Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Sareld 03-13-07, 04:52 AM	Hi all. I have played d&d for a couple of years now, and over the last year and a half I have found the playstyle that suits me the best; I powergame. Now, I have realized that many players in my gaming group (and even more on these boards) views powergamers as an annoyance, and believes that we are incapable of "true" roleplaying, whatever that might be. I am annoyed to sat the least, is it really a crime to build up strong characters? If Im having fun doing it, why is it wrong? My gaming group likes me as a person, and we have great fun when we are not playing d&d, but at the table they all frown at me for building characters that is better than theirs, and I have to listen to angry remarks every time I utter even the smallest remark about the other players builds, or my thoughts on the DMs last near-TPK encounter. My group is the kind of people who play horribly useless characters, and think that it adds to the spirit of the game. For instance, one of them played a necromancer not too long ago, and he blew his feats on weapon proficiency: schyte, weapon focus: schyte and mounted combat, and then proceeded to take as many cross class ranks in ride (skeleton horse) as he could get away with, and never memorized anything but necromancy spells. Though I knew that this character was going to be virtually useless in combat, I liked the concept of a character mimicing the grim reaper, and I suggested that he made a gish with one or two levels in fighter and considered the focused specialist alternate class feature from complete mage, in stead of trying to pull it off with only wizard levels.. big mistake. I was told to shut up and stay out of his face with my 'powergaming', because he was trying to have 'real fun' by making a 'character that actually had character'.. what did I do wrong? For the record, the guys character died two encounters after that, while trying to cut down a hill giant in close combat. How was that any fun? Recently, my DM even started to forbid prestige classes and feats just as I was trying to take them, just to destroy my builds, and 'teach me how to roleplay properly'. What the hell is that? Imagine playing a rogue/mage, and then suddely have all PrCs that combine sneaking and magic made unavaliable to you, 'because they get in the way of the fun'? I cant have fun under those conditions, so I simply have my character leave play every time he does it, and rolls up a core only druid.. the only proper build that doesent require the DMs permission for anything to be effective. I have also tried to write down the planned level progression of a character and show it to my DM before the game, in an attempt to avoid to have my build demolished while the game was running, but the result was even worse. He became so angry with me because I planned my character in advance, that he instantly picked a class on the progression plan and said "I forbid you to pick this class, or anything that looks like it". I am the only player in the group who actually DOES real roleplaying, but because my characters is more powerful than the rest of the lot, it is just not good enough? I actually roleplay my bluff checks instead of just rolling to see if I can fool people, make sure that my character acts according to his/her alignment and personality, and my characters actually does things other than getting drunk in the tavern and hunting bad guys. I even write several pages of background stories to my characters and develop interesting personalities for them, but no one cares. I have a powerful character, so none of it is worth anything. Im not even a good powergamer by the CO boards standards, and I even restrict myself from the really cheesy stuff like casting 9th level spells at 6th level or using infinite loops. I also dont just pwn everything I come across, before the rest of the party have had a chance to fight it and loose, so then what is their problem? Why does people hate powergamers?
Black Kitten 03-13-07, 07:01 AM	To me character class and skill is a result of how the character is. So if you're someone who likes to get up close and whack away at someone, you put your progression in strength, your feats into combat feats and take melee class levels. So, in my opinion, the wizard would have 'naturally' started to gain fighter levels. Now perhaps to the player that sounds silly, but it is something that comes naturally with the progression of the character. Your DM shouldn't at all penalise you for choosing optimum classes, as it is not logical for someone to train without planning, to have absolutely useless combinations of classes, unless it leads to some advantage. Just like your wizard would be completely wrong only to choose necromancy spells. If he's really that clueless he wouldn't have advanced much beyond level 3. Perhaps what you should do is make a fighter. Just tell your DM that you live according to a 'I don't fight fair' code and your fighting style is worked around gaining an edge over your opponent. Invest in tripping, disarming, sundering, etc. Put some extra points in Intelligence to justify your character coming up with smart plans and use the edge you gain on skill-points to gain Move Silently and Hide. I don't think your DM will have an answer to smart tactics and likely consider your build broken before you can say "I roll a d20". Tip: Use a Bastard Sword. A viable weapon both 1handed as 2handed, can be used with a shield or with one hand free (trip).
Yokomohoyo 03-13-07, 07:04 AM	Um sorry but it dosent sound to me that your a power gammer... Sounds to me that you actualy give thought to your character. You plan him out and build him to your likeing. You develoupe his background and act as he would in a given situation. The only "flaw" you have is to actually pick skills and feats that can help your character survive? WOW I guess every player that makes a smart character is then a power gammer
runestar 03-13-07, 07:04 AM	There is a fine line between "efficient character creation" and "blatant munchkinism". You would belong to the former. So don't sweat it...:)
Mordor11 03-13-07, 07:22 AM	Um sorry but it dosent sound to me that your a power gammer... Sounds to me that you actualy give thought to your character. You plan him out and build him to your likeing. You develoupe his background and act as he would in a given situation. The only "flaw" you have is to actually pick skills and feats that can help your character survive? WOW I guess every player that makes a smart character is then a power gammer I totally agree. Listen man, sounds to me like an experienced player in a group not suited to his style. It doesn't look like you are having fun with your current group, so why not let them play by themselves and find another group? Sometimes it is the best solution. I would want a player like you in my group anyday. What's wrong with thinking ahead? Who doesn't actually plan future prestige classes, feats, etc? If not you end up at level 10 forgetting prerequisites, etc. So just pack up your bags and leave!
kelvinaw273 03-13-07, 07:24 AM	Well clearly there is a discrepency between your playing style and that of the rest of your group. Some people enjoy number-crunching the strongest build they can out of character sheet, to others the mechanics are a necessary evil on the way to role-playing heaven. Now myself, I can build an uber-character, but I don't find that fun. I have to have a character concept first, then build around that. That does not make me right and you wrong, but we probably wouldn't get on in a playing group. Now as you and your group are at opposite ends of the spectrum, I suggest that you try doing things their way. I don't mean nerf your builds, I mean come up with your concept for a character first, and then build to the concept rather than wrap the concept around the build. If it does not work, well then at least you have tried. Talk to your DM and fellow players and find out what annoys them so much, or else ... well ... find another group that plays your way. At the end of the day if their style clashes that strongly with your own, the only options are change your style or change your group.
Archangel62 03-13-07, 07:28 AM	You aren't really a power gamer, you're an intelligent designer. You look at what you want the character to be able to do conceptually and then see what you can do with the mechanics to back it up. Your DM and fellow players sound like they equate roleplay with weak characters, they are the dark side of RP and you must be strong, focus on numbers if you must to avoid their corruptive and evil influences. Or, depending on your location, possibly join a new group, I am looking for some new players and you might fit the bill nicely.
Sareld 03-13-07, 07:37 AM	Intelligent Design? Im more of an evolution fan myself ;) Yeah, I guess that joining another group would be the best solution in the long run. If anyone in the area around Copenhagen, Denmark is searching for a new player, please drop me a PM. Other than that, I like the idea of making an unoptimized fighter.. When I make them cry cheese at him, I will reveal my build to all of them and show them how wrong they are.. with any luck they will understand that none of my other characters are broken either.
Black Kitten 03-13-07, 08:30 AM	Other than that, I like the idea of making an unoptimized fighter.. When I make them cry cheese at him, I will reveal my build to all of them and show them how wrong they are.. with any luck they will understand that none of my other characters are broken either. The idea is that tactics >>>> build. To prove it, our group once played exclusively with non-elite stat-array level 1 commoners with their skillpoints geared towards the profession they aspired. Those thugs didn't know what hit them! Especially the use of robes and kitchen knifes to muffle and kill the guards was hilarious. "I treat him like I'm slaughtering a resisting pig with my knife," *rolls and confirms* Damn cooks...
runestar 03-13-07, 08:33 AM	To prove it, our group once played exclusively with non-elite stat-array level 1 commoners with their skillpoints geared towards the profession they aspired. Those thugs didn't know what hit them! Especially the use of robes and kitchen knifes to muffle and kill the guards was hilarious. Were you actually able to replicate all these with your in-game stats, or was there a lot of house-ruling involved? What were the guards doing?:confused:
Black Kitten 03-13-07, 08:40 AM	Were you actually able to replicate all these with your in-game stats, or was there a lot of house-ruling involved? What were the guards doing?:confused: Of course, a level 1 campaign will involve more common sense than rules. That was exactly the idea, so we wouldn't rely on our stats to do the work for us. In this particular case, I believe we used one of the female characters to be 'caught' wearing only her undies while the rest of the group was waiting with her robes. Even though the guard was more powerful and caught on to the trap soon, the way in which we assisted eachother to subdue and kill him worked well, as our DM ruled he also gained a -4 on his grapple checks due to the robe we tossed over his head (ruled as a touch attack). Due to the heavy fabric it was made of, the DM also ruled the other guards gained a -6 penalty on their listen checks towards the noise. None of them made it. I never said we didn't rely more on luck.
Zumarai 03-13-07, 10:55 AM	I'm the opposite sort of DM as to what the OP described. When I started up my Planescape campaign, one of the players (never played before) read through the PHB and decided he wanted to play a Half-Orc Ranger. So I suggested he take Exotic Weapon Proficiency (bastard sword), Oversized Two-Weapon Fighting, Dual Strike, Two-Weapon Pounce, Two-Weapon Rend, Double Hit and two levels of Barbarian for fast movement, rage and uncanny dodge. I know it's not some amazing build or anything, but it really let him realize his vision for his character, which I feel is very important for a player. As others have said, min-maxing/power gaming and role-playing are not mutually exclusive.
kelvinaw273 03-13-07, 11:03 AM	As others have said, min-maxing/power gaming and role-playing are not mutually exclusive. They aren't, but there is usually some sort of trade-off between them. A good player can adapt to any of these styles of play if they choose to, but it takes an outstanding player to manage all at once to a high degree.
_Jayne_Cobb_ 03-13-07, 11:11 AM	My group is the kind of people who play horribly useless characters, and think that it adds to the spirit of the game. So you hate it when people castiagte you for your character choices and play style yet have no problem whatsoever with doing the same to them. This is more than a little hypocritical IMO. To paraphrase you: "If they're having fun doing it, why is it wrong?"
Zumarai 03-13-07, 11:13 AM	A good player can adapt to any of these styles of play if they choose to, but it takes an outstanding player to manage all at once to a high degree. Of course a player may lean slightly, or very much so, towards one side or the other. I'm just saying I've met people who are great builders/min-maxers etc and awesome role-players, and I've met people who can't build anything worth a crap mechanically and also can't role-play their way out of a wet paper bag.
Ventilatory_Threshold 03-13-07, 11:52 AM	So you hate it when people castiagte you for your character choices and play style yet have no problem whatsoever with doing the same to them. This is more than a little hypocritical IMO. Why should he have to adapt to their playing style? They want to play their characters their own way, the least they can do is butt out. His having a more powerful character than they do is not his fault at all. I say the DM is being a jackass. So are the other players. Really, this is the definition of idiocy, ignorance and mob mentality.
Ack 03-13-07, 12:36 PM	I have a suggestion. For your next build, approach your GM at different times and show him what you want to take, but out of order and out of context (that is, not showing him how the aspects link together) and get his permission to use each part, in turn. Then, just before game start, present the entire build. When he bans one part or another, tell him that he already OK'd it, and ask if he's in the habit of going back on his word. That, or you could go for the burn, and see how many builds you can get him to ban (including the ones that all the other players use) so the group will be in the unusual position of being banned from using any class in the PHB - because one member of it actually knows how to build a character. :D
kelvinaw273 03-13-07, 01:10 PM	I have a suggestion. For your next build, approach your GM at different times and show him what you want to take, but out of order and out of context (that is, not showing him how the aspects link together) and get his permission to use each part, in turn. Then, just before game start, present the entire build. When he bans one part or another, tell him that he already OK'd it, and ask if he's in the habit of going back on his word. That, or you could go for the burn, and see how many builds you can get him to ban (including the ones that all the other players use) so the group will be in the unusual position of being banned from using any class in the PHB - because one member of it actually knows how to build a character. :D That's a great way of annoying all his friends ... great idea! After that character debuts, it is likely they will never trust him to create a character again. Not good advice, these are his FRIENDS we are talking about. Why should he have to adapt to their playing style? They want to play their characters their own way, the least they can do is butt out. His having a more powerful character than they do is not his fault at all. I say the DM is being a jackass. So are the other players. Really, this is the definition of idiocy, ignorance and mob mentality. Because they are in the majority and he wants to play with them, that's why. Unfortunately, at the end of the day, that is the play style the majority of the group prefer, and when your style is radically different you have to change to go with the flow or else not play with that group. It would be like making a CE assassin to go with a party of Exalted ... it just does not work. If he can convince them to try optimising a bit more, great, but if he can't, he has to either tone it down or else find another group.
Ack 03-13-07, 01:28 PM	That's a great way of annoying all his friends ... great idea! After that character debuts, it is likely they will never trust him to create a character again. Not good advice, these are his FRIENDS we are talking about. All the same, they need to see that double standards are not fun for the person who actually knows how to use the rules. He's being victimised for their laziness. And if the GM goes, "Yes, they can use that build but you can't because you'd be so much better than them at it." that's just plain petty. Simply understanding how the rules work, and building characters based on that understanding (including having a progression plan) is not cheating. It's basic common sense. The fact that the others in the group can't grasp how easy this is is not his fault. Nor should it be made to be. And 'friends' who hamstring him like that, trying to pull him down to their lacklustre standards, aren't really 'friends' in the true sense of the word, are they?
DarkRhystar 03-13-07, 02:43 PM	Why does people hate powergamers? Look at it like this. If everyone makes weak and pathetic characters, it's up to the DM to let them survive and deus ex machina them out of trouble. The moment one person makes a strong and well-thoughtout character, the DM can begin to depend on the player/character to face challenges. Other more lazy players are suddenly required to be effective, and they don't like that. Rather than step up, they attack the player who made a more effective character. Conversely, a DM who is used to controlling pretty much everything (due to character weakness) is now confronted by a character who can change the course of the plot and who doesn't need to be saved by the grace of the DM. The result is that the DM resents that character and maybe even the player. Situations like this are sometimes best solved by voting with your feet. If they play in a way that you don't like and aren't going to change, you're better off devoting your free time to interests you'll enjoy.
Daydreamer 03-13-07, 02:53 PM	Look at it like this. If everyone makes weak and pathetic characters, it's up to the DM to let them survive and deus ex machina them out of trouble. The moment one person makes a strong and well-thoughtout character, the DM can begin to depend on the player/character to face challenges. Other more lazy players are suddenly required to be effective, and they don't like that. . This is actually not at all true. First, i call someone lazy when they dont design a good hero from a roleplaying perspective. Second, power is irrelevant, my dm(or me when i dm) always through appropriate encounters at the pcs. No duex ex machina required. The group i pc in atm, highest first level stat on any pc in the group was 15 (we the pcs decided to play lower powerd). When youve got 6 levels under your belt and can kill 20 humans it doesnt matter as much. The encounters always fit the pcs if the dm is doing his job. So having max/mined everything to be twice as objectively strong as another pc means nothing, because in the game world youll be the same strong. (or if the dm is bad, maybe even the so called stronger pcs will need duex ex machina!-ive noticed alot of power gamers have dms that like to overwhelm them and then bale them out, where alot of so called 'weak pcs' have dms that make them the heros in the end of the day) No, quite simply the argument that weak pcs require deux ex machina is simply not true logically. There is no relative advantage to building a stronger pc (as long as your on par with your group). Having said that, powergaming is a flavor of playing, neither good nor bad. Some ppl like it, others do not. I do not.
Leo 03-13-07, 03:00 PM	Your friends are playing for fun, and so are you for what it seems Problem is, fun is diferent to each people. You like spending some time looking for good combinations of classes, skills, etc. They don't. They want a death ripper, they take a necromancer and a give him a scythe and an undead horse. Effective? No. Simple as hell? Yes. They dont want to be an effecient character, just play a necromancer. Is that asking too much? Its just a game after all. Nobody is guilty. Problem is,youre outnumbered. The Dm is who calls the shots, and if he doesn't like your play style, and the players also dont, there is little you can do. So, you have 2 main choices: 1-Keep playing with what the Dm allows. Pray that with praticce the group wil get better at choosing classes/skills. Dont ever make any sugestions again, unless someone shows that he would like to be stronger. 2-Play a buffer/suport character. Never take the spotlight again but you're still strong. Your friends will feel the taste of power and hopefully like it. 3-Leave the group and find a new one. For example, I must refer to my magic playgroup. There are several people there who play decks that are so poorly optimized that make me want throw up, yet they like those decks, and no matter how many times they lose with said bad decks, they keep using them. So I use hastily built decks against them so my own decks simply crush them, and we can have a good enjoyable time.
TwistedPuppy 03-13-07, 03:09 PM	And 'friends' who hamstring him like that, trying to pull him down to their lacklustre standards, aren't really 'friends' in the true sense of the word, are they? First, we are talking about a GAME here. Supposedly with mature individuals. The idea that a difference in playstyle could lead to the implication that they aren't really friends is about the biggest load of dung I've read on these boards. I agree with kelvinaw273 that the OP has an obligation to consider the other players' styles and preferences since they don't match his. Otherwise, he needs to find another group and not go out of his way to alienate his friends.
kelvinaw273 03-13-07, 03:24 PM	All the same, they need to see that double standards are not fun for the person who actually knows how to use the rules. He's being victimised for their laziness. And if the GM goes, "Yes, they can use that build but you can't because you'd be so much better than them at it." that's just plain petty. Simply understanding how the rules work, and building characters based on that understanding (including having a progression plan) is not cheating. It's basic common sense. The fact that the others in the group can't grasp how easy this is is not his fault. Nor should it be made to be. And 'friends' who hamstring him like that, trying to pull him down to their lacklustre standards, aren't really 'friends' in the true sense of the word, are they? You are assuming that they are not building optimised characters because they cannot. I CAN build optimised characters, but I often choose not to: To me there is no creativity in number crunching a l33t-sheet with as much personality as a piece of paper and as much depth. You assume they are lazy because they don't put your kind of work into their characters, when they could be filling out pages of backstory and providing heaps of plot hooks for the DM. This is, in my opinion, much more challenging than trying to construct an optimised sheet of statistics, and much more fun to play. But that is MY OPINION, and I don't force it on others ... however you play and enjoy the game is up to you. Under certain circumstances it is unwise to mix the two different play styles in the same group, because it creates a disparity in power in the party that can be a headache for the DM, which appears to be the problem here. If the only group I could play in optimised like mad, I would optimise even though it is not my preferred style of play. If the RPed, I'd kick back and enjoy myself. It's just good manners to the rest of the group, really. By making the assumptions above you have done them as much an injustice as you claim they are inflicting on the OP. It would be like me claiming that the OP is powergaming because he does not actually know how to or understand role-playing - probably untrue and definitely offensive. Now if he wants to try to convince them he has to roll up his sleeves and run a game of his own in HIS style; assisting in character builds so they get the idea of what he wants from their characters. Then to show willing he should get them to help him make a character in THEIR style and play their way for a few weeks. Once that is done they can all do a little compromising ....
_Jayne_Cobb_ 03-13-07, 03:27 PM	Why should he have to adapt to their playing style? He shouldn't, but if he expects others to respect his choices then he must also respect theirs. If he dislikes being accused of "powergaming" then he should stop calling others "horribly useless."
Cincinnati 03-13-07, 03:40 PM	Yes. Players who want their characters to be powerful, and don't give 100% attention to accurate "roleplaying" are violating some sort of ancient D&D precept. Next game, play a deaf kobold bard, with all stats in the single digits, to atone for your sins.
Ack 03-13-07, 03:41 PM	Actually, I have nothing against 'horribly useless' builds, so long as the player realises that the build isn't all that effective and doesn't force the GM to either Deus Ex them out of trouble or simply kill the character when he takes on a high-end threat without any real precautions.
_Jayne_Cobb_ 03-13-07, 03:46 PM	Actually, I have nothing against 'horribly useless' builds, so long as the player realises that the build isn't all that effective and doesn't force the GM to either Deus Ex them out of trouble or simply kill the character when he takes on a high-end threat without any real precautions. No, the only real problem is one player labelling another's PC as "horribly useless" just cos it isn't combat-optimized (or a "powergamer" cos it is).
Karish 03-13-07, 03:50 PM	I would have to say there's nothing wrong with OP's play style. His DM and other players could use a visit to the CharOp boards, I dare say. A necromancer is supposed to focus on other things, not scythe combat and riding a skeletal horse. XD
Ventilatory_Threshold 03-13-07, 03:53 PM	Because they are in the majority and he wants to play with them, that's why. Unfortunately, at the end of the day, that is the play style the majority of the group prefer, and when your style is radically different you have to change to go with the flow or else not play with that group. What about having the group tolerate his play style. It's not as if it's their right to exclude him. Whether they'll admit it or not, if they don't have fun because of his play style, it's their own fault, not his. They should have to suffer for their own closed-mindedness. He shouldn't, but if he expects others to respect his choices then he must also respect theirs. If he dislikes being accused of "powergaming" then he should stop calling others "horribly useless." For all intents and purposes, he does respect their playing styles, in that he (to our knowledge) hasn't said any of that stuff to his group. He's just a guy trying to have fun, and he's helpful to others on top of that. He offered Necromancer Dumbass tips for making a more powerful character and got shouted at and accused of things he isn't guilty of. He is treated with disrespect, arrogance and condescension, has his options reduced because of it to ensure that he roleplays (in other words he's a Forced Drama Queen). His group is a bunch of dumbasses who don't know what the hell they're doing (it's illogical, ignorant and smacks of elitism). They are trash, and trash needs to be taken out every once in a while. I'd advise him to build a Druid with Natural Spell, but instead I'm advising him to show his group this thread, let them see what people think of them (they believe in democracy, don't they, considering that they use it mercilessly against this poor guy?). I don't care if they get defensive about it, Sareld will vent at them sooner or later. Sorry, if you like your group, Sareld. But this is pretty much what it comes down to. If they aren't willing to compromise their play styles in the same way you are doing now in every session, then they're not your friends, and they're no better than elitist snobs in respect to this game.
_Jayne_Cobb_ 03-13-07, 03:56 PM	For all intents and purposes, he does respect their playing styles, in that he (to our knowledge) hasn't said any of that stuff to his group. He's just a guy trying to have fun, and he's helpful to others on top of that. He offered Necromancer Dumbass tips for making a more powerful character and got shouted at and accused of things he isn't guilty of. He is treated with disrespect, arrogance and condescension, has his options reduced because of it to ensure that he roleplays (in other words he's a Forced Drama Queen). His group is a bunch of dumbasses who don't know what the hell they're doing (it's illogical, ignorant and smacks of elitism). They are trash, and trash needs to be taken out every once in a while. I'd advise him to build a Druid with Natural Spell, but instead I'm advising him to show his group this thread, let them see what people think of them (they believe in democracy, don't they, considering that they use it mercilessly against this poor guy?). I don't care if they get defensive about it, Sareld will vent at them sooner or later. Let's bear in mind, Thumb, that we are only getting one side of the story. I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with optimization either, but take the OP's assesment with a grain of salt as he is unlikley to paint himself in a bad light. particulalry when he is "urinated" off at the other players. Cheers, mate.
Ack 03-13-07, 04:03 PM	You can make an optimised build, a standard build, or a suboptimal build. But even a suboptimal build (a Rogue with DEX 6 and no points in Hide or Pick Locks, or a wizard whose INT is so low he doesn't get any spells to cast) should be good at something. Even if it's just running away. Someone who's good at nothing, or isn't good at the things he is good at ... well, why would he even be in an adventuring party if he didn't have something to offer them?
Ventilatory_Threshold 03-13-07, 04:16 PM	Let's bear in mind, Thumb, that we are only getting one side of the story. I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with optimization either, but take the OP's assesment with a grain of salt as he is unlikley to paint himself in a bad light. particulalry when he is "urinated" off at the other players. I guess so. It just really ticks me off when people use numbers to get their way (as in, "There's more of us than there is of you, so we call the shots!"). In my opinion, everyone should compromise equally here. Cheers, mate. I didn't recognize you there for a second. :)
AffableDoomwalker 03-13-07, 05:58 PM	Cobb brings up a good point, but assuming that OP's side of the story is undiluted by half-truths and hasn't left out any details, assuming that, the OP is justified in feeling a bit upset. There's a difference between: Making a Rogue with 8 Strength and a 16 armored AC at level 1 - the guy who for the first four levels of his life will be scrambling away from anything that resembles a pointy air molecule. Though he'll grow into a niche eventually. -and- Making a Half-Ogre rage-mage who, at level 4, has the power to destroy anything smaller than a Young Adult Red Dragon. And given 2 more levels... oh lawd. All things considered, OP needs to either introduce his group to these boards and expand their horizons, or he needs to find a new group.
aotrscommander 03-13-07, 06:33 PM	It does rather sound to me like the OP is being picked on by the rest of the group. Of course, without knowing the other side of the story... All things considered, OP needs to either introduce his group to these boards and expand their horizons, or he needs to find a new group. Wise words. I know certainly my perception is much broader from seeing the perspective of other group's since joining the boards. Who knows, maybe one of them will be able to tell their side of the story and so we can give out a coherent answer on who's being as asshat1. I didn't recognize you there for a second. :) Me neither, though I had my suspicions, but that definately was Sul...Bor...that guy. (Try not to change screen name so much, it's real confusing!) Solves that mystery. So if I can just figure out why Tyler hasn't been around lately (I miss his wit...) I'll be golden. Or something... 1By 'we', of course I mean 'me', and by 'asshat' I mean 'in my opinion, giving me a feeble excuse to hunt down and disembowl somebody with excessive violence'. 'Cos I really feel the need to hurt somethingone today...
AffableDoomwalker 03-13-07, 06:47 PM	Whoopsies.
Ventilatory_Threshold 03-13-07, 07:01 PM	Me neither, though I had my suspicions, but that definately was Sul...Bor...that guy. (Try not to change screen name so much, it's real confusing!) Solves that mystery. So if I can just figure out why Tyler hasn't been around lately (I miss his wit...) I'll be golden. Or something... Who I really miss is Thorak. I checked and he hasn't been here since early last December. And Lord of Procrastination disappeared last May. 1By 'we', of course I mean 'me', and by 'asshat' I mean 'in my opinion, giving me a feeble excuse to hunt down and disembowl somebody with excessive violence'. 'Cos I really feel the need to hurt somethingone today... Now you know how I feel everyday.
Erato 03-13-07, 08:43 PM	Yeah, I guess that joining another group would be the best solution in the long run. If anyone in the area around Copenhagen, Denmark is searching for a new player, please drop me a PM. Other than that, I like the idea of making an unoptimized fighter.. When I make them cry cheese at him, I will reveal my build to all of them and show them how wrong they are.. with any luck they will understand that none of my other characters are broken either. Once you’ve got a certain reputation in a group, it can be nigh impossible to change people’s perception of you. For me, it was my gender. For some reason the guys in my group though that because I wasn’t a guy, I must have a sinister and very illogical ulterior motivation for all my actions :rolleyes: If I made a sub optimal choice, it was because I didn’t understand the rules – playing on the ‘stupid, non-mathematical girl’-stereotype, while anything even remotely useful I did, marked me as a muchkin powergamer – playing on the ‘manipulating, disloyal girl who doesn’t understand the noble camaraderie of boys, but only wants to win’-stereotype (no, I didn’t know that stereotype existed before I got into the game either ;)). :rant: Anything ‘girly’ and cute I played (elves, humans, halflings, gnomes, CHA-based casters, healers, nature oriented classes, skill classes, social classes, archers) was seen as emotional wishful thinking, with me wanting to be cute/non-violent/ beautiful/connected to nature/sexy/caring, while ‘masculine’ roles (anything ugly that smashes things) were proof that I was trying to overcompensate (the classical, Freudian *****-envy) or work through some anger issues (again, the ‘emotional, hysterical girl’-stereotype). I ended up spending 6 moths trying to get the guys to accept that I was just trying to have fun by playing a game. And while I was somewhat successful (even if my success resulted in a little too much romantic interest from the guys), I realised that some things are just not worth it. Your group is treating you with suspicion, and (seemingly) banning things solely because you want to play them. I don’t know if you deserve their trust or not, but no matter what, you’ll have a hard time gaining it, and it may require you to adopt a (for you) boring play style. Since it doesn’t seem to be something you’ll enjoy, I suggest you just leave the group quietly. No reason to make a fuss about it. If you want to play an unoptimised fighter (or an optimised druid) to prove a point before you leave, you should do it for your own sake. But don’t expect them to suddenly change their minds because of it. Btw, there are plenty of roleplaying opportunities in Copenhagen (unfortunately my friends over there are all booked :( ), so you’ll be alright :D Ps: If you ever move to Århus let me know ;)
Keiichi_m 03-13-07, 09:26 PM	I'm a firm believer in "play the character not the numbers" and try not to allow too much power gaming as I find it lends itself to meta-gaming (knowing that your playing numbers renforces that your playing a game) but I still allow a little so that people arn't forced to create utterly useless PCs, you're not powergaming, just thinking a little, and your DM is dicking you here. That said, you really should let the other players play their characters. You don't want the DM telling you what classes to take, you probablly shoudn't tell necro buddy which to choose. I get the feeling it was just a recomendation on your part, but making less suggestions on your part looks better when you call others on it and protects you from doing the same thing that annoys you.
Daydreamer 03-13-07, 09:34 PM	I dont know why ppl make it an extreme choice. There is playing a reasonable stat, reasonable feat, reasonable power hero that is not 'useless' or a 'powergamer product' happy middle ppl!
Yokomohoyo 03-14-07, 02:12 AM	Honestly it sounds to me more and more that your DM and fellow players are just acting like "Steves". They called you a powergammer just because you know what your character wants to be and know the steps how to get their. I say if they want to call you a powergammer then show them what a powergammer really is. Make a samurai from the Rokugan book (its the best version of a samurai imo) and take levels in Kensai. After that you'll hack out that character with the feats that the samurai/kensai combo provide. Heck if you really want to bug them make a Troll/Halfdragon (red or black) monk combo and drive them completelly up the wall ^_^
DarkRhystar 03-14-07, 03:53 AM	This is actually not at all true. It very much is. What we have here are two conflicting DM'ing styles. Yours is "I will adjust the world to fit the characters. If they are weak, the world becomes weaker. If they are strong, the world becomes stronger. I will work to ensure that all characters can make a contribution." Feel free to correct my interpretation. :) Mine is "I will not adjust the world by any great amount to 'coddle' characters. If they are not prepared to be adventurers or the like, they will get eaten by monsters. If they are not quick and intelligent, they will get scooped by other adventurers." My style is a more dog-eat-dog style. If you walk into a dragon's lair at level 1, you will not find an EL appropriate challenge, you will find a dragon, and he will eat you. No, quite simply the argument that weak pcs require deux ex machina is simply not true logically. There is no relative advantage to building a stronger pc (as long as your on par with your group). As long as the DM is willing to re-balance ELs, you are completely correct. The moment the DM says "You are level X. You should be capable of facing encounters appropriate to your level," your argument begins to break down. Weak characters become a liability. Bob the Fighter who lives by swinging his sword better be good at it or he won't live long.
Sareld 03-14-07, 04:22 AM	So many great replies in so short time.. nice! I am on my way to work now, so I havent got much time, but as I dont know when I will have the chance to get online again this will have to do. Yes, 3 out of the 4 other guys in the group often behaves like classical steves, in the sense that they hog equipment, hog the spotlight, kill random people for XP, and generally tries to pull off things that makes very little or no sense in the game all the time. I dont intend to disrespect them, because as I said they are my friends, we just have a conflict of styles that is sucking the joy of the game out of me. A lot of the problem is that before I came along, the other guys didnt see the imbalance of 3.0 at all. They used the most simple and straight forward feats, skills and spells, and NO combination of anything was stronger than anything else in their minds.. 3.0 was a game in perfect balance. But then I came along, and pulled off stunts that I dont think they thought possible at the time, and I thereby wrecked their trust in the balance of the rules. From that point on, they all developed the idea that playing obivously underpowered characters was cool, because the survival of the character was entirely dependant on the players skill and luck, rather than just being a result of some build that should never have been made possible. Not that they succeed at all, the TPK rate is at this point approaching 0.25 per session, which is of course annoying to me as well. While it is true that we fail to communicate, I dont think they are being asshats. They are just trying to educate me in their 'supirior' way of playing the game, though I am not really interested in that. I might have seemed yellow watered off in the OP, but I needed to vent at that time. I guess that all I can do at this point is to find someone else who plays a diffrent style of game. Darn, Im out of time.
Ack 03-14-07, 04:29 AM	However, PC-whim road trips aside ("Hey guys, let's go have a look at that dragon that's been terrorizing the area! I reckon we can take him down!") encounters stemming from adventure hooks should be scaled to the party capabilities. A group of suboptimal characters should meet something they should be able to beat, given a reasonable chance. A bunch of sub-op 1st level characters might encounter a dysfunctional group of outcast orcs along the road, while a group of super-op 2nd level characters might encounter a number of seriously buffed orcs. Neither of these encounters should be a walkover, of course.
Black Kitten 03-14-07, 04:45 AM	However, PC-whim road trips aside ("Hey guys, let's go have a look at that dragon that's been terrorizing the area! I reckon we can take him down!") encounters stemming from adventure hooks should be scaled to the party capabilities. A group of suboptimal characters should meet something they should be able to beat, given a reasonable chance. A bunch of sub-op 1st level characters might encounter a dysfunctional group of outcast orcs along the road, while a group of super-op 2nd level characters might encounter a number of seriously buffed orcs. Neither of these encounters should be a walkover, of course. Still, meleeing wizards aren't 'sub-optimum', they're 'useless'. Tailoring encounters to that is next to impossible. It's all about tactics and you cannot simply change that. I have quite the reverse: I know I can make encounters very difficult for my PCs, even if they are not optimised and they will still prevail... somehow. The disfunctional kind of player can make even tailored encounters into a PC massacre. If they do not have the mind of an adventurer while playing, they cannot roleplay or fight their way out of any situation. Though I agree using weak PCs is particularly enjoying, since it makes the game even harder. And there's also the DM to consider here. When I run my game, I at times overrule actions of PCs when I see that they are going to disrupt the game too much. I have even, at times, uttered the words "Your character isn't going to do that, think up something else" (but then in Dutch). Usually my players don't mind that, as the action was silly in the first place anyway, or incredibly stupid. This is a role your DM should also take. "No, you are not going to kill that unarmed civilian. Your character is chaotic good and if you do that, the city guard will arrest and hang you. I am not going to wait for you to make a new character, so your character isn't going to do that." But as long as your DM doesn't, there's no way to stop that kind of behaviour.
Ack 03-14-07, 04:50 AM	I don't know, a wizard who can't cast spells but has the Run feat might just be a survivor ... ... hmm, Rincewind? :D
Black Kitten 03-14-07, 04:57 AM	I don't know, a wizard who can't cast spells but has the Run feat might just be a survivor ... ... hmm, Rincewind? :D And he could take psion feats, concentration en psionic swiftness (or however that feat is called) and dash... that speed is going up quite swiftly... but I feel the characters of the OP would use all that speed to run as speedily as they can into the giant club being swung around.
Ack 03-14-07, 06:23 AM	Nah, but he might take the Danger Sense feat (I think there's one?) whereby when the surprise round happens, he's already halfway to the horizon :P
Black Kitten 03-14-07, 06:26 AM	Nah, but he might take the Danger Sense feat (I think there's one?) whereby when the surprise round happens, he's already halfway to the horizon :P Then the horizon would crit him for 10d12 dmg
Manic Man 03-14-07, 06:51 AM	Yes as long as you're a power gamer, you're the scum of the earth, lowest of the low. Then again, so am i. Welcome to the club. for those who don't get it, i expect some flaming
Yokomohoyo 03-14-07, 07:11 AM	Yes as long as you're a power gamer, you're the scum of the earth, lowest of the low. Then again, so am i. Welcome to the club. for those who don't get it, i expect some flaming :mage:
Leo 03-14-07, 07:30 AM	Yes as long as you're a power gamer, you're the scum of the earth, lowest of the low. Then again, so am i. Welcome to the club. for those who don't get it, i expect some flaming Timmy, Power gamer Couldn't resist... Anwya, think it this way: when you buy a computer game, what is more rewarding? To seek all the guides and rules you can find so you breeze trough the levels, or just jump into the campaing mode and trust in your luck and skill, learning by experience? D&D can be played with strong optimization, but it can also be played the other way around. The question is, if the DM let you play PUn-Pun and have infinite wishes, would you do it? Would you really have fun if you had endless gold and power? Isn't the game more rewarding when the challenges you face are actually hard to bypass? What is the glory of winning a battle if your oponent had no chance to start?
