoVD material must be earned through RP. I believe a game that does not address power gaming can lead to a limit of the roles that we can roleplay. What do you think? :) Edit: The sentence that is causing a lot of friction and misunderstanding has been edited for further clarity so people won't think I'm against power gaming. I'm not, I enjoy being good at doing what I am suppose to do, but not to the extent of forcing the DM to unleash monsters CR4 higher than what we are meant to take on. - original sentence here - I believe a game that does not address and limit power gaming leaves little room for roleplaying. What do you think? :)
Shaggy_Shaggs 03-19-06, 12:59 PM	I believe a game that does not address and limit power gaming leaves little room for roleplaying. What do you think? :) I disagree, I think a game that doesn't address the need to roleplay leaves little room for roleplaying. Powergaming is sometimes part of the roleplaying. (Example, my old martial artist assassin antihero bent on ascending to godhood, in order to have the power to kill the evil god he'd been a servant of, before he was betrayed - he got about halfway ascended, and he and one of his allies put enough fear in the god that the god drastically changed alignments and portfolios, and took the character in as one of his Saints.) I think what's really needed to improve roleplay is to encourage the roleplay, rather than restricting the powergaming. The problem with restricting the powergaming is even while you're doing so, you're still focusing on the powergaming. I don't think these new houserules alone are going to encourage roleplay, though they do seem like they're good steps toward weakening characters that have apparently gotten out of hand.
DBoot 03-19-06, 01:23 PM	I'll agree that those house rules are actually quite well thought out, and do go far into toning down the power creep. However, an observation and a disagreement. The observation is that as you seem to put it, this was a reaction to the DM. Even if the DM is equally barred from these abilities, he can still throw encounters higher than a group can comfortably handle. I grant that it takes two to escalate, but this houserule does not solve the problem on his/her end. The disagreement is on your final premise. Certainly, a game in which some of the more extreme elements in the game are toned down or eliminated is one in which you can have more variety in character types. You don't have to work as hard to make a pure bard viable, you can play weak or just off the wall characters or what not. You might be able to try out concepts that simply wouldn't fly otherwise. However, that doesn't mean that you can't roleplay in a game that takes the rules as is (Not that I'm advocating it. Some changes are just good sense). Even if the game got so bad where you were limited to only 20 viable builds, each one can have infinate variety based on character background, personality, play style and even flavor (Maybe your 'Claws of the Beast' manifest as a greatsword, or perhaps as a pair of knives). It's dedication to roleplaying that allows one to roleplay. And for all the possibilities lost to power creep, new ones become available, as the mechanics can finally support a concept that would otherwise have been impossible.
Ashianyl 03-19-06, 01:27 PM	(Example, my old martial artist assassin antihero bent on ascending to godhood, in order to have the power to kill the evil god he'd been a servant of, before he was betrayed - he got about halfway ascended, and he and one of his allies put enough fear in the god that the god drastically changed alignments and portfolios, and took the character in as one of his Saints.) The reason why I brought this up is because characters who are so powerful that only the elite can take them on forces you to a very narrow path of roleplaying. In all the powergaming sessions I have played in, battles do not last more than 3-6 rounds. It is killed or be killed in those few seconds. Where is the drama when an army of orcs would lay flatten as soon as they appeared in the horizon? :)
WhrenKehrsyn 03-19-06, 01:33 PM	We see alot of powergaming vs roleplaying sentiments on these and others boards. My opinion is the two are not mutually exclusive. D&D is not a diceless game, and if you play it that way youre no longer playing D&D. A character should have a degree of min/maxing to be efficient. Theres no reason that a character with straight 18s for his stats (an extreme example) cant be roleplayed, theres also no reason a 'good and well roleplayed' character has to have no stat above 6. Some people like the tactics and strategy of combat, some people like the chance to be someone else for a while, some people like the storytelling, and some like a combination of all of those things. D&D, by its design caters to any of those tastes without making one 'better' than any of the others, and I think thats good. That being said, Im a firm believer in putting limitations on which and how much source material is allowed. Casters, particularly clerics, druids, and wizards, scale up fast and outpace melee classes by the mid levels. In my opinion this is because of the massive library of spells available to them, which not only can duplicate any ability or feat a melee character can take but also just keeps growing with each new suppliment that comes out. A cleric and druid have access to every divine spell in any product, that mixed with the other things the classes get is way too much. A wizard also has access to any arcane spell in any suppliment, not direct access like the divine casters, but should they so choose to carry around several spellbooks they do. Melees take feats, that have one use and only one use and can never be swapped for other feats. That being the case, my group limits access to certain books to keep the massive and still growing spell library in check. In Forgotten Realms games we are allowed access to only the PHB, PrCs in the DMG, and the FR specific books. We allow some of the stuff in the environmental books and are considering allowing Tome of Magic material. Removing only certain parts of specific sources rather than the source entirely makes things more difficult and confusing I think. I guess what Im saying is I think neither roleplaying nor powergaming should not be limited so long as theyre universal amongst both PCs and NPCs, however limits on material should be placed so that one player cant outpace and render other players useless. This is all my own personal opinion of course. As a side note Im pretty sure you cant apply a metamagic feat to a spell if you dont have the resulting slot available. For instance if a wizard has only level 1 spell slots he cant cast a maximized magic missile.