Archangel62 03-14-07, 10:45 AM	Timmy, Power gamer Couldn't resist... Anwya, think it this way: when you buy a computer game, what is more rewarding? To seek all the guides and rules you can find so you breeze trough the levels, or just jump into the campaing mode and trust in your luck and skill, learning by experience? D&D can be played with strong optimization, but it can also be played the other way around. The question is, if the DM let you play PUn-Pun and have infinite wishes, would you do it? Would you really have fun if you had endless gold and power? Isn't the game more rewarding when the challenges you face are actually hard to bypass? What is the glory of winning a battle if your oponent had no chance to start? Actually most 'power gamers' are closer to Johnny the Combo Player in practice.
Orcdoubleax 03-14-07, 10:58 AM	I did not read all of this tread, or even very much of it at all. But as this is the internet that will not stop me from sticking my two cents in. :P I don't believe that being a heavy powergamer has anything to do with your ablity to role play. The two aspects of the game are unrelated. It would be like saying you can't be a nice guy if you own a fast car. A metagamer has a hard time being a good roleplayer, but that is a different issue then powergaming. Why powergamers are an annoyance is that they force everyone else to powergame to keep the balance of the party from falling apart and ruining everyone else fun. If one player has a highly optimized character and two other players have non-optimized character it is extremely difficult for the DM to keep the game fun. You could say that the DM can have encounters where there are tougher challenges for the one player and the other players can fight the lackeys. In reality that is only fun for the powergamer who becomes the central character of the game and everyone else is looking for supporting actor nominations. So what is the answer. One of two things can happen. the player can find a game where powergaming is acceptable, or the DM can artifically limit the player to keep him in line with the rest of the players. If the player is young or imature he will not be able to handle this and you are back to solution one. P.S. The guy in the first post is not really that much of a powergamer, but the result is the same. A difference in the party power level.
kelvinaw273 03-14-07, 01:02 PM	So many great replies in so short time.. nice! I am on my way to work now, so I havent got much time, but as I dont know when I will have the chance to get online again this will have to do. Yes, 3 out of the 4 other guys in the group often behaves like classical steves, in the sense that they hog equipment, hog the spotlight, kill random people for XP, and generally tries to pull off things that makes very little or no sense in the game all the time. I dont intend to disrespect them, because as I said they are my friends, we just have a conflict of styles that is sucking the joy of the game out of me. A lot of the problem is that before I came along, the other guys didnt see the imbalance of 3.0 at all. They used the most simple and straight forward feats, skills and spells, and NO combination of anything was stronger than anything else in their minds.. 3.0 was a game in perfect balance. But then I came along, and pulled off stunts that I dont think they thought possible at the time, and I thereby wrecked their trust in the balance of the rules. From that point on, they all developed the idea that playing obivously underpowered characters was cool, because the survival of the character was entirely dependant on the players skill and luck, rather than just being a result of some build that should never have been made possible. Not that they succeed at all, the TPK rate is at this point approaching 0.25 per session, which is of course annoying to me as well. While it is true that we fail to communicate, I dont think they are being asshats. They are just trying to educate me in their 'supirior' way of playing the game, though I am not really interested in that. I might have seemed yellow watered off in the OP, but I needed to vent at that time. I guess that all I can do at this point is to find someone else who plays a diffrent style of game. Darn, Im out of time. OK, you need to find a new group. If they are Steves, they aren't even RPing, they are just being f***-wits.
Zumarai 03-14-07, 01:13 PM	OK, you need to find a new group. If they are Steves, they aren't even RPing, they are just being f***-wits. My old landlady in Clapham (London) once called me that – love it.
Leo 03-14-07, 02:55 PM	Actually most 'power gamers' are closer to Johnny the Combo Player in practice. It depends on how you see powergamer. The powergamer wants power. Timmy wants big things. Big things are normally powerfull(geting them is another story). Johnny, Combo player, in the other hand, altough able to pull some astouding tricks, will also play with completely subpar decks that only work once in an hundred games so they can do somethig crazy. And then we have Spike, tournament player, wich is probably even closer to powergamer. He plays to crush all oposition, and nothing or no one will be allowed to stand in his way for ultimate power.
DarkRhystar 03-14-07, 05:41 PM	And then we have Spike, tournament player, wich is probably even closer to powergamer. He plays to crush all oposition, and nothing or no one will be allowed to stand in his way for ultimate power. Although one could argue that falls more into the category of the derogatory munchkin term.
CalibanZaxx 03-14-07, 05:45 PM	Relax! This is in no way powergaming. You approach your character development in much the same way someone in the real world would approach planning out their life which is the way most smart players do. No one wants heir party bogged down with a Rouge that runs off to hide when things get tough or that fighter who was so focused into being just like some anime character that their skills and abilities are of total uselessness. I (and I'm sure most experenced players) consider your approach an admirable trait that would make you a valued member of the party. I say, if you like the peole, join in with them on making these 'true' roleplaying characters so you can enjoy the sessions. Be goofy and creative with your character, heck even ask sugestions on how you could make that character more true. But thn also suggest the idea of everyone making new characters that follow along your style aswell. Try exploring eachother's styles. There's really no reason not to try anything new. And, if it's still not working out, search for a D&D group more your style.
Doodle 03-14-07, 06:09 PM	Second, power is irrelevant, my dm(or me when i dm) always through appropriate encounters at the pcs. No duex ex machina required. The group i pc in atm, highest first level stat on any pc in the group was 15 (we the pcs decided to play lower powerd). When youve got 6 levels under your belt and can kill 20 humans it doesnt matter as much. Notice however that you talk about the group being basically equal - that is easy to DM for. If everyone in your group has straight 12's as stats I can lower the CR, by the same token if everyone is an uber munchkin I can up the CR. The problem with the DMing the group the OP described is that the group is not equal in power within itself. To the OP - if you wish to continue playing with these people, might I suggest that the future characters you make are party buffers - Bard, Marshal, War Weaver, Dragon Shaman, etc. This way you can be "awesome" and in so doing you can make everyone else awesome. Me.
Garble Willowwits 03-14-07, 06:32 PM	I wish I could play the way the OP does. I enjoy Roleplaying characters, whether it's D&D or just online between friends. Always a good chance to get away from reality. But when you have rules all of a sudden, you hit a problem. It's a difficult choice sometimes to choose between a build that 'works' and a build that's 'in character'. I mean, if I build a character in D&D, why SHOULDN'T I make him powerful? Part of it comes from my mindset, which is adherent to "Function > Form". So, I start to feel that as long as he CAN beat down the goblins and save the princess, why should I worry about anything else? I have wonderful character concepts, mostly from going through the member-made classes on the boards. I've got thoughts on a Puppeteer that would be cool, and I want to play an Elemental Shaper, both in my sig. Unfortunately I've only recently found a tentative game to play in (I've never really PLAYED D&D, I just know how...), and it's fairly close to Core Only. So I make more concepts. But why should I NOT take the chance to preserve my characters life by making him strong?
TRCEttin 03-14-07, 09:27 PM	Maybe choice of words has something to do with it. Me, just the word "build" sets off alarm bells in my head. Why? I have a friend who's quite into the powergaming, for want of a better word - when I'm talked into joining a game of his he usually tells me how anything but a caster is useless and I should build my character to make it powerful until (and he talks a lot, so this goes on for a while) and insists on me taking at least some of his advice. When I invited him to a game he spent hours planning potential characters, talking about splat books or how certain things he was planning on taking were "borderline overpowered" (or similar turns of phrase) and finally produced a character sheet - the backstory included with it was two or three sentences, and the last was "or something." So now, whenever someone says words like "build", "progression" or even "gish" for that matter, I get tense and suspicious. I'm not even that much of an anti-powergaming DM, I just go straight into Paranoia mode (ALL CHARACTERS WITHOUT A BACKSTORY PLEASE REPORT TO SECTOR C FOR SUMMARY EXECUTION. FAILING TO DO SO IS AN ACT OF TREASON AND PUNISHABLE BY SUMMARY EXECUTION.) as soon as I hear those words. It's a bad habit. On the other hand, playing a straight wizard who blows all his feats on combat ones and then tries to melee something doesn't make you a good roleplayer out to have fun. It makes you a tool. I mean, wouldn't the character recognise he's much weaker and not as good at melee as his party members are? Why is this guy going up to hill giants and poking them with his scythe? Is he (the character) retarded, or does he have a huge ego? Or does the player just not notice that maybe if you want a character that fights people in melee combat he should be able to do it without getting killed? A corpse has no character. And your DM sounds - I know you were venting when you wrote that, so I take this with a grain of salt, but let's pretend you're not completely lying because that would be silly - sounds like he's just randomly banning things as a substitute for actually dealing with the problem, that everyone else in your group enjoys playing like dorks. Probably not much you can do about that. Not much you can do about it, really. It sounds (again, salt goes here) like you're not only better at making characters than them, but you're a better roleplayer than them, and they're too busy complaining that your characters are better at not being useless than theirs that they barely even notice that. Just tell the DM that you're going to find a better game and stop showing up. Show him this thread, maybe. If you can't find a game in your area, might I suggest playing online? It's what I do - I'm a DM in Australia and not a one of my players is even in the same hemisphere as me. I can't set you up, personally, but if you ask around these forums or /tg/ or something you might be able to find something.
Ack 03-15-07, 02:42 AM	I am personally in several games over on the d20 Modern boards, and running a few more (check my sig for details). We can always do with new players - and we're not about to beat you down for picking sensible concepts to play. Backstories are generally required, though :D
Daydreamer 03-15-07, 07:36 AM	Power gamers sometimes talk as if 'roleplayers' build weak characters. Weak characters are typically built from people unfamilar with the game or (as sometimes happen to do a fufill a particular roleplaying niche). Mostly we just dont completely min/max our pcs, but the builds we run are reasonable for our class/level. It wont be as maximized out as a powergamer, but it will hardly be 'a terrible' pc.
Ack 03-15-07, 07:46 AM	I will occasionally build a character just to explore a particular concept, but I will at the same time try not to build a totally weak and useless character in the process. Sometimes I get bizarre side-effects. It's all in good fun :D
Daydreamer 03-15-07, 07:51 AM	useless is a word i dont like, if the concepts fun for you and your dm its extremely useful. Sometimes half the fun in playing a weaker character is the additional challenge of having to go against the odds-or overcome ur own personal adversity to deal with the enemy. One of the best pcs ive ever had would be by almost anyones understand 'underpowerd' for his level. power is an illusion, encouters always fit the pcs level. The only 'real' thing in d&d is actually who your character is, if thats good and your having fun, then your useful as can be.
Archangel62 03-15-07, 09:04 AM	I have no problem with concept playing, I do it a lot too, either to explore a mechanic or to design a character type that I've been rolling around in my head for a while. One of my more memorable characters I did was in an evil aligned campaign where my character was similar to Dr. Moreau. But I also feel that if a person goes for a concept and is potent, and tries to help others, he shouldn't be called a munchkin. Maybe the person is misrepresenting but I have encountered people like those he describes and these people make we want to pull out my hair in frustration many many times.
ferreon 03-15-07, 09:28 AM	Having read the thread....I would like a large pipe/tankard of whatever the OP's DM and party have been smoking/drinking (delete as appropriate) You state you come up with a concept, then plan out exactly what you require to get that. Is this not, perhaps, the essence of roleplaying? Your character decides what he wants to be, and then learns on his adventures how to acheive what he intended in his(her?) youth. I'd actually like to sit in on a session, with a tape recorder. I think I'd get years of replayable laughs out of it. assuming the party are as bumbling as the OP says That said, Sareld, seeing as they are so useless (a meleeing WIZARD for Pelor's sake!) I would suggest creating a nursemaid character. With ranks in Profession: (Nursemaid), Profession: (Therapist), Heal and Craft: (soother)...Preferably with healing magic. Character motivation: I'm a healer. I intend to soothe the physical hurts of the party (and anyone else I encounter) as well as tending the bruising of the ego that comes with being repeatedly beaten. Make up personal history as allowed by campaign and setting. In practice: When the party are following a campaign hook, refuse to fight, use skills or do anything useful. Hang around thirty feet (minimum) from the party (close enough that you can run up and heal, or run away as necessary). after they get their asses handed to them (again), walk up stick a soother in their mouths and say "hush little one, I'm here to make it all better". When they ask out of character what in the Nine Hells you think you're doing, explain you created a character as weak, and pathetic as the party. For bonus points...refuse to wear armour or carry a weapon. DO NOT take Vow of Poverty. (yes, I realise this is confrontational, but frankly, the group seem deserving)
Pyke_Moonshadow 03-15-07, 10:17 AM	I try to do both, have good concepts and useful builds. I love making builds to fit a roleplay concept. I had a character that was an expert into breaking into magically guarded places. He was a wizard that was shunned by other wizards so he decided to discover all their secrets. His build would make him really good at doing just that. And then the campaign we wound up playing in had no magically guarded places...at all. :weep: The DM and other players kept chiding me to make "more generic" characters. He was still good at traps and such and contributed his share in combat. No he wasn't a whirlwind of death but he did steady, reliable damage with either his spells or weapons. Combat just wasn't his focus. My builds are effective at their concept, very much so, it is just that rarely is my goal to be a killing machine.
holylink718 03-15-07, 10:18 AM	Hi all. I have played d&d for a couple of years now, and over the last year and a half I have found the playstyle that suits me the best; I powergame. Now, I have realized that many players in my gaming group (and even more on these boards) views powergamers as an annoyance, and believes that we are incapable of "true" roleplaying, whatever that might be. I am annoyed to sat the least, is it really a crime to build up strong characters? If Im having fun doing it, why is it wrong? My gaming group likes me as a person, and we have great fun when we are not playing d&d, but at the table they all frown at me for building characters that is better than theirs, and I have to listen to angry remarks every time I utter even the smallest remark about the other players builds, or my thoughts on the DMs last near-TPK encounter. My group is the kind of people who play horribly useless characters, and think that it adds to the spirit of the game. For instance, one of them played a necromancer not too long ago, and he blew his feats on weapon proficiency: schyte, weapon focus: schyte and mounted combat, and then proceeded to take as many cross class ranks in ride (skeleton horse) as he could get away with, and never memorized anything but necromancy spells. Though I knew that this character was going to be virtually useless in combat, I liked the concept of a character mimicing the grim reaper, and I suggested that he made a gish with one or two levels in fighter and considered the focused specialist alternate class feature from complete mage, in stead of trying to pull it off with only wizard levels.. big mistake. I was told to shut up and stay out of his face with my 'powergaming', because he was trying to have 'real fun' by making a 'character that actually had character'.. what did I do wrong? For the record, the guys character died two encounters after that, while trying to cut down a hill giant in close combat. How was that any fun? Recently, my DM even started to forbid prestige classes and feats just as I was trying to take them, just to destroy my builds, and 'teach me how to roleplay properly'. What the hell is that? Imagine playing a rogue/mage, and then suddely have all PrCs that combine sneaking and magic made unavaliable to you, 'because they get in the way of the fun'? I cant have fun under those conditions, so I simply have my character leave play every time he does it, and rolls up a core only druid.. the only proper build that doesent require the DMs permission for anything to be effective. I have also tried to write down the planned level progression of a character and show it to my DM before the game, in an attempt to avoid to have my build demolished while the game was running, but the result was even worse. He became so angry with me because I planned my character in advance, that he instantly picked a class on the progression plan and said "I forbid you to pick this class, or anything that looks like it". I am the only player in the group who actually DOES real roleplaying, but because my characters is more powerful than the rest of the lot, it is just not good enough? I actually roleplay my bluff checks instead of just rolling to see if I can fool people, make sure that my character acts according to his/her alignment and personality, and my characters actually does things other than getting drunk in the tavern and hunting bad guys. I even write several pages of background stories to my characters and develop interesting personalities for them, but no one cares. I have a powerful character, so none of it is worth anything. Im not even a good powergamer by the CO boards standards, and I even restrict myself from the really cheesy stuff like casting 9th level spells at 6th level or using infinite loops. I also dont just pwn everything I come across, before the rest of the party have had a chance to fight it and loose, so then what is their problem? Why does people hate powergamers? Let me begin by saying that I've not read more than most of the first page, because it's too long, so forgive me if I repeat something that's already been said. I have always been irritated by "powergamers." (Irritated with, not angry with...it's your character.) However, from what I've read, you're not a powergamer. You seem to be someone who has fun intelligently making a character as good as he can be without cheating. Thats what I see, anyway. There's a clear line between powergaming and intelligent creation. Only an idiot would blow all his wizard's feats on the stuff your friend was...that's a fighter/wizard build if I ever saw one. But, that's his character, and if that's the way he wants to play it, let him. I wouldn't even penalize powergamers if I were the DM because if that's the way you have fun, my job, as DM, is to ensure (within reason) that you are indeed having fun. I'm really sorry that you're stuck in this situation...just try to find a different group if they won't work with you. Of course, there's always the, make a core-only character, and make them sooooo strong (all using core material) that you still "outshine" them, or whatever it is they say you do. Much luck, dude!
Greg K 03-15-07, 03:58 PM	Ventilatory_Threshold "Necromancer Dumbass"? "Don't know what the hell they are doing" Talk about snobery and elitism. As per usual, you have showed your own intolerance for playstyles that differ from you own . Its clear that the rest of the group has no interest in heavy optimization or powergaming and apparently do not find it fun. Now, is the OP a bad player? Yes, but the catch is that he is a bad player for his *current*group or a group with a similar playstyle to theirs. Similarly, the OPs group would be bad players for a group of heavy optimizers or powergamers. Oh, and with regards to excluding the OP, yes it is their right to exclude him. It is a group game. If the OP's playstyle negatively effects the fun of the other members, then they are within their right to not let him play if he doesnt' want to conform to the group's playstyle. Their is no given right to participate in a game. The same would hold true if they were a group of powergamers and the player didn't powergame making his character an annoyance for not "pulling his own weight". What about having the group tolerate his play style. It's not as if it's their right to exclude him. Whether they'll admit it or not, if they don't have fun because of his play style, it's their own fault, not his. They should have to suffer for their own closed-mindedness. For all intents and purposes, he does respect their playing styles, in that he (to our knowledge) hasn't said any of that stuff to his group. He's just a guy trying to have fun, and he's helpful to others on top of that. He offered Necromancer Dumbass tips for making a more powerful character and got shouted at and accused of things he isn't guilty of. He is treated with disrespect, arrogance and condescension, has his options reduced because of it to ensure that he roleplays (in other words he's a Forced Drama Queen). His group is a bunch of dumbasses who don't know what the hell they're doing (it's illogical, ignorant and smacks of elitism). They are trash, and trash needs to be taken out every once in a while. I'd advise him to build a Druid with Natural Spell, but instead I'm advising him to show his group this thread, let them see what people think of them (they believe in democracy, don't they, considering that they use it mercilessly against this poor guy?). I don't care if they get defensive about it, Sareld will vent at them sooner or later. Sorry, if you like your group, Sareld. But this is pretty much what it comes down to. If they aren't willing to compromise their play styles in the same way you are doing now in every session, then they're not your friends, and they're no better than elitist snobs in respect to this game.
Ventilatory_Threshold 03-15-07, 08:22 PM	Ventilatory_Threshold "Necromancer Dumbass"? "Don't know what the hell they are doing" Talk about snobery and elitism. As per usual, you have showed your own intolerance for playstyles that differ from you own . Its clear that the rest of the group has no interest in heavy optimization or powergaming and apparently do not find it fun. Did I forget to mention that the OP's group is not human in my eyes? If they claim to not have fun with your play style then that's also them shoving their own intolerance of your playstyle into your face, and it's their own fault. They are no better than I am. Did you dislike me when you read some of my posts, Sareld? Because I played their game, and anyone that doesn't approve of different playstyles is a snob and a jackass, whether he's polite about it or not. You are better than they are (that is, more accepting and willing to offer help and try your best to compromise). We all know it. This isn't a matter of differing play style, it's about prejudice and elitism. What I'm saying is that even if there are differing playstyles (however vastly different they may be), they can be accommodaded and compromised. Everyone should compromise equally. Now, is the OP a bad player? Yes, but the catch is that he is a bad player for his *current*group or a group with a similar playstyle to theirs. Similarly, the OPs group would be bad players for a group of heavy optimizers or powergamers. No, the group is just treating him like dirt for his playstyle. It's classic Lawful Evil behavior. Oh, and with regards to excluding the OP, yes it is their right to exclude him. It is a group game. If the OP's playstyle negatively effects the fun of the other members, then they are within their right to not let him play if he doesnt' want to conform to the group's playstyle. And why should they not conform to his? D&D, like you said, is a group game after all, and groups are all about give-and-take. Everyone should give and take equally. Their is no given right to participate in a game. There is if there is no reason to kick him out. The same would hold true if they were a group of powergamers and the player didn't powergame making his character an annoyance for not "pulling his own weight". Again, accomodation and compromise.
Sareld 03-15-07, 08:53 PM	I am a nice guy, and I do my best not to diskile anyone. You and Greg K seems to be flamebaiting eachother, and whatever the reason is I sure dont feel like taking sides here. I greatly appreciate both of your guys contributions to this thread, as well as the many others who have taken time to write down their thoughts and suggestions on this matter, but some things are better done via PM than in public posts, like working out tensions and certain kinds of disagreements between you and another member. Asking people to take sides is not going to solve anything either, it will just drag more people into the problem. No disrespect intended, Im just sharing my thoughts. As for the problem itself, I feel ready to deal with it now that I have vented the stone of my chest. I will be able to confront them with this problem the next time we gather to play d&d, without accidently calling their characters 'useless' in front of them or accuse any of them of being a steve. Im sure that we will be able to work out something now. Thanks for the many great replies, people :)
Ventilatory_Threshold 03-15-07, 09:44 PM	Greg, my issue is not with differing play styles, it's with the fact that some people can't even be bothered to compromise their own style to accommodate someone else's play style and receive the same treatment. Diminishing fun? That's because they're fighting a process that should come naturally. If they actually try to see Sareld's point of view (even just a little), they'll find they won't be losing out on roleplaying (they'd be gaining a basic level of optimization skill). Sareld has already adapted to the group, so it's time for them to give something back.
Greg K 03-15-07, 11:21 PM	Greg, my issue is not with differing play styles, it's with the fact that some people can't even be bothered to compromise their own style to accommodate someone else's play style and receive the same treatment. Diminishing fun? That's because they're fighting a process that should come naturally. If they actually try to see Sareld's point of view (even just a little), they'll find they won't be losing out on roleplaying (they'd be gaining a basic level of optimization skill). Sareld has already adapted to the group, so it's time for them to give something back. But you are missing the point that not everyone wants to optimize or that some groups only want a very minimal of optimization. It is a more casual style of play than many on these boards are used to or prefer. Unfortunately for Sareld, it appears that he found such a group- one that apparently doesn't want to optimize and are having fun without it. As such, they do not need to meet Sareld partway, it is Sareld who either needs to find a way to enjoy their style so that he fits in or he needs to find a game that he will enjoy. As for treating like dirt, I would say that both parties were equally at fault, as the OP admits to calling their characters useless-Useless for the style of game that he wants to play, perhaps, but not for the style that they are apparently enjoying.
Greg K 03-15-07, 11:28 PM	And why should they not conform to his? D&D, like you said, is a group game after all, and groups are all about give-and-take. Everyone should give and take equally. Because the majority of the group is apparently finding his style disruptive for whatever reason. At some point the individual needs to conform to the consensus of the group and not the other way around. Or if the individual cannot or will not conform for whatever reason, they need to leave.
Clawhound 03-15-07, 11:38 PM	One thing that you have missed is that D&D is an Ensemble game. You play the game WITH others.
WayneTheGame 03-16-07, 12:24 AM	I feel for you... I had almost the same situation with my old group. The easy solution is to find another group that aren't a bunch of windbag "I'm playing a crippled fighter who uses daggers because its ROLE-PLAYING". Other solution is to play something that supports.. like a Bard or Dragon Shaman and maximize that.. that way you're "powergaming" will help everyone. See if they change their tune when your pumped up Bard is granting a ton of bonuses to all of their characters. If they still complain than they're a bunch of idiots who probably think being able to do 20 damage in one round is powergaming (like my old group! hah!) and you're better off without them. Sorry if my post comes off a bit harsh.. but I've experienced exactly this sort of crap before and it wasn't fun at all. So I know exactly what the OP is going through with this group.
Comus 03-16-07, 01:10 AM	But you are missing the point that not everyone wants to optimize or that some groups only want a very minimal of optimization. It is a more casual style of play than many on these boards are used to or prefer. This is just my opinion, but I don't think there's anything wrong with bringing a well-built character into a casual game. In fact, if it is a casual game, the power level difference should matter less. I mean, they are a team, aren't they? Unfortunately for Sareld, it appears that he found such a group- one that apparently doesn't want to optimize and are having fun without it. As such, they do not need to meet Sareld partway, it is Sareld who either needs to find a way to enjoy their style so that he fits in or he needs to find a game that he will enjoy. All they need to do, in my opinion, is let him play his character, even if it is more powerful than their own. There shouldn't be a requisite number of poor feat choices for each character in a game, with only the most hardcore games getting a 'Zero Wasted Feats' rating. They chose to build characters that are less powerful than they could be. He chose to build a character that's mechanically better than that. I've said it before and I'll say it again, because I believe it - If they have weak characters and refuse advice on making them stronger, they want to play weak characters. If they want to play weak characters, they don't have any right to complain when someone builds a strong one using the same set of rules. They could have done the same thing. As for treating like dirt, I would say that both parties were equally at fault, as the OP admits to calling their characters useless-Useless for the style of game that he wants to play, perhaps, but not for the style that they are apparently enjoying. You're probably right, here. Social situations like this tend to develop only when both sides are hostile, and thus are both at fault for not defusing the situation through negotiation and compromise.
FrostWolf 03-16-07, 01:34 AM	Hi all. I have played d&d for a couple of years now, and over the last year and a half I have found the playstyle that suits me the best; I powergame. Now, I have realized that many players in my gaming group (and even more on these boards) views powergamers as an annoyance, and believes that we are incapable of "true" roleplaying, whatever that might be. I am annoyed to sat the least, is it really a crime to build up strong characters? If Im having fun doing it, why is it wrong? My gaming group likes me as a person, and we have great fun when we are not playing d&d, but at the table they all frown at me for building characters that is better than theirs, and I have to listen to angry remarks every time I utter even the smallest remark about the other players builds, or my thoughts on the DMs last near-TPK encounter. My group is the kind of people who play horribly useless characters, and think that it adds to the spirit of the game. For instance, one of them played a necromancer not too long ago, and he blew his feats on weapon proficiency: schyte, weapon focus: schyte and mounted combat, and then proceeded to take as many cross class ranks in ride (skeleton horse) as he could get away with, and never memorized anything but necromancy spells. Though I knew that this character was going to be virtually useless in combat, I liked the concept of a character mimicing the grim reaper, and I suggested that he made a gish with one or two levels in fighter and considered the focused specialist alternate class feature from complete mage, in stead of trying to pull it off with only wizard levels.. big mistake. I was told to shut up and stay out of his face with my 'powergaming', because he was trying to have 'real fun' by making a 'character that actually had character'.. what did I do wrong? For the record, the guys character died two encounters after that, while trying to cut down a hill giant in close combat. How was that any fun? Recently, my DM even started to forbid prestige classes and feats just as I was trying to take them, just to destroy my builds, and 'teach me how to roleplay properly'. What the hell is that? Imagine playing a rogue/mage, and then suddely have all PrCs that combine sneaking and magic made unavaliable to you, 'because they get in the way of the fun'? I cant have fun under those conditions, so I simply have my character leave play every time he does it, and rolls up a core only druid.. the only proper build that doesent require the DMs permission for anything to be effective. I have also tried to write down the planned level progression of a character and show it to my DM before the game, in an attempt to avoid to have my build demolished while the game was running, but the result was even worse. He became so angry with me because I planned my character in advance, that he instantly picked a class on the progression plan and said "I forbid you to pick this class, or anything that looks like it". I am the only player in the group who actually DOES real roleplaying, but because my characters is more powerful than the rest of the lot, it is just not good enough? I actually roleplay my bluff checks instead of just rolling to see if I can fool people, make sure that my character acts according to his/her alignment and personality, and my characters actually does things other than getting drunk in the tavern and hunting bad guys. I even write several pages of background stories to my characters and develop interesting personalities for them, but no one cares. I have a powerful character, so none of it is worth anything. Im not even a good powergamer by the CO boards standards, and I even restrict myself from the really cheesy stuff like casting 9th level spells at 6th level or using infinite loops. I also dont just pwn everything I come across, before the rest of the party have had a chance to fight it and loose, so then what is their problem? Why does people hate powergamers? Here is what I'd do. take all 10 and 11 for stats. Anything else is above the norm, thus, powergaming. Also, adventurers are rare, so take eather a commoner or Expert. NO Adept. Magic is "fiddleing with the powers and will of the gods". Now, roleplay the hell out of your new commoner and accuse them of powergaming at every round. And it isn't Powergaming to play a character that works. To be honest, I'd have slapped the Necro, then burned him alive for corpse desecration and grave robbing. Now that would ave been role playing. Better thought. Ditch the group. Don't put up with their crap any longer and walk. Don't wreck the game for them. Just step back.
Greg K 03-16-07, 01:54 AM	This is just my opinion, but I don't think there's anything wrong with bringing a well-built character into a casual game. In fact, if it is a casual game, the power level difference should matter less. I mean, they are a team, aren't they?. The question is well built by whose standard? a) A powergamer's standard? b) A simulationist standard where players are expected to make choices initially based upon the culture in which the character grew up and his initial training (i.e., class) and many powergaming optimizations are are unavailable due to cultural restirictions on race/class/feat combinations and clerics spell lists are preassigned to various predetermined gods, etc., training is moved to the forefront and later choices of feats skills based on in game experience rather than most mechanical beneift? c) A casual standard where it is the norm makes it acceptable for the Necromancer to take weapon focus (scythe) and cross class skill ride without being told their character's are weak or don't pull their weight All they need to do, in my opinion, is let him play his character, even if it is more powerful than their own. There shouldn't be a requisite number of poor feat choices for each character in a game, with only the most hardcore games getting a 'Zero Wasted Feats' rating. They chose to build characters that are less powerful than they could be. He chose to build a character that's mechanically better than that. I've said it before and I'll say it again, because I believe it - If they have weak characters and refuse advice on making them stronger, they want to play weak characters. If they want to play weak characters, they don't have any right to complain when someone builds a strong one using the same set of rules. They could have done the same thing. . Whether or not there should be requisite number of poor feat choices is a group decision, because it reflects the playstyle that they prefer/want. Look at what you wrote. "They don't have any right to complain" as "they could have done the same thing". You approached the situation from an optimization or powergamer perspective and basically stated that " if they don't want to approach the game as I do too bad" as I gave them the chance to by offering advice on how to approach the game as you do. As a group, they have the right to say, "This is how we play. If you don't want to play the same way as we have decided to play, please find another game. Your way is interfering with our fun".
Ack 03-16-07, 02:36 AM	Note that their way is also killing off their characters and making it hard for them to really get anywhere. Political correctness aside, there does come a point where one side of an argument is "wrong" and the other side is "right". I'm not saying that the other players are "wrong" because they choose to play sub-optimal character concepts - but they are wrong for resenting the OP for not deliberately crippling his character concepts in order to keep on par with them. Because there is a standard to which the characters can be measured; the basic standard of the Core books. Anyone who exerts a little judgement can pick out a suite of feats that complement the character type. However, someone who deliberately picks feats that simply will not advance the character in any way, and then decries someone else whose feats do aid their character a majority of the time, is just being petty. And if the majority of the players act in this way - then the majority of the players are being petty. Group consensus does not equal, or even approach, wisdom. It just means that a lot of idiots agree with each other. I heard an anecdote about a fourth-grade class that acquired a cat as a class pet. One of the children asked the teacher, "Miss, is it a boy cat or a girl cat?" The teacher said she didn't know. "I know how we can find out!" called out one little girl. "We can vote on it!" So they voted. The end result? The cat was declared 'male' by an almost unanimous vote. It was then promptly named Tommy. Imagine their surprise several months later when Tommy had a litter of kittens...
Cold Napalm 03-16-07, 03:30 AM	And if the majority of the players act in this way - then the majority of the players are being petty. Group consensus does not equal, or even approach, wisdom. It just means that a lot of idiots agree with each other. Best thing I have read in a long time hehe. Oh and since the OP is attempting to work it out, we should wait for him to report back at this point. And there is nothing wrong with playing a stamp collecting malkavian that lives in the basement as long as you acknoweldge that YOU chose this character and there is no reason to get jealeous of players who don't want such colorful characters to play.
Greg K 03-16-07, 08:02 AM	And if the majority of the players act in this way - then the majority of the players are being petty. Group consensus does not equal, or even approach, wisdom. It just means that a lot of idiots agree with each other. In many cases yes, group consensus does not equal wisdom. However, we are talking about a game that leaves it to the group as a whole to determine what style of play is fun for them. As fun is subjective, the group cannot be wrong for determining that particular style of game is fun for them and sticking with it. And, in this instance, the words petty and idiots, would not be terms that I would apply to the other members of the group for knowing their preferred playstyle and not wanting to accomadate a play style that they don't find fun.
Greg K 03-16-07, 08:10 AM	And there is nothing wrong with playing a stamp collecting malkavian that lives in the basement as long as you acknoweldge that YOU chose this character and there is no reason to get jealeous of players who don't want such colorful characters to play. Right. If it is a problem, the storyteller or the other players tell you to make a character that fits their style of game or find another group. Of course, if the group finds the malkavian to be a problem that they don't want to play with and the storyteller does not, the group may have a completely different problem.
Ack 03-16-07, 09:07 AM	In many cases yes, group consensus does not equal wisdom. However, we are talking about a game that leaves it to the group as a whole to determine what style of play is fun for them. As fun is subjective, the group cannot be wrong for determining that particular style of game is fun for them and sticking with it. And, in this instance, the words petty and idiots, would not be terms that I would apply to the other members of the group for knowing their preferred playstyle and not wanting to accomadate a play style that they don't find fun. I would, however, apply those terms to people who do the following: 1) create characters which are less effective and efficient than the norm for the game (as established by character examples within the core books); 2) play said characters in an inefficient and unintelligent fashion (ignoring their own strengths and attacking enemies on their strengths); 3) ignore well-meaning advice about both of the above topics; advice that would improve the effectiveness and efficiency (and surviveability) of the characters involved; 4) and actively attack a player who does create a character that meets the normal standards of character efficiency, and is played in an efficient fashion, on the grounds that said player is a 'power gamer'. In short: They screwed up, he didn't, they're blaming him for not screwing up like they did. That's why I'm calling them idiots.
FrostWolf 03-16-07, 10:02 AM	Ack.... I think I love you.:embarrass :weep: :D
Changling_Bob 03-16-07, 10:31 AM	I'm going to be lazy, and bring up the usual advice. If they think that picking good feats and multiclassing and so on is powergaming, play a druid20, taking random and not-especially useful feats except for natural spell at L6, and see what they say. I suggest something like alertness or skill focus: basketweaving. Because an unoptimised druid will probably be about as good as moderately optimised whatever else that isn't a divine caster. Also, be sure to stick to the RP requirements. If this doesn't have an impact, yeah, pack up and find a different group. If it does, you might end up with a party of unoptimised druids instead of unoptimised [class x]es, but that can't be a disadvantage, right? ...right?
kelvinaw273 03-16-07, 10:49 AM	Well, once again the debate misses the point completely. First off, the OP has his answers, so now we are just debating for the sake of it. Second off, if one players style of enjoying himself is disrupting the fun of the other players, for any reason, they have every right to ask him to change his style of play or leave the group. If a player joins a group whose alignment tends to LG, that work well as a team etc. with a CE character and the intention of a "kill them in their sleep" TPK at the earliest opportunity to get their stuff, they are ruining everyone's game and shouldn't do it. If they do it, they can expect not to be invited back. It is, unfortunately, a case of "Majority rules". If there is compromise, and one player has one opinion on play style and the other four players and the DM have another style, then the one player can expect to do 5/6 of the compromising. Third off: I would, however, apply those terms to people who do the following: 1) create characters which are less effective and efficient than the norm for the game (as established by character examples within the core books); 2) play said characters in an inefficient and unintelligent fashion (ignoring their own strengths and attacking enemies on their strengths); 3) ignore well-meaning advice about both of the above topics; advice that would improve the effectiveness and efficiency (and surviveability) of the characters involved; 4) and actively attack a player who does create a character that meets the normal standards of character efficiency, and is played in an efficient fashion, on the grounds that said player is a 'power gamer'. In short: They screwed up, he didn't, they're blaming him for not screwing up like they did. That's why I'm calling them idiots. All your arguments are reasoned, concise and logical - in the metagame. Ignoring the specific example of the OP's group, there is not a hint of actual role-playing involved in your argument at all. Never mind that people aren't born 'optimised' and that they don't automatically know how to respond like a special forces comando in a combat situation, all that is ignored. Some people play role-playing games to role-play; it's a bit of a no-brainer really. So you are telling me that players who risk their character's life and limb by presenting them as inexperienced at first level are 'idiots' who have screwed up their character creation? No, I don't think so. I would regard such a group as excelent players, and if they and the DM have agreed this style before starting, the appearence of an optimised, tactically savvy character can ruin the plot and the atmosphere of the game. For some people playing D&D is not about scoring points and getting the max, it's about role-play. Optimisers always seem to complain that role-players are snobs, but this is snobbery of the same degree if not greater.
Ack 03-16-07, 11:27 AM	Well, once again the debate misses the point completely. First off, the OP has his answers, so now we are just debating for the sake of it. Second off, if one players style of enjoying himself is disrupting the fun of the other players, for any reason, they have every right to ask him to change his style of play or leave the group. If a player joins a group whose alignment tends to LG, that work well as a team etc. with a CE character and the intention of a "kill them in their sleep" TPK at the earliest opportunity to get their stuff, they are ruining everyone's game and shouldn't do it. If they do it, they can expect not to be invited back. It is, unfortunately, a case of "Majority rules". If there is compromise, and one player has one opinion on play style and the other four players and the DM have another style, then the one player can expect to do 5/6 of the compromising. Once again, I will attempt to make the point: If the majority are being idiots, they don't automatically have the right to make the rules. The 'odd man out' is not attempting to TPK them, harm them, or even lord it over them. From all appearances, he is attempting to help them achieve parity with the standard of roleplaying characters, as expressed in the core books. Their attitude has all the intelligent forethought of a tribe of Stone Age savages refusing modern medicine in favour of shamanic chants and burnt offerings, even as their fellow tribesmen die in droves around them. The tribe is the majority compared to the doctor; are they right to choose what they consider to be the best option, even though it is manifestly in their worst interests? Not "do they have the right", but "are they right"? And before you say that the consequences are not as bad as all that - tell that to the characters, which are in constant danger of dying from even mild encounters. Third off: All your arguments are reasoned, concise and logical - in the metagame. Ignoring the specific example of the OP's group, there is not a hint of actual role-playing involved in your argument at all. Never mind that people aren't born 'optimised' and that they don't automatically know how to respond like a special forces comando in a combat situation, all that is ignored. Some people play role-playing games to role-play; it's a bit of a no-brainer really. So you are telling me that players who risk their character's life and limb by presenting them as inexperienced at first level are 'idiots' who have screwed up their character creation? No, I don't think so. Well, I'm sorry, but I'm a player. What I see of the games are the rules. I can't help but think in metagame. I know what "BAB" means - my characters do not. I have to know it in order to play the game. While people are not born optimised, characters are not born as PC classes either. They spend years as children, more years as commoners, then gradually work their way up to the dizzying heights of first level characters. These are heroic characters, by definition, so yes, they have some idea what danger means. They also know their own capabilities, and they should have some vague idea what not to do in certain situations. I would regard such a group as excelent players, and if they and the DM have agreed this style before starting, the appearence of an optimised, tactically savvy character can ruin the plot and the atmosphere of the game. For some people playing D&D is not about scoring points and getting the max, it's about role-play. Optimisers always seem to complain that role-players are snobs, but this is snobbery of the same degree if not greater. It doesn't sound like anything was 'agreed'. The other players are just playing any old how, without any particular common sense to their actions, and the GM is going along with it because he's not having to exert himself to keep them in check. And then along comes, gasp, horror, someone who read the rules and has an idea how to apply them. They don't have the right to complain about his play style. He is playing what is normal as defined by the books. He wasn't told otherwise.
Ventilatory_Threshold 03-16-07, 11:59 AM	But you are missing the point that not everyone wants to optimize or that some groups only want a very minimal of optimization. And those players can play that way if they want. But if they don't want to conform to Sareld's play style, then they should expect Sareld to conform to their play style. Unfortunately for Sareld, it appears that he found such a group- one that apparently doesn't want to optimize and are having fun without it. That doesn't mean they can't have fun while doing it. And if they're having so much fun even if Sareld is there, why can't they just back off? Whatever reason they give, their fun is not adversely affected by Sareld, it's affected by their own inability to make realisitc, effective and original characters. Compared with Sareld's play style of intelligent design and realism, they probably feel useless, as they should. They ARE useless. It's a wonder that they can even survive having breakfast. It's not Sareld's problem, it's theirs, and he should NOT be made pay for it. As such, they do not need to meet Sareld partway, it is Sareld who either needs to find a way to enjoy their style so that he fits in or he needs to find a game that he will enjoy. Explain to me why Sareld should have to compromise, but not his group? I have explained why everyone needs to compromise: D&D is a group game. You said that yourself. D&D is about teamwork. You agree to that, too, I presume. In a team, everyone needs to pull their own weight and learn to work together. For that to happen, everyone must give something and receive something in return. It's ALL about give and take. His group is just selfish. As for treating like dirt, I would say that both parties were equally at fault, as the OP admits to calling their characters useless-Useless for the style of game that he wants to play, perhaps, but not for the style that they are apparently enjoying. As far as this argument is concerned, he has never called them useless, as he hasn't called them that to their faces. It's what he's thinking, sure, but until he states it, he's innocent. Because the majority of the group is apparently finding his style disruptive for whatever reason. At some point the individual needs to conform to the consensus of the group and not the other way around. Or if the individual cannot or will not conform for whatever reason, they need to leave. This is classic mob menatlity. Just because there's more of them, doesn't make them right. It doesn't make them special. EVERYONE is supposed to conform, not just the minority. It's called learning, and his group needs to do that. I'd like to state for the record that if any group treated me this way, I'd explode. I'd be kicking their asses and trashing their homes. Why? Because, whether you people can see it or not, they are at fault. Completely. They act snobbish, elitist, call him names. It's socially and mentally abusive. I'm surprised Sareld tolerates them at all. Never mind that people aren't born 'optimised' and that they don't automatically know how to respond like a special forces comando in a combat situation, all that is ignored. But everyone, outisde of the mentally handicapped learn to play to their strengths. That Necromancer Idiot was playing a Wizard. He supposedly had a high Intelligence score, yet he ran into melee with a scythe he couldn't swing effectively, riding a horse he couldn't ride effectively and didn't use the spells he could use effectively. Furthermore, he did this in the name of roleplaying. This shows a massive lack of reasoning capability, inability to realize his own strengths and complete and utter disregard for the people around him (in case this was a Good campaign). In short, this was horrible roleplaying. I'd like to add that the aggression the NI exhibited should not be tolerated. You should go and have him neutered, Sareld. So you are telling me that players who risk their character's life and limb by presenting them as inexperienced at first level are 'idiots' who have screwed up their character creation? No, I don't think so. I'm saying they're idiots because they deliberately made s***** characters and expected the same from Sareld. Sareld has no responsibility to make a crappy character; he controls his own concepts, in both a mechanical, roleplaying and aesthetic sense. Logically, this works too. If you are on a football team and deliberately buy old and crappy shoes because of their experience and personalities, the other people on the team have no responsibility to cripple themselves to be on par with you. the appearence of an optimised, tactically savvy character can ruin the plot and the atmosphere of the game. We're not talking about optimized characters, we're talking about a normal human being appearing in a group of retards. For some people playing D&D is not about scoring points and getting the max, it's about role-play. And they can still roleplay while optimizing. The NI didn't even make an original concept. It was not interesting in the least, just a chewed out concept that was recycled... poorly. His character was an exceedingly poor one from all perspectives. Optimisers always seem to complain that role-players are snobs, but this is snobbery of the same degree if not greater. Optimizers generally have no tolerance for leeters. Leeters are people that willingly gimp their characters to oblivion, play them horribly, frown upon rules and rely on the DM for a Deus Ex Machina. They are also snobbish towards people who play their characters effectivley (AKA, realistically, in general) and accuse them of poor roleplay. They also generally exhibit a reliance on railroading (maybe they don't want to have a say in their own character's destiny). I've actually seen a leeter calling optimized, yet very interesting character (very deep backstory, left room for character growth and had some holes that could be filled up later, so as to fit the character even better to the campaign mold) a s***** character. His reasoning: The character could kill stuff efficiently. Apparently he thought that this had some sort of negative effect on the character's personality or the player's ability to roleplay him.
Comus 03-16-07, 12:20 PM	Second off, if one players style of enjoying himself is disrupting the fun of the other players, for any reason, they have every right to ask him to change his style of play or leave the group. I agree with this. I mean, really, D&D is about having fun. If a player joins a group whose alignment tends to LG, that work well as a team etc. with a CE character and the intention of a "kill them in their sleep" TPK at the earliest opportunity to get their stuff, they are ruining everyone's game and shouldn't do it. If they do it, they can expect not to be invited back. Agreed. Intentional disruption of the party, causing ingame conflict, is one of the most annoying things a player can do. It is, unfortunately, a case of "Majority rules". If there is compromise, and one player has one opinion on play style and the other four players and the DM have another style, then the one player can expect to do 5/6 of the compromising. Pretty much, yeah. My sole exception to all of this is when a player builds something well within the bounds of reason and, because of how poorly the other players have built their characters, they resent having a moderately effective character in their midst. All your arguments are reasoned, concise and logical - in the metagame. This is a metagame problem. One player builds characters and chooses effective mechanics to achieve his goal. The others build their concepts without attempting to make them mechanically viable. Ignoring the specific example of the OP's group, there is not a hint of actual role-playing involved in your argument at all. Never mind that people aren't born 'optimised' and that they don't automatically know how to respond like a special forces comando in a combat situation, all that is ignored. Some people play role-playing games to role-play; it's a bit of a no-brainer really. So you are telling me that players who risk their character's life and limb by presenting them as inexperienced at first level are 'idiots' who have screwed up their character creation? No, I don't think so. To play devil's advocate, even one level of a PC class represents years of training. A Fighter literally is a special forces commando - it's his job description. He might not have been born optimized, but he's had years to figure out how to kill things in the face with an axe without dying. Players risk their character's life every time they leave the tavern (and sometimes, are risking it even by sitting at the bar). It's when you unnessesarily risk a character's life that you've done something stupid. Concept and roleplaying should always come first, but you should still strive for mechanics that will keep your character from being useless in the average party. I would regard such a group as excelent players, and if they and the DM have agreed this style before starting, the appearence of an optimised, tactically savvy character can ruin the plot and the atmosphere of the game. For some people playing D&D is not about scoring points and getting the max, it's about role-play. Optimisers always seem to complain that role-players are snobs, but this is snobbery of the same degree if not greater. So they're excellent players... because they make bad decisions both in and out of game and constantly put their characters into life-threatening situations that would be a cakewalk for the average character of their level. I mean, imagine this conversation: Player : "I attempt to disarm the enemy fighter." DM : "Woah, woah. You aren't just going to attack normally?" Player : "No. Why?" DM : "How does a first-level Fighter even know what Disarm is? I don't think I can allow it." Player : "But I took Improved Disarm! My character is an experienced fencer!" DM : "Improved Disarm! You should have run that by me first! You can't use a combat maneuver until an enemy has used it against you first, that's the new rule. Also, erase that feat. It makes you too good at disarming." Player : "That isn't fair!" DM : "Well it's how I'm running my game. Like it or leave."
Sareld 03-16-07, 12:25 PM	I'd like to state for the record that if any group treated me this way, I'd explode. I'd be kicking their asses and trashing their homes. Why? Because, whether you people can see it or not, they are at fault. Completely. They act snobbish, elitist, call him names. It's socially and mentally abusive. I'm surprised Sareld tolerates them at all. Though I get the before mentioned 'angry remarks' for my playstyle, they are based in the other players annoyance on their part, not disrespect. We are friends after all, and as (relatively) mature individuals we are also reasonably tolerant towards eachother. I started this thread out of frustration, because both them and I fail to communicate our views on how to play d&d, not because I am getting picked on and called names. If they actually did that, they would each recieve a wedgie of epic proportions. I just wanted to make clear that Im not a pushover.
Ventilatory_Threshold 03-16-07, 12:31 PM	V_T : "I attempt to disarm the enemy fighter." DM : "Woah, woah. You aren't just going to attack normally?" V_T : "No. Why?" DM : "How does a first-level Fighter even know what Disarm is? I don't think I can allow it." V_T : "But I took Improved Disarm! My character is an experienced fencer!" DM : "Improved Disarm! You should have run that by me first! You can't use a combat maneuver until an enemy has used it against you first, that's the new rule. Also, erase that feat. It makes you too good at disarming." V_T : "That isn't fair!" DM : "Well it's how I'm running my game. Like it or leave." V_T : *Brutally beats the DM, causing a lot of pain, and possibly permanent damage* "My character has Improved Disarm, period. You can deal with it in three ways: Like it, leave or have me beat you up again." How the conversation would go down if that player were me. All people understand either logic or violence.
kelvinaw273 03-16-07, 12:33 PM	Once again, I will attempt to make the point: If the majority are being idiots, they don't automatically have the right to make the rules. The 'odd man out' is not attempting to TPK them, harm them, or even lord it over them. From all appearances, he is attempting to help them achieve parity with the standard of roleplaying characters, as expressed in the core books. Actually, many groups have thier house rules. In what way is his standard inherently better than theirs? Don't get me wrong I can see your point, but it isn't really valid. What you mean is, he is trying to get them to play his way, when they already have a way of playing that they enjoy very much. Their attitude has all the intelligent forethought of a tribe of Stone Age savages refusing modern medicine in favour of shamanic chants and burnt offerings, even as their fellow tribesmen die in droves around them. The tribe is the majority compared to the doctor; are they right to choose what they consider to be the best option, even though it is manifestly in their worst interests? Not "do they have the right", but "are they right"? This is a very silly, patronising and offensive comparison. If the local witchdoctor achieves results as impressive as the modern medical doctor, does this argument hold water? If he acheives BETTER results, does it hold water? The issue here is "are they enjoying the game the way they play?" and the answer is that they are. That's the point of the game, not following the given ruleset (and it says so). Until you can offer me solid evidence that playing the game the OPs way is somehow going to increase their enjoyment, then you don't HAVE an argument. All you have is an assumption that playing your way is somehow "better" than the way they play now. A better comparison would not be the doctor in the stone age tribe, but the missionary trying to convert them to a new religion from their indiginous beliefs. Who is right or wrong? That could start a massive theological debate and these boards are not the place for it, but do you see my point that the argument is entirely subjective? And before you say that the consequences are not as bad as all that - tell that to the characters, which are in constant danger of dying from even mild encounters. That's their decision as players to make. Maybe they like a game with a high element of danger. Maybe the DM tailors to their power level. It does not matter, if that is the way they enjoy playing the game. Well, I'm sorry, but I'm a player. What I see of the games are the rules. I can't help but think in metagame. I know what "BAB" means - my characters do not. I have to know it in order to play the game. While people are not born optimised, characters are not born as PC classes either. They spend years as children, more years as commoners, then gradually work their way up to the dizzying heights of first level characters. These are heroic characters, by definition, so yes, they have some idea what danger means. They also know their own capabilities, and they should have some vague idea what not to do in certain situations. Irrelivant. They may have potential, but that does not make it instantly accessible. If the players have decided to start as klutzes, as unlikely heroes-to-be, that is THEIR CHOICE. There is no right or wrong to it. Yes, you can justify being a savy 1st level character - but that does not mean that you HAVE to be one. All you have done is explain that yes, you metagame. It doesn't sound like anything was 'agreed'. The other players are just playing any old how, without any particular common sense to their actions, and the GM is going along with it because he's not having to exert himself to keep them in check. And then along comes, gasp, horror, someone who read the rules and has an idea how to apply them. I did state that the example was not the OPs situation. I was giving a more general example of a situation in which players may choose not to optimize and not to metagame and gain greater enjoyment from doing so. The OP has stated his group contains several 'steves' and that they don't role-play well OR optimize well. Unfortunately while I think they would have more fun if they learned to roleplay, and you think they would have more fun if the powergamed, neither of us has any right to say that they SHOULD be doing these things. If that is the way that they want to play, then that's their right to play that way. And unfortunately that does not mean that they do not know the rules or how to apply them, and to assume so is wrong - I agree you are more than likely right, but we don't know that. They don't have the right to complain about his play style. He is playing what is normal as defined by the books. He wasn't told otherwise. They do if it disrupts their fun. Even if we both agree they are asshats who cannot play worth a monkey's left nipple, they still have every right to enjoy the game as they see fit. If the OPs style disrupts the game, they have a right to ask him to stop or leave. The books clearly state that however you want to play as a group is up to you. I mean, if I found a group like this I wouldn't want to play with them, myself, and my advice to the OP was to bail out anyway. It's natural to want to educate them, but if they are happy the way they are, what can you do?
Ventilatory_Threshold 03-16-07, 12:38 PM	but if they are happy the way they are, what can you do? Kill them. But seriously, Sareld is attempting to conform to the group he's in. They owe it to compromise.
Greg K 03-16-07, 12:57 PM	I'd like to state for the record that if any group treated me this way, I'd explode. I'd be kicking their asses and trashing their homes. Got to love how Ventilatory fails to consider that once he attacks another person, the DM, any other player or the group as a whole kick his behind to a bloody pulp following which they call the cops and have him thrown in jail for battery and other charges.
aotrscommander 03-16-07, 12:57 PM	Kill them. No, no, no, no! You kill, summon spirit, spirit-bind and permenantly control Undead them and then force them to play your way (i.e. the right way) for the rest of time, or until you become bored. Actually, if you were really clever, you could make them do that then leave them locked in closet playing the game your way for the rest of eternity while you go out and find some better (i.e. compliant) players! (This should not be difficult if you shows them what happened to the previous group). That's what I did um, Would Do If That Situation Ever Occurred, Which It Hasn't, And Any Rumour You Hear To The Contrary Is An Outright, Stinking Lie.
WayneTheGame 03-16-07, 12:59 PM	I agree with V_T here. Sareld doesn't come off as an "evil powergamer", he comes off as someone with a lick of common sense. I'm not usually one to hurl insults but the Necromancer Sareld mentioned sounds like a downright idiot to think he can fight in combat as a WIZARD. There's a difference between roleplaying a concept (necromancer with a scythe is COOL, I admit) and behaving like an idiot. To summarize: GOOD IDEA: A necromancer wizard who uses a scythe BAD IDEA: A necromancer wizard who uses a scythe and fights in melee combat instead of casting spells. This person isn't roleplaying a good concept, they're playing to a weakness and expecting it to actually WORK, and ignoring all kinds of good advice to help them REALIZE their concept (such as making a fighter/mage type who specializes in necromancy). That's the sign of an elitist snob who thinks that their playstyle is better and will happily go about with their worthless character, getting killed and thinking they aren't doing anything wrong, when they ARE. Sareld has shown no such snobbery; in fact he comes across as someone who wants to HELP the others and is getting insulted for wanting it. Exactly like my own personal experiences.
aotrscommander 03-16-07, 01:05 PM	To summarize: GOOD IDEA: A necromancer wizard who uses a scythe BAD IDEA: A necromancer wizard who uses a scythe and fights in melee combat instead of casting spells who isn't a mid to high-level Pale Master who has planned for the eventually since character generation. Added a probably unecessary clarificaton, but seeing as I am playing a character that is headedin that direction, I felt I should needlessly clutter the thread again contribute.
WayneTheGame 03-16-07, 01:06 PM	I don't know if that's one of the insulting "fixed that for you" posts or a valid point so I can't comment on it. :p
kelvinaw273 03-16-07, 01:12 PM	This is a metagame problem. One player builds characters and chooses effective mechanics to achieve his goal. The others build their concepts without attempting to make them mechanically viable. Only in part - in fact it can become a whole game problem if it disrupts the game. Diferences in style can result in a bad game; the way the CE rogue in the LG game is caused by a difference in style. Just because that difference lies in the metagame and not the RP does not make it less of a problem. To play devil's advocate, even one level of a PC class represents years of training. A Fighter literally is a special forces commando - it's his job description. He might not have been born optimized, but he's had years to figure out how to kill things in the face with an axe without dying. Players risk their character's life every time they leave the tavern (and sometimes, are risking it even by sitting at the bar). It's when you unnessesarily risk a character's life that you've done something stupid. Concept and roleplaying should always come first, but you should still strive for mechanics that will keep your character from being useless in the average party. I agree with you on all points - but that does not make it mandatory to play that way. If the players want a game where they start as talented but clueless, that's their choice. So they're excellent players... because they make bad decisions both in and out of game and constantly put their characters into life-threatening situations that would be a cakewalk for the average character of their level. I mean, imagine this conversation: Player : "I attempt to disarm the enemy fighter." DM : "Woah, woah. You aren't just going to attack normally?" Player : "No. Why?" DM : "How does a first-level Fighter even know what Disarm is? I don't think I can allow it." Player : "But I took Improved Disarm! My character is an experienced fencer!" DM : "Improved Disarm! You should have run that by me first! You can't use a combat maneuver until an enemy has used it against you first, that's the new rule. Also, erase that feat. It makes you too good at disarming." Player : "That isn't fair!" DM : "Well it's how I'm running my game. Like it or leave." Well that is just an example of bad DMing. At the least a DM should explain what he expects and vet characters before hand. And those players can play that way if they want. But if they don't want to conform to Sareld's play style, then they should expect Sareld to conform to their play style. That doesn't mean they can't have fun while doing it. And if they're having so much fun even if Sareld is there, why can't they just back off? Well they are complaining, so they are not having so much fun, obviously. The argument is that Seralds style is disrupting their fun. Whatever reason they give, their fun is not adversely affected by Sareld, it's affected by their own inability to make realisitc, effective and original characters. Compared with Sareld's play style of intelligent design and realism, they probably feel useless, as they should. They ARE useless. It's a wonder that they can even survive having breakfast. It's not Sareld's problem, it's theirs, and he should NOT be made pay for it. Explain to me why Sareld should have to compromise, but not his group? Once again, the assumption that they are somehow "Wrong" for not making characters as good as the OPs. There is no right or wrong here, just what people enjoy doing. You could as easily argue that the CE character in the LG party who does the "kill them in their sleep and take their stuff" routine is playing "Better" because he gets all the gold at the end of the game. The point of the game is to have fun. Period. If you are having fun, you are doing it right. Sareld is the odd one out in his group, if his still does not mesh with the majority he has to be prepared to bend more than them. I have explained why everyone needs to compromise: D&D is a group game. You said that yourself. D&D is about teamwork. You agree to that, too, I presume. In a team, everyone needs to pull their own weight and learn to work together. For that to happen, everyone must give something and receive something in return. It's ALL about give and take. His group is just selfish. Yes, but the tail does not wag the dog. I also said that compromise is good, but if I am in a minority of one against a majority of five, I will have to do 5/6 of the compromising. This is classic mob menatlity. Just because there's more of them, doesn't make them right. It doesn't make them special. EVERYONE is supposed to conform, not just the minority. It's called learning, and his group needs to do that.[QUOTE] It's also called democracy in practice. What is an election but mob rule? The minorities have to be respected, I agree, but they don't get to dictate to the rest of the world how to behave, which is pretty much what you are suggesting. [QUOTE]I'd like to state for the record that if any group treated me this way, I'd explode. I'd be kicking their asses and trashing their homes. Why? Because, whether you people can see it or not, they are at fault. Completely. They act snobbish, elitist, call him names. It's socially and mentally abusive. I'm surprised Sareld tolerates them at all. Violence is a last resort, not a first recourse. Especially not for name calling. No matter how bad their verbal treatment (which the OP has stated they do not do) behaving in this way just demeans all of your own arguments, and places you on a moral strata below those you rail against. But everyone, outisde of the mentally handicapped learn to play to their strengths. That Necromancer Idiot was playing a Wizard. He supposedly had a high Intelligence score, yet he ran into melee with a scythe he couldn't swing effectively, riding a horse he couldn't ride effectively and didn't use the spells he could use effectively. Furthermore, he did this in the name of roleplaying. This shows a massive lack of reasoning capability, inability to realize his own strengths and complete and utter disregard for the people around him (in case this was a Good campaign). In short, this was horrible roleplaying. I would agree with you ... really ... except that people really do this sort of thing in real life. OK, most of them end up on the Darwin Awards website, but they do it! I remember a conversation a kick-boxing instructor related once: he had a student ask him "How can I make sure I look really cut in this competition next month?" His reply: "You entered? but it's way above your level, you'll get taken out in the first round!" the student: "But I'll look REALLY GOOD!" The Necromancer is obsessed with death image ... he wants to look really cool on his horse, with his scythe. He wants it so bad her DOES NOT CARE if he dies immediately in battle to do it. No, I wouldn't do that either, but some people would. And enjoy it <shudders>. I'm saying they're idiots because they deliberately made s***** characters and expected the same from Sareld. Sareld has no responsibility to make a crappy character; he controls his own concepts, in both a mechanical, roleplaying and aesthetic sense. Logically, this works too. If you are on a football team and deliberately buy old and crappy shoes because of their experience and personalities, the other people on the team have no responsibility to cripple themselves to be on par with you. The point of a football game is winning. The point of an RPG is having fun. If they had fun, you have no grounds to call them 'wrong'. His character was an exceedingly poor one from all perspectives. Except the one where he enjoyed it. Unfortunately, that's the one that counts.
Greg K 03-16-07, 01:18 PM	And those players can play that way if they want. But if they don't want to conform to Sareld's play style, then they should expect Sareld to conform to their play style. That doesn't mean they can't have fun while doing it. And if they're having so much fun even if Sareld is there, why can't they just back off? Whatever reason they give, their fun is not adversely affected by Sareld, it's affected by their own inability to make realisitc, effective and original characters. Compared with Sareld's play style of intelligent design and realism, they probably feel useless, as they should. They ARE useless. It's a wonder that they can even survive having breakfast. It's not Sareld's problem, it's theirs, and he should NOT be made pay for it. Explain to me why Sareld should have to compromise, but not his group? I have explained why everyone needs to compromise: D&D is a group game. You said that yourself. D&D is about teamwork. You agree to that, too, I presume. In a team, everyone needs to pull their own weight and learn to work together. For that to happen, everyone must give something and receive something in return. It's ALL about give and take. His group is just selfish. Yes it is a group game. The group decides how the game will be played by the style of the majority. The exception being the DM. The DM, if he or she chooses, gets to lay down the conditions for the campaign style he or she is willing to run and the house rules that will employed to accomplish it and that decision supersedes the group. The DMs choice in my opinion overrules that of everyone else, because the DM has to be comfortable with the game that they are running. Yes, this means that if the DM runs with houserules or options that the players do not enjoy, the players choose not to play, they may elect a new DM, or everyone else finds something else to do including finding more compatible people with whom to play.
Ack 03-16-07, 01:22 PM	Actually, many groups have thier house rules. In what way is his standard inherently better than theirs? Don't get me wrong I can see your point, but it isn't really valid. What you mean is, he is trying to get them to play his way, when they already have a way of playing that they enjoy very much. I don't think it's a conscious house rule, as such (feel free to correct me here, Sareld). The impression I get is sheer, I'll-make-a-half-assed-effort-and-no-more, laziness. This is a very silly, patronising and offensive comparison. If the local witchdoctor achieves results as impressive as the modern medical doctor, does this argument hold water? If he acheives BETTER results, does it hold water? By my very example, the witchdoctor is not getting any results at all. He's jumping around, burning incense and screaming epithets at the gods ... and people (ie, PCs) are still dying. Yet when the doctor (Sareld) steps up and politely offers the use of modern medicine to cure the tribe of their ailment, not only is he chased off with spears, but the witch-doctor then promptly blames him for the epidemic. Again, I ask: are they right to do this? The issue here is "are they enjoying the game the way they play?" and the answer is that they are. That's the point of the game, not following the given ruleset (and it says so). Until you can offer me solid evidence that playing the game the OPs way is somehow going to increase their enjoyment, then you don't HAVE an argument. All you have is an assumption that playing your way is somehow "better" than the way they play now. Apparently they were happy - until it was demonstrated to them that better results could be gotten with same-level characters. They don't want to leave their comfort zone (and perhaps they hope that someday the dice might magically allow them to succeed at all the wildly ridiculous actions they've been trying) so they slag off at the person who showed them that they could do better. Power-gamer is an easy label to slap on to someone who does better at the game than you. Doesn't mean it's true, or justified. A better comparison would not be the doctor in the stone age tribe, but the missionary trying to convert them to a new religion from their indiginous beliefs. Who is right or wrong? That could start a massive theological debate and these boards are not the place for it, but do you see my point that the argument is entirely subjective? I was going to comment that your example missed the point, but you have actually made a point for me. Upgrading from Paganism 3.5 to Christianity 1.0 will get doctors visiting, hopefully make them more peaceful and less likely to engage in tribal warfare, allow the introduction of proper hygiene and inoculations to diseases, introduce education ... all in all, improve their lot in life considerably. Resisting such a change just because it's not the way the tribe does things is a silly and wrong thing to do. Especially if the child mortality rate stays up where it usually is in situations like that. That's their decision as players to make. Maybe they like a game with a high element of danger. Maybe the DM tailors to their power level. It does not matter, if that is the way they enjoy playing the game. Apparently they needlessly increase the danger level, and pay for it. A rogue, charging into the front line of battle? A wizard, attacking a hill giant with a scythe? Those characters are not going to get anywhere fast - and that will reduce their enjoyment. Unless they like being the local easy-beats. Irrelivant. They may have potential, but that does not make it instantly accessible. If the players have decided to start as klutzes, as unlikely heroes-to-be, that is THEIR CHOICE. There is no right or wrong to it. Yes, you can justify being a savy 1st level character - but that does not mean that you HAVE to be one. All you have done is explain that yes, you metagame. In my experience, if you don't use some savvy in playing your first level character, you rarely make it to second level. And even then it's not easy.
Pyke_Moonshadow 03-16-07, 01:22 PM	Except the one where he enjoyed it. Unfortunately, that's the one that counts. True. While I have no problem with the OP's playstyle and it is commonly the playstyle I am familiar with I could see a group of people like the OP described. If I am in a group where the characters are the butcher, the baker and the candlestick maker I can expect some resistance when I want to make The High Arcanus of Fire magic. Should I sacrifice my character for the others? No, I shouldn't be forced to but I should also realize that make John, apprentice fire mage might be more in line.
Ack 03-16-07, 01:25 PM	True. While I have no problem with the OP's playstyle and it is commonly the playstyle I am familiar with I could see a group of people like the OP described. If I am in a group where the characters are the butcher, the baker and the candlestick maker I can expect some resistance when I want to make The High Arcanus of Fire magic. Should I sacrifice my character for the others? No, I shouldn't be forced to but I should also realize that make John, apprentice fire mage might be more in line. And he'd still clean them up nine ways from Sunday.
Greg K 03-16-07, 01:31 PM	Kelvinaw, Thank you for stating my position more eloquently than I have.
Pyke_Moonshadow 03-16-07, 01:33 PM	And he'd still clean them up nine ways from Sunday. But the point is that John would be an attempt to fit the playstyle. Making a "normal" character upsets the overall powercurve and since I can have fun playing anything really, I would make a character that uses mainly utility spells and his "all powerful" burning hands to get them out a tough spot. I still get to play a fire mage and they still get to play their norms.
Ack 03-16-07, 01:40 PM	No, I mean they'd still be overshadowed and call him a power gamer. Even if he played a level or two below them, due to their lack of willingness to play savvy, he'd still dominate the game. First PCs I ever heard of that had a negative LA.. :P
Greg K 03-16-07, 01:54 PM	I don't think it's a conscious house rule, as such (feel free to correct me here, Sareld). House rules do not need to develop consciously. Sometimes they just develop from mutual understanding based on common experience. And, it is not that uncommon to find similar instances of unspoken expected conduct in the real world. Often, there is an assumption that new individual will learn the rules of the group as they go along or individuals already in the group will not break that understanding. In such instances, the solution is usually telling the person, "That is not how we do things here" followed by an explanation of what is considered appropriate behavior with an expectation that the offending individual will conform to the group standard. Obviously not the best solution, in my opinion. My preference is for formal communication of major issues, especially written, with the expectation that small issues not covered may occur.
Ventilatory_Threshold 03-16-07, 02:09 PM	Got to love how Ventilatory fails to consider that once he attacks another person, the DM, any other player or the group as a whole kick his behind to a bloody pulp following which they call the cops and have him thrown in jail for battery and other charges. I love how you fail to consider that I may be able to take three people at once without much trouble. I use surprise tactics. A swift kick in the solar plexus can easily dispatch someone, as can breaking a nose. The police? The prisons here are so overcrowded that they'd have no other choice than to let me go. Just last month they had to release a man serving time for murder early. I'm not afraid to go to prison, though, especially considering the fine treatment our prisoners get. Temporary insanity also works as a valid defense, considering that this constitutes abuse, and that people have gone overboard for much less. But let's leave all that aside because of its contributive value (nonexistent). Well they are complaining, so they are not having so much fun, obviously. The argument is that Seralds style is disrupting their fun. I don't remember them complaining. They just panicked when they saw a "powergamer" trying to corrupt them. Once again, the assumption that they are somehow "Wrong" for not making characters as good as the OPs. There is no right or wrong here, just what people enjoy doing. Well, I'd be willing to bet that they'd have more fun if their characters had more durability. Sareld is the odd one out in his group, if his still does not mesh with the majority he has to be prepared to bend more than them. They still owe it to him to compromise. Sareld has only been giving. Yes, but the tail does not wag the dog. I also said that compromise is good, but if I am in a minority of one against a majority of five, I will have to do 5/6 of the compromising. Not necessarily. If the group has any rational thought (or any sympathy) at all, they will realize that they can't always have their way, even if they have the right to. It's also called democracy in practice. What is an election but mob rule? The minorities have to be respected, I agree, but they don't get to dictate to the rest of the world how to behave, which is pretty much what you are suggesting. What I'm suggesting is that in D&D, where the differences between styles of play are often very minimal, it doesn't hurt to compromise. The game would actually improve if everyone realized this. Well, I've said it. The group needs to realize that there is nothing lost if power is gained within the game. Violence is a last resort, not a first recourse. Especially not for name calling. No matter how bad their verbal treatment (which the OP has stated they do not do) behaving in this way just demeans all of your own arguments, and places you on a moral strata below those you rail against. When it comes to morality, I always seem to be inferior. If people act in a way that I don't understand and it annoys me, I just bully them into understanding me. They might resent me for it, they might not (even though I sometimes force people into something against their will, they often end up happier/more open-minded than they were before). Oh, wait. I don't always mean physical violence. I once blackmailed a player to make an effective character (we were the only group he knew about). He played it for a while and started to like it. So I let him retire that one and make a new one that was completely his own. That guy was also powerful, but he had some characteristics that made him sympathetic. The Necromancer is obsessed with death image ... he wants to look really cool on his horse, with his scythe. He wants it so bad her DOES NOT CARE if he dies immediately in battle to do it. No, I wouldn't do that either, but some people would. And enjoy it <shudders>. See, if I were his DM, I'd help him with the concept. For example, the scythe could be recreated through a spell. Keeps in line with both Wizard and Grim Reaper fluff. The mount? Mount spell, along with a houserule that the Wizard has Ride as a class skill. Not optimal, but more intelligent. The mistake the player made was to not try and work with the DM. Sareld, what I want to see from your group is more DM-Player cooperation and equal compromises made by ALL parties (they owe it to you to try playing your way).