Shaggy_Shaggs 03-19-06, 01:50 PM	The reason why I brought this up is because characters who are so powerful that only the elite can take them on forces you to a very narrow path of roleplaying. In all the powergaming sessions I have played in, battles do not last more than 3-6 rounds. It is killed or be killed in those few seconds. Where is the drama when an army of orcs would lay flatten as soon as they appeared in the horizon? :) Well this is entirely on the DM. Orcs and other humanoids especially are good ways to counter problems of characters not being challenged -- they can be boosted with character levels too. Maybe 200 ECL 1 orc warriors is funny, but make that 100 ECL 15 orc barbarian/frenzied berserkers, and 100 orc druid 15's, and the PCs probably won't be laughing anymore. Alternately there are possible situations where no matter how badass you are, it doesn't help. Ever try defending 100 square miles of territory being besieged from all directions, as a 4 person party? Had a spell or a sword help significantly negotiating with a greater power you can't defeat and can't ensorcle? I don't think being especially powerful forces characters on a narrow path at all. If the DM's on the ball, there's always a bigger fish in the pond, as well as plenty of situations where fish size is irrelevant.
Ashianyl 03-19-06, 09:37 PM	Well this is entirely on the DM. Orcs and other humanoids especially are good ways to counter problems of characters not being challenged -- they can be boosted with character levels too. Maybe 200 ECL 1 orc warriors is funny, but make that 100 ECL 15 orc barbarian/frenzied berserkers, and 100 orc druid 15's, and the PCs probably won't be laughing anymore. Ah, but if your answer to escalating powergamers is more power on the opposing side, what's to stop a dumb rampage from taking place in all cities and towns the PCs visit, levelling it to smitherines and finally making world economy seem pretty stupid? I do not doubt that there can be challenge for a powergamer, but that the scenarios presented to powergamers makes the common folk and their families irrelevant. Ex: Our party of four were level 11 when the DM decided to throw 3 mature dragons at us complete with two spellcasting riders each. That was a challenge and we almost all died, but when you are level 11 and can take on those odds, chances are you will become obsessed with increasing your power to better survive such encounters. Nevermind that the city we were defending was partially destroyed. We just calmly walked to the mayor and asked for the information we sought as payment for defending them. Did we ask if anyone was hurt and needed help? Yeah, and the answer was, "They have their own clerics. Our concerns are more pressing." Poof. One teleport later, we were out of there and hunting down the next piece of the puzzle we were trying to solve. Just like that. As a side note Im pretty sure you cant apply a metamagic feat to a spell if you dont have the resulting slot available. For instance if a wizard has only level 1 spell slots he cant cast a maximized magic missile. the Incantatrix (PGtF) can do it. As could Clerics with Divine Metamagic. As could Sudden Metamagic feats (limited, but your level 1 could have a maximized magic missile if he wanted to). As could any caster using Metamagic Rods. As could an Artificer. As could... well... ;) Edit: Just want everyone to know that we are expressing personal opinions here. No one is right or wrong because what may be right for you may not be so for others. I suppose I posted my house rules to see reactions from the board and see how others deal with powergamers too. If you have no problems, all the power to you! :D
Joren 03-20-06, 11:51 AM	Just because a character is powerful, does not mean there is no chance for roleplay and proper character development :) and yes, characters are bound to go beyond fighting normal Orcs and goblins eventually as everyone increases in power. There's always tougher opponents though, and other ways to challenge your players. I agree though, that there are plenty of abilities and items that are worth removing from the game to make things managable and fair. One of my players built a new character to join up with a game including an amulet from the book of exalted deeds that reflected half the melee damage taken back at the attacker, with odds going to attacker. It basically unbalanced the game to the point that I was having to create encounters based around that item alone, since melee based monsters and NPCs were effectively killing themselves every time they attacked her, as well as the fact she had an effective half DR against every hit against her. Then the metagame of 'do monsters know she has it?' So I removed the item and allowed her to get some other pieces of equipment to the same value in game. To the point of having players rampage through villages and towns due to their power levels. There's always a bigger fish :) As powerful as they may be, there are individuals more than willing to take them on, and more than capable too. That old man in the throne telling you the laws and ordnances of his land is a level 30 monk that has had to deal with unruly adventurers such as you before. The bartender in the tavern you're burning down might just be a Silver Dragon. A group of celestial knights might just come down and force you to go to trial for your crimes. and then, there's always the possibility of another adventuring party bringing you to justice. You shouldn't railroad of course or throw deus ex machina into games (not every bartender is going to be a dragon in disguise) but should show the party that there are repercussions for their actions.