Comus 03-16-07, 02:17 PM	But the point is that John would be an attempt to fit the playstyle. Making a "normal" character upsets the overall powercurve and since I can have fun playing anything really, I would make a character that uses mainly utility spells and his "all powerful" burning hands to get them out a tough spot. I still get to play a fire mage and they still get to play their norms. I'ma make another hypothetical conversation. Player 1 (John) : I cast spider climb and climb up the cliff wall with a rope. This way everyone will be able to get up there. Player 2 (Butcher) : Woah, woah. What's this with casting spells, now? None of us can cast spells. P1 : I'm playing a wizard. My character casts spells. That's his thing. Player 3 (Baker) : But the three of us are playing Commoners. You shouldn't get to play a PC class. P1 : Why? The DM didn't say this was a commoner campaign. Player 4 (Candlestick Maker) : It isn't. P1 : Then why should I have to play a commoner? P3 : Because if you don't, it overshadows our characters. P2 : Yeah. What, do you have some kind of problem with actually roleplaying, like we are? These characters are realistic, unlike your wizard. P1 : But the game is designed with PC classes in mind. P4 : But nothing. Stop being such a powergamer and either roll up a commoner or get out. P1 : You said this wasn't a commoner campaign! I'm not going to play a commoner just because you want to play weak characters. Besides, why can't you take PC classes and actually be good at what you want your characters to do? P2 : Don't try to tell us how to play our characters! We have every right to refuse to build min-maxed characters. P1 : Yeah, you do have that right. But can't you at least build characters that can accomplish tasks? You'd probably be able to roleplay even more effectively if your characters didn't die every time a kobold got within ten feet of them. P3 : God. You make me so angry! Don't you understand that these are the characters we want to play?! P4 : That's right! We could have built stronger characters, but we all chose to do this instead. P1 : Then why can't I make the decision for myself about what kind of character I want to play? P2 : Because there are more of us. P1 : But as long as I follow the rules the DM set down for making characters, why should it matter if I choose to build a PC class? Besides, aren't we supposed to work as a team? P4 : Yeah, but we don't want to be useless compared to you. Before you showed up, we were all at the same power level. P1 : What if I help you build stronger characters? P3 : That's telling us how to play the game, jerk. Our way is the right way, so either get with it or get lost. Let's say John saves the day with burning hands instead of a maximized empowered fireball. He's still saved the day, and is still more powerful than the other characters. It is still the same problem, and we haven't solved anything. All we have done is made John's player build a less exciting character because he's knuckling under to the will of the group.
kelvinaw273 03-16-07, 02:23 PM	I don't think it's a conscious house rule, as such (feel free to correct me here, Sareld). The impression I get is sheer, I'll-make-a-half-assed-effort-and-no-more, laziness. Me too. But if that is the way they get their fun in recreation, who are we to tell them they are wrong. By my very example, the witchdoctor is not getting any results at all. He's jumping around, burning incense and screaming epithets at the gods ... and people (ie, PCs) are still dying. Yet when the doctor (Sareld) steps up and politely offers the use of modern medicine to cure the tribe of their ailment, not only is he chased off with spears, but the witch-doctor then promptly blames him for the epidemic. Again, I ask: are they right to do this? This is a really crap analogy. Once again I answer: How do you define success in the Game? By having fun. Are they having fun? Yes. [/QUOTE]Apparently they were happy - until it was demonstrated to them that better results could be gotten with same-level characters. They don't want to leave their comfort zone (and perhaps they hope that someday the dice might magically allow them to succeed at all the wildly ridiculous actions they've been trying) so they slag off at the person who showed them that they could do better. Power-gamer is an easy label to slap on to someone who does better at the game than you. Doesn't mean it's true, or justified.[/QUOTE] He may have thought he was showing them how to do it better - like the CE rogue who TPKed the rest of the party - but what he actually did was destroy their fun. I was going to comment that your example missed the point, but you have actually made a point for me. Upgrading from Paganism 3.5 to Christianity 1.0 will get doctors visiting, hopefully make them more peaceful and less likely to engage in tribal warfare, allow the introduction of proper hygiene and inoculations to diseases, introduce education ... all in all, improve their lot in life considerably. So this missionary comes along, and gives them all his diseases. Then he tells them to cast aside their old beliefs (which contain much of their jungle survival knowledge) and say he succeeds. He then gets the doctor to visit once a year, say, so that instead of having the witchdoctor who could treat the ailments they knew on hand they get halfway modern medical treatement once a year, if they are lucky. Actually, they'd be better off if the missionary never came along in the first place. This is true of indiginous people around the world, and is why most governments containing such populations as remain strictly control who is allowed to have access to them. You can construct a very good argument that it is the tribe in the jungle who have it better than us, not the other way around. Resisting such a change just because it's not the way the tribe does things is a silly and wrong thing to do. Especially if the child mortality rate stays up where it usually is in situations like that. Or down where it was because they don't have all those nasty diseases we carry. All of which is beside the point, because it is a bad analogy at the best of times. Apparently they needlessly increase the danger level, and pay for it. A rogue, charging into the front line of battle? A wizard, attacking a hill giant with a scythe? Those characters are not going to get anywhere fast - and that will reduce their enjoyment. Unless they like being the local easy-beats. Maybe they do. Maybe that's the game they want to play. Maybe they have other reasons it really doesn't matter. You still don't have any right to say: "My way is best! Because it is!" You CAN say that "these tactics are innefective, you aren't playing to your strengths," but if they don't want to do that, you can't make them. In my experience, if you don't use some savvy in playing your first level character, you rarely make it to second level. And even then it's not easy. Depends on the group, the DM and everything else. All of which is beside the point. They are having fun. The OP is changing their game in a way they do not like. He has to be very careful in getting them to change, change to their style, or leave them alone. What do you advocate he do? Turn up, wreck their fun every game, tell them they're wrong and get himself booted?
WayneTheGame 03-16-07, 02:35 PM	What do you advocate he do? Turn up, wreck their fun every game, tell them they're wrong and get himself booted? If their "fun" is getting them killed (and they are apparently too stubborn and/or stupid to think of WHY), then it's utter rubbish to expect this guy to downsize his character (which doesn't even sound all that powergamed to begin with) to meet their level. Using Burning Hands instead of Fireball because some birdbrain will get upset that you're *gasp* getting to roll 6d6 damage (for example purposes) against a bunch of foes when he just gets 1d4+1 with his dagger is just plain stupid (no amount of "If he's having fun" can justify idiocy like that), and the "problem" is the person who just looks at powergaming as "better than my character". That's exactly what the situation is here.
Pyke_Moonshadow 03-16-07, 02:42 PM	^ not my quote. And to Comus: If that conversation, or even one remotely like it, happened then P1 had better find another group to play with. No, P1 didn't do anything wrong but if I like playing tackle football and everyone else plays touch, I have to play touch or find another game.
kelvinaw273 03-16-07, 02:47 PM	Well, I'd be willing to bet that they'd have more fun if their characters had more durability. So would I - however "you can take a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink." They still owe it to him to compromise. Sareld has only been giving. What do they owe him, exactly? He has offered to teach them to play his way, when it disrupted their group play. How would you feel if someone came into you rgroup, messed things up for you all and then said "Hey, you should all play my way - it's really fun!"? You'd probably get told where to go. Not necessarily. If the group has any rational thought (or any sympathy) at all, they will realize that they can't always have their way, even if they have the right to. Yes, and they probably also realise that without the OP at the table they needn't have to compromise at all, and then they can have their own way. Hence they will not be prepared to give much. Supply and demand, you see. What I'm suggesting is that in D&D, where the differences between styles of play are often very minimal, it doesn't hurt to compromise. The game would actually improve if everyone realized this. Well, I've said it. The group needs to realize that there is nothing lost if power is gained within the game. I don't know ... take the player whose style is CE characters and TPKs (again) and the group whose style is LG parties. There isn't much compromise there except to tell the CE player he can be Neutral and be tolerated if he doesn't push it. Thing is, that your solution requires effort. In the average person, your brain occupies 2.5% of your body mass and consumes 25% of your energy. Yes there is a payback from that expenditure, but many people need to be properly motivated to make the effort. When it comes to morality, I always seem to be inferior. If people act in a way that I don't understand and it annoys me, I just bully them into understanding me. They might resent me for it, they might not (even though I sometimes force people into something against their will, they often end up happier/more open-minded than they were before). Oh, wait. I don't always mean physical violence. I once blackmailed a player to make an effective character (we were the only group he knew about). He played it for a while and started to like it. So I let him retire that one and make a new one that was completely his own. That guy was also powerful, but he had some characteristics that made him sympathetic. I have no time or sympathy for bullies or blackmailers. I left them behind at school. Try this on me or on many people and you will be told where to go. It's not that you aren't right that we might like it, we just don't like the way you try to impose your own will regardless. If, on the other hand, you can come up with a good argument you might get somewhere. See, if I were his DM, I'd help him with the concept. For example, the scythe could be recreated through a spell. Keeps in line with both Wizard and Grim Reaper fluff. The mount? Mount spell, along with a houserule that the Wizard has Ride as a class skill. Not optimal, but more intelligent. The mistake the player made was to not try and work with the DM. Now that is a good idea.:cheer: Sareld, what I want to see from your group is more DM-Player cooperation and equal compromises made by ALL parties (they owe it to you to try playing your way). Define "Equal" compromise. Like I said, if I'm outnumbered 5 to 1, compromise means I get only 1/6 of what I want. That is only fair. My advice is to take it one small step at a time - don't lecture and try to dictate, just make polite suggestions now and again. For example: Hill Giant attacks party! Necromancer on horse with scythe (NOHWS): I charge it! Do not respond: "NO you ***** you'll be killed!" NOHWS: I'll do what I want! Instead try: "Wait a sec - why not wait until we whittle it down a bit, then come in with your True Strike spell - that's an automatic hit, and you can deliver the killing blow." NOHWS: "That could be cool!"
Ack 03-16-07, 03:06 PM	.. more likely to come back with, "Don't tell me how to play my character! CHARGE!" IMO, anyway.
Cardinal Teplin 03-16-07, 04:52 PM	I suspect I'm familiar with the kind of play style that the OP's group uses. The critical comment was that they saw all choices in the book as 'mechanically equal'. I think this is a misnomer. What they see are the choices in the book being _flavour_ choices. Any mechanical difference between taking one feat or another is entirely accidental/unintentional, and should not be considered. Yes, that's right, taking feats because of the benefit they give is contrary to the spirit of their game. The reason is that they are playing a style that is about character concept. A necromancer with a scythe is a cool concept. Whether or not he can kill Hill Giants is entirely irrelevent. Changing the concept to ensure he can kill Hill Giants is _actively wrong_. Not just unecessary, but actually something that would damage the game. Designing a character to be effective is wrong in their eyes, not because effective = bad, but because designing a character around effectiveness is bad. Your prestige class should represent an attempt to get closer to your character concept. You shouldn't take improved trip unless tripping is somehow integral to your character concept, and only if your character is sufficiently the kind of defensive 'flashing steel' fencer that would have taken combat expertise anyway. What I would suggest is that you play a character with a minimum of alterable features. A monk, for example, (or as people have suggested, a druid.) Then see a matial arts movie. A good one. Take whatever cool martial arts moves you see, get an idea of a cool martial character in your head, and then try and build that using AD&D. It doesn't matter if it doesn't make sense in game play - in fact it's probably better if it doesn't, since I doubt the group trust you much any more. Take at least one feat that suits the character but provides almost no useful benefit. Don't use them as rules mechanics, use them as adjectives. Yes, your character will be ineffective. The group won't care. It doesn't matter if you die fighting giants or fighting kobolds. The point if you are taking a concept, and using the rules to bring that concept to life, rather than using the rules to contruct a series of capabilities, and then building a concept, however detailed or well constructed, around that. Try it for two sessions. If you hate it, well then you need another group to play with, but at least you tried. If you love it, all well and good. Yes, you're a powergamer. Maybe not by AD&D standards, but certainly sufficiently that someone complained about it. It doesn't make you a bad person, or even a bad roleplayer. But it is going to bother some people to the extent that they'll have less fun in the presence of your characters, just as several people on the list have detailed how they'd have less fun sharing the table with a scythe-weilding wizard. Your group should be trying harder to accomodate your style of play. But I hope the above helps you understand where they are coming from, or at least why they don't understand what you are doing when building a character.
Ventilatory_Threshold 03-16-07, 07:02 PM	What do they owe him, exactly? He has offered to teach them to play his way, when it disrupted their group play. How would you feel if someone came into you rgroup, messed things up for you all and then said "Hey, you should all play my way - it's really fun!"? You'd probably get told where to go. I'd listen to what he had to say. If he had some good pointers, I'd accept them and offer pointers to him as well. If he refused, I wouldn't refuse good advice just to spite him. I'm not all that keen on ostracizing people based on their play styles. I ostracize them if they act in a hostile manner towards me. Yes, and they probably also realise that without the OP at the table they needn't have to compromise at all, and then they can have their own way. Hence they will not be prepared to give much. Supply and demand, you see. Then they only support my view of their being idiots. I don't know ... take the player whose style is CE characters and TPKs (again) and the group whose style is LG parties. There isn't much compromise there except to tell the CE player he can be Neutral and be tolerated if he doesn't push it. In my opinion, there's a difference between play styles and favored character archetypes. A player that frequently plays CE characters can still play other alignments. His play style would rather be what he focuses on (roleplaying, optimization, both, etc.). I have no time or sympathy for bullies or blackmailers. I left them behind at school. There are different kinds of these people. Some are not threatening at all (I'm not, for example). The way I play the game is that I always come off as nonhostile. People get defensive at first, but they eventually submit. It's a fusion of brainwashing, peer pressure and a bit of aggression. Try this on me or on many people and you will be told where to go. It's not that you aren't right that we might like it, we just don't like the way you try to impose your own will regardless. If, on the other hand, you can come up with a good argument you might get somewhere. It's actually wonderful that often these things sound like arguments. Thing is, though, that they contain no logic at all, only appeal to emotion and simple ad hominems (introduced in a passive manner). Now that is a good idea.:cheer: Yes! At last I do something right! Define "Equal" compromise. Like I said, if I'm outnumbered 5 to 1, compromise means I get only 1/6 of what I want. That is only fair. My advice is to take it one small step at a time - don't lecture and try to dictate, just make polite suggestions now and again. What I mean is that if each member contributes an arbitrarily large fraction of their play style for the same fraction of the other's play style. Let's make it 1/6. Mathematically, if everyone gives up that much, the net loss is still only 1/6 for the majority because they're giving up the same amount. It means that everyone will break even. It's a common misconception that the majority gives less, especially when it comes to knowledge. When they give, they lose nothing, but receive something. Basically, if everyone compromises their play style equally, the group will likely become more homogenous. For example: Hill Giant attacks party! Necromancer on horse with scythe (NOHWS): I charge it! Do not respond: "NO you ***** you'll be killed!" NOHWS: I'll do what I want! Instead try: "Wait a sec - why not wait until we whittle it down a bit, then come in with your True Strike spell - that's an automatic hit, and you can deliver the killing blow." NOHWS: "That could be cool!" I'm not as confrontational as you might think I am. I'm subtle and make no threats (that way they don't see me coming :P). I'm diplomatic, except in the face of intolerable idiocy/stubbornness/prejudice. Then I can't help bashing in a few heads to follow up on my arguments (especially with the impunity I can do it here).
aotrscommander 03-16-07, 07:53 PM	I don't know if that's one of the insulting "fixed that for you" posts or a valid point so I can't comment on it. :p Not meant to be insulting, just pointlessly explanitory! Like I said, I'd be doing myself a diservice not mentioning that point, as I am indeed playing a scyth-wielding Pale Master (I grovelled and swapped out my familar for scythe proficiency) who will eventually have to get his artificial hand dirty when he gets it! You can make a wizard a fairly good combantant if you use enough buffs (okay, so not Cleric/Druid level, but not bad) and Pale Masters are sort of obliged to do so if they want to use their top end abilities. but it takes some concious effort, not charging in on round one with the worst basic combatant class!
skywyze 03-16-07, 08:45 PM	I think the reason many non-powergamers dislike powergamers so much is because powergamers tend to outshine those who aren't. And not all character concepts lend themselves to powergaming. When a non-powergamer ends up in a wimpy concept thinking it'll be fun only to see you steal the stage in every situation imaginable, I can understand that they'd be a little annoyed. But it's very situational. Just don't forget to let everyone else to have fun too and I don't see a problem with it.
kelvinaw273 03-17-07, 04:21 AM	I'm not as confrontational as you might think I am. I'm subtle and make no threats (that way they don't see me coming :P). I'm diplomatic, except in the face of intolerable idiocy/stubbornness/prejudice. Then I can't help bashing in a few heads to follow up on my arguments (especially with the impunity I can do it here). Well you were the one who started off claiming you would beat them all into submission ... Why do people dislike power gamers? It isn't jealousy, I assure you. A power gamer in an RP game can disrupt the game badly (I said can, not will) because he is of a radically different power level to the rest of the party. He will either cakewalk the encounters, or they have to be beefed up to challenge him and can easily kill the rest of the party. You don't hear about RPers disrupting PG games because basically, their characters tend to die off very rapidly.
Ventilatory_Threshold 03-17-07, 11:57 AM	Well you were the one who started off claiming you would beat them all into submission ... That would be after quite a lot of arguments. If they didn't stop being elitists, snobs or idiots, I'd kick their asses and go home. I'm happy that I live in Iceland because I can do this with relative impunity. Look at it this way, in Iceland, if you bump into someone at a club and tell them to watch where they're going, you'll be going away in a body bag. If you honk the horn and act like a jackass at someone whose car breaks down in the middle of the road, you're going away in a body bag. If you walk into someone's home with your shoes on and touch their stuff without permission (especially if you act in a confrontational manner), you're going away in a body bag. These are all considered aggressive moves here. So is telling someone what they can and can't do. DMs are included in that; if they want to ban something a player wants to take, they better have a good reason for it. If you ever come here, just act like you're visiting an English Lord, and for god's sakes, take our shoes off if you walk into someone's house! Also, don't try to break the moments of silence in a conversation. It won't get you killed, but you'll be labelled a weirdo.
Comus 03-17-07, 12:14 PM	You don't hear about RPers disrupting PG games because basically, their characters tend to die off very rapidly. Actually, I've seen a few threads on that subject. Mostly it was the RPer in question complaining that the other players said he was useless or a liability, though I also recall seeing at least one where he complained about all the dying. It might just be my imagination, but it seems like people who say they only care about the RP and not the numbers really do care about the numbers, they just want low ones instead of high ones. I've seen very few cases where someone playing a low-powered character in a high-powered game actually wanted to make his character on par with the others. At most they were willing to listen to tactics, though most just wanted validation that their character concept was cool. They really didn't want to hear that, by taking a level in class X, taking feat Y, and putting ranks into skill Z, they could play their character concept with the mechanics actually supporting them. Or, at least, that's what I recall.
kelvinaw273 03-17-07, 01:15 PM	Actually, I've seen a few threads on that subject. Mostly it was the RPer in question complaining that the other players said he was useless or a liability, though I also recall seeing at least one where he complained about all the dying. It might just be my imagination, but it seems like people who say they only care about the RP and not the numbers really do care about the numbers, they just want low ones instead of high ones. I've seen very few cases where someone playing a low-powered character in a high-powered game actually wanted to make his character on par with the others. At most they were willing to listen to tactics, though most just wanted validation that their character concept was cool. They really didn't want to hear that, by taking a level in class X, taking feat Y, and putting ranks into skill Z, they could play their character concept with the mechanics actually supporting them. Or, at least, that's what I recall. Complained yes, but disrupted the game in any other way, no. Nothing wrong with an effective character, but I find myself that I'm unhappy with the mechanics dictating all the features of the character. I generally found that when somebody started telling me what I could have to 'keep the character concept' what they actually meant was 'how to min/max and **** the concept, this is what I'd play'. They got VERY irate when I took the character in a different direction and became at least as effective. But I digress. For example, when I design a character I like to get: 1) Character concept - what are they like? What is their history and background? What do they look like? 2) Class Concept - what class(es) best fulfill this objective? 3) What feats and skills round out the concept and classes? What are essential and what are flavour? 4) How will these evolve in the character? Now for some reason I tend to like generalist rather than specialist classes (that's just me) and so I will tend to have a character that at best does maybe one thing better than anyone else, if at all. I'm cool with that, because I can do a lot more things than anyone else can. In a game that is purely tactical, this means playing a lot of second fiddle; in a game that has more role-play elements, it rarely matters. I don't mind playing second fiddle, but I find sometimes that some players can't understand that - they seem detirmined that I should 'pull my weight' and can't get their heads around a support role.
Comus 03-17-07, 02:31 PM	Complained yes, but disrupted the game in any other way, no. I disagree. I think they can easily disrupt the game. They just do so in a different way. First, they have little or no positive impact in combat. Then, they eat party resources - they get hurt more often, and so require more healing. If that healing is done in battle, then it also means other players are wasting actions keeping them alive. On top of that, they take a share of XP and treasure. You can clearly see how they can get on a party's bad side. Nothing wrong with an effective character, but I find myself that I'm unhappy with the mechanics dictating all the features of the character. I generally found that when somebody started telling me what I could have to 'keep the character concept' what they actually meant was 'how to min/max and **** the concept, this is what I'd play'. They got VERY irate when I took the character in a different direction and became at least as effective. But I digress. So your point is... what? That some people offer you bad advice, so no one can have helpful optimization tips? That's a personal flaw, not a flaw that extends to everyone who builds effective characters. Just look at the Char Op boards - they can take a concept you have and find the mechanics you need to make it work. Granted, the builds are rarely simple, but that's because the general view there is "classes as building blocks". For example, when I design a character I like to get: 1) Character concept - what are they like? What is their history and background? What do they look like? 2) Class Concept - what class(es) best fulfill this objective? 3) What feats and skills round out the concept and classes? What are essential and what are flavour? 4) How will these evolve in the character? Yeah. That's pretty much how I develop mine, too. Now for some reason I tend to like generalist rather than specialist classes (that's just me) and so I will tend to have a character that at best does maybe one thing better than anyone else, if at all. I'm cool with that, because I can do a lot more things than anyone else can. In a game that is purely tactical, this means playing a lot of second fiddle; in a game that has more role-play elements, it rarely matters. I don't mind playing second fiddle, but I find sometimes that some players can't understand that - they seem detirmined that I should 'pull my weight' and can't get their heads around a support role. To be honest, a character should pull his weight. If he's a liability to the party, maybe he needs to reconsider the adventuring life. I don't mean that you need to be as good as the best party member, but if the party would actually do better in combat without having to worry about your safey... they have a right to complain.
kelvinaw273 03-17-07, 02:50 PM	I disagree. I think they can easily disrupt the game. They just do so in a different way. First, they have little or no positive impact in combat. Then, they eat party resources - they get hurt more often, and so require more healing. If that healing is done in battle, then it also means other players are wasting actions keeping them alive. On top of that, they take a share of XP and treasure. You can clearly see how they can get on a party's bad side. Point taken. So your point is... what? That some people offer you bad advice, so no one can have helpful optimization tips? That's a personal flaw, not a flaw that extends to everyone who builds effective characters. Just look at the Char Op boards - they can take a concept you have and find the mechanics you need to make it work. Granted, the builds are rarely simple, but that's because the general view there is "classes as building blocks". Perhaps, but many players do feel propriatry about their characters. You may as well have somebody else create it entirely, they reason. Yes I agree some players could learn the rules a little better ... in all honesty most of the bad builds I have seen are because either a player tries to bring their concept out too soon (act about 10th level at 1st level) or because they don't actually know what they want in the first place. Both aren't bad optimizing, they are plain out bad playing if the player isn't enjoying themselves. Yeah. That's pretty much how I develop mine, too. To be honest, a character should pull his weight. If he's a liability to the party, maybe he needs to reconsider the adventuring life. I don't mean that you need to be as good as the best party member, but if the party would actually do better in combat without having to worry about your safey... they have a right to complain. Define pulling their weight ... in some opinions you have to be as good as everyone else ie as good as a specialist to pull your weight. A bard that buffs is not 'pulling his weight' because he isn't blasting or fighting. Monks cannot pull their weight because they can't go toe-to-toe with heavy monsters, etc. In the view of some, supporting other characters (shadowing the scout in case he gets into trouble, guarding the wizard, flanking and using 'Aid Another' on the fighter) isn't pulling your weight. When the fighter picks the monk up bodily and throws him into the front rank of the enemy, then claims if you can't hack it you shouldn't have picked a fighting class and you aren't pulling your weight ... well you have to wonder about the mentality of the party. In my book, pulling your weight involves filling in a useful role within the party. That does not always mean dishing out or being able to take massive damage.
Comus 03-17-07, 03:16 PM	Perhaps, but many players do feel propriatry about their characters. You may as well have somebody else create it entirely, they reason. Yes I agree some players could learn the rules a little better ... in all honesty most of the bad builds I have seen are because either a player tries to bring their concept out too soon (act about 10th level at 1st level) or because they don't actually know what they want in the first place. Both aren't bad optimizing, they are plain out bad playing if the player isn't enjoying themselves. I figure it's like this - the character's build is purely in the hands of the person playing them, but only the most stubborn would refuse to listen to helpful advice. Define pulling their weight ... in some opinions you have to be as good as everyone else ie as good as a specialist to pull your weight. A bard that buffs is not 'pulling his weight' because he isn't blasting or fighting. Monks cannot pull their weight because they can't go toe-to-toe with heavy monsters, etc. In the view of some, supporting other characters (shadowing the scout in case he gets into trouble, guarding the wizard, flanking and using 'Aid Another' on the fighter) isn't pulling your weight. When the fighter picks the monk up bodily and throws him into the front rank of the enemy, then claims if you can't hack it you shouldn't have picked a fighting class and you aren't pulling your weight ... well you have to wonder about the mentality of the party. In my book, pulling your weight involves filling in a useful role within the party. That does not always mean dishing out or being able to take massive damage. I defined my version of 'not pulling your weight' in there, actually. You aren't pulling your weight when the party would be better off without you. If the cleric is wasting all his heals on you because you charge into melee with a dagger-wielding wizard, you're not helping, for example. I actually play a lot of Bards, myself. I like the class. Just takes a little cleverness to keep effective.
Cardinal Teplin 03-17-07, 05:16 PM	It might just be my imagination, but it seems like people who say they only care about the RP and not the numbers really do care about the numbers, they just want low ones instead of high ones. I've seen very few cases where someone playing a low-powered character in a high-powered game actually wanted to make his character on par with the others. At most they were willing to listen to tactics, though most just wanted validation that their character concept was cool. They really didn't want to hear that, by taking a level in class X, taking feat Y, and putting ranks into skill Z, they could play their character concept with the mechanics actually supporting them. Probably because you missed entirely what they were trying to do. They had chosen a build that supported the personality they wanted to play. Changing them to make the character more effective would result in a different character. The extent to which this kind of thing makes sense depends on how much value you place on winning fights. If you care a lot about winning fights, then you need first and foremost a competant build, and can then design a character to match. You should avoid making any personality choices that would lead to you to change your build, no matter how minor they may seem, because you'll endanger the fun of yourself and the rest of the party. If you don't care at all about winning fights, then you need first and foremost a good character concept and personality, and can then take feats and build choices to handle that. You should avoid making any build choices that would lead you to change your personality, no matter how minor they may seem, because you'll endanger the fun of yourself and the rest of the party. In practice most players don't follow either extreme but are somewhere between the two. However it is very frustrating to deal with anyone who just _doesn't get_ either principle. In general, not optimising a character doesn't make much difference to it's survivability in practice, and trading an effective feat for an ineffective one probably won't change the personality to any great extent, but people do stick to their own principle with a strange facination. Try floating a suboptimal build on the optimisation forums, or get a dedicated concept roleplayer to change his design choices to maximise his effectiveness, and you'll see what I mean.
Ack 03-17-07, 05:47 PM	I tend to take the middle road; I start with a basic character concept, along with a rough idea of the way I want to use to get there. Neither of these is set in stone, however, except maybe for one or two specific parts ("I want to qualify for the feat Frightful Presence, because I see this character as being very scary.") However, if I just can't get the ability I want, or it would suck up far too many character resources to get it, I'll sigh, put aside the concept for a higher level build, and see what I can get with what I've got. Other than that, I pretty well build it in from all directions and see what I end up with.
Comus 03-17-07, 06:24 PM	Probably because you missed entirely what they were trying to do. They had chosen a build that supported the personality they wanted to play. Changing them to make the character more effective would result in a different character. Okay I'll bite. Why? Let's say my character concept is Mark, an elven warrior-wizard. He tries to be self-sufficent, and pretends to be a loner, but only because he grew up in a big family and is enjoying the experienceof having elbow room and being able to think. Relevant to character creation, he knows how to use a bow because his dad took him and his brothers hunting, and knows about magic because his mother's whole family are all deeply involved in a local mage's academy - his grandaunt, who he's never met, is actually the headmaster. Now, there are a lot of ways I could build Mark. I could be a pure Wizard and use the elven weapon proficencies as my only martial nod. I could go pure Fighter and take some of the SLA feats from Complete Mage. I could alternate Fighter and Wizard. Now, it's true - each of these represents a very different fighting style, and the build really does need to be tailored to how the player wants Mark to act. But, and here's the thing - some of the choices are better than others. Alternating Fighter and Wizard results in a character that does two things poorly. The pure classes mean the other faucet of Mark's training becomes only token. Just by going Fighter/Wizard/Eldrich Knight, Mark becomes a reasonable warrior-mage. The more tweaks you add, the better it gets. My goal is to play Mark. He casts spells and hits things with a sword. My solution is to build a Fighter/Wizard/Bladesinger/Ardent Savant/Whatever. This build supports the character I want to play far better than, say, alternating class levels, which would leave him dead. I could play the same character, with the same personality, in any of an indefinite number of character builds. This one is just effective.
WayneTheGame 03-17-07, 06:50 PM	Well said, Comus! Far too often the argument is "Your idea involves taking lots of classes, which equals powergaming" because some players do not realize that the class is a MECHANICAL feature, and means nothing. You can write down "Fighter-Mage" for your class when it's really Fighter 2/Wizard 5/Spellsword 3/Eldritch Knight 10. But people take one look at a suggestion that involves "dipping" and immediately think "munchkin". These folks then ignore the sensible advice that will make their character effective because it LOOKS like dipping/powergaming to them (and they hate that), so instead they go the less-optimal route and complain when they die easily or cannot realize their concept the right way or someone else with a similar but well-built character just overshadows them totally.
Cardinal Teplin 03-17-07, 08:47 PM	But, and here's the thing - some of the choices are better than others. <mechanical description snipped> My goal is to play Mark. He casts spells and hits things with a sword. My solution is to build a Fighter/Wizard/Bladesinger/Ardent Savant/Whatever. This build supports the character I want to play far better than, say, alternating class levels, which would leave him dead. I could play the same character, with the same personality, in any of an indefinite number of character builds. This one is just effective. Depends what you mean by better. Some decisions may make the character more effective in combat. You're assuming that's better, but not everyone would agree. They might also argue that if your character's personality isn't effected by a huge career change, then your character doesn't really have much a personality. You have a vague idea you've not really fleshed out, and are then relying on what's most powerful to actually decide the detail. The conflict is simple. Those last few personality details simply aren't important to you. They may decide exactly what kind of person you're playing, but they don't make much difference to the way you play the character, because the end result is still in the same ball-park. For someone else, the last few personality details might be critical. The effectiveness of the build in combat, being entirely irrelevent, isn't a good reason to change them. I'm not saying I agree with such an arguement, but it's certainly possible to understand. If combat effectiveness isn't important, then it's not worth even the tiniest amount of change to a character.
Comus 03-17-07, 09:13 PM	Depends what you mean by better. Some decisions may make the character more effective in combat. You're assuming that's better, but not everyone would agree. I'm going to define better in this way : "Supports the character concept while also being mechanically superior." Otherwise, 'better' is always Druid/Planar Shepherd (or Pun-Pun, if you want to get nasty about it). They might also argue that if your character's personality isn't effected by a huge career change, then your character doesn't really have much a personality. You have a vague idea you've not really fleshed out, and are then relying on what's most powerful to actually decide the detail. What career change? Name a single one. He's a Mage-Warrior for his entire life. Just because the name of the class he's taking changes, it doesn't change who or what he is. The conflict is simple. Those last few personality details simply aren't important to you. They may decide exactly what kind of person you're playing, but they don't make much difference to the way you play the character, because the end result is still in the same ball-park. Personality has absolutely nothing to do with class choice. You can play a Barbarian as a near-savage woodsman who explodes with anger... or you can play him as a civilized swordsman who can drop into a self-hypnotic trance that lets him escape the limits of his body. Same stats, very different personalities. Similarly, the 'last few personality details' should easily be able to be accomidated within an effective build. For someone else, the last few personality details might be critical. The effectiveness of the build in combat, being entirely irrelevent, isn't a good reason to change them. Give me one example where a few personality details mean that it is impossible for said character to use a combat-effective build. I know you're just trying to present this side of the argument in a logical, easy-to-understand way. I just don't think it stands up to close examination, but rather falls into the realm of elitism or snobbery. You know what I mean. I'm not saying I agree with such an arguement, but it's certainly possible to understand. If combat effectiveness isn't important, then it's not worth even the tiniest amount of change to a character. If combat effectiveness isn't important in the campaign, then this argument is moot, and everyone can play level 1 Kobold commoners with 12-point buy or whatever else floats their boat. However, if the campaign includes combat and assumes that the PCs are going to win said combat, then combat effectiveness does matter - it's just neglected by the player.
Cael 03-17-07, 11:14 PM	I read most of the thread, and there have been arguments both sides. I would like to add my 2cp: What some describe as "powergaming" is blatant cheating. That is not "powergaming". That is "muchkinism". "Powergaming", in my opinion, is playing for power. You want that +5 Vorpal Bastardsword of Yummy Doom at level 5. You want to pwn that Balor at level 2. What the OP described is not even "powergaming". It is "optimising". You want to be the best you can be given a set of parameters. You are not strictly in it for the power, per se. Just a character that is good at what he does. There is nothing wrong with that, unless you want to call the world record holder of, say, the 100m dash, a "powergamer". That is, of course, idiocy in the highest. Some people are against "dipping". I am sorry, but I dip. I mean, in real life, I dip. If "technology" is the analogy of "magic" in the real world, I would have levels in Fighter, Rogue/Ranger, Wizard and Bard. And probably some PrC that mixes any of the above (Eldritch Knight, Arcane Trickster, etc.). No one is so focused as to be a single "class" all his life, unless you are a line production worker from the age of 12 to when you die, and totally utterly refused to better your lot in any way via a better education, and/or training. Sure, you would be faster and more efficient in doing that particular thing that you have been doing for your whole life, but, guess what? Technology will come along to make you obsolete in many ways. The only way for even a line production worker to survive these days is to upskill and go to training programmes for new machines. This means branching out into another "class" or taking a PrC that is better suited to the new, improved job (e.g., a Fighter taking Wizard levels to become a gish). It is those that expouse a single "class" that I find are unrealistic. Most of the arguments against the OP for "powergaming" and/or "dipping" has no basis in fact. It is generally rooted in a deep *personal* belief in the wrongness of a certain incidence. Ultimately, it comes back to "I don't like it, so you are a munchkin/powergamer/etc.". It is a lot (if you will pardon the comparison) like racism. Oh, they will come up with "logical" reasons why certain races are evil. The ones I have heard personally (and I mean no offense to anyone here, this is just things that I have heard) include "all Asians drive badly", "all Maori are lazy", etc., but really, are they true? Probably no more so than any other race. Those that say it don't like an entire race because they are different. That is the same as the stuff being expoused here, only, their reason is the almighty RP. I echo those that say that RP is independent of class/race combos. RP defines your character's personality, outlook and reactions, which race/class does not, except in a very general, generic basis, address. A Wizard is no more likely to attack a guy than a Fighter would based simply on his class and class features. The whys and wherefores of a PC's reactions is not based on class, but on background, interaction, beliefs, etc. In other words, RP. I know there will be those that like to throw up class stereotypes as an argument for "A Fighter would react like this, but a Paladin won't", but I put forward the suggestion that those who blindly follow stereotypes are no more RP-ing than they are when reading from a book. So, in brief, there is nothing wrong with optimising. You are not no-RP-ing when you optimise. Those that try to tell you otherwise are merely trying to force their prejudice on you. RP is separate from race/class combos. Those that say that they are connected have as much "proof" of their statements as "Black Americans are dumber than White Americans" with anecdotal stories as "proof". I not only disagree with both stances, but am thoroughly disgusted with them.
Ventilatory_Threshold 03-18-07, 12:33 AM	unless you want to call the world record holder of, say, the 100m dash, a "powergamer". Of course he isn't a powergamer. He's a munchkin and has no personality. BTW, I'm being sarcastic.
Ack 03-18-07, 01:07 AM	Heh - I'm currently playing a character in an Oriental/Modern/Arcane game (a Nezumi) who, with his high base speed and levels in Increased Speed and the Run feat, is the world record holder for the 100 sprint :D. And the long jump record. And the high jump record. All that, and he hunts down oni in his spare time :D
kelvinaw273 03-18-07, 04:02 AM	Probably because you missed entirely what they were trying to do. They had chosen a build that supported the personality they wanted to play. Changing them to make the character more effective would result in a different character. Quoted for truth! Seriously, not having an optimal build can actually be compensated for in play by learning good tactics and how to play to your own strengths. RPing the learning of good tactics can be survived by employing a good pair of running shoes. I recall playing in one such game when a PG joined in. The party were used to thinking ahead, planning every move and working together. The new PG didn't bother with any of that - he just waded in. He assumed everyone in the party was the same, and when he brought a pitched battle down on them that could have easily been avoided he moaned constantly about how weak they all were. They booted him the next game. The fact of the matter is that if you have players who prefer to play for RP rather than optimizing, you likely have a DM that thinks the same way and tailors encounters to their power level - in an RP heavy game avoiding party deaths is a high priority because it disrupts character developement. The last thing you want in such circumstances is an optimized character inthe party upsetting the balance.
Ack 03-18-07, 04:07 AM	All good, but if the PCs don't bother learning good tacticals as well, then you have a bloodbath, and not in a good way. As is the point of the OP here. Not only do they build poorly thought-out characters, but they play in a poorly thought-out way. Until further evidence comes up, I am forced to the conclusion that they don't like to think.
kelvinaw273 03-18-07, 08:14 AM	Until further evidence comes up, I am forced to the conclusion that they don't like to think. I have never denied it. However, if that is the way they like to play trying to get them to think is not going to make them like you. And just because they play that way does not mean that they are not having fun ...
steamboat28 03-18-07, 08:45 AM	I've been skimming this thread, and just couldn't keep my mouth shut. This is a problem I run into time and time and time again, and it really bothers me, so here are my thoughts. Firstly, "Character Optimization" isn't the same thing as "Powergaming" necessarily. Making your character very efficient at what he does is simply something one would expect from a hero-type individual. If a Cleric of Pelor claimed his purpose on earth was to fight the undead wherever he may, and he chooses to do so with a sling with +1 icy pebbles instead of a more suitable weapon, or his ability to "Turn Undead" (however the character chooses to express the thought in-character), he's going to be something of a mockery amongst his fellow clerics, is he not? Likewise with the "necromancer" wizard mentioned on the first page of the thread..True and Dread Necromancers would laugh at him for trying to be a weak, pitiful version of their own type of caster, and Wizards would make fun of him for being unable to cast even a single Evocation spell, or a simple non-necro cantrip. And lets not get into what the Fighters and Paladins would say about the characters inability to wield his weapon of choice properly. In a role-playing context, even NPCs would readily mock a character that was *that* inefficient, why wouldn't the other characters, as well? Why would they be considered any better than commoners if they can't do what they should be able to, given their training? Also, Optimizing doesn't always imply a lack of role-playing capability or desire. When I play games under my regular DM, I tend to play a quiet, laid back specialist. He hears, however, about my characters in other games, and once confronted me about the stories he heard. "How do you do it? In my games, you're the socially inept wizard, ripe with RP goodness, and in everybody else's, you're a combat monster, a super-tank, a machine-gun archer, or the world's craftiest rogue. The part that really gets me, though, is everybody has the same opinion of all your characters..'they have a *GREAT* backstory, though.'" I think the appropriate solution to the OP's problem is this: outsmart the DM at his own game. Have him or her craft you a character of their build, their specifications, their choosing. Then, continue to outshine the party by using what you're given to your advantage. You sound like a smart player, one that can make up in tactics what he lacks on his sheet, but tries to make the numbers work well anyhow. Test this out, and see if you can "beat the system." If your DM is still complaining after that, he's not worth playing under.
kelvinaw273 03-18-07, 09:48 AM	Firstly, "Character Optimization" isn't the same thing as "Powergaming" necessarily. Making your character very efficient at what he does is simply something one would expect from a hero-type individual. If a Cleric of Pelor claimed his purpose on earth was to fight the undead wherever he may, and he chooses to do so with a sling with +1 icy pebbles instead of a more suitable weapon, or his ability to "Turn Undead" (however the character chooses to express the thought in-character), he's going to be something of a mockery amongst his fellow clerics, is he not? What, do most priests join the church to become frothing fanatics? Well no, actually. Most clerics probably start out getting into the church as an escape from poverty, for an education, and rather less from divine inspiration or an oath to destroy all {insert churches foe here}. Say your cleric of Pelor joined the church to become educated, and because he wants to help people and work for their best interests in the community, and never intended to become an adventurer until the orcs burned down his church? He might use a sling because that is the weapon he grew up with and used on crows as a boy. This kind of character - the reluctant or inadvertent hero - is much more fun to role-play than the cookie-cutter fanatic any day. No, he is not optimised (although I wouldn't nerf him with 11 wisdom or anything stupid like that either), no he does not have the best choice of weapons and armour, but he is real, human and believable. He is also much more heroic than the armoured fanatic, because he takes on threats and tasks he never expected to have to. Likewise with the "necromancer" wizard mentioned on the first page of the thread..True and Dread Necromancers would laugh at him for trying to be a weak, pitiful version of their own type of caster, and Wizards would make fun of him for being unable to cast even a single Evocation spell, or a simple non-necro cantrip. And lets not get into what the Fighters and Paladins would say about the characters inability to wield his weapon of choice properly. In a role-playing context, even NPCs would readily mock a character that was *that* inefficient, why wouldn't the other characters, as well? Why would they be considered any better than commoners if they can't do what they should be able to, given their training? Your necromancer is not useless as a wizard as wizards should be able to do more than blow things up, and while he less effective as a fighter than, well, a fighter, he is willing to have a crack (using True Strike with his scythe makes a critical very likely, and that's an ouch!). In fact the main problem with that character is not thier inability to fulfill their role but the tactics they employed to do so. In other words, the concept wasn't bad, but the way the character was played was! Also, Optimizing doesn't always imply a lack of role-playing capability or desire. When I play games under my regular DM, I tend to play a quiet, laid back specialist. He hears, however, about my characters in other games, and once confronted me about the stories he heard. "How do you do it? In my games, you're the socially inept wizard, ripe with RP goodness, and in everybody else's, you're a combat monster, a super-tank, a machine-gun archer, or the world's craftiest rogue. The part that really gets me, though, is everybody has the same opinion of all your characters..'they have a *GREAT* backstory, though.'" No, Optimizing does not preclude role-playing, but it can constrain it. Sometimes I would rather play something very different, and I do. I don't want to feel that I have to spend my feats on certain choices, just to remain "effective", I want to feel I can develope the personality and story of the character freely. I think the appropriate solution to the OP's problem is this: outsmart the DM at his own game. Have him or her craft you a character of their build, their specifications, their choosing. Then, continue to outshine the party by using what you're given to your advantage. You sound like a smart player, one that can make up in tactics what he lacks on his sheet, but tries to make the numbers work well anyhow. Test this out, and see if you can "beat the system." If your DM is still complaining after that, he's not worth playing under. I would agree with this though. While the group are making some <ahem> odd choices in characters, their biggest problem is their poor tactics. You can lead by example to show them how to use tactics to their strengths. Once you have that pegged, you can try showing them some more effective builds for achieving certain ends if that's what you want to do.
Kobold_Avenger 03-18-07, 10:23 AM	I personally suggest you sacrifice their characters to Lord Pun-Pun. Then instruct the players to beg Pun-Pun for forgiveness... Then help them build themselves all new characters.:) :cool: :D
HappyPenguinOnAStick 03-18-07, 11:45 AM	It seems that alot of the "Making a decent character is stabbing RP in the face" all use a concept that dosent need to be optimized to work; and that is the Zelda character more or less, the guy that stood in the field and got a wooden sword thrown at him and then was off to save the princess ect. Ofc not every concept needs to be optimized, its not a Do or Die world we live in. The thing is that when you concept is not Zelda, a bit of optimizing does help alot... Like the Necro Wizard Fighter concept thingy... With a few levels of Fighter/EK the concept would have been forfilled. It seems sorta pointless to bring up concepts that dosent need to be optimized in order to work and using it as "proof" that Optimizing is spawned by satan! To be honoest I like to optimize my characters, they are normally quit good at doing what they do, but ofc sometimes my concepts dosent need optimizing, sometimes I just like to play that random scrub who got a wooden sword thrown after him. Dunno, I mean onetime I still used a masterwork bastard sword at level 8 cause it was my family sword and damn hell if I was gonna replace it with some other sword. Now this did add alot of awsomeness to the character in my mind... But the Reality is that I might have beaten does damn Draconians if I had a better sword.
Comus 03-18-07, 12:17 PM	Quoted for truth! Refuted for disagreement! A wide range of builds can describe any personality and character type. There's no reason why any mechanic (that fits within the concept - a wide range indeed) should have to alter a character's personality. Seriously, not having an optimal build can actually be compensated for in play by learning good tactics and how to play to your own strengths. RPing the learning of good tactics can be survived by employing a good pair of running shoes. Okay, yeah. I agree that tactics can overcome shortfalls in a character's actual ability. But a character with combat ability and the tactics is more useful yet. Tactics compensate for a lack of power. They do not replace the need for it, and so any time one is left in a spot where one's usual tactics do not work, and others would rely on their personal power to carry the day, one without power is utterly defeated. I recall playing in one such game when a PG joined in. The party were used to thinking ahead, planning every move and working together. The new PG didn't bother with any of that - he just waded in. He assumed everyone in the party was the same, and when he brought a pitched battle down on them that could have easily been avoided he moaned constantly about how weak they all were. They booted him the next game. So you've got a close party dynamic. A new player joins. He's got a decently powerful character and is worried that he's stuck with a party that's weak. Worried for a reason, given his fighting style - you know, the one where he actually fights. And, instead of telling him how you prefer to run things, you boot him - probably more because you didn't like the way he disrupted the party dynamic more than anything involving powergaming. And you never even mention RP - if the player in question was playing a battle-hungry barbarian, his actions would seem perfectly in line with good roleplaying. The fact of the matter is that if you have players who prefer to play for RP rather than optimizing, you likely have a DM that thinks the same way and tailors encounters to their power level - in an RP heavy game avoiding party deaths is a high priority because it disrupts character developement. The last thing you want in such circumstances is an optimized character inthe party upsetting the balance. What balance? The balance of the DM fudging rolls, dumbing down encounters, and using lower-than-normal ECL than you should be able to handle? Because when you talk about avoiding party deaths, that's what I see. It's easy for a weak character to stay alive if all his opponents are blind and crippled. *sigh* Well, that came out a bit more harshly than I intended. Yes, having characters of widely differeing power levels can disrupt a game. Can, but doesn't have to. As I see it, there's less disruption in an RP-heavy game, because numbers on your sheet don't matter when you're roleplaying, and if that's the main focus of the game, then the fact that Character A can break Character B like a dry twig using only his mind shouldn't matter. I know, I know. Shouldn't matter, but does, because the weaker character feels useless or the stronger character feels he's carrying the whole party.
Ack 03-18-07, 12:39 PM	How about you optimise and also play for RP? Not only are the dangerous encounters reduced, but when they do happen, you're less likely to be TPKed if you've put some thought into your character concept and execution. And really, if an ordinarily optimised character makes another one feel as though he's weak or useless, then maybe he is. Once again, I ask: in a world where optimised characters are the norm (see the PHB), why would a sub-optimal character ever end up in an adventuring party? Realistically, logically, they'd be told to stay home until they are no longer a danger to themselves (just like you never see a 90-pound weakling with bad vision and a severe limp joining Marine Force Recon, just for instance).
kelvinaw273 03-18-07, 12:42 PM	Refuted for disagreement! A wide range of builds can describe any personality and character type. There's no reason why any mechanic (that fits within the concept - a wide range indeed) should have to alter a character's personality. I refute your refutation. The gentle giant may not have learned power attack ... and it would not be in character for him to have the feat! Okay, yeah. I agree that tactics can overcome shortfalls in a character's actual ability. But a character with combat ability and the tactics is more useful yet. Define "useful". Useful to have fun with? That is, at the end of the day, the point of the game. If you have fun and succeed in your quest, you have been "useful." All that happens if you optimise is that (a) you lose characterisation in your own eyes and (b) the DM beefs up the opposition so the challenge is the same. So you have achieved nothing save to have less fun. Not useful, in my eyes. Tactics compensate for a lack of power. They do not replace the need for it, and so any time one is left in a spot where one's usual tactics do not work, and others would rely on their personal power to carry the day, one without power is utterly defeated. If you succeed with the quest at the end of the day, you were powerful enough. If your tactics don't work, you get new ones. You run away if you have to. If the DM is just chucking monsters at you regardless, you don't have a decent DM anyway. So you've got a close party dynamic. A new player joins. He's got a decently powerful character and is worried that he's stuck with a party that's weak. Worried for a reason, given his fighting style - you know, the one where he actually fights. And, instead of telling him how you prefer to run things, you boot him - probably more because you didn't like the way he disrupted the party dynamic more than anything involving powergaming. And you never even mention RP - if the player in question was playing a battle-hungry barbarian, his actions would seem perfectly in line with good roleplaying. Yeah ... his battle hungry barbarian, then his battle hungy paladin, then his battle hungry fighter <yawn> and then his battle hungry samurai ... all the same personality with different armour. He knows the party dynamic, he just wants to show off his awesome build. Why should the rest of the group have to change their style that they enjoy to one they don't just because of one player? What balance? The balance of the DM fudging rolls, dumbing down encounters, and using lower-than-normal ECL than you should be able to handle? Because when you talk about avoiding party deaths, that's what I see. It's easy for a weak character to stay alive if all his opponents are blind and crippled. The balance between party members, that all are equally in danger and pull an equal load of the tasks at hand. The one where you have to work as a team to get through the game, and everyone feels appreciated and useful. At the end of the day, you don't offer characters of tenth level 1st level commoners for opponants, the challenge is always tailored for the party in hand, and never pretend it isn't. Well, that came out a bit more harshly than I intended. Yes, having characters of widely differeing power levels can disrupt a game. Can, but doesn't have to. As I see it, there's less disruption in an RP-heavy game, because numbers on your sheet don't matter when you're roleplaying, and if that's the main focus of the game, then the fact that Character A can break Character B like a dry twig using only his mind shouldn't matter. Except where the DM wants to challenge A and B gets in the firing line - THEN it makes a big difference. You are right, it does not have to be that way. But unless the optimised character's player is careful and aware of the disparity, it probably will do. I know, I know. Shouldn't matter, but does, because the weaker character feels useless or the stronger character feels he's carrying the whole party. Not the reason I would quote, myself, because if one character is weaker in one area it usually means he is stronger in another. One character min/maxes his fighter and the other doesn't. Well the one might be better at fighting, but the other ends up better at thinking, tactics, talking to people etc. so if both are role-played properly the second character should outshine the first in most situations. Of course if the first is played as if the player has temporarily forgotten their minimised intelligence and charisma - or worse, uses them as an excuse to create trouble when he can't hit things - then it stops working.
nastynate 03-18-07, 01:00 PM	It seems to me that the real reason why optimization gets such a bad name is rather simple, power-level disparity between player characters. Frankly, having a character that is good at his abilities is not a bad thing. It's only a bad thing when one character clearly outshines the others, forcing the DM into a conundrum. When one PC can handle threats 2 CR higher than normal, while the others struggle to handle things 2 CR lower than normal, the game degenerates; no matter how the DM goes about things, this power level discrepency will be evident. If the DM runs encounters specifically catered to challenge the powerful character, the others are at risk of certain death. If the DM runs encounters specifically catered to challenge the weaker characters, the optimized one walks all over everything. If the DM mixes and matches, the optimized character always takes on the real threat, while the weaker characters are forced to fight the secondary minions (playing an obvious second fiddle to the optimized character). D&D is a cooperative game, and all the players and the DM need to be on the same page if they expect things to work. Sometimes this means that the powergamer needs to focus his efforts in a different direction (like playing a character devoted to buffing his allies), and sometimes it means that the less mechanically savvy need to take some advice from the powergamer in order to make their beloved concepts effective in a mechanical sense. As always the DM needs to set the standard, and monitor the direction and progression of his PCs. Arbitrarily banning mechanics and impeding the powergamer's agenda isn't exactly fair (even if the results end up "balanced"); this is no different than running an entirely combat-focused game for a bunch of imersive role-players with no interest in smashing their enemies. Working against the players is bad DM-ing. A powergamer in such a group as the OP's, might consider playing something less obviously optimized towards individual power. If you want to build a bard for example, based entirely on diplomacy and eloquence that only contributes in combat via bardic music and support spells, you can build it and succeed in such an environment. Max out your ranks in diplomacy, bluff, and sense motive, play a half-elf (with racial bonuses to social skills and the half-elf bard substitution levels), pick up the glibness spell, place your best ability scores in Charisma and Wisdom and presto...you have a diplomancer. When it comes time to fight, you bust out your bardic music, group buff spells, and perhaps an enchantment or two when necessary (dominate is always an effective weapon, and no matter how powerful, it rarely inspires rancor and jealously in the same way as a warrior dishing out 200 damage per round at 9th level). Alternately, the other players can step up their mechanical game, and/or swallow their pride and ask for some optimization advice. Optimizing a character does not necessarily entail abandoning an interesting concept, detailed background, or even compromising role-playing elements intrinsic to your vision. You can optimize just about anything, and it does not have to do something utterly rediculous (from a power perspective) in order to be effective and useful. However, if you think good role-playing alone is contributing equally you are mistaken; if you cannot contribute something (mechanically speaking) to the party, you are simply a liability, no more useful than kobold commoner. I am currently DM-ing a game in which one of my players is totally uninterested in his character's mechanical capabilities. All he really cares about is figuring out the plot-line, disecting interesting mysteries, and roleplaying tense political situations. He also has a very in-depth background that has inspired numerous stories and adventures. You might think, "well this guy is probably playing a rogue, or a bard, or something similar." Nope. he's playing a crusader. I was able to pull this off by helping him construct his character, playing upon the strengths of the Diplomacy and Intimidate skills to appeal to the player, and by creating a combat flow chart for him that makes keeping track of his maneuvers, delayed damage pool, and furious conterstrike easier. Sure, he goes into auto-pilot mode when we get into combat (he could care less about it after all), but he is a tank worthy of his fellow players' respect. His character's effectiveness in battle is of little concern to him, but he still gets to do all the things he enjoys, and he isn't a liability when the game shifts in another direction. This is somewhat challenging to do at times, since many players want that intangible sense of ownership in their character's stats (even if they don't really care how good their characters truly are), but it's one of those compromises that sometimes have to made in order for the game to function as a group activity. Good role-playing is only part of the equation; if it were all that was needed in D&D, there wouldn't be so many rules, classes, and mechanics devoted to other aspects of the game. If you want to play D&D, you need to at least acknowledge the rules, and good role-playing is not a means of circumventing them (unless you rely on luck and DM interference bail you out). Mechanical competence (even if it requires the input, advice, and help of the other players in the metagame character building process) is empowering. At the very least, you know that if you succeed in one of my games, it isn't because I fudged rolls or manipulated circumstances in your favor (I don't even use a DM screen); it is because your characters' overcame the challenges, role-playing scenarios, and story I presented by virtue of their extraordinary mechanical ability, and/or your intellect and role-playing skill. Wow! that was long-winded. Sorry about that. -Peace-
Greg K 03-18-07, 02:06 PM	The thing is that when you concept is not Zelda, a bit of optimizing does help alot... Like the Necro Wizard Fighter concept thingy... With a few levels of Fighter/EK the concept would have been forfilled. It seems sorta pointless to bring up concepts that dosent need to be optimized in order to work and using it as "proof" that Optimizing is spawned by satan! No, it would have been fullfilled by your vision of what the character should be. According to the DMG, all the PC classes are representative of much more extensive training than those posessed by people of an NPC class. A fighter is someone with extensive training in a variety of weapons, arms, and combat techniques and, accoring to the DMG, it is that level of training that seperates a level 1 fighter from a warrior. So, unless the character underwent such extensive training (in armor, weapons and combat techniques), a level of fighter may be deemed inappropriate by a non-optimizer (non-heavy optimizer) or non-powergamer and weapon focus (scythe) would be more appropriate when the character met the appropriate BAB requirement from being a wizard specialist or whatever spellcasting class he was using.
kelvinaw273 03-18-07, 02:29 PM	Alternately, the other players can step up their mechanical game, and/or swallow their pride and ask for some optimization advice. Optimizing a character does not necessarily entail abandoning an interesting concept, detailed background, or even compromising role-playing elements intrinsic to your vision. You can optimize just about anything, and it does not have to do something utterly rediculous (from a power perspective) in order to be effective and useful. However, if you think good role-playing alone is contributing equally you are mistaken; if you cannot contribute something (mechanically speaking) to the party, you are simply a liability, no more useful than kobold commoner. I agree with you all the way except for this point. A lot of social interaction is not handled through game mechanics, for one thing, and for another some classes may have abilities that are not called on very often. For example, a monk cannot do much that another character in the classic 4-man party cannot do better. So a monk as a fifth character is, according to some people, useless. Yet what the monk can do is a combination of abilities that isn't found elsewhere, so when he is useful, he is VERY useful. Further, there is no such thing as a character in D&D that is completely useless. If you use tactics, any character design can do something ... even if that something is to enter melee and use 'aid another' to give another character a +2 to hit. The only time a character becomes completely useless is if they refuse to do anything, and that's bad playing, not bad design.
Greg K 03-18-07, 02:34 PM	Okay I'll bite. Why? Let's say my character concept is Mark, an elven warrior-wizard. He tries to be self-sufficent, and pretends to be a loner, but only because he grew up in a big family and is enjoying the experienceof having elbow room and being able to think. Relevant to character creation, he knows how to use a bow because his dad took him and his brothers hunting, and knows about magic because his mother's whole family are all deeply involved in a local mage's academy - his grandaunt, who he's never met, is actually the headmaster. . The next logical question is, if you did not start with a class that offers hide, move silent, survival, search (skills that you would have learned and utilized in hunting) as class skills, did you put any points into them to reflect your background or did you ignore them, because it would have been inefficient to buy them as cross class skills? Did you take Track to represent finding game or did you ignore it, because it would have interfered with something combat or spellcasting related? Edit: And, to represent the magical training your character supposedly had, I would have required you taken the Arcane Training Feat from Forgotten Realms if I was the DM
kelvinaw273 03-18-07, 02:37 PM	The next logical question is, if you did not start with a class that offers hide, move silent, survival, search (skills that you would have learned and utilized in hunting) as class skills, did you put any points into them to reflect your background or did you ignore them, because it would have been inefficient to buy them as cross class skills? Did you take Track to represent finding game or did you ignore it, because it would have interfered with something combat or spellcasting related? Good point ... this player should have taken Ranger/Wizard instead of Fighter/Wizard. See? He can't even make good RP choices, let along PG ones.
Greg K 03-18-07, 02:43 PM	Good point ... this player should have taken Ranger/Wizard instead of Fighter/Wizard. Or 1) asked the DM for a fighter variant similar to the Thug, but with wilderness skills and then taken track as the feat for being a first level character; or 2) asked the DM for a level in the rogue using the wilderness and martial rogue options from UA and again taken track as the first level feat for being a first level character. OK, this has less has less combat ability than the the player wanted.; or 3) asked the DM for the barbarian hunter variant. Ok this one has no formal combat training, but it could still work. Edit: the Arcane Training feat from Forgotten Realms would be a required character feat at first level to represent/justify the character's arcane training if it was a character in my game. Therefore, I would have suggested starting as either a ranger or a fighter variant. If the fighter variant was taken, I would given Track as the bonus feat at first level.
HappyPenguinOnAStick 03-18-07, 03:39 PM	No, it would have been fullfilled by your vision of what the character should be. According to the DMG, all the PC classes are representative of much more extensive training than those posessed by people of an NPC class. A fighter is someone with extensive training in a variety of weapons, arms, and combat techniques and, accoring to the DMG, it is that level of training that seperates a level 1 fighter from a warrior. So, unless the character underwent such extensive training (in armor, weapons and combat techniques), a level of fighter may be deemed inappropriate by a non-optimizer (non-heavy optimizer) or non-powergamer and weapon focus (scythe) would be more appropriate when the character met the appropriate BAB requirement from being a wizard specialist or whatever spellcasting class he was using. Are we talking about the same thing? Im not quit sure... But ill assume that we are. The Concept the Wizard had was of a Necormancer who, as fare as I could tell from the OP, wanted to go Melee some Giant... Which he couldent with hes Build. So the build dosent seem to fit with the listed Concept, henc why I said a bit of optimizing could have helped him out cause then he would have been able to go into melee with the said Giant. I dont get the whole "inappropriate" thing, I mean it sounds like you are saying that RP is just whats on your Sheet? I think its more like Building blocks for your Character and nothing more... I hardly look at it when I dont need to. I mean why would a RP'er care if hes character sheet says "FighterX/WizardX/EKX"? Hes character isent the Sum of hes Stats, but what he makes him into. Hes stats just tell what hes character is capable off and isent capable off... And Clearly the NecroFighter wanted to do something with hes Concept that hes Stats werent capable off. I simple just dont see whats wrong with making a Character that is actually able to do what the player wants the character to do. Tho my English sucks so im sure I might have missed some point or one of my points have been missed... Dunno. But then again I didn't start out playing any of the D20 system, so maybe thats why I dont really think my sheet = my character.
nastynate 03-18-07, 03:48 PM	I agree with you all the way except for this point. A lot of social interaction is not handled through game mechanics, for one thing, and for another some classes may have abilities that are not called on very often. For example, a monk cannot do much that another character in the classic 4-man party cannot do better. So a monk as a fifth character is, according to some people, useless. Yet what the monk can do is a combination of abilities that isn't found elsewhere, so when he is useful, he is VERY useful. Further, there is no such thing as a character in D&D that is completely useless. If you use tactics, any character design can do something ... even if that something is to enter melee and use 'aid another' to give another character a +2 to hit. The only time a character becomes completely useless is if they refuse to do anything, and that's bad playing, not bad design. Role-playing situations that do not require stats have no bearing what-so-ever on the mechanical aptitude of your character. So that's rather a moot point. Whether you are playing a godly worldslayer or a pathetic weakling you are on the same footing in this regard, but this is not the only aspect of the game; if it were we wouldn't even need the rule books, and we could free-form the whole D&D experience. A monk that has VERY meaningful contributions in fewer circumstances is still contributing to the success of the group. I can't disagree with that, but isn't that precisely what I was talking about when I suggested that every character has to have a means of contrubuting in a mechanical sense? A monk that is poorly optimized to handle even those opportunities however (like an overweight and clumsy monk), no matter how interesting from a role-playing perspective, will represent a drain on the party, rather than a benefit to them. Much of this responsibility certainly rests in the DM's hands, since he has to provide the opportunities for each character's skillset to showcase...he cannot do so however, when the character is built in such a way that it cannot even do what the player intended him to do. (example: the scythe wielding mounted necromancer) Perhaps I should have been clearer in stating that a meaningful mechanical contribution is necessary. The kobold commoner I mentioned can also use the aid another action to give another character a +2 to hit. That does not mean he contributes to the game in a meaningful mechanical way, since anything in the game can do this. Such a character is no more useful than a house cat in the same circumstances. Would you play a house cat and consider it a contributing party member? I still believe there is a distinct difference between mundane abilities which anything in D&D can do, and meaningful mechanical contribution. Even the afore mentioned necromancer with a scythe and mounted combat does something; he just does it so poorly that his character is a liability to his party (unless every character in the party is equally incompetent). This is a perfect example of the same conflict represented by an over-powered character, namely a discrepency in power levels among the PCs. Willing creating such an imbalance (whether over-powered or under-powered) is inconsiderate and disruptive to the teamwork required to play this game. Does that better explain my point?
WayneTheGame 03-18-07, 04:15 PM	I agree with nastynate and happypenguin. Greg K and kelvinaw are arguing the old "You have to have in-character justification to take a certain class/prestige class" argument, which again boils down to the false notion that everything must be justified in-game. You cannot be a Fighter-Mage without some sort of special reasoning/permission. If you want to take a level of ranger you have to put ranks in rangery-y skills. This sort of argument is utter rubbish because classes are NOT PROFESSIONS. Classes are packages. If my character sheet says "Fighter 2/Wizard 5/Spellsword 3/Eldritch Knight 10" it doesn't mean I have four classes, it means that in game terms (a metagaming concept anyways) these classes represent my character. In-game my character is an "Arcane Knight" or whatever, able to blur sword and sorcery. The packages I choose out of game to represent it has no bearing on anything, and to be frank I think it's utter garbage to require someone to spend skill points in cross-class skills like Hide and Move Silently, for example, before "allowing" them to take a level of Rogue. A "fifth-wheel" character is not useless by virtue of being a secondary combatant (as in the Monk example). A fifth-wheel character IS useless, however, if he plays a character who cannot contribute AT ALL effectively do to the player making poor choices under the guise of "roleplaying" and then expecting to still be able to do what they want. As in the OP's example the wizard has wasted all of his feats on combat feats to use a scythe but sucks at it because he's a Wizard. Had this player have enough common sense to take a few levels of Fighter and/or Eldritch Knight, he would BE ABLE TO be a Necromancer and still be able to slug it out a bit with monsters. Not as much as a fighter, of course, but not to the point where he'll get beaten down in a heartbeat with crummy Wizard stats. This player, however, seems to be narrow-minded and refuses advice that will help him both fill his concept AND be effective, and instead is happy to suck party resources through idiotic choices. Not every choice has to be rationalized in character. A simple "it fits my concept" should suffice under all but the most tyrannical, narrow-minded DMs
Greg K 03-18-07, 05:03 PM	I agree with nastynate and happypenguin. Greg K and kelvinaw are arguing the old "You have to have in-character justification to take a certain class/prestige class" argument, which again boils down to the false notion that everything must be justified in-game. You cannot be a Fighter-Mage without some sort of special reasoning/permission. If you want to take a level of ranger you have to put ranks in rangery-y skills. This sort of argument is utter rubbish because classes are NOT PROFESSIONS. As much as you wish it were rubbish, classes are professons. According, to RAW " Your character's class is his or her profession or vocation" (DND PHB). Want to try again?
WayneTheGame 03-18-07, 05:32 PM	Whatever.. I've had this argument with too many people who whine and cry about "dipping" when the classes written on the sheet make up your concept, not define it.
Greg K 03-18-07, 05:48 PM	Whatever.. I've had this argument with too many people who whine and cry about "dipping" when the classes written on the sheet make up your concept, not define it. Right. You choose to ignore how the game defines classes and those who point out you are are "people who whine and cry". :rolleyes: That said, "dipping" is only a problem if the DM is utilizing the training rules from the DMG (or some variant thereof) to bring training to the foreground. Otherwise, the game assumes that players have everything they need i(ncluding time) to train. As a DM, I prefer training in the foreground, but that only matters for my games.
nastynate 03-18-07, 05:52 PM	As much as you wish it were rubbish, classes are professons. According, to RAW " Your character's class is his or her profession or vocation" (DND PHB). Want to try again? Wait, barbarian, rogue, and sorcerer are professions? lemme look up the Profession skill again...nope not listed. Barbarian and rogue (at the very least) are certainly not professions, but derogatory labels thrust upon them by others, and sorcerers are simply gifted people without any training at all. These are no more vocations than thug, smart alec, or american indian. Sarcasm aside (and the above comment was in jest), your class represents packages of game mechanics and those mechanics may in fact entail your vocation. There is no reason to tie them together unless you really want to. You may choose to view the classes as something more than that, and in some cases the flavor of the class indeed entails far more than just numbers (like the cleric, paladin, or knight), but the vast majority are pretty open-ended like sorcerer, rogue, fighter, and others. needlessly tying yourself to generic concepts like "fighter" will only hamper your ability to develop a believable and interesting character..."Hi, I'm John the Fighter; pleasure to meet you." The simplification in the PHB (in my opinion) is meant to explain the character classes in such a way that they make sense to us in something other than metagame terminology. Without that flavor the PHB would be nothing more than charts and numbers, leaving us to figure everything out without the benefit of examples. Don't try to make them more than that, or you end up with absurdity. A fighter 1 / wizard 5 / eldritch knight 3 / spellsword 3 has not changed jobs three times. He has learned new skills which he uses to compliment one another. He may in fact have trained under multiple mentors, and learned his skills in a variety of ways, but his profession hasn't changed. All PCs are professional adventurers...not town clerks, blacksmiths, and village idiots. Also keep in mind that the vast majority of people in the real world learn many jobs, trades, and skills over the course of their lives, and that does not make us less realistic...we are real people after all (unless this is just a bunch of bots chatting, and I'm wasting my breath on computer programs). It is not outlandish or unrealistic for a D&D character to take levels in multiple classes if they want to do multiple things or synergistic things. Have any of the jobs or skills on your resume had synergy with new professions or opened the doors to new avenues? Have you ever quit a job just because you wanted to do something else? Do you still have some of those skills learned in previous vocations? Even if you DO view classes as vocations, multiclassing and prestige classes don't seem unrealistic at all, at least when compared to the 10-20 jobs I've had (and I'm only 30). -Peace-
Gemstone 03-18-07, 06:14 PM	It might just be my imagination, but it seems like people who say they only care about the RP and not the numbers really do care about the numbers, they just want low ones instead of high ones. Okay, while this may be true in some cases, in most cases in my experience, it isn't true. I'm a roleplayer and I prefer to design a character and then design the rules. True, I can roll a character and decide how to play him afterwards, but I play something Im in the mood for playing. Not every character you make have to be as effective as possible to be fun to play, and that's what I think makes many powergamers and RPer's clash. Power gamers tend to squeeze the maximum amount of power from their build, while most powergamers tend to go with the flow and take what's appropriate for the moment. I gave a good example of this in another thread... Me: I'll build a wizard who just has gone away from his master and decided to take his own path. Dan: I'll play a dwarven warrior who's sole purpose is to vanquish the slayer of his brother. Fred: Okay... hmm... that leaves me room to run a cleric of a forgotten god who has resurfaced again and slowly seeps power into me. Johnny: Okay, I'll play a dwarven ftr3/brb1/rng3/clr4 and then go for maximum of [insert powerful prestige class here] and take [template here] The problem is that some players, prefer to keep it simple or to just build what they feel like. they're not after efficiency, but feeling. I suggest that the OP keeps his calm and try to adjust his characters some, to keep them from overshading, but he doesn't have to go down to their level. If it doesn't work, find another DM
HappyPenguinOnAStick 03-18-07, 06:48 PM	ah yes, about the OP; I must admit that my own responses were more aimed at the whole "People that sometimes build effient characters are spawns from hell" thing. I suggest that the OP keeps his calm... Alot of groups that could have turn into good groups tends to break up because people just cant keep their freaking calm... If someone(Or multiple) is being a arse just take it easy and dont be a arse... Be the one with a stronger character (Bad joke :P); as in strenght on your own Character, not a D&D one. I simple refuse to believe that things cant work out to mutual benefit... Well unless everyone simple lacks strenght of character.