Deadlion 03-20-06, 02:26 PM	Ex: Our party of four were level 11 when the DM decided to throw 3 mature dragons at us complete with two spellcasting riders each. That was a challenge and we almost all died, but when you are level 11 and can take on those odds, chances are you will become obsessed with increasing your power to better survive such encounters. Nevermind that the city we were defending was partially destroyed. We just calmly walked to the mayor and asked for the information we sought as payment for defending them. Did we ask if anyone was hurt and needed help? Yeah, and the answer was, "They have their own clerics. Our concerns are more pressing." Poof. One teleport later, we were out of there and hunting down the next piece of the puzzle we were trying to solve. Just like that. I think this problem may be down to the way your world is set up. Sure, three mature dragons and six mages is enough to level a large part of a city. Yes, regular attacks by such forces would result in a collapse of law and order and the structure of society would crumble around the party's ears. But who says they're common? Maybe those three dragons were the first of their race seen for almost a millennia (they were thought wiped out after the great war between dragonkind and the Orc Gods), and those mages were members of a usually isolationist society of necromancers from the far north, who recently have come out into the wide world, wreaking havoc as they pass, for reasons unbeknownst to all but the shadowy illuminati. Not everyone in the world faces the challenges the PCs do. The very fact that they do, and that they come out on top, is what makes them heroes! Also, on the subject of being heroic, I don't think it was terribly chivalric, your party's treatment of the citizenship in your example :P
Ashianyl 03-21-06, 12:23 AM	The problem I see with powergaming is that it kind of forces a chain reaction. Player A is powerful, forcing DM to throw a monster that can take on Player A. Problem is, the monster makes Players B, C and D unable to contribute much in battle, thereby forcing Players B, C and D to retool their characters slightly to compensate. Players A through D are now twinked and can take on normal challenges without effort, thereby forcing DM to throw nastier stuff that makes it unsuitable for the campaign, forcing DM to move palyers to outer realms where the challenges are deadlier. Well, at least that's what it feels like for me. I don't mind travelling to the outer planes etc, but... I rather it be from a well paced out storyline rather than it being a chain reaction that was forced by power gaming. My character's search for a child, a family and all those other sentimental bits were bulldozed aside because we attracted the attention of powerful beings with our power and well, like I said, chain reaction. :)
Bluewings 03-21-06, 06:02 AM	I miss the atrociously low-powered game of the 2e ed i used to play. but playing a feral half Half-ogre/Half-Dragon(red) is indeed satisfiying when the DM is the kind to throw in a Family of Dragon in your way and thats only the random encounters...imagine what the planned one are, or even worse the BBEG he put us against. Its also satisfying to get an half-elf ranger to bring back the goblin-kidnapped baby of the mayor of 45population hamlet Its all a question of how you feel on the spot (yes we ahve several cmapaign running depending on our mood)
Nobody_ 03-21-06, 10:30 AM	I will try to say something slightly different from what everybody else has said so far. I played a genstalt character once in a world where other gestalt characters were uncommon. Best Campaign EVER. Why? Because I was playing a rat-man with extreme paranoia, Obsessive compulsive disorder, Cleptomania, and a clinically obsessed need to find things out. We got Complete Arcana halfway through, and based on roleplaying alone I qualified for over half a dozen flaws and traits, and several of those traits had to be doubled up upon just to be realistic. I never even benefited from most of them. I had a cleric once who literally beat the game by level 3 because My diplomacy score was at a natural 30 and I had an Item that could boost it to 50 once per day. Now that was an extreme example, but at level 2 with two level 1 companions, I clearly remember walking into woods filled with Dire animals. I had honestly thought that the Campaign would end right there, there was no reasonable way I could have survived (the dire bear and the Dire Tiger both ten feet away roled terrible listen checks as I here it) but it isn't about what I would do, but what my character would do (and of course, building an interesting character to begin with). In other words, and putting this as bluntly as I can, If you guys aren't roleplaying, it is because you guys are crappy roleplayers, not because you are good powergamers. You need to step back and realize what your characters would be doing, and if there are people who are dying in the streets, then it is YOUR fault for not helping them, not the fault of the RAW or your DM. No amount of restricting player abilities is going to make you guys play well unless you actually want to play well. So do it. -Nobody