Ack 03-18-07, 06:52 PM	Trying to placate a group like that is relatively impossible. The complaints will involve 'feature creep'; as soon as you accommodate one set of strictures, another lot will crop up. Instead, put the problem back on them. Ask the GM, "What classes and feats am I allowed to use?" Get it in writing. Go over each one with him, to make sure he specifically okays it verbally as well. If any of the banned classes or feats is in use by the other PCs, mildly ask, "well, if they can use that, why can't I?" Don't be confrontational, just carefully point out the discrepancy. Once the matter as to what you can and cannot use is settled, in writing, build your character. If they then seek to complain and/or nerf you, give it up as a bad job. Keep the same friends, but seek a new group. They obviously can't game with you.
nastynate 03-18-07, 11:19 PM	Trying to placate a group like that is relatively impossible. The complaints will involve 'feature creep'; as soon as you accommodate one set of strictures, another lot will crop up. Instead, put the problem back on them. Ask the GM, "What classes and feats am I allowed to use?" Get it in writing. Go over each one with him, to make sure he specifically okays it verbally as well. If any of the banned classes or feats is in use by the other PCs, mildly ask, "well, if they can use that, why can't I?" Don't be confrontational, just carefully point out the discrepancy. Once the matter as to what you can and cannot use is settled, in writing, build your character. If they then seek to complain and/or nerf you, give it up as a bad job. Keep the same friends, but seek a new group. They obviously can't game with you. This simply doesn't work. No matter which restrictions are placed on the game, a powergamer can build something that will generate the most bang for his buck. That's why you see pro-powergaming people saying "just play a core druid." As a powergamer myself, I can and will squeeze blood from a stone if I need to. To make matters worse, the additional restrictions placed on classes, feats, and so forth typically impair the non-powergamers more, since they are less likely to find that diamond in the rough than the person actively looking for it. Taking away the obviously good stuff, only widens the gap in power discrepency, because who among the players is going to find the obscure over-looked combo that rocks socks? The only way to patch things up in a scenario like the OP's is to talk your way through it and come up with something in the middle that works for everyone in the game. If the people involved are unable (or more likely unwilling) to make such a compromise then they will be unable to game effectively with each other. End of story. My only gripe is that us powergamers (the OP included) get a bad rap. We put time and effort into learning the rules, and others who have not put in that same effort tend to mock and insult us because we are "munchkins." It doesn't matter how great our backstory is, or the quality of our role-playing, we still get treated like we're doing something wrong. Really the only consistent problem with powergamers is the exact same problem with the people on the other side of the fence. Nobody wants to talk things out, or acknowledge the intrests of the other players in the game. It isn't a conflict of optimization and role-playing; its a conflict of stubborn people unwilling to play nice with their friends, turning a cooperative game into a competition. Can't we all just get along?
Ack 03-19-07, 12:02 AM	I thought that's what I just said :P
nastynate 03-19-07, 12:39 AM	I thought that's what I just said :P Maybe it was, and I misread you. My bad if that was the case.
Greg K 03-19-07, 01:09 AM	nastynate I was merely pointing out that by RAW (or at least 3.0 RAW which I quoted from the chapter on classes), classes are defined as professions or vocations. Don't blame me as I didn't write that definition of what classes are. For what it is worth, I think it was mistake to refer to the classes in such a way. I would have preferred a definition of classes as a set of skills and abilities acquired through extensive training formal (e.g., academic, military, monastic or guild) or informal (e.g., culture, school of hard knocks, self training) although certain classes may require a specific form of training. However, the author defined the classes as a character's profession or vocaton and so that is the RAW definition. Any other definiton that we apply is a houserule. The mistake is not to confuse it with a profession or vocation as per job as in the profession skill.
steamboat28 03-19-07, 01:16 AM	Once again, I ask: in a world where optimised characters are the norm (see the PHB), why would a sub-optimal character ever end up in an adventuring party? Realistically, logically, they'd be told to stay home until they are no longer a danger to themselves (just like you never see a 90-pound weakling with bad vision and a severe limp joining Marine Force Recon, just for instance). QFA.
Ack 03-19-07, 01:16 AM	So, as a profession or vocation, is it the way you earn money? Or is that the role of the Profession skill? In short, is it your job, or just something you can do?
Qwicksilver 03-19-07, 01:50 AM	Are you powergaming? Everyone says no, and I'd say no as well. The thing is that, as has been mentioned, your knowledge of the game and its mechanics does give you the ability to perform better both in terms of mechanics but also in terms of roleplaying. The other players probably know the mechanics less but still want to do well roleplaying wise, and I say roleplaying meaning involving everything that your character does or can do. I think that help from either yourself or the DM can remedy the situation in terms of having the rest of the party keep to the level that you play at. As a person I often find myself thinking "Let's use the mechanics to express what you want to do, and if it's not there in a coherent way, we'll make up a way." That's what should happen for your other player friends. They should have the idea "hey I want to wield a scythe and ride a horse like Death", and someone should open a way out for them. I personally would have homebrewed a prc for it. I think in terms of mechanics, you've found a way to get you to do what you want to, and everyone else needs to catch up, which can be hard. Some have mentioned that people don't like their class/prc decisions made for them by other people. I'd say that someone who doesn't know the mechanics well should seek advise from others and more experienced players. I often say that D&D isn't the DM's story, or your player's story, it's both and thus the DM has a say with your character and you can have a say with the story. People forget, I think, with this separation of characters/DMship that D&D should be a collaborative game. In it's heart D&D is a game about collaboration: you collaborate to help the DM tell his story effectively, and the DM assures that your character's story can be told effectively. You even collaborate with your fellow PCs to help them play their character's stories out effectively. That's what it should all be about, and we should all be willing to give up a bit of freedom from our own turf to be able to encroach on everyone else's. In the end, it's all one game and one world. On "dipping", i feel that this less desirable for me. I think it maximizes the amount of playing power one can get from merely being really knowledgeable in d&d, and isn't a good fix for "I want my character to be this way". It was mentioned that dipping is like diversifying your skills, and being more well rounded. I see it as, at best creating a character that does all the things that matches your original vision. And, at worst it devolves into real powergaming or munchkining. In the end "dipping" is just finding a justification for doing in game what you wanted to do in your mind. I think, for me, it would be better to create a whole new class or prc of your own, if you had the time. Or you could say, these are the 3 or 4 main directions i want to go with my character, how can i do this in a concise way that doesn't involve many classes and prcs. If you can't do it, then try to make something up. D&D's greatest strength, in my opinion, is that it can be altered at the speed of thought and writing. No other video game has the flexibility that D&D has. No other video game can have the player fix a glitch that may have dire consequences for gameplay so quickly. No video game can introduce new code for doing any myriad of things so quickly, or be as free-form as D&D can be. I encourage people to think of D&D as not some kind of rock solid game with rules that can't be broken. I encourage people to think of D&D as your game and your friends' games, made the way you want to make them. I think "dipping" is symptomatic of people regarding D&D as having a rule-set that is much more rigid than it actually is, yet still wanting to do what they want. If your DM is enforcing them rigidly, well then I think the player/DM relationship is on a bad foot to start off with. If you're thinking of them as rigid, then the same is true. Anyway, for me, I think dipping (a whole lot) is doing with many, what could be done just as well with one (just no one has invented it yet). Edit: Or in some cases, a way has been invented, but it is not as "powerful" http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0050.html
Greg K 03-19-07, 01:55 AM	I agree with nastynate and happypenguin. Greg K and kelvinaw are arguing the old "You have to have in-character justification to take a certain class/prestige class" argument, which again boils down to the false notion that everything must be justified in-game. You cannot be a Fighter-Mage without some sort of special reasoning/permission. If you want to take a level of ranger you have to put ranks in rangery-y skills. No, I am saying that if the background of your character is that you were trained in something than it should be reflected on your sheet. I don't care if you take ranger and put everything in cross-class ranks. Just don't clam that your character knows how to hunt, because he lacks the skills to do so. Similarly, don't tell me your character has magic training, if he doesn't have the ability to cast 0 level spells ( or at least have ranks in spellcraft and/or knowledge (arcana)) This sort of argument is utter rubbish because classes are NOT PROFESSIONS. Classes are packages. If my character sheet says "Fighter 2/Wizard 5/Spellsword 3/Eldritch Knight 10" it doesn't mean I have four classes, it means that in game terms (a metagaming concept anyways) these classes represent my character. In-game my character is an "Arcane Knight" or whatever, able to blur sword and sorcery. As I pointed out earlier, you still had to go though multiple training per RAW. The game just assumes it was in the background with everything you need is avaialble unless the DM brings training to the forefront by instituting the training rules. The packages I choose out of game to represent it has no bearing on anything, and to be frank I think it's utter garbage to require someone to spend skill points in cross-class skills like Hide and Move Silently, for example, before "allowing" them to take a level of Rogue. Then don't create a background that says your are stealthy. Or, if you, do create such a background, ask the DM to utilize the customizing a character option in the PHB. A "fifth-wheel" character is not useless by virtue of being a secondary combatant (as in the Monk example). A fifth-wheel character IS useless, however, if he plays a character who cannot contribute AT ALL effectively do to the player making poor choices under the guise of "roleplaying" and then expecting to still be able to do what they want. As in the OP's example the wizard has wasted all of his feats on combat feats to use a scythe but sucks at it because he's a Wizard. Had this player have enough common sense to take a few levels of Fighter and/or Eldritch Knight, he would BE ABLE TO be a Necromancer and still be able to slug it out a bit with monsters. Not as much as a fighter, of course, but not to the point where he'll get beaten down in a heartbeat with crummy Wizard stats. This player, however, seems to be narrow-minded and refuses advice that will help him both fill his concept AND be effective, and instead is happy to suck party resources through idiotic choices. But, who said that was the character's concept involved fighter training (in terms of what a level in the class means). The DMG is clear that taking a level in a new class means. It means you took the time to learn a whole package of abilities and skills. If you choose to ignore it for your own game, that is fine, but don't blame others for not doing so or choosing a playstyle differing from your own. Not every choice has to be rationalized in character. A simple "it fits my concept" should suffice under all but the most tyrannical, narrow-minded DMs If someone has a different playstyle, they are "tyrannical, narrow minded" And you want to call people narrow-minded? Some DM's will work with players by customizing classes, using class variants and/or allowing a campaign appropriate non-core base class at the start to help reflect a background and concept and then freely allow multiclass with a specific class when they wouldn't have necessarily done so at an inappropriate time (i.e., the character had no available), because the character already demonstrating having training. All they may ask for in return is some occassional give later on the part of the player.
Greg K 03-19-07, 02:02 AM	So, as a profession or vocation, is it the way you earn money? Or is that the role of the Profession skill? In short, is it your job, or just something you can do? Its like Alice in Wonderland. In this case, profession and vocation mean what the designer's want them to mean.
Comus 03-19-07, 02:15 AM	nastynate I was merely pointing out that by RAW (or at least 3.0 RAW which I quoted from the chapter on classes), classes are defined as professions or vocations. Don't blame me as I didn't write that definition of what classes are. For what it is worth, I think it was mistake to refer to the classes in such a way. I would have preferred a definition of classes as a set of skills and abilities acquired through extensive training formal (e.g., academic, military, monastic or guild) or informal (e.g., culture, school of hard knocks, self training) although certain classes may require a specific form of training. However, the author defined the classes as a character's profession or vocaton and so that is the RAW definition. Any other definiton that we apply is a houserule. The mistake is not to confuse it with a profession or vocation as per job as in the profession skill. I think you're taking too narrow a view. The core rulebooks are designed to be as simple and user-friendly as possible. This means they trade accuracy for clarity. Calling a class a job is the easiest way to describe it, but not the most realistic or precise. Besides which, you're quoting what is essentially flavor text. All flavor is totally open to reinterpretation. How do I know it isn't a rule? First, because there are no written rules on training - it is literally left up to DM fiat if characters require training or if they pick up skills on their own. Secondly, most, perhaps nearly all, NPCs who have a basis in official fiction rather than being purpose-built for an encounter have more than one class, often a mix of three or more. That's because they were developed as concepts, and then had rules wrapped around them. I could be a jerk and say 'show me a rule', or something, but really, you've already done that. It's just a rule that exists only in flavor, which I believe is mutable. If you play the kind of game where all Barbarians smell bad and come from Norway, all Paladins wear shining plate mail, and Gnomes are all Illusionists and Bards... well, then I guess the default flavor matters as much to you as the mechanics themselves, and so I'll be wrong in your eyes no matter what I say.
Greg K 03-19-07, 02:25 AM	How do I know it isn't a rule? First, because there are no written rules on training - it is literally left up to DM fiat if characters require training or if they pick up skills on their own. Actually there are written rules in the DMG. At least in the 3.0 version. There are various options to use. It even tells you how long it learns to take feats, feats skills, and some other things. I believe it also says how long to learn a level in a class, but I won't have access to my book until tomorrow.
Comus 03-19-07, 02:33 AM	Actually there are written rules in the DMG. At least in the 3.0 version. There are various options to use. It even tells you how long it learns to take feats, feats skills, and some other things. I believe it also says how long to learn a level in a class, but I won't have access to my book until tomorrow. I have it on hand now. First, it notes that everything in that section is DM fiat "You can mandate...", "In your campaign, however, you can require...", and so on. It even says leaving everything in the background is a fine choice. There are rules for training, but they're presented as a guideline and optional rules system, not RAW.
Greg K 03-19-07, 02:42 AM	Comus I actually don't consider most of the to be professions per se in my games. However, I do consider them to represent a package of skills and abilities upon which your character recieves training and is influenced by who trains you as I use plenty of class variants and some non-core classes. For example: Barbarian: If the character trained by someone with the class barbarian, is the person an "urban" barbarian" or a "wilderness based"? The former may grant you access to Knowledge(local), Gather Info, Sense Motive, instead of Handle Animal, Ride, Survival. Assuming the traded out the skills Cleric: Which deity does the cleric training you dedicate themselves to. Fighter: What type of Fighter is training you? For example, is he or she a bodyguard? a duelist? a mariner? a mercernary? a thug? I use class variants and this will affect the skills and abilities that you can be taught. Anyway, you get the idea. Edit: And as I said earlier, I do utilize training in the foreground when I DM
Greg K 03-19-07, 02:48 AM	I have it on hand now. First, it notes that everything in that section is DM fiat "You can mandate...", "In your campaign, however, you can require...", and so on. It even says leaving everything in the background is a fine choice. There are rules for training, but they're presented as a guideline and optional rules system, not RAW. They are RAW depending on how you define raw (from what I have seen on these boards and other boards, many people consider anything in the core books RAW whether optional or not) . That aside, I have said all along that the default is training in the background unless the DM says otherwise and, if training is in the background, dipping is not a problem as you are assumed to have have everything you need to train available. I have just also said that having training exist in the background is not the same as saying it does not exist at all- it is just assumed to occur "off camera" . I suppose that I should have specified that to mean tha the details are not a concern
kelvinaw273 03-19-07, 04:59 AM	Greg K and kelvinaw are arguing the old "You have to have in-character justification to take a certain class/prestige class" argument, which again boils down to the false notion that everything must be justified in-game. You cannot be a Fighter-Mage without some sort of special reasoning/permission. If you want to take a level of ranger you have to put ranks in rangery-y skills. This sort of argument is utter rubbish because classes are NOT PROFESSIONS. Classes are packages. If my character sheet says "Fighter 2/Wizard 5/Spellsword 3/Eldritch Knight 10" it doesn't mean I have four classes, it means that in game terms (a metagaming concept anyways) these classes represent my character. In-game my character is an "Arcane Knight" or whatever, able to blur sword and sorcery. The packages I choose out of game to represent it has no bearing on anything, and to be frank I think it's utter garbage to require someone to spend skill points in cross-class skills like Hide and Move Silently, for example, before "allowing" them to take a level of Rogue. You aimed at my point and rolled a natural "1" there.:D You have in fact got the point totally the wrong way round. It's not that you have to justify your choices, to the RPer the choices are decided by the character. Justification is for mechanics with no imagination. Your example of an "Arcane Knight" is a good example of how I play; I take a concept and bend classes, abilities, feats and skills to match that concept as eficiently as I can. The point though is that I start with a much more fleshed out concept than just two words. I start with something like: "Jordan was schooled as most elves usually are in the arts of swordplay and archery. Because his family lived close to the wilderness, he learned with his father the arts of survival in the wild. From his mother's family he was tutored in magic, although he was a little slower to learn this he was an able student." I would then explain my choices to the DM: "My concept is of a ranger/wizard; I'll take my first level in Ranger to represent his existing skills at combat and wilderness ken, and the second level when I get it in wizard to represent his growing confidence at spell casting. I want to aim for either eldritch knight or bladesinger prestige class, but I'll see how the character evolves first." I agree classes are not professions, but they are vocations. Taking levels in a different class represents your character following a different tack of training and emphasis. No, it certainly does not have to be preceded by taking levels in skills or feats that relate to the class ... that's just plain silly. But it should be indicative of a change in the character's outlook - as inthe above example wherein the character gains further confidence in their ability, sufficient to be prepared to experiment with spellcasting in dificult situations.
WayneTheGame 03-19-07, 09:44 AM	I see your point, however I still don't buy Greg K's saying (because I'm not sure if he said it as an alternative viewpoint or if he really runs it that way) that an in-character demonstration is required before you are "allowed" to take something. For example: Requiring a player to put ranks in Knowledge (Arcana) or Religion before the DM allows the player to pick up a level of Wizard or Cleric is just beyond words for me. I used to play with folks who had a similar viewpoint (thank gawd the DM didn't see it like that) and it was nothing more than a thinly veiled "Powergaming/dipping is bad because it makes your character better than me" argument.
Greg K 03-19-07, 12:24 PM	I see your point, however I still don't buy Greg K's saying (because I'm not sure if he said it as an alternative viewpoint or if he really runs it that way) that an in-character demonstration is required before you are "allowed" to take something. For example: Requiring a player to put ranks in Knowledge (Arcana) or Religion before the DM allows the player to pick up a level of Wizard or Cleric is just beyond words for me. I used to play with folks who had a similar viewpoint (thank gawd the DM didn't see it like that) and it was nothing more than a thinly veiled "Powergaming/dipping is bad because it makes your character better than me" argument. I do play that way unless the PCs have significant downtime with no adventuring. The character needs to learn the basics (either magic theory or about the different deities you are invoking). And, as I am usually the DM, it has nothing to do with "Powergaming/dipping is bad because it makes your character better than me". I want verisimilitude when I play or DM. That said, if the character comes with a reasonable background that is campaign appropriate, I try to work with the player to tailor the mechanical elements to the reflect that background concept. I'll either create or utilize existing class variants (I was using the wilderness rogue and urban/wilderness variants long before UA or the Cityscape enhancement were released). I'll allow 3.0 style Apprentice multiclassing. I'll even use a few non-core base classes from various sources. I do all of this to a) try to create no need to multiclass between multiple base classes. b) ensure if multiclassing among base classes is necessary, the mechanics are in place to represent the training specfied in the background so that, like the character above, the mechanics reflect that the character has training and no need for a trainer. Occassionally, this may require the player take a feat like Magical training or a theurge feat at first level or take a few ranks in cross-class skills at first level. I am also pretty lenient when it comes to acquiring skills I am also pretty lenient when it comes to acquiring skills . I'll throw in occassional downtime for travelling/camping during which players can have their characters learn other characters. This is a great way for characters to take class variants that involve different skill from the standard class. For example, the rogue (phb style) starts going out with the ranger to forage, hunt, scout etc, but isn't interested in learning the fighting stuff normally assoicated with the ranger. That is enough for me to allow the rogue's player to either pick up a level in the wilderness rogue provided the character spent some of the skill points on skills he learned from the ranger.
Cael 03-20-07, 08:32 PM	The simplification in the PHB (in my opinion) is meant to explain the character classes in such a way that they make sense to us in something other than metagame terminology. Without that flavor the PHB would be nothing more than charts and numbers, leaving us to figure everything out without the benefit of examples. Don't try to make them more than that, or you end up with absurdity. I will have to disagree with this. I believe that the PHB was simplified to cater to those lowest common denominator amongst us humans that are unable to grasp concepts beyond "duh", "ugh" and "rargh!" Given the number of people here (arguably representing a higher than average IQ cross-section of the entire RP community) that takes the PHB and DMG so literally, I do not believe that my view is in error.
trapspringer 03-20-07, 09:26 PM	I am a powergamer. Am I a bad person? Yes, and God killed a kitten for you.
Sareld 03-20-07, 10:19 PM	Yes, and God killed a kitten for you. Oh noes! I wanted the XP for killing that kitten. Curse you, God! On the side note, things are lighting up. I have promised do only melee builds for some time, as straight forward melee is seen as a more fair way of dealing with combat than my traditional way of sneak attacking and casting (the good) spells. I am really looking forward to build a head-on tank character, as I have never really tried that role before. I am utterly clueless as to what classes and feats I will neeed to fill this role well, and I suspect that this build will have to go around the CO boards once Im done with it to get the most blatant errors fixed.. but so be it. Do you remember the feeling from when you were a kid, and you had just unpacked a new LEGO set? Im feeling that again now, and hopefully this good feeling will continue as I assemble my blocks to a really cool tank ^^ Again, thanks for your replies!
Ventilatory_Threshold 03-21-07, 01:09 PM	Oh noes! I wanted the XP for killing that kitten. Curse you, God! Why would you want to kill a kitten? Do you want to sink to the level of God? For shame... Remember kids, kittens are your friends. They are fuzzy and small and adorable. Even I can enjoy the company of a kitten, and I despise anything remotely different from myself (I killed my identical twin brother because he had a different-looking mouth).
aotrscommander 03-21-07, 07:09 PM	You know what, from now on, every time someone says "don't do this or [x] kills a kitten/puppy" I'm going out to kill three kittens/puppies out of sheer, malevolent, contrary spite. Damn mammal babies. Even V_T, who I otherwise consider to be a reasonable and intelligent and high-rated on the Awesome scale Chaotic Evil Viking Outsider, falls foul of the beguilment of mammal babies. (Gah, they must have a [Mind-Affecting] aura or something.) Nobody ever says "don't do this or [x] kills a tadpole or insect larvae or juvenuile lizard/snake/dinosaur/invertibrate" or something, do they!?
Ventilatory_Threshold 03-21-07, 08:11 PM	Damn mammal babies. You do know that animal young are biologically designed to induce a sense of protectiveness in adults: Large, round head, with large eyes and facial features in a single bundle in the middle of the face. Even as a Lich, you should be experiencing an "awwwww" moment when you see one because it's not mind-affecting, just visual and dependent on certain brain functions. Even V_T, who I otherwise consider to be a reasonable and intelligent and high-rated on the Awesome scale Chaotic Evil Viking Outsider, falls foul of the beguilment of mammal babies. What can I say, they make me feel good when they let me pet them, and they're just so affectionate. Really makes me not want to kill them. Nobody ever says "don't do this or [x] kills a tadpole or insect larvae or juvenuile lizard/snake/dinosaur/invertibrate" or something, do they!? I don't. Young reptiles, to me, seem to possess the same features. So do yound insects, to an extent. Young cnidarians, mollusks, fish and... well everything non-mammalian that's found in the ocean is butt-ugly to me. I fequently make trip out to sea and dive in just so I can step on them. Now you must bask in my Abyssal glory, for my birthday has come! Dance, thralls, dance a furious dance in my honor! Dance a dance of violence, murder, pain and fire! Revel in my dark presence! EDIT: Note that even if you don't pay your respects, it will not change the fact that I'm getting drunk. See you in 2 hours.
aotrscommander 03-21-07, 08:32 PM	You do know that animal young are biologically designed to induce a sense of protectiveness in adults: Large, round head, with large eyes and facial features in a single bundle in the middle of the face. Yeah, I know. Dirty trick that was, evolution... Even as a Lich, you should be experiencing an "awwwww" moment when you see one because it's not mind-affecting, just visual and dependent on certain brain functions. No brain in my skull for it to function on! And I was never in touch with my biological instincts in the firts place; I had a Liche's soul long before I became Undead! Now you must bask in my Abyssal glory, for my birthday has come! Dance, thralls, dance a furious dance in my honor! Dance a dance of violence, murder, pain and fire! Revel in my dark presence! EDIT: Note that even if you don't pay your respects, it will not change the fact that I'm getting drunk. See you in 2 hours. Congratulations! I'll Gate you cake with some1 burning Vampires and Shi'ar2 on top. Only in this case, obviously, you don't blow the candles out, you add flammable liquids instead. And laugh. Manicially. 1I.e. as many as I can find and staple down with sharp objects. 2I had something of an epiphany the other day when I realised that I hate Shi'ar even more than I hate Vampires. Especially Gladiator (and yes, he can damn well count as Shi'ar the badly-hair-styled git.) I didn't think was was possible either...
Ack 03-22-07, 02:44 AM	All I can think of to reply (http://www.cruisegazing.com/RPG_Motivational/housecats.jpg).
lastknightleft 03-22-07, 07:10 PM	Okay, so before I say my :twocents:, I want it known, that I spent the past two days (not consecutively, when I had the time smart:censored:) reading this whole topic before posting on it. Keep in mind those of you arguing that your way is the logical sensical way that you are wrong, because no matter what you think (myself included) it's personal opinion, even if you're quoting RAW or saying you're approaching it from a common sense POV. On optimization: I'm guilty of it myself sometimes, however, I never try to force my opinions on other players characters and even when I do optimize I act as I think the character would act rather than try to approach it from a metagame tactical standpoint On dipping: I hate it with a passion because all the dipping is so unnecesary if you would just work with your DM to create a custom class (see the DMG about witches) or a tailormade prestige class about RP: I totally agree that a change in class represents training and time spent learning to do said activities and those who make a job comparison saying how that means you should dip without training, Yeah, I've had 8-9 jobs in my life, but each one involved at least a month of learning how to do said job, or my previous jobs skills applied to said job. To the OP (yeah you are a power gamer, no you aren't evil)If you want to make things better with your playgroup Avoid the Char OP boards for this character, you've just worked things out with your group. Make up characters you aren't going to play with in their game to optimize if you enjoy doing it so much. With your game character though just take things you think will work and see how the game develops. If you make a plan and bring it to the Char Op boards to peach, then you'll do the same thing with a melee build you do with your spellcaster/rogue characters, and your fellow gamers won't appreciate that. You seem like an intelligent reasonable player, do you think you won't enjoy the game at all if you find out a feat combo isn't as powerful as you thought it was. You're intelligent play should still fill the gap, and if you're willing to work with your DM (which you've shown your willingness to) you could always custom a prestige class that brings that combo into what you originally wanted. about V_T's birthday: congradulations, you've managed to not die another year. I understand why that makes you want to drink till you can't remember doing so. ;) About killing kittens: every time god kills a kitten I kill a maggot, so if you keep doing those things that kill kittens because you hate kittens, just think of all those helpless baby flies that I've crushed into paste... you bastard baby fly killers.
aotrscommander 03-22-07, 07:50 PM	About killing kittens: every time god kills a kitten I kill a maggot, so if you keep doing those things that kill kittens because you hate kittens, just think of all those helpless baby flies that I've crushed into paste... you bastard baby fly killers. You know to make that work you should kill more than one at once otherwise you'll never make adent in the fly population. I don't know, maybe squish half a pound of maggots for every kitten or something. (I don't know what kittens weigh. All I know is they fly quite far when you kick them. Mind you, so do Elves and Vampires, so that's not a good measure is it?)
Maekrix_Waere 03-22-07, 11:32 PM	I do play that way unless the PCs have significant downtime with no adventuring. The character needs to learn the basics (either magic theory or about the different deities you are invoking). And, as I am usually the DM, it has nothing to do with "Powergaming/dipping is bad because it makes your character better than me". I want verisimilitude when I play or DM. I am also pretty lenient when it comes to acquiring skills . I'll throw in occassional downtime for travelling/camping during which players can have their characters learn other characters. This is a great way for characters to take class variants that involve different skill from the standard class. For example, the rogue (phb style) starts going out with the ranger to forage, hunt, scout etc, but isn't interested in learning the fighting stuff normally assoicated with the ranger. That is enough for me to allow the rogue's player to either pick up a level in the wilderness rogue provided the character spent some of the skill points on skills he learned from the ranger. You actually make characters take ranks in skills (such as Survival for a Ranger) before they take a level in that class? Or do you just make them takes ranks in the skills WHEN they take the first level in that class? Thr first one is completely ludicrous IMO. The second one is still a bit :ahem:, but it is, at least, acceptable.
Qwicksilver 03-23-07, 02:39 AM	I am really looking forward to build a head-on tank character, as I have never really tried that role before. I am utterly clueless as to what classes and feats I will neeed to fill this role well, and I suspect that this build will have to go around the CO boards once Im done with it to get the most blatant errors fixed.. but so be it. Do you remember the feeling from when you were a kid, and you had just unpacked a new LEGO set? Im feeling that again now, and hopefully this good feeling will continue as I assemble my blocks to a really cool tank. Yeah, I don't play a frontline fighter type all that often, but I like the idea of trying it out and saying "well let's see people say front line combatants are way boring and no fun to play, let me see if i can prove them wrong." I personally focused on having a fighter that was highly mobile and had a large number of attack options, as opposed to stand in one spot hack/slash repeat. It is funny that magic casting and fighting with physical damage are two systems by which if you know one, you really don't need to be aware of the other. Again About Dipping I see dipping in some ways as "I can make a more powerful character than you." In general terms, D&D tends to reward knowledge of the game with either no or very high limits (ie. the more you know the more options you have to "play the game better"). I don't think that more knowledge of D&D should equal "I will be able to be a more effective player than you". Ideally, there should be a ceiling to the amount of power you can get out of a character through study of D&D. All players at the beginning of character creation say, "here's what I want, now how do I get it as good as possible". The problem is that "how" part is governed by how much you know, again this won't ever change. Dipping just increases the effectiveness of D&D knowledge's ability to either mechanically power up a character or have a character concept realized much closer. I would much rather have someone say "this is what I want my character to be like" and for there to be little other knowledge needed to be able to implement that idea in an effective and fun way. So I'm just saying that it would be nice to have it be "my character concept is this" and there is an easy way to implement it without complex builds. It may not be the reality, but I would like for it to be "I can do just as well with one , as I could have done with many more than that". So essentially what you've got is, a lot of single classes, single prestige classes, and the like that will give you your concept, but in a cohesive fashion. I have always thought of prestige classes and new classes as elaborations on character ideas that a person can read and take so that he doesn't have to worry about what abilities he must have to make his roleplaying flavor viable in terms of mechanics, and relative to other players. Classes and prestige classes to me are not just ability packages, and that's partially what I worry about. I don't want dipping to end up just diluting the fluff of a class or a prestige class in favor of what it can do for me practically.
lastknightleft 03-23-07, 09:20 AM	Again about dipping Keep in mind also that many class/PrC combos don't logically fit together flavorwise, but you might want them for the abilities granted. once again this is incentive to talk to your dm rather than make a build involving 3 classes/5 PrC's. And keep in mind I am not saying that talking to the DM should completely eliminate the need for multiclassing, just limit the need of excessive multiclassing
lastknightleft 03-23-07, 09:22 AM	You know to make that work you should kill more than one at once otherwise you'll never make adent in the fly population. I don't know, maybe squish half a pound of maggots for every kitten or something. (I don't know what kittens weigh. All I know is they fly quite far when you kick them. Mind you, so do Elves and Vampires, so that's not a good measure is it?) Who says I'm doing it to put a dent in the population, killing a kitten doesn't put a dent in the population, I do it to kill the cute cuddly little baby flies
aotrscommander 03-23-07, 10:13 AM	Who says I'm doing it to put a dent in the population, killing a kitten doesn't put a dent in the population, I do it to kill the cute cuddly little baby flies So logically, you should kill more of them, ten surely. I always find killing six dozen humans is much more fun than just one (or whatever it is I happen to be killing at the time.)
Comus 03-23-07, 10:50 AM	Yet again about dipping: There is absolutely nothing wrong with taking multiple classes, and it is supported heavily in the rules. While making a custom class can give you exactly the set of class abilities you want with no dipping needed, the dual problems of balance and getting the DM to allow a custom class are not small ones. It is easier to assume that the printed classes are balanced, and build using them, than to playtest and balance a new, custom class. Not to mention that the very worst munchkins are the ones who design their own classes - not that I am saying anyone advocates it, just that it happens. Flavorwise, you just have to break away from the idea that a character is his classes. A character is a person, and if the best way to describe that person mechanically is two base classes with three prestige on top, then that's who they are. And aside from the fact that the flavor of classes is near-infinitely mutable, and thus can fit together perfectly, there's no reason to think there are any 'seams' at all. Those two base classes and three prestige? They aren't five different paths. They're a single path.
Tyraxus 03-23-07, 11:13 AM	Yet again about dipping: There is absolutely nothing wrong with taking multiple classes, and it is supported heavily in the rules. While making a custom class can give you exactly the set of class abilities you want with no dipping needed, the dual problems of balance and getting the DM to allow a custom class are not small ones. It is easier to assume that the printed classes are balanced, and build using them, than to playtest and balance a new, custom class. Not to mention that the very worst munchkins are the ones who design their own classes - not that I am saying anyone advocates it, just that it happens. Flavorwise, you just have to break away from the idea that a character is his classes. A character is a person, and if the best way to describe that person mechanically is two base classes with three prestige on top, then that's who they are. And aside from the fact that the flavor of classes is near-infinitely mutable, and thus can fit together perfectly, there's no reason to think there are any 'seams' at all. Those two base classes and three prestige? They aren't five different paths. They're a single path. Hear hear. A Ftr2/Wiz4/SS1/AC5/EK8 isn't five different career paths, he's a fighter that uses magic, and always has been. A Warblade 15/Swordage2/Rogue3 hasn't had three different careers, he's Jackie Chan in Rush Hour. Yeah, a fighter 20 is a guy with a sharp pointy stick, but character classes are like alignments: descriptors, not limits.
Greg K 03-23-07, 06:33 PM	Hear hear. A Ftr2/Wiz4/SS1/AC5/EK8 isn't five different career paths, he's a fighter that uses magic, and always has been. A Warblade 15/Swordage2/Rogue3 hasn't had three different careers, he's Jackie Chan in Rush Hour. Yeah, a fighter 20 is a guy with a sharp pointy stick, but character classes are like alignments: descriptors, not limits. No, if has been capable of both, he would have had both decent combat ability and the ability to cast spells at level one.
Greg K 03-23-07, 06:35 PM	You know what, from now on, every time someone says "don't do this or [x] kills a kitten/puppy" I'm going out to kill three kittens/puppies out of sheer, malevolent, contrary spite. Couldn't you just kill the person that made the comment and leave the poor baby animals alone.
Comus 03-23-07, 07:24 PM	No, if has been capable of both, he would have had both decent combat ability and the ability to cast spells at level one. How do you know he didn't have decent (for a first-level character) combat ability and the ability to cast spells? There are a number of feats that give limited casting ability that he could take if his first level was fighter, and any number of ways he could have combat ability as a mage (just being an elf is often enough). The way you put it, it's almost as though you're saying any character concept that can't be represented by a single class level must represent skills picked up through training. Yes, my Fighter1/Wizard1 doesn't have both proficency with all martial weapons and casting at level one (barring some feats). But in my concept, it isn't because he hasn't learned magecraft, just that he needs to study more - just as a pure fighter would have to learn the swordsmanship skills needed to have two attacks per round and can't have it until level 6 (again, barring some feats). I know I'm arguing something very close to having training, but leaving it in the background. Like the 'Lidda watches Mialee over he shoulder every morning when she studies spells' example. The difference is between saying 'this character never had these skills before' and 'this character's skills weren't developed enough to use before now'. And lastly... Duskblade.
Ventilatory_Threshold 03-23-07, 10:08 PM	Hear hear. A Ftr2/Wiz4/SS1/AC5/EK8 isn't five different career paths, he's a fighter that uses magic, and always has been. A Warblade 15/Swordage2/Rogue3 hasn't had three different careers, he's Jackie Chan in Rush Hour. Yeah, a fighter 20 is a guy with a sharp pointy stick, but character classes are like alignments: descriptors, not limits. Thats ' likle so true, man! Peopkfle can have klong termn gosls in real life toom, so whuy can't they in D&D? I'vr made somethgin like 4 posts while drunk now. I thunj I shiykd go to sleep now.
Ventilatory_Threshold 03-24-07, 11:52 AM	^The above post should be ignored. What I meant to say is that I totally agree.
Comus 03-24-07, 12:06 PM	^The above post should be ignored. What I meant to say is that I totally agree. You should post while drunk more often. :D
Ack 03-24-07, 12:09 PM	You should post while drunk more often. :D I totally agree. I burst out laughing when I read that. Made my night.
Soluphobe 03-24-07, 01:39 PM	Hear hear. A Ftr2/Wiz4/SS1/AC5/EK8 isn't five different career paths, he's a fighter that uses magic, and always has been. A Warblade 15/Swordage2/Rogue3 hasn't had three different careers, he's Jackie Chan in Rush Hour. Yeah, a fighter 20 is a guy with a sharp pointy stick, but character classes are like alignments: descriptors, not limits. Ay! I know some people who need to be forced to read this. And because somebody had to do it, I present this (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0126.html).
lastknightleft 03-24-07, 03:46 PM	Hear hear soluphobe, and some of us like seeing classes as a point of study, we don't want a character to have retroactively assumed to have studied the class. I have no problem with a level one wizard saying, Hey when I hit level two I'm taking a level of fighter, but for gods sakes at some point in the game between level one and two pick up a frickin sword. part of my problem with dipping is that the characters never attempt to try to do anything that isn't part of the new ability set until they actually get the level. Now maybe that isn't all powergamers, i'm not trying to generalize, it's just been my experience.
lastknightleft 03-24-07, 03:48 PM	note that i'm not saying you have to put ranks in cross class skills, just say in game at some point. Okay, next level i want to take a level of rogue so my character attempts to search for traps alongside the rogue, or my character aims for the kidney when he hits with his dagger.
WayneTheGame 03-24-07, 05:37 PM	Uhh.. Soluphobe was pointing out the opposite of what you seem to be saying, lastknight. He's saying that it's GOOD that you can do the "retroactively looking over the Wizard's shoulder" thing.
kelvinaw273 03-24-07, 05:53 PM	Yet again about dipping: There is absolutely nothing wrong with taking multiple classes, and it is supported heavily in the rules. While making a custom class can give you exactly the set of class abilities you want with no dipping needed, the dual problems of balance and getting the DM to allow a custom class are not small ones. Using a prestige class is also up to the DM discretion. If you want to use five of them, you have to ask five times. ;) Also bear in mind that while classes are not professions, some PrCs require membership of societies or groups, they require oaths or otherwise forms of committment. Dipping prestige classes isn't something that should be done lightly. Nor should it, given that many prestige classes generally reflect a more extreme power curve than a base class. Many optimizers may disagree, but the prestige classes a person takes should always be considered very carefully.
Maekrix_Waere 03-25-07, 12:40 AM	Using a prestige class is also up to the DM discretion. If you want to use five of them, you have to ask five times. ;) Using ANY class is at the DM's discretion.
Ventilatory_Threshold 03-25-07, 03:42 PM	That article about PrCs being at the DM's discretion is as outdated as the guidelines for balancing stats. PrCs have become an integral part of the game, and nearly all supplements include at least one or two. It's assumed that players want to PrC out, and the people that cling to the DMG to justify their position smack of reactionism as far as I'm concerned. Sorry about the personal attack, if you disagree with reactionist policies, but these "justifications" are really starting to annoy me.
Cael 03-25-07, 04:03 PM	All those people that claim that PrCs need certain this or that have been ignoring the section of the later supplements that explicitly states how to adapt the PrCs to *your* campaigns. In fact, in the writeup of the Champion of Corellon Larethian, for example, it is suggested that the whole need for gods could be dropped altogether and that the basic *premise* of the class be used, i.e., a Dex based Fighter with some supernatural abilities. In other words, they have no leg to stand on.
Ventilatory_Threshold 03-25-07, 04:13 PM	Aha! So we can accuse them of selective reading too!
lastknightleft 03-25-07, 04:22 PM	I've never been a selsctive reader or a reactionist, there is a certain way I like to look at classes and how players behave. If you want to play in my campaign world that I have put easily over 50+ hours fleshing out, the least you can do as a player is to abide by that, in return if I play in a campaign of someone elses, I won't complain if they want us to dip and multiclass, I'll merely use it to the best of my advantage without trying to break the game. Wow, we've really highjacked this thread. So why not run with it, out of curiosity, how many players have played a game where they let the DM tell them what feats/classes/PrCs they can qualify for based soley how they have acted in the levels leading up to the level where they get said things? I've done it and while completely different type of game, it's actually really fun when you try to do things that you take lots of negatives on because you don't know how... And then back to the OP, I'm really curious for an update on how things are going?
Einvaldurinn_mikli 03-25-07, 05:46 PM	So why not run with it, out of curiosity, how many players have played a game where they let the DM tell them what feats/classes/PrCs they can qualify for based soley how they have acted in the levels leading up to the level where they get said things? I haven't and I don't think I ever will. If my DM ever tried to tell me what I should do with my character I'd tell them to mind their own business and stay out of my character. If he kept at it I'd leave.
WayneTheGame 03-25-07, 05:57 PM	I haven't and I don't think I ever will. If my DM ever tried to tell what I should with my character I'd tell them to mind their own business and stay out of my character. If he kept at it I'd leave. Quoted For Truth. As a player it is MY choice what I should do with the character. Not the DMs.
Sareld 03-25-07, 06:07 PM	And then back to the OP, I'm really curious for an update on how things are going? It is going well. I talked to my DM, and we agreed that I laid off my sneaky rogue/mage style for a while, and concentrated on just being a tank. Being a tank is generally considered an honest profession here, as tanks will usually deal with threats in a straight forward and predictable way. In fact, I just had this build approved (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=813899), and we are atarting a new game in the end of the month. I am really looking forward to seeing this build in action, and especially because I never played a tank before. I also think that this build is a very diplomatic one, as I will be able to scale its power by not using power attack, leap attack and combat brute to full effect when everything is ok, but I still have the power nessecary avaliable to me when the s**t hits the fan. Feel free to drop a coment on the build, I am clueless as to how to make tanks, and I probably made some stupid choices along the way.
Daydreamer 03-25-07, 06:34 PM	people ban things because of flavor all the time. Ie, psionics, or guns, not necessarily becasue they are imbalanced. If a certain, or many prestige classes, or ALL dont fit what the dm wants then thats that. The dm is never FORCED to do anything, and your never forced to play in his or her game. I hate pcs who argue normative standards for the dm, there is no normative way to play d&d, i like role playing intensive-stick with the rules firmly but dont power game style. Other ppl like something different, as long as everyone agrees is the key. MY dm used to run a game for power gamers, he HATED dming it bc it wasnt fun for him, so he started banning, they left, fine whatever now he is with a group that likes what he does. Saying the dm is obligated to include x is ludacris, if our dm wants to ban something he bloody well does it. If we dont like it we can talk to him about it, and maybe work something out, or i could leave the game. But the dm is not there to pander to the pcs-if he doesnt want something in his game thats his choice. Essentially d&d is 'good' when the pcs and dm have the same vision in mind with how they think d&d should be done/run.
Daydreamer 03-25-07, 06:45 PM	I haven't and I don't think I ever will. If my DM ever tried to tell me what I should do with my character I'd tell them to mind their own business and stay out of my character. If he kept at it I'd leave. Wow, always suprises me the different way ppl approach the game. In our group everyone mutually decides on almost everything, and alot of communication goes into each of our individual characters and what build they employ. If you pulled this stunt in our group, you wouldnt have to worry about the dm keeping at it before you left, youd be asked to leave, and by the fellow pcs!
Ventilatory_Threshold 03-25-07, 08:43 PM	Wow, always suprises me the different way ppl approach the game. In our group everyone mutually decides on almost everything, and alot of communication goes into each of our individual characters and what build they employ. If you pulled this stunt in our group, you wouldnt have to worry about the dm keeping at it before you left, youd be asked to leave, and by the fellow pcs! That's about a fascist as you can get without executing him. Letting your group decide what direction you're going? What the hell? I'm usually pretty tolerant about other people's playing style, but Jesus... it's HIS character! Not the group's. Not the DM's. HIS!
Cael 03-25-07, 08:54 PM	So why not run with it, out of curiosity, how many players have played a game where they let the DM tell them what feats/classes/PrCs they can qualify for based soley how they have acted in the levels leading up to the level where they get said things? I've done it and while completely different type of game, it's actually really fun when you try to do things that you take lots of negatives on because you don't know how... Not to that extreme, but I have walked into a campaign before where you have to ask the DM what class you can take, and what skills you can put up (not gain, but put up, i.e., increase). That was with my nightmare group that I have described here on these boards before somewhere, so I won't do it again unless someone really wants to know the other stunts they've pulled. Needless to say, it didn't last long.
Cael 03-25-07, 09:00 PM	It is going well. I talked to my DM, and we agreed that I laid off my sneaky rogue/mage style for a while, and concentrated on just being a tank. Being a tank is generally considered an honest profession here, as tanks will usually deal with threats in a straight forward and predictable way. In fact, I just had this build approved (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=813899), and we are atarting a new game in the end of the month. I am really looking forward to seeing this build in action, and especially because I never played a tank before. I also think that this build is a very diplomatic one, as I will be able to scale its power by not using power attack, leap attack and combat brute to full effect when everything is ok, but I still have the power nessecary avaliable to me when the s**t hits the fan. Feel free to drop a coment on the build, I am clueless as to how to make tanks, and I probably made some stupid choices along the way. If you want an unassuming tank with the ability to go nova, play a Cleric with Quicken Spell and the usual Fighter tricks (EWP: Spiked Chain, Improved Trip, etc.). Normally, you are a suboptimal Fighter type with the ability to trip people on a good day. When the waste products hit the ventilation device, you can pull off the Righteous Might/Divine Power combo and start the beat down.
Daydreamer 03-25-07, 09:43 PM	That's about a fascist as you can get without executing him. Letting your group decide what direction you're going? What the hell? I'm usually pretty tolerant about other people's playing style, but Jesus... it's HIS character! Not the group's. Not the DM's. HIS! Right, and he can go play it, in another group. IM actually not the one telling anyone else how to play man. IM the one saying people have the right to play however they damn well please, WHICH includes the dm saying no to character concepts. If the dm created a world with no gnomes in it does the pc have a right to play a gnome? Or does he have a RIGHT to play something from savage species that might go agaisnt the flavor of what hes doing? Does the have the right to be psionicist-in a world with no psionics? And dont a ton of dms houserule good alighted only, or should a group of three lawful good pcs be forced to put up with a chaotic evil one? The pcs 'character' is influenced by the dm all the time. But in our group we also self monitor, i am not the dm, and the dm doesnt make us do this, because, we enjoy doing it and it produces a game that is more fun for us. If you ask me 'facism' is im going to do what i want and to hell with you all. I see it as co operative and democratic, everyone has an input in everything. I dont care when other ppl have an opinion on what i should be doing, and ill offer mine up on them. BECAUSE we are all playing in this game. Ive sat down to a gaming table seen what a dm was letting pcs pick, decided i didnt like the flavor of it and left. IN fact, there is actually a lineup to join our game, weve been playing for about 3 years now and are considered the best game in town by alot of local gamers. Its fantastic, best group ive been in my 14 years of gaming. And the object is to have fun. If you like doing it your way, find a group that likes doing it your way and dont expect everyone to conform to your opinions and play with you. I only play with people who i get along with, in game, and out. They dont have to conform to me, they are people who already agree with me on what d&d should be about. If they didnt we wouldnt enjoy playing together anyway. I see too many people try to resolve conflicting styles, i just dont bother with that anymore. Sometimes it can be done, but most often id rather just play with people i enjoy playing with, and mind you, who enjoy playing with me.
Ventilatory_Threshold 03-25-07, 10:12 PM	I'm not saying it's not the DM's right to restrict based on flavor. I'm saying that it's not the DM's right to ban a PrC without good reason. Good reasons include fluff (I want you to note this before you try to argue fluff reasons, because I accept those reasons) and de facto balance (i.e. banning the Mindbender based on imbalance is not justified (because it's underpowered, not overpowered), whereas banning the Planar Shepherd is (which is overpowered even without optimization)). Banning it because the DMG says you can makes you an idiot and a jackass. There, I said it. You're an idiot if you ban PrCs because the DMG says you can. All of this is IMO, of course. And letting the group control your concept is the worst idea I've ever heard. By concept I mean niche, race (I'm talking about races allowed), class and advancement. It's not the group's right to force a player to play a Wizard when he wants to play a Rogue. It's not the group's right to prohibit the Rogue from taking levels in Wizard if he wants to. It's not the group's right to tell the Wizard to take Spell Focus instead of Spell Penetration. That's what I was talking about. It's the player's concept and he does what he wants to. Maybe it was always his goal to take Arcane Trickster. If you think that PCs don't have long-term goals (including becoming a gish), you're horribly mistaken.
Daydreamer 03-25-07, 10:19 PM	WE have long term goals, we discuss long term goals, we actually prefer to function together and design together. Obviously our group will have stuff like arcane trickster and we talk it out with each other. Its CO OPERATIVE not coercive. Yes, sometimes i agree what a dm bans/does/or doesnt do, makes him an idiot, i also agree the dm has the right to be an idiot and you can go find another game. I think a dm can ban something bc he goes, 'i just dont like it', or 'i dont like u playing that but npcs can have it'. Most of the time, i think its stupid, but i still think its his perogative, and its mine to leave the game-and ive left loads of games bc i didnt like what i was seeing. I should stop saying his when refering to the dm, ours is female, but still thats what i mean when i say you cant argue norms in d&d. Some ppl like silly number crunching hehe i can smash ur face games, others like more sophisitication, nothing inherently wrong with anything as long as everyone agrees for the most part. Ohhh I KNOW how to explain my views? did you see that movie a beatiful mind, with the economic 'game theory' if everyone goes for the blond, you block each other and nobody gets what they want, if everyone gives up a bit , everyone gets more of what they want overall.
Cael 03-26-07, 12:30 AM	WE have long term goals, we discuss long term goals, we actually prefer to function together and design together. Obviously our group will have stuff like arcane trickster and we talk it out with each other. Its CO OPERATIVE not coercive. Yes, sometimes i agree what a dm bans/does/or doesnt do, makes him an idiot, i also agree the dm has the right to be an idiot and you can go find another game. I think a dm can ban something bc he goes, 'i just dont like it', or 'i dont like u playing that but npcs can have it'. Most of the time, i think its stupid, but i still think its his perogative, and its mine to leave the game-and ive left loads of games bc i didnt like what i was seeing. I should stop saying his when refering to the dm, ours is female, but still thats what i mean when i say you cant argue norms in d&d. Some ppl like silly number crunching hehe i can smash ur face games, others like more sophisitication, nothing inherently wrong with anything as long as everyone agrees for the most part. Ohhh I KNOW how to explain my views? did you see that movie a beatiful mind, with the economic 'game theory' if everyone goes for the blond, you block each other and nobody gets what they want, if everyone gives up a bit , everyone gets more of what they want overall. Speaking on behalf of the RP enthusiasts who value RP over such "munchkin", "powergaming" concepts as dipping and PrC-ing out the wazoo, getting together is just so fake and metagaming. You are supposed to be a bunch of people that grew up normally. You don't pick and coordinate like that! Munchkins!!!!! (Please note the sarcasm...)
mtrpcic 03-26-07, 12:59 AM	Yes.
Daydreamer 03-26-07, 02:10 AM	character creation process cant be metagamed -_-;; and we are pretty good for not metagaming when we play. But honestly some metagaming is good, for example, we write backstories that include all our pcs so we have a trusting relationship to begin the game. It jjust makes life easier.
Ventilatory_Threshold 03-26-07, 06:09 AM	character creation process cant be metagamed -_-;; Actually, character creation is inherent metagaming. It's necessary metagaming, but metagaming nonetheless. Character advancement is also metagaming, so are character classes, feats, skills. If you want to avoid all metagaming, never play an RPG. Real life is about as good as it will get for you.
Gemstone 03-26-07, 08:43 AM	Having PRC's in a game, can destroy it as well as make it better. Mostly, which PRC's are avaible, depends on the DM. Some DM's prefer to have all possible PRC*s avaible, while others prefer to have almost none. I belong to the last camp, even though I allow almost everything in my game. PRC's are sometimes a mistmatch with the game, or they simply end up being "dip" classes, which I hate. On the other hand, they can become a viable character development table too.
Ventilatory_Threshold 03-26-07, 08:54 AM	Dipping is what people sometimes have to resort to doing if they're trying to fulfill a character concept, especially if the DM won't work with them to create a class. For example, a player wants to make a character that would be best described as a "Scary-Ass :censored:". Hexblade could theoretically be enough, but the thing is, "enough" isn't enough if the player can take such PrCs as Avenging Executioner or Ghost-Faced Killer. Those two might just fit his character concept. So now we have two PrCs that there is no reason to disallow and two reasons to allow: Both are balanced and both fit with the character concept (they are both logical branches from the class). By writing up some long-term goals, I don't see why Fochlucan Lyrist shouldn't be allowed, either. And that PrC is specifically designed to make otherwise suboptimal dipping viable.
nastynate 03-26-07, 09:41 AM	Having PRC's in a game, can destroy it as well as make it better. Mostly, which PRC's are avaible, depends on the DM. Some DM's prefer to have all possible PRC*s avaible, while others prefer to have almost none. I belong to the last camp, even though I allow almost everything in my game. PRC's are sometimes a mistmatch with the game, or they simply end up being "dip" classes, which I hate. On the other hand, they can become a viable character development table too. On the flip side of the coin (I must be in the first camp ;) ), I see no problem with "dip" classes at all. Barring certain circumstances, like the PrCs tied to specific affiliations (the red wizard) or in-game requirements (the spellsword prerequisite of defeating an enemy without magic), most classes and prestige classes have nothing but class features; the vast majority have vanilla flavor that is incredibly generic and extremely flexible, that simply spells out the basics of what the class is intended to represent, ala fighter, rogue, eldritch knight, etc. Cherry picking your class features seems perfectly logical to me. I don't mind players building character concepts around certain class combinations or mechanics, nor do I mind cherry picking class features to build a mechanical representation of what you envision your character being able to do; it's only when you face conflicting prerequisites or built-in flavor that dips become annoying to me (like a paladin / assassin). PrCs even come with an "adaptation" section which specifies how to customize the flavor or mechanics to make them work in your campaign, or with your character. The adaptation options are there for a reason...so we can use the classes. If you strictly adhere to the flavor of the Radiant Servant of Pelor (for example), it forces the DM and the player to use Pelor in their games, but the adaptation section specifically states that the PrC can be used to represent any sun god or religious organization appropriate in your game. Radiant servants of Dol Arrah (Eberron) or Lathander (Forgotten Realms) or whomever are already covered right in the book. Strictly adhering to the flavor is a personal choice, not a requirement. Unless the pre-published flavor completely wows me, I generally create my own, alter it to fit, or completely ignore it. Mechanics are the building blocks of my games, not unbreakable straitjackets that force me to swallow crappy pre-written flavor. I'll even roll up my sleaves, and work shoulder to shoulder with my players to adapt PrCs to fit their concept, and because of my personal involvement in the process (I ask questions about what they are actually trying to do), things don't inadvertantly slip by me. in other words, I don't get caught with my pants down and let LoP's dirty tricks slip through the cracks. As far being a "mismatch" in the game, I'm not sure I follow you. Are you talking about flavor or mechanical balance? I have no problem using the DM veto for things based on mechanical loopholes or power-related issues (if I feel that the combo or effect will imbalance the power level between the PCs). If its the flavor, well I already addressed that above. I paid good money for these danged books; I'm going to use them, one way or another. If not, there was no point in buying them. Without the flexibility of the flavor, I'd never buy splat-books, because the handful of things that slip seamlessly into my campaigns right out of the book are not worth the 30+ bucks. Maybe I'm just a player friendly DM. -Peace-
lastknightleft 03-26-07, 10:22 AM	Note to those *****sponded to my question. I wasn't saying DM picked things for you, the way we did it was that I could look through any books we own and see whatever the heck I liked to aim for, I just had to act out how my character was building towards it in a convincing way. I.e. when I was aiming for rogue levels, I tried to sneak around a lot more and tried to get the jump on people instead of just rushing in. I also made some attempts at picking locks, they always failed, then got some training on how to pick locks and DD. That way when i leveled up it made me take levels of rogue, then when I wanted swashbuckler levels, it was because my character fell in love with the money a shipowner made, so he started reading about sailing and pirates and got trained to weild a rapier etc. All it really does is make the whole training/roleplaying where your character is heading more realistic, and I loved playing it that way, it was interesting. So far my favorite character ever. If I didn't do it convincingly i couldn't take it until I developed it further. Granted this was a one on one campaign so it was easier to roleplay things out.
lastknightleft 03-26-07, 11:51 AM	ok so in the last post i said "to those who responded", apparently i left the space out between who and resonded, and the program blocked it as the word that means female prostitue :heehee :bravo:
Gemstone 03-26-07, 12:21 PM	As far being a "mismatch" in the game, I'm not sure I follow you. Are you talking about flavor or mechanical balance? I have no problem using the DM veto for things based on mechanical loopholes or power-related issues (if I feel that the combo or effect will imbalance the power level between the PCs). If its the flavor, well I already addressed that above. With the word mismatch, I mean "taking a prestige class that belongs to an organization purely for the class abilities" or to "powergame in a group of people who doesn't want powergaming in their group" etc. Many prestige classes out there are built for taking their levels, not combining them with others (which can create grossly overpowered characters). Now that's a miss match. The point with prestige classes, IMO, is to be something special. Not a cookiecutter tool that you can use for every purpose beside being special. We survived and had viable characters before prestige classes, that still matched our requirements and we do not need them now to match those requirements. But that said, that's what I feel and that's not in anyway a reflection of all games. My characters are almost always straight forward, base classes, or multiclassed base classes, because there's no need for me to take a lot of prestige classes on top of it. Prestige classes should, IMO, belong to the DM and be up to the DM to create. That's why they are named Prestige
Comus 03-26-07, 01:05 PM	With the word mismatch, I mean "taking a prestige class that belongs to an organization purely for the class abilities" or to "powergame in a group of people who doesn't want powergaming in their group" etc. Many prestige classes out there are built for taking their levels, not combining them with others (which can create grossly overpowered characters). Now that's a miss match. Eh. I'd like to disagree with you more strongly, but you're not far off. Organizationally-tied prestige classes, assuming the DM doesn't write the organization out of his game, are a special case. And most prestige classes are indeed created in a vacuum, not taking others into account. However, it is my position that working towards a character concept should be the goal, and that the means (classes, prestige classes, etc.) are entirely secondary to that. The point with prestige classes, IMO, is to be something special. Not a cookiecutter tool that you can use for every purpose beside being special. We survived and had viable characters before prestige classes, that still matched our requirements and we do not need them now to match those requirements. "Back in my day, we had to take our STR 13 fighters and walk uphill in the snow, barefoot, to get the balor's tongue the party mage needed to make a +2 flaming longsword, +4 against ice and ice-using creatures." The point with prestige classes is that they represent focused training in a specialized area. That's about it. I mean, you can't get much more special than being an adventurer, anyway. But that said, that's what I feel and that's not in anyway a reflection of all games. My characters are almost always straight forward, base classes, or multiclassed base classes, because there's no need for me to take a lot of prestige classes on top of it. Prestige classes should, IMO, belong to the DM and be up to the DM to create. That's why they are named Prestige Most of my characters are also pure base classes. However, there are certain classes which simply beg to be prestiged out, either because they seem designed specifically to get people into prestige classes (fighter) or have no class abilities (wizard, sorc, cleric). And I don't know where you're trying to go with the 'belong to the DM' thing. Do you mean he has to approve them, just as he has to approve everything?
Gemstone 03-26-07, 01:20 PM	And I don't know where you're trying to go with the 'belong to the DM' thing. Do you mean he has to approve them, just as he has to approve everything? Basicly, it's up to the DM if a prestige class exists in his world or not :)
Tyraxus 03-26-07, 01:39 PM	Basicly, it's up to the DM if a prestige class exists in his world or not :) Really? I can see a DM going "Sorry, there is no Nightsong Guild in this world, so you can't be a Nightsong Enforcer," but to say "Sorry, you can't be an Eldritch Knight because you'd never think of being a fighting caster," seems just wrong (a close cousin of the "Your character wouldn't..." bad-DM-style). Vanilla-flavoured PrCs had best have a VERY good reason for being excluded, or the DM is just being lazy/on a power trip.
TwistedPuppy 03-26-07, 01:56 PM	Vanilla-flavoured PrCs had best have a VERY good reason for being excluded, or the DM is just being lazy/on a power trip. The DM in a game i'm in has banned all PrCs. He is neither lazy nor on a power trip, he just doesn't like them. Since it's his game, he can make that choice. If it wasn't a fun game, we'd leave.
WayneTheGame 03-26-07, 02:10 PM	The problem is that too many DMs ban the organizational PrCs without giving a lick of thought to adapting them without the organization. The kind of idiot who will say "We're playing Forgotten Realms so you can't take Radiant Servant" without thinking for one minute "What if I just changed it from Pelor to Lathander?". I mean.. just because a PrC is written one way with a specific tie to a campaign/organization/whatever doesn't mean that it's written in stone. As someone else mentioned, that's why PrCs have that little section marked "Adaptation". So the DM can change a PrC around to fit his campaign world if a player wants it.
nastynate 03-26-07, 03:06 PM	Basicly, it's up to the DM if a prestige class exists in his world or not The DM is a moderator and a storyteller, but he is not a dictator. All of the players should have some say over whether or not something has a place in the game, not just the DM. Play nice with your friends. Sure there are some dungeon masters out there that run their games in the way you indicate, but I'm not one of them. D&D is group effort, not the DM's personal playground, and the players should have just as much say-so over the rules of the playground as the DM. Maybe I'm in the minority here, but I certainly don't feel its my role to tell the players what to play; I think its my role to provide a setting and a story condusive to what they want to play. Writing prestige in bold text doesn't change anything. The classes are prestigious simply because they require certain prerequisites that cannot be attained by first level characters. Don't get hung up on the label. Prestige class doesn't translate into "class only available if the DM feels like letting you play it." That seems like asserting more authority over the game than a DM is truly entitled to. I mean c'mon, if the meta-game labels mean so much then only fighters can fight right? That's why they are called fighters. Now doesn't that sound rediculous? I'm not saying that you can't play (or even have fun with a dictator-style DM). I certainly have before, and probably will again in the future, but that kind of mindset is not the default. Empowering the players with a little authority of their own is not so terrible either. I love it when my players want to build characters that belong to new unique types of affiliations, classes, or concepts outside of the stadard core (even ones they dream up all by themselves...shocking!). It breathes life into something that can otherwise become somewhat stagnant (after 20 years of gaming, plain old fighters do tend to get pretty boring). Sometimes the players have good ideas too...if you let them think for themselves. I write my adventures around the characters' goals, backgrounds, and abilities, rather than pidgeon-holing them into adventures and role-playing scenarios that are not specifically designed to take them into consideration. If I have an undead hunter (for example) in my game, I will darned sure write adventures that feature undead. So the more diverse and unique the player characters are, the more options I have as DM for interesting stories. That's the great thing about D&D. You can make it what you want within the framework of the rules (and even beyond if you are willing to homebrew). I'm not a big fan of the core-only, DM dictator style of game; if I wanted things that rigid I'd play a video game. (Just trying to ironically turn the tables on that one, since the anti-optimizing peeps so often compare powergaming to video games. No insult actually intended.) Us powergamers are pretty darned strange aren't we?
Kadrimdorian_Mage 03-26-07, 03:28 PM	To answer the original question, you are a bad person if you take it too far. If you are clearly angering your DM and your entire table, and you don't care, then yes, you are a bad person. However, I've met powergamers that aren't like that, and they're great people.
Pyke_Moonshadow 03-26-07, 03:45 PM	Well, as a DM I have to say that when I run a game on my homebrew, the player had better send an idea past me first. I usually try to work it out within what I already have established. I am willing to make minor changes to suit a concept but if someone wants to play something that makes absolutely no sense within the framework of the world then I am firm in my stance that the player needs a new idea.
Cael 03-26-07, 04:02 PM	The DM is a moderator and a storyteller, but he is not a dictator. All of the players should have some say over whether or not something has a place in the game, not just the DM. Play nice with your friends. Sure there are some dungeon masters out there that run their games in the way you indicate, but I'm not one of them. D&D is group effort, not the DM's personal playground, and the players should have just as much say-so over the rules of the playground as the DM. Maybe I'm in the minority here, but I certainly don't feel its my role to tell the players what to play; I think its my role to provide a setting and a story condusive to what they want to play. Writing prestige in bold text doesn't change anything. The classes are prestigious simply because they require certain prerequisites that cannot be attained by first level characters. Don't get hung up on the label. Prestige class doesn't translate into "class only available if the DM feels like letting you play it." That seems like asserting more authority over the game than a DM is truly entitled to. I mean c'mon, if the meta-game labels mean so much then only fighters can fight right? That's why they are called fighters. Now doesn't that sound rediculous? I'm not saying that you can't play (or even have fun with a dictator-style DM). I certainly have before, and probably will again in the future, but that kind of mindset is not the default. Empowering the players with a little authority of their own is not so terrible either. I love it when my players want to build characters that belong to new unique types of affiliations, classes, or concepts outside of the stadard core (even ones they dream up all by themselves...shocking!). It breathes life into something that can otherwise become somewhat stagnant (after 20 years of gaming, plain old fighters do tend to get pretty boring). Sometimes the players have good ideas too...if you let them think for themselves. I write my adventures around the characters' goals, backgrounds, and abilities, rather than pidgeon-holing them into adventures and role-playing scenarios that are not specifically designed to take them into consideration. If I have an undead hunter (for example) in my game, I will darned sure write adventures that feature undead. So the more diverse and unique the player characters are, the more options I have as DM for interesting stories. That's the great thing about D&D. You can make it what you want within the framework of the rules (and even beyond if you are willing to homebrew). I'm not a big fan of the core-only, DM dictator style of game; if I wanted things that rigid I'd play a video game. (Just trying to ironically turn the tables on that one, since the anti-optimizing peeps so often compare powergaming to video games. No insult actually intended.) Us powergamers are pretty darned strange aren't we? Not powergamer. Optimiser. And no, optimisers aren't strange. We are just realistic and pragmatic. We create characters that are good at their very dangerous profession. And reality states that a profession as dangerous as adventuring requires a lot of care and skill. Second place frequently involves a pine box and a six foot hole. Those that are enamoured to the "bumbling peasant roped into being a hero" cliche frequently ignore the fact that those characters tend to survive only through storyteller fiat. For example, if you are facing a gun wielding fanatic who had just mown down a dozen innocents, the last thing you'd want to do is to shoot your mouth off in an attempt to impress the gun totting crazy with your sarcasm and wit. Yet, frequently, we see this type of behaviour in the make believe world of TV, movie and books, and they get away with it. And we have these so-called "RP-ers" wanting to emulate that piece of idiocy and calling it RP. The irony of the situation is that the optimisers want new, challenging roles to play, while the RP-ers want tried and true cliched mimicry, and it is the RP-ers looking down on the optimisers as people that don't know how to RP. Personally, I think that playing an uncharted, new role demonstrates a higher level of RP ability than someone purely mimicking dross that has been around for centuries.
Gemstone 03-26-07, 04:18 PM	Yet, frequently, we see this type of behaviour in the make believe world of TV, movie and books, and they get away with it. And we have these so-called "RP-ers" wanting to emulate that piece of idiocy and calling it RP. That's because they're heroes in a heroic setting :) Some people prefer to play heroic, while other doesn't prefer it. I prefer heroes who can stand against hordes of low level monsters, either through DM fiat, player skill, luck or story. What I don't like, are players that always build the very best character they can, never putting a thought into their character and totaly ignoring alignment just because they want to "Optimize" or "Powergame". That's neither. Its just being stupid.
Pyke_Moonshadow 03-26-07, 04:33 PM	Actually, just this weekend, one of my friends, who usually DMs, was telling me about his new character. He was a combat monster. After speaking at length about his character's abilities he paused and said, "aw crap, I am a powergamer aren't I?" I just nodded and smiled. When we actually played, he had a decent persona and all for the character so it didn't really matter that he was also powered up, to me anyway, but my friend still seemed kinda down on the fact that he had made the character mechanically so uber. He always made great characters in that respect though. I could make characters of that level, I understand synergy as well as most, but I just get bored when my character can't help but win.
Daydreamer 03-26-07, 04:49 PM	Sometimes people hear roleplayer and assume 'bad made character' from the perspective of mechanics. YOu can build a mechanically sound and reasonable charcter without being a power gamer. Power gamers are people who take it to the extreme, class dipping several times without roleplaying considerations but just for mechanical benefits etc....these are the ppl who **** me off. Building a solid, and good character for mechanical purposes is a good idea, trying to squeeze every drop of blood from the stone is when its annoying to me-but do whatever you want in your own game.
nastynate 03-26-07, 04:50 PM	Well, as a DM I have to say that when I run a game on my homebrew, the player had better send an idea past me first. I usually try to work it out within what I already have established. I am willing to make minor changes to suit a concept but if someone wants to play something that makes absolutely no sense within the framework of the world then I am firm in my stance that the player needs a new idea. Understandable. For example, I don't want jedi and mecha floating around a Ravenloft inspired setting either, but if my players wanted jedi and mecha I would write a homebrew setting (or use a game system) suitable for such a game. Similarly with but minimal effort pre-game you can completely avoid such a misunderstanding; just tell the players the thematic elements of your game before they make their characters. Either they will like it (and work with you), or they won't; if they don't like the concept of the campaign it's time to brew up something else. It doesn't matter how much I personally like my homebrewed material if the players don't like it too. If I already had something in mind, I tell the players what I was thinking, and ask if it sounds like something they would like too. Only then do I progress past the initial design brainstorming into the actual composition of the setting (usually with input from the players about things they would like to see). It's not at all challenging to accomodate each other and build a framework which everyone can fully appreciate. Players can regulate their own choices within that framework, and if I have to make a few concessions to accomodate something outside of the original parameters of my design, I will; rarely is it even necessary when you have a good working relationship. Total authority is not something I strive for in a homebrew, nor is it even necessary to create a world with a convincing level of verisimilitude. Say you want the Ravenloft inspired setting I mentioned above, and you inform the players ahead of time. Chances are pretty good that they'll imediately conjure images in their minds of various dark horror stories they have enjoyed (maybe some H.P. Lovecraft, Edgar Allen Poe, Mary Shelly, and Clive Barker come to mind). They won't ask you to play a jedi; they might however, ask you about a greyguard, or a changeling, or a fey'ri, or a fiendbinder, or other such concepts that can easily be integrated with little effort. I don't really care that they come from four different sources or that one is Eberron specific and another is Forgotten Realms specific. I have faith in my players and trust their judgement. If I didn't, why would I play with them?