Ashianyl 03-21-06, 12:22 PM	In other words, and putting this as bluntly as I can, If you guys aren't roleplaying, it is because you guys are crappy roleplayers, not because you are good powergamers. You need to step back and realize what your characters would be doing, and if there are people who are dying in the streets, then it is YOUR fault for not helping them, not the fault of the RAW or your DM. No amount of restricting player abilities is going to make you guys play well unless you actually want to play well. So do it. -Nobody Just realize that there are plenty types of other gaming groups out there too with a mix of power gamers and those who enjoy the game without wanting to force themselves down a specific 'optimizers' class route. If your group falls under that category, a few house rules here and there does help everyone reach a middle ground. :) edit: grammar :P
WhrenKehrsyn 03-21-06, 12:56 PM	People have different playing styles, which require different things from the DM. Some people like to roleplay, in which case the DM needs to create situations in which they can RP. Some people like the tactics and strategy of combat, in which case the DM has to create interesting and challenging combat encounters. Both of these things can take alot of work for the DM, who has to be able to do both for groups with both types of players. It sounded like Ashianyls campaign is moving away from the latter, or a comfortable middle ground, and more towards the later. That wouldnt be an issue if the entire group fell into one category or the other, but it sounds like that is not the case. Most of the posts on this thread have agreed that powergaming by no means equals no roleplaying. But if the DM is spending so much time creating combat encounters that the players are not able to roleplay to the extent they would like to, it is in fact the DMs fault. In such a case restricting material places a power limit on characters and allows the DM to spend less time worrying about if the combat will be challenging enough and be able to concentrate on other things. In other words, and putting it as bluntly as I can, this: In other words, and putting this as bluntly as I can, If you guys aren't roleplaying, it is because you guys are crappy roleplayers, not because you are good powergamers. You need to step back and realize what your characters would be doing, and if there are people who are dying in the streets, then it is YOUR fault for not helping them, not the fault of the RAW or your DM. was an uncalled for and unprovoked attack on a player whos table youve never sat at and have no idea of the roleplay capabilities of (a brief glance at the thread in her sig will show that she is in fact a capable roleplayer).
TWG_Prometheus 03-22-06, 01:40 AM	Perhaps they are a capable roleplayer, but they haven't been showing it in this thread. The very argument started out as 'we're having problems roleplaying, so here are some houserules to keep character power level down' which suggests a misunderstanding of the relation of those facets of the game. Maybe that's not the way in which they meant it, but that's how it came across, and they've spent their time in the thread defending that viewpoint. More importantly, the example of the behavior of the PCs in just going straight to get their information reward after the city-ruining battle with the dragons didn't show an intense drive to roleplay, and the actions of the DM in blowing off their offer to help wasn't sterling in that regard either. Maybe it was late. Maybe someone in the group was impatient, or the pizza just got there. We don't know any of that. Given the information provided and the example given, however, I came to the same general conclusions as Nobody_ did. The fact that the original poster blamed any lack of roleplaying in that instance on the power level of the game is what triggered, in my mind, Nobody_'s argument...that roleplaying is accomplished by roleplaying, not by placing houserule limitations. What I think the original poster *IS* going for with the houserule limitations, however, is to tone down the power level of the game. In their mind, this would help them relate better to the commoners surrounding them (or something like that) and would achieve the *type* of roleplaying they are looking for. That's different from saying that the powerlevel of the game and the need of the DM to challenge their PCs is keeping them from roleplaying.
Need_A_Life 03-22-06, 03:05 AM	Well, my DM found a solution last game. We're a power group, I can't deny that but he actually got all but me to flee all they could (at least attempt). Two Disenchanters (can drain abilities from the weapons targeting them) And he has admitted to wanting to pit us against Spellgaunts (arachnid creatures who get an ability much like Mordekainens Disjunction AT WILL, as a bite attack no less) All but my vow of poverty monk ran away screaming. I just bombarded it from the sky! Actually, the Frenzied Berserker did charge it, against the players will, but frenzy sucks... Regards, Need_A_Life
Ashianyl 03-22-06, 07:46 AM	I would like to thank WhrenKehrsyn for coming out to defend me, but it seems to have solicited more hostile reactions from people. Maybe that's not the way in which they meant it, but that's how it came across, and they've spent their time in the thread defending that viewpoint. Just to remind everyone that I did post this in one of the earlier posts. Please do not disregard it when you post. Edit: Just want everyone to know that we are expressing personal opinions here. No one is right or wrong because what may be right for you may not be so for others. I suppose I posted my house rules to see reactions from the board and see how others deal with powergamers too. If you have no problems, all the power to you! Also, my original post was not too clear, but did you actually see me say that we weren't roleplaying? I should have been more specific by saying... "Our roleplaying is being dictated by the powergaming that is occuring" rather than "I believe a game that does not address and limit power gaming leaves little room for roleplaying." Please, lets continue this in a more civil manner. Opinions from others matter to me too because I would like to understand other people's views on the matter (hence the post here). I am not attacking powergaming as a whole, merely that it is not suitable for my group. Your opinions and groups may vary. Talk about your personal experiences and leave it as that. Telling people you hardly know that they are 'crappy roleplayers' is certainly not the way to go. ;) P.S. More importantly, the example of the behavior of the PCs in just going straight to get their information reward after the city-ruining battle with the dragons didn't show an intense drive to roleplay, and the actions of the DM in blowing off their offer to help wasn't sterling in that regard either. When you are that powerful, don't tell me you are going to bother with the lives of 'lesser' beings. As an analogy, I am the chief executive officer of a company. I have more important things to take care of than to deal with the office boy's personal problems. In the same way that I do not mean the office boy any harm, his significance in what I am doing is miniscule at best. We were roleplaying that. :)
Pan_Ai_Khan 03-22-06, 08:51 AM	Being powerful (or, at least, more powerful than those around you) is a difficult life to lead. Any fan of 'Buffy' will know the kind of thing I am talking about. Characters can however be powerful AND show humility - a lot of 'hero'-types portrayed in Oriental films, games, etc. are unassuming ordinary-looking types who can (using 'Jade Empire' as an example) sink a galleon just by punching it. Being powerful should not mean that you are above caring about those around you (e.g. the general population).
Nobody_ 03-22-06, 04:29 PM	I would like to point out that I did not say that you were crappy roleplayers. I said that if you weren't roleplaying, that you were crappy roleplayers. I don't know if you are or are not roleplaying, but I still stand by that statement. I am almost positive however that YOU could be doing more to roleplay. I say this because only in an endless dungeon crawl are you unable to roleplay. I apologize if I have offended you, but I stand by what I said. It is YOUR responsibility to roleplay, and THEN your DM's responsibility to handle the NPC's in a realistic manner. Not the other way around. If you guys are so caught up in powergaming that you forget about everything else, it is YOUR fault. Your characters, and their behavior, and everything else about them is not dictated by anything besides you. I am not attacking powergaming as a whole, merely that it is not suitable for my group. Your opinions and groups may vary. Talk about your personal experiences and leave it as that. this is a very different post from: I believe a game that does not address and limit power gaming leaves little room for roleplaying. Now I am all for limiting power in a game. I ask my DM to do so all the time in the name of balance, but it has no bearing on Roleplaying. What you discribed was two different issues in my mind 1: you are overpowered characters, and you are not being adequately challenged 2: you (and i mean YOU) are letting that distract from characte development and roleplaying. You have effectively evaded the responsibility that you have for running your own characters. If your DM is doing a bad job running NPC's he doesn't get to claim that it is the fault of D&D for his not being able to run them. If (IF) you are doing a bad job running your characters, you don't get to claim that it is D&D's fault or your DM's fault for not forcing you to run your characters better. Now maybe your group is the exception to the rule, but I doubt it. I will leave it at that and not post again, take this as a flame if you want, but I stand by it.
Ashianyl 03-22-06, 08:01 PM	If you guys are so caught up in powergaming that you forget about everything else, it is YOUR fault. Your characters, and their behavior, and everything else about them is not dictated by anything besides you. More than anything else, RPG is a group game, best played among friends. Saying that someone is at fault means you expect them to change to conform to what you believe is right. I can't subscribe to that because friendship is about compromise (and making little houserules that helps bridge the gap between different players). But if it works for you... sure! :) 2: you (and i mean YOU) are letting that distract from characte development and roleplaying. True. Not everyone is capable of handling high level powergaming and roleplaying together. As working adults who meet only once a week (bi-weekly sometimes), our DM has only so much time to prepare one part of the adventure for us. Hence, as friends, we came up with a compromise. Again, I will say that your experiences and views may not be applicable to others, just like what I say may not applicable to you. Agree or disagree is all part of a healthy discussion, but calling people crappy roleplayers is still not the way to go, even if you have a clause attached to who is a crappy roleplayer. :)
20goingon1232 03-22-06, 09:16 PM	I have only one policy/rule on the subject at my table: Play any character you want within the campaign setting. For example, I generally don't allow Oriental or Arabic classes (monk or dervish respectively) in a Western European game. Similarly, the setting could be magic heavy or magic deprived, and in one, wizards do not exist ("wizards" are sorcerors). However, once YOU choose the character, you no longer have the right to whine. The reason why I instituted this rule is that I once met this player, whom we shall call "C". C created a Thief (not a Rogue, a THIEF) multiclassing into a Fighter at later levels. Now, he was informed that this campaign will go into Epic levels. He was also informed that the first dozen or so levels will occur very quickly because the focus is on those near-Epic/Epic levels. 6 levels later, when the party finally got their first major loot, he hogged 60% of the items. When people started yelling about fairness, his reply was "You are playing casters! You already have so many options. I am a Thi/Ftr. I don't! This will give me more options. It is boring otherwise. I'll just kill my character and make a new caster." Not surprisingly, the PC that got 30% of the items supported him. Surprisingly, the DM let it slide. I walked from that game and instituted the above rule in the future campaigns I ran. I am extremely unsympathetic to players that deliberately gimp their characters and then come crying to me about the uselessness of their characters. It is your choice. Deal with it. Take responsibility for your choices, for Gods' sakes. Those that persist with their whining gets killed messily at first opportunity. Those that still persist get to reroll their characters at level 1. Few things annoy me more than people that refuse to take responsibility for their actions and instead try to push it one everyone else but themselves. This includes those RPers that deliberately gimp themselves and then cry about "munchkins" and "powergamers". I do not believe in cutting down the tall poppy, nor do I believe in dragging everyone down to the lowest common denominator. YOU screw up, YOU pay for it. There is nothing wrong with playing in a high power game. There are a LOT of things you cannot solve with a Fireball. Try solving a royal ball with a Fireball. And so what if I, as DM, have to bring out more powerful creatures to challenge you? Higher power means I have greater flexibility to do so. At level 1, you can barely beat an orc. At level 15, I can send a few giants after you, or a few dozen bugbears, or one dragon, or a horde of kobolds, or... The fact that you keep thinking of "Me kill!" is an indication of the type of roleplayer you are (not a good one, BTW). It is also an indication of the quality of your DM. As a player, I tend to play the MT type character, which many CO guys consider low powered until high levels. I am fine with that. It just means I have to RP more to avoid fights, use my spells in interesting more interesting ways than just "I Fireball it", etc. To me, DnD is more than RP. It is also about mental exercises in lateral thinking. When your 8th level caster still use Grease on a regular basis in a vast variety of situations to the stunned looks of the DM and your fellow players, you know you have done a good job of it.
JohntheDM 03-23-06, 04:36 PM	I believe what the point of the original poster was was that powergaming tends to restrict the variety of character concepts that are actually viable. Powergaming tends to encourage characters who have no weakenesses or focus on straight power, whereas most interesting characters possess some kind of weakness. Real people, or even people in fantasy role-playing books and games have real weakenesses that often relate to what we consider "mechanical". If a character uses a sling as a ranged weapon because it reminds him of his humble beginnings or of his old friend and mentor, then don't penalize him unduly by having every fighter type opponent being say a crazy frenzied beserker build. I mean no offense, but often people who focus on the mechanical aspects of D&D tend to simply consider roleplaying as justification for the ability to deal a little bit more damage or have a higher AC.
Mist of Shadows 03-23-06, 07:55 PM	Originally Posted by Ashianyl I believe a game that does not address and limit power gaming leaves little room for roleplaying. What do you think? I actually believe it's the otherway around. People that go out on dangerous missions take every advantage they can get. For example take a party of adventurers, cleric, wizard, meat shield, and a rogue. Are you even going to want the stupid cleric in the party if he can't heal? (answer on game mechanics alone no.) Roleplaying answer maybe. But just because you are a maxed out healing god doesn't mean you are a jerk or a cardboard cut out. There is no realation between maxing out a character and how well they can play a role in a group. On the other hand I've gotten the group to toss people that suck before. They were both A rude B useless C or more useless then they helped and we didn't like them. So having a character that is seriously good at what he does is a good thing. It allows other people in the party to play something less optimized. You could play a bard or something and pick up the slack for the bard in the dungeon runs you do. Where as the bard picks up your slack for being a annoying priest that the rest of the party doesn't let out into the public. Being good at your job is great, it makes people want to keep people around. I would rather have a person in the game that had a character that could do something then a guy that was sitting on his high horse trying to rp everything without making roles and such. It's in most cases known as grandstanding. It gets annoying. Combat is a fact of dnd get over it, the problem isn't in the fact that the party was good at combat, it was the fact that the dm wasn't tossing things in that encuraged rp. Nothing encurages rp like having to get a magical item from a great wrym dragon, when you have no hope in hades of beating it. You find yourself on the other end of the stick at points. Nothing is wrong with resorting to violence at points it just has draw backs the dm should have inforced. The fault was in the players for not taking the time to rp or the dm for moving things along to fast so that they couldn't rp. So in short your character sheet has little to do with how much you rp. It has a lot to do with how you rp though. High charisma characters should try their best to get along and everything. Low ones can and should be withdrawn or insulting. But the only excuse for not rping more is yourself basically.
Ashianyl 03-23-06, 11:30 PM	Combat is a fact of dnd get over it, the problem isn't in the fact that the party was good at combat, it was the fact that the dm wasn't tossing things in that encuraged rp. Nothing encurages rp like having to get a magical item from a great wrym dragon, when you have no hope in hades of beating it. Statistics represent the mechanical part of the game, which helps and determines how good you are in certain actions that you want to take. But choices, ethical and moral, desires and wishes, these are not reflected on your character sheet. Even the alignment system is a rough representation of your character's view of life. You presented a treasure objective with the obstacle being a red dragon that encourages RP. Allow me to present a non-treasure objective instead. ;) My character wants a child to call her own. Milei is Elan and she is the first in the world. She cannot reproduce so she finds a child in her psicrystal which she has infused with life through the Ancestral Relic feat + a psi-skin with the metamorphic power to enable the crystal to assume a more humanoid form. Milei has a charisma of 6, is withdrawn and quiet, but very friendly to people who takes the patience to teach her the ways of the world. Her party members have been kind to her and she follows them, but they are kind only to her. To others, the rest of the party can be arrogant or haughty because that's their way of getting matters resolved quickly and efficiently (Milei understands efficiency, so she does not question the methods despite her Neutral Good alignment). When the local church (good church she was studying under to learn more about faith and religion) decides that her child is an abomination (after witnessing the crystal lose its form in an AMF) that should be destroyed, she does not take it lightly and kills the few church members who tried with the help of her party members. It villified her and made her hated (along with her friends), but was she being evil in protecting her child? She now believes her friends are the ideal representation of 'good' even if they are not, whereas the church is now 'misguided'. To me, the sheet is just a rough guide on who the character is and what kind of punch she packs in the heat of battle. Low charisma = withdrawn, but not with people she is friendly with. Neutral Good means she won't hurt anyone without justification, which the church members gave her. :) Edit: Didn't state why this is relevant to the thread (got interrupted halfway posting). Some posters are relating a character's RP to the character sheet. I just wanted to show that the sheet is just a rough guide for RP. Also would like to clarify that power gaming and optimzing characters are two different issues for me. An optimized character allows your character to be good at what you do best, but a power gaming character is one that has little weaknesses and takes a lot of effort to take down, as JohntheDM pointed out.