Daydreamer 03-26-07, 04:53 PM	Thats the key nastynate, you have faith in your players giving you something you think is fun. Im all for compromise, nobody is going to get 100% of what they want. For example, if the dm should consider changing his homebrewed world, perhaps the pcs 'should' consider changing there character a bit as well, even though its THERE CHARACTER as some people keep insisting. The game is better if everyone gives up a bit to reach the highest mutual point of agreement. If you cant reach a high mutual point of agreement, then your playing in or dming the wrong group.
Pyke_Moonshadow 03-26-07, 04:57 PM	:D I tend to hope that my creatitivity has sparked ideas in them.
Ventilatory_Threshold 03-26-07, 05:04 PM	That's because they're heroes in a heroic setting :) And their lives are also dependent on a dice roll. The rest of your post is just a commitment of the Stormwind Fallacy.
Gemstone 03-26-07, 05:25 PM	And their lives are also dependent on a dice roll. The rest of your post is just a commitment of the Stormwind Fallacy. Im not sure if you mean that in a negative way, or a positive way. Because what I tried to say was that you can roleplay anything, but IMO, just having numbers, and nothing behind them, belongs somewhere else. Not in my game.
Ventilatory_Threshold 03-26-07, 06:00 PM	Im not sure if you mean that in a negative way, or a positive way. Neither.
Cardinal Teplin 03-26-07, 06:12 PM	I've played in a campaign where there were no divine casters. All classes pertaining to divine casting were banned. I've played in a game where the whole group including the DM chose character class advancement for each player, based on how they played their characters. It was pretty fun, but not a system I particularly favour. I've played in a game where people made up their own character classes, on the basis that the DM could do the same. It's a big game. There are lots of ways of playing it.
Einvaldurinn_mikli 03-26-07, 06:17 PM	It's a big game. There are lots of ways of playing it. But only my way is the right way!
lastknightleft 03-27-07, 12:13 PM	hahaha peon, your way is but a pale comparison to my true and glorious way and anyone who doesn't think so I shall beat you and burn down your house
Comus 03-27-07, 12:37 PM	Im not sure if you mean that in a negative way, or a positive way. Because what I tried to say was that you can roleplay anything, but IMO, just having numbers, and nothing behind them, belongs somewhere else. Not in my game. Well, he's implying that you are equating having a powerful character means the amount/quality of roleplaying goes down. Now, I don't read that from your post, but you do come very close to it (close enough that it took a second reading to see the difference). It'd be better if you said "I prefer heroes who can stand against hordes of low level monsters, either through DM fiat, player skill, an effective character build, luck, or story."
Gemstone 03-27-07, 02:10 PM	Well, he's implying that you are equating having a powerful character means the amount/quality of roleplaying goes down. Now, I don't read that from your post, but you do come very close to it (close enough that it took a second reading to see the difference). It'd be better if you said "I prefer heroes who can stand against hordes of low level monsters, either through DM fiat, player skill, an effective character build, luck, or story." Well, my personal experience is that the more powerful character the less roleplay ;) but that's just my personal experience. But yes, the stormwind fallacy is true, altough the percentage of players that actually can roleplay and build a great build is very low IMO.
Pyke_Moonshadow 03-27-07, 02:17 PM	But yes, the stormwind fallacy is true, altough the percentage of players that actually can roleplay and build a great build is very low IMO. I agree. While it can happen I find it the same as a math wiz that is also good at painting and improv comedy. ;)
Comus 03-27-07, 02:36 PM	Well, my personal experience is that the more powerful character the less roleplay ;) but that's just my personal experience. But yes, the stormwind fallacy is true, altough the percentage of players that actually can roleplay and build a great build is very low IMO. Yeah. Pyke's example is a good one. It's two totally different skill sets, so it's rare to find someone that's mastered both. And, logically, everyone that's mastered the D&D mechanical system plays D&D, while only a portion of the people that have mastered roleplaying play D&D.
Einvaldurinn_mikli 03-27-07, 07:12 PM	hahaha peon, your way is but a pale comparison to my true and glorious way and anyone who doesn't think so I shall beat you and burn down your house You really think you can take me on and live to tell the tale?(Well you might, after all I need someone to spread terror and panic amongst the populace)
Archangel62 03-27-07, 08:18 PM	Well, my personal experience is that the more powerful character the less roleplay ;) but that's just my personal experience. But yes, the stormwind fallacy is true, altough the percentage of players that actually can roleplay and build a great build is very low IMO. Define actually roleplay, I've run into dozens of mary-sue or knock-off characters made by alleged RPers. Define proper roleplay.
Daydreamer 03-27-07, 08:27 PM	I dont think everything can be defined mechanistically. Ie, proper roleplaying, its something you largely recognize by intuition. Its like trying to define good art...there is good art, and there is bad art, and alot of it is personal taste, but for some reason most of us believe there is something 'objective to it'. Good roleplaying is something you can see in individual cases, but not give a systematic definition for identifying.
Cael 03-27-07, 08:34 PM	Im not sure if you mean that in a negative way, or a positive way. Because what I tried to say was that you can roleplay anything, but IMO, just having numbers, and nothing behind them, belongs somewhere else. Not in my game. That is a cop out, because, on a similar note, I can state that a character with no mechanics/stats to back up his player's roleplay (e.g., asking someone with Dex 6 and no ranks in Balance to do a Zorro-style swing, dive, aerial acrobatics while fighting off 30 foes simultaneously) belongs in the realms of imaginary written fantasy, not DnD. We can always go extremes, if you want.
Andrew_980 03-27-07, 08:44 PM	I have played d&d for a couple of years now, and over the last year and a half I have found the playstyle that suits me the best; I powergame. Now, I have realized that many players in my gaming group (and even more on these boards) views powergamers as an annoyance, and believes that we are incapable of "true" roleplaying, whatever that might be. I am annoyed to sat the least, is it really a crime to build up strong characters?i Don't know if you are a bad person but i am personaaly ****** at the asshats that powergame and over optimise in Living campaigns and screw up the power scale for those of us interested in more than just combat.
Ack 03-27-07, 10:08 PM	Roleplaying and well-made characters are not mutually exclusive. However, if someone has learned to make powerful characters but hasn't bothered to learn to roleplay properly, of course he'll carry out the stereotype. (Oh, and even if someone has mastered the D&D mechanics, they may just prefer to play another system). Now, roleplaying, independent of how strong or weak your character is, is how well you can set a particular behaviour for your character and then stick to it, no matter what your metagaming knowledge might point you at otherwise. Poor roleplayer: "Okay, we've killed the orcs off and freed their prisoner? Great, I loot the huts for gold. Were they carrying any good stuff?" Good roleplayer: "Right, I check on the prisoner to make sure he's okay. Does he need healing? I also ask him how he came to be here, and was anyone else captured. I also advise the rest of the party that we need to make sure none of the orcs are faking it." Great roleplayer: "Good afternoon, sir, I am sorry we took so long to free you, but you know how it is, these pesky orcs just insist on getting in the way. Here we go ... is that better? I'm afraid we only have trail rations with us, but our healer can tend to your wounds if you wish. Here, have a seat. So tell me, how is it that you came to be captured..?" Some people may choose to act in ways that disadvantage the party or even attack other PCs, and call it 'roleplaying', but unless they were provoked, that's just being a dick. :D YMMV
Archangel62 03-28-07, 02:22 AM	I dont think everything can be defined mechanistically. Ie, proper roleplaying, its something you largely recognize by intuition. Its like trying to define good art...there is good art, and there is bad art, and alot of it is personal taste, but for some reason most of us believe there is something 'objective to it'. Good roleplaying is something you can see in individual cases, but not give a systematic definition for identifying. IE, we can't define it, we know it when we see it, and definition is entirely subjective. This is sorta my point, it's the same way for optimizer, powergamer, min-maxer and munchkin. We have our views of it but we often need a context before we say anything. Hence the problem. And to be honest, I can deal with powergamers, I'm sick of the dedicated gimpers who decided that the best kind of RP is having a character that can be destroyed by a powerful sneeze.
Daydreamer 03-28-07, 02:29 AM	Right, but thats my point exactly, go find players who want to play the game the same way you do, and wham your set.
Gemstone 03-28-07, 02:32 AM	That is a cop out, because, on a similar note, I can state that a character with no mechanics/stats to back up his player's roleplay (e.g., asking someone with Dex 6 and no ranks in Balance to do a Zorro-style swing, dive, aerial acrobatics while fighting off 30 foes simultaneously) belongs in the realms of imaginary written fantasy, not DnD. We can always go extremes, if you want. If you choose not to have a bad dex in a game were you have stats, now that's bad roleplaying. And yet, that's what I frequently encounter in my run in with powergamers. "What do you mean they dislike me?!? My charisma doesn't have anything to with that!" etc. Also, freeform games tend to be very different in their styles than DnD. Heavy combat games makes best with stats as I once said, but roleplay is independent on stats, even though I see a declining curve the more powerful a character is. I never said you can't roleplay when you have a powerful character. What I did say was that I haven't met any powergamers who also happens to be good roleplayers and thus my personal experience is that there's a very small percentage of people who actually powergame and roleplay at the same time. For me, the fun is in portraying a character, not having a number of integers (hehe... sounds funny) without any substance behind them and rolling dice. If other people like that, sure, go ahead. I can't tell you how to play your game, but stay away from my games :)
Daydreamer 03-28-07, 03:45 AM	Hmm you see my group is very knowlegable of the rules, we play within them for the most part very strictly, we just dont ever abuse them- and only things that are too subject to such abuse are removed. If you look at how Npcs are constructed and made i think this provides a very good template for what various pcs should look approximately like at similar levels. This is all my opinion of course, but it how our group functions.
Gemstone 03-28-07, 04:11 AM	we just dont ever abuse them- and only things that are too subject to such abuse are removed Exactly what do you mean with abuse? Im actually wondering :)
nastynate 03-28-07, 11:15 AM	I never said you can't roleplay when you have a powerful character. What I did say was that I haven't met any powergamers who also happens to be good roleplayers and thus my personal experience is that there's a very small percentage of people who actually powergame and roleplay at the same time. This is where our experiences differ. I have found that the people with the most extensive knowledge of the rules and the various combinations required to make optimized characters are often the better role-players. Those that show the interest and invest the time necessary to master the rules are rarely content with just that; they also frequently attempt to master all aspects of the game including role-play. I can make characters that deal thousands upon thousands of damage (or any other number of absurd things)...well that's all well and good, but it doesn't really serve any direct purpose; I'll obviously never use something like that in actual game play. All those little practice exercises and experiemental builds I have toyed around with (out of game mind you), have however, given me a better grasp of the rules as a whole. With that knowledge however, I am confident that I can take any conceivable concept and make it work within the framework of the game. It opens the doors for more role-playing options; Not in the context of mechanics making role-playing possible, but in the context of role-playing whatever I want, and being able to generate a character that matches that persona and still contributes mechanically. Say for example, that the idea of a hot-headed halfling brawler who likes to push others around because of an inferiority complex sounds like something fun to play. Normally, building a small-sized bull rushing warrior with a strength penalty is just plain foolish in a mechanical sense. I can actually build it though, and it works competently...sure those same tricks applied to a feral goliath half-minotaur with the dungeon crasher substitution features and knockback get way out of hand in a normal game, but when applied to a halfling, it just serves to make the character functional. I also might like the idea of the peasant hero, and I want to begin the game as a 3rd-level commoner with 7 ranks in Profession (farmer). Normally this would set me back tremendously, but I can make up for the slow start with a little character optimization, and by 6th-level become a worthwhile addition to the party. Does any of this optimization skill enhance my ability to role-play? nope. It does however, open the doors for me to role-play something that might otherwise be an ill-advised concept that would only hinder the success of the party. I can play almost whatever I feel like playing conceptually with confidence that I won't be holding back the rest of the party. I simply have never met someone who can do these kinds of things that isn't interested in role-playing. I certainly wouldn't waste hours of free time playing around with theoretical builds if I didn't like D&D, and role-playing is part of D&D. At 2 AM however, it isn't like I can hone my role-playing skills chilling behind the computer screen (that's when I crunch numbers). I have been playing various RPGs for about 20 years. The rules change (I've played in dozens of different gaming groups, editions, and gaming systems), but I can draw upon my experiences in all of them when role-playing. I have had plenty of practice. I still have gaming sessions that don't involve a single die roll, that are purely dialogue and role-playing interaction, which I would like to think would be impossible if I, and the people I play with, weren't competent role-players. Each new rules system requires extensive practice to master in a mechanical sense, but your role-playing ability doesn't suddenly vanish or become obsolete. All those years playing Pendragon in the 80s continue to contribute to my gaming ability today, even if I no longer recall even the most basic of mechanical elements from the game. I remember the role-playing aspects of it quite well (like playing several generations of the same family, each unique but with a handful of common personality traits that came be associated with the Keldon Knights) and often draw upon them to this day. I am not unique. There are many, many others out there with the same mindset as me. We are confident in our role-playing ability and our optimization skill. The two aspects, though seperate, actually compliment one another. It truly frustrates me to think that all the effort I put in the RPG hobby get's the powergamer label slapped on me, like I've done something sinful. Most of those who label me in such a way however, put much less effort into the game as a whole, so I take the insults with a grain of salt. I think its mainly jealousy and resentment, since I seem to be able to make anything seem like its great; heaven forbid that the time and effort I put into RPGs for the last two decades makes me good at them. (I get smacked around like a novice in almost every video game though ;) .) Gemstone, they way you stated your experiences tends to give people like me a bad name, which is a shame. I know you didn't mean anything personal at all, but by supporting the concept of munchkin stereotype, you are helping to propogate the unfounded slander against optimizers that lead to the Stormwind Fallacy in the first place. You obviously are wise enough to realize that powergaming and role-playing are exclusive skillsets, but by stating things in the way that you have, it puts people on edge. It's that kind of mindset that makes it so that no matter how well I role-play a character, the moment I do something even remotely powerful, all my role-playing efforts are completely forgotten. It forces me to build mechanically suboptimal characters just to play the game. Not to trivialize more serious forms of prejudice (which are far, far larger issues), but consider this. Maybe statistically (for example) there is more crime in inner city neighborhoods composed primarily of minorities (which is without a doubt more an issue of poverty than race), but were I to state that minorities commit more crimes because the statistics say so, it lends credibility to those who would use it for more hostile forms of prejudice. Please try not to be an enabler for those hostile power-gamer hating factions. -Peace-
Daydreamer 03-28-07, 03:44 PM	Exactly what do you mean with abuse? Im actually wondering :) Well...somethings are not officially banned, but never come up. For example race selection, we basically never ever ever ever play something not in the PHB race wise, except occasionally something like a warforged if in eberron. But, here is an example of something officially banned by wotc regarding the rpga game in Eberron. This is the sort of reasoning we use to determine a ban. http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ebmoh/20060210a Its hard to say exactly what i mean by abuse. Sometimes things individually are fine, but stacked together result in something too powerful. The ultimate intuitive reasoning we use runs somewhat like this. The game was manufactured piecemeal, sometimes the right hand doesnt know what the left is doing. The sort of questions we ask are like this: 1. If the game was designed by one person, who had the capacity to see all potential mixtures, would he allow for this combination to allow for that. 2. If he had forseen that use of this spell, would he have kept it at this same level/cost etc, or kept it all. 3. How well does this ability match up with other abilities that are theorectically supposed to be on par with it. The thing is we rarely ban stuff, because if we feel its broken, we the pcs, without the dm having to step in, simply stop using it. Sometimes in mid game, if a pc does something and its broken, he simply wont do it again.
Pyke_Moonshadow 03-28-07, 04:16 PM	The game was manufactured piecemeal, sometimes the right hand doesnt know what the left is doing. The sort of questions we ask are like this: 1. If the game was designed by one person, who had the capacity to see all potential mixtures, would he allow for this combination to allow for that. 2. If he had forseen that use of this spell, would he have kept it at this same level/cost etc, or kept it all. 3. How well does this ability match up with other abilities that are theorectically supposed to be on par with it. The thing is we rarely ban stuff, because if we feel its broken, we the pcs, without the dm having to step in, simply stop using it. Sometimes in mid game, if a pc does something and its broken, he simply wont do it again. Very much what I do in my group. :clap:
Cael 03-28-07, 06:46 PM	If you choose not to have a bad dex in a game were you have stats, now that's bad roleplaying. And yet, that's what I frequently encounter in my run in with powergamers. "What do you mean they dislike me?!? My charisma doesn't have anything to with that!" etc. Also, freeform games tend to be very different in their styles than DnD. Heavy combat games makes best with stats as I once said, but roleplay is independent on stats, even though I see a declining curve the more powerful a character is. I never said you can't roleplay when you have a powerful character. What I did say was that I haven't met any powergamers who also happens to be good roleplayers and thus my personal experience is that there's a very small percentage of people who actually powergame and roleplay at the same time. For me, the fun is in portraying a character, not having a number of integers (hehe... sounds funny) without any substance behind them and rolling dice. If other people like that, sure, go ahead. I can't tell you how to play your game, but stay away from my games :) Once again, you have committed the Stormwind Fallacy. You are assuming that people that have good integers are bad roleplayers. Even worse, you accuse me of being like that. This is, however, a standard tactic of the RP-ers. Well, let us look at the other side of the coin: If you want to be a drama-queen with stats that does not back up your grandiose claims, then stay away from my games because your klutz of a character just fell 10 storeys into a hard stone floor and died horribly because your Con stinks.
Cardinal Teplin 03-28-07, 07:10 PM	Gemstone, they way you stated your experiences tends to give people like me a bad name, which is a shame. I know you didn't mean anything personal at all, but by supporting the concept of munchkin stereotype, you are helping to propogate the unfounded slander against optimizers that lead to the Stormwind Fallacy in the first place. What makes you think it's unfounded? It's not clear from what you've said whether you've never met any powergamers who let their powergaming interfering with their roleplaying, or whether you just don't think they're typical. Either way, it hard to judge whether your impressions are any more accurate than Gemstone's. While we're on the subject, just because Mr Stormwind wishes to name his favourite line of arguement after himself, doesn't make him right. While the two may be different and seperate skill sets, it doesn't _necessarily_ follow that the exercise of those skill sets doesn't involve choosing between them. Looking at it logically there are only a limited number of rules mechanics variations for building characters. Within that limited set of variations, only a small sub-set can be described as optimal. It follows then that powergaming is, by its very definition, limiting the number of different builds you can play. You could argue that there are an infinite number of characters within any subset, no matter how small, but it's hard to claim that limiting yourself to a subset of build choices isn't limiting your options for roleplay in some way. Not to trivialize more serious forms of prejudice (which are far, far larger issues), but consider this. <snip> Please try not to be an enabler for those hostile power-gamer hating factions. Hmm. Let's consider this. Maybe people disagree with you aren't any more or less subject to prejudice than you are? Certainly comparing a reasoned argument against powergamers to racism doesn't inspire me to take you serioiusly. I'm sure there are violent and possibly unreasoned opinions on all sides of the debate, but let's not pretend we have any reason to believe they're all on one side.
Comus 03-28-07, 07:40 PM	For me, the fun is in portraying a character, not having a number of integers (hehe... sounds funny) without any substance behind them and rolling dice. And now it's time for more pointless pulling-apart of quotes taken out of their natural enviroment (sometimes called context)! The question becomes, is the above statement a violation of the Stormwind Fallacy? It can be interpreted in two ways. First, it could be saying "I like roleplay-heavy games, not kick-in-the door style hackfests." That's fair enough. People are certainly allowed to have a favorite game style. Or, alternatively... "Worrying about your character stats means you can't roleplay." Ooh. That would be a violation. But it's unclear what he means... or is it? What's that? A slo-mo replay of an earlier part of his post? Also, freeform games tend to be very different in their styles than DnD. Heavy combat games makes best with stats as I once said, but roleplay is independent on stats, even though I see a declining curve the more powerful a character is. Oh! That's gonna hurt him something awful, Dan. That last sentence is a clear violation of the Stormwind Fallacy. It could cost him the game. Looking back over the whole play, it looks like he tried to go for a standard rebuttal of a previous near-violation when he again made mention of one roleplayed character and one mechanically strong character, implying that the mechanically strong character couldn't have solid roleplaying behind it. That was fielded by Cael, who tried to say that mechanics and roleplay have to mesh in a multi-talent game like D&D. It looks like the judges are arguing, Dan! Some are saying that since Gemstone specifically called out that some good optimizers are also good roleplayers, nothing else in the post can be considered a violation of the Fallacy. Let's look back at that part of the play. I never said you can't roleplay when you have a powerful character. What I did say was that I haven't met any powergamers who also happens to be good roleplayers and thus my personal experience is that there's a very small percentage of people who actually powergame and roleplay at the same time. The other judges are saying that his 'very small percentage' clause makes this another violation of the Fallacy, instead of a mitigating case! Both sets of judges have stong arguments, Dan. There's a long history of arguments over roleplaying versus rollplaying, one side trying to make them inversely related, the other trying to show that they've got nothing to do with one another. The judge's decision is in, Dan! They've decided that since Gemstone said "I haven't met any powergamers who also happens[sic] to be good roleplayers", that it makes this another violation of the Fallacy, though a small one. And what's this? Another red card, Dan! If you choose not to have a bad dex in a game were you have stats, now that's bad roleplaying. And yet, that's what I frequently encounter in my run in with powergamers. "What do you mean they dislike me?!? My charisma doesn't have anything to with that!" etc. Oh no! This is another clear violation! Perhaps even two! The first statement alone, taken out of context, is massively in violation of the 'bad stats are good roleplay' penalty! It's commonly believed that most 'true roleplayers' - the ones who scream bloodly murder at the sight of multiclassed characters - believe that no character without at least one bad stat is playable for roleplaying reasons! It became a penalty, and a early indication of Stormwind violation, when it was pointed out that roleplaying a good statistic should be just as desirable. The judges have decided, though, that the first sentence is just badly worded, not intended to be a violation, and I agree with that call. Gemstone may be in violation here, but he seems to be a reasonable person. It's doubtful he'd fall into such a deep pit so early on in the play. Moving on to the second sentence, though, he goes and says that he sees a lot of bad roleplaying from powergamers, with no mention of seeing it elsewhere! Oh, Dan, that is just a clear violation. There's no way the judges can let that one go. The judges are debating the third statement now. They're shaking their heads and... yes! They're siding with the anonymous powergamer who made the statement! It turns out that, lacking initial reaction tables, Charisma really does have nothing to do with how much people like you. The classic example of an unlikable high-charisma creature is the Beholder, who tends to be paranoid, sociopathic, and generally a nasty type to be around, not unlike the Broncos back in '89, when they were still all on coke. It looks like we're coming to a unified decison here, Dan. The judges are passing the decision onto the refs and... man, that's harsh! They're giving control of the ball back to the powergamers, and penalizing the anti-powergaming side twenty feet! Well, that's all on that play. Stay tuned for more blow-by-blow action when we return! As a sidenote: The plural of anecdote is not data.
Daydreamer 03-28-07, 08:12 PM	I dont see how personal experience can be false... i have met alot of power gamers, the overwhelming majority were poor or at least sub par roleplayers. This is a fact, much like my fav ice cream flavor is chocolate. Perhaps every single power gamer i have not met is a wonderful roleplayer-that doesnt change my personal experience...there is no fallacy here. The logical fallacy is on making it a law that power gamers must therefore be bad roleplayers, this is deductively invalid. However, if i was a betting man, ie using inductive logic id bet on the bad roleplayer being the power gamer, and over my 14 years of playing if i had been betting on that every time i was introduced to a power gamer, i would now be a very very rich man. Refering again to what my xp in the past has been. I have however met power gamers who were good roleplayers, i still found them aggravating to play with, because power gaming is a stlye of playing, one that not everyone enjoys. I am one who doesnt. But i will point out another fallacy since alot of us rpers are on the defensive im gonna on the offensive. Alot of Powergamers will say that 'rpers' characters suck, or i wont make my character deliberately suck-which tends to show a value judgement based of a character being interesting based on power. (this is the one universal amongst power gamers and there pcs). A pc is better if he increases your fun- if a weaker character does this, he is a better character. 2nd fallacy-but such a character would die, hes weak. This is completely untrue, this is like saying that being first level sucks because you will die no matter you do. If your dm is doing his job the npcs are always tailored to be challenging but not overwhelming. Being 'more powerful' has NOTHING whatsoever to do with survival...ive played in the past power gamed characters in power gaming groups, the pcs die just as often as in weak games. If you had a weak character in such a group youd be meat, but as long as all pcs are on par with each other, THERE IS NO INHERENT ADVANTAGE TO BEING MORE POWERFUL. Power gaming does not help you survive, or hurt you survive, the dm should be challenging the pcs according to what they built. This is as logically consistant as saying starting at first level makes it less likely to survive because pcs will be 'weaker' than higher level characters and therefore unable to survive. Power gaming is a stlye of playing, nothing more, nothing less, if it helps you have fun wonderful, thats the only justification you need for it. But it GETS in the way of my fun. I feel everyone should be able to play d&d the way they want, which is why if a power gamer comes into my group, hes asked to leave because i want to play d&D the way I WANT. He can find a group that suits him, and you know what he will be happier for it and i will be happier. 90% of d&d arguments come down to how ppl think the game should be run. There is no normative standard for d&d do it however you want, just make sure the people your doing it with are in pretty close agreement with you and 90% of arguments will dissapear.
empty 03-28-07, 08:12 PM	Havent read the whole thread, but i still have a few words to tell the author of this thread. Though I knew that this character was going to be virtually useless in combat, I liked the concept of a character mimicing the grim reaper, and I suggested that he made a gish with one or two levels in fighter and considered the focused specialist alternate class feature from complete mage, in stead of trying to pull it off with only wizard levels.. big mistake. I was told to shut up and stay out of his face To be honest; shut up and stay out of his face. Have a friend who play Magic:The Gathering "powerplaying". Nothing wrong with that. But he did all the time keep on bickering about my inefficient deck-builds. Yes, i stink at building decks, have some trouble remembering 1k different cards and figure out how they can be used in relationship with each other to create a good deck. But to have him over my shoulder, asking me "if i am just testing a concept" because he cant believe i built a deck that bad... Or taking a quick glance over the deck, then rabbeling on why i dont just do like that, or that or that... I asked him to stop, i stopped playing over short times to make him get the idea... And i finally snapped, telling him to take my cards and build the decks himself, as he was the only one who saw the opportunities... Which he promptly did. Conclusion: Do NOT constantly try to "teach people how to do better builds", just because you are able to see all the optimal numbers which they don't. They will just hate you for it. :(
Cael 03-28-07, 08:59 PM	I dont see how personal experience can be false... Not false, but immaterial as *proof*. The rest of your post is merely a rambling rant against something that is not even relevant (as it was based on your faulty initial assertion), so I will not even bother refuting it.
Daydreamer 03-28-07, 09:36 PM	I acknowledge it as deductively invalid, but explain another point. I suggest you read the rest of my post if you feel that is its limiting factor, because i move onto another issue. And was not trying to use that miniscule portion you quoted as proof for anything. I was trying to draw a distinction-and point out how both sides have a point. I am not trying to prove d&d can be done better, im trying to draw a different distinction altogether between power gaming and roleplaying.
Comus 03-28-07, 10:04 PM	Well, Dan, looks like we've got another exciting game of Internet Argument here today. It's just play after play, some exectuted better than others, but exciting nontheless. Let's go back over this last play, by Daydreamer. I dont see how personal experience can be false... i have met alot of power gamers, the overwhelming majority were poor or at least sub par roleplayers. This is a fact, much like my fav ice cream flavor is chocolate. Perhaps every single power gamer i have not met is a wonderful roleplayer-that doesnt change my personal experience...there is no fallacy here. Ooh! We've got another person here who doesn't understand that the plural of anecdotes is not data! There's no Stormwind violation here, folks, despite the fact that he's saying all the powergamers he's met were poor roleplayers. You see, Dan, the reasons that personal experience can't be used to determine fact or fiction are manyfold, ranging from witness credibility, to personal bias, to simply not having been in the right place at the right time. With more scientific subjects, not having a controlled enviroment becomes an issue, too. The logical fallacy is on making it a law that power gamers must therefore be bad roleplayers, this is deductively invalid. This is a simple restatement of the Stormwind Fallacy, Dan. It's a nice place to see it. I'd like to expand on it a little here, but we've got a lot more of this exciting play to show to the folks at home! However, if i was a betting man, ie using inductive logic id bet on the bad roleplayer being the power gamer, and over my 14 years of playing if i had been betting on that every time i was introduced to a power gamer, i would now be a very very rich man. Refering again to what my xp in the past has been. Daydreamer's going to have to be very careful here, Dan. Even though he's just stating his personal experience, it's used here mostly as a qualifier to prevent an actual violation of the Stormwind Fallacy. I wouldn't be surprised if the judges issued a yellow 'warning' card here when they review the tapes. It's kind of a dirty play, because even though it begs the Fallacy, it's framed as a relating of personal experience. Lateral passes like this one are unpopular with the fans on both sides, as you can tell from the stands. I have however met power gamers who were good roleplayers, i still found them aggravating to play with, because power gaming is a stlye of playing, one that not everyone enjoys. I am one who doesnt. This move gained Daydreamer a few yards, but not many. While he's nowhere near the Fallacy, he's showing his bias against powergaming early and often. Still, this is the kind of play we want to see more of, people just stating how they feel without trying to justify it or forcing everyone to conform to their viewpoint. But i will point out another fallacy since alot of us rpers are on the defensive im gonna on the offensive. Alot of Powergamers will say that 'rpers' characters suck, or i wont make my character deliberately suck-which tends to show a value judgement based of a character being interesting based on power. (this is the one universal amongst power gamers and there pcs). Ooh! That smarts! You can see here how Daydreamer went on the offensive and it shows. There's a lot of action in this play, Dan, but the ball actually isn't moving much. He's making a strawman out of Powergamers, stating their side for them and getting it all wrong. Let's go over this in slow motion. 'Alot of Powergamers will say that 'rpers' characters suck' - Owch, Dan. He's really trying to make this a divided issue right from the start. First, he's indicating here that he believes most powergamers will go after anyone interested in RP and mock their characters. That's a hard position to defend. What about the powergamers who don't worry about the other characters? What about the powergamers who try to help their friends? He's left himself wide open, Dan, and it gets worse. '[...] or i wont make my character deliberately suck' - This is bad for Daydreamer, Dan. He's attacking the Powergamers for wanting to be able to build and play a character they enjoy. I've heard people say that 'restrictions make for better RP', but that seems like it's a bad play to me. If you could play the character with the restrictions, you could play it without them, too. It would seem to me that expanding the number of things available would be more effective in encouraging RP, making odd formations more viable on the field. 'which tends to show a value judgement based of a character being interesting based on power.' - Oh no, Dan! He's fallen into an almost indefensable position here. Despite all the mentions of using optimizing skill to make a weak, but interesting, concept viable, he's trying for the angle that powergamers can't design a character from concept to build, but always the other way around! This is clearly incorrect, as even a casual glance at the CharOP boards will show. Folks, don't try and take this stance. Most people who optimize a character start with a 'cool idea' first, and work to find mechanics for it. That's why they end up with such odd builds, sometimes with six or seven classes - they aren't building a rogue, they're building Lamont Cranston, who can read people's thoughts and cloud men's minds. Let's move on, Dan. A pc is better if he increases your fun- if a weaker character does this, he is a better character. I can't believe he'd say this, Dan. It's clearly an untrue statement, and it shocks me that he'd say it. Daydreamer is probably going to run into a wall of defenders asking him just why a weaker character is better, and the only answer he'll be able to give them is that it's better for roleplaying, a clearly false statement. 2nd fallacy-but such a character would die, hes weak. I'd just like to put in here, Dan, that weak characters do tend to die more often than strong ones when facing the same challenges. Strong characters bring more to the table, and the more power you have, the more options you can exercise. We'll touch on this more in a moment as we move into the next part of this play. This is completely untrue, this is like saying that being first level sucks because you will die no matter you do. If your dm is doing his job the npcs are always tailored to be challenging but not overwhelming. Here, Daydreamer is making another mistake, putting the burden of judging character strength on the DM. It may not look like a mistake at first, Dan, but it is. The DM should be adjusting the encounters for the party, that's a fact. But he should be doing it to let every member of the party shine, not just dumbing everything down so an incompetent character will survive his own inability. A lot of RPers are probably going to yell at me for that, Dan, but I feel that unless your party can handle a random encounter of appropriate CR without DM fiat, there's something wrong there. Being 'more powerful' has NOTHING whatsoever to do with survival...ive played in the past power gamed characters in power gaming groups, the pcs die just as often as in weak games. If you had a weak character in such a group youd be meat, but as long as all pcs are on par with each other, THERE IS NO INHERENT ADVANTAGE TO BEING MORE POWERFUL. This is an interesting statement, Dan. Daydreamer is basically saying here that the average attrition rate of players is about the same no matter what the party power level is. That last statement, unfortunately capitalized which makes it stand out from the paragraph that it needs to support it and vastly changes its meaning, is basically saying that whatever power level you choose to have the party at, the difficulty of encounters changes to match, so you have about the same 'danger level' for the PCs involved. Unfortunately, that doesn't take into account that, aside from their options being more potent, powerful characters also have more of them. They use a bigger, better playbook, Dan. Daydreamer wants to say that just because the powergamers have bigger guys in the 'Flying V', it doesn't matter, because they'll be up against teams just as good as they are. He might be surprised when they pull out a 'Hail Mary' instead - something weaker characters just couldn't do on any level. If you've got a player that wants to use the 'Hail Mary', he's gotta be a powergamer - and that's where the advantage lies, more options for roleplaying. Power gaming does not help you survive, or hurt you survive, the dm should be challenging the pcs according to what they built. This is as logically consistant as saying starting at first level makes it less likely to survive because pcs will be 'weaker' than higher level characters and therefore unable to survive. This is just a rehash, here, Dan, but I do want to go over one thing - and this doesn't have anything to do with the real argument here. First level characters are incredibly fragile. One lucky hit can push them all the way to -10, just because of the way weapon damage works. Starting at a slightly higher level does indeed reduce the possibility of that kind of accident, because characters, even at second and third level, can take a hit or two and survive. I personally think the real sweetspot is about level 6, Dan. Spellcasters have some good spells, fighters have two attacks a round, and the cleric isn't going to die to a lucky crit from an Orc's greataxe. Power gaming is a stlye of playing, nothing more, nothing less, if it helps you have fun wonderful, thats the only justification you need for it. But it GETS in the way of my fun. I feel everyone should be able to play d&d the way they want, which is why if a power gamer comes into my group, hes asked to leave because i want to play d&D the way I WANT. He can find a group that suits him, and you know what he will be happier for it and i will be happier. 90% of d&d arguments come down to how ppl think the game should be run. The problem I have with this play is that Daydreamer still doesn't seem to want to let powergamers roleplay, or accept different levels of power in a party. I've seen D&D games with people's characters all over the spectrum of power, and they still had a lot of fun because it was more important to them that they play a game with their friends, not that Bob was doing 45 damage a hit and Ashe was only managing 4. There is no normative standard for d&d do it however you want, just make sure the people your doing it with are in pretty close agreement with you and 90% of arguments will dissapear. This is very true Dan, and so Daydreamer's play ends on a good note after going through some very bad ones. As long as you've got good friends, you can have good fun, no matter what you play or how you play it. See you next time on Internet Argument Talk!
Daydreamer 03-28-07, 10:43 PM	Interesting and humorous recap. Still i was illustrating the difference with deductive vs inductive logic in one of my points. I have no problem acknowledging power gamers can be excellent roleplayers, and some people dont care about conflicting games stlyes-which is semantic bc i would call that a game style. But i do care, i like to play in games that are fun to me-i find games in which my fellow pcs powergame are not fun for me. Thats about as far as i need to justify it. If someone said, i dont have fun when i dont power game, then id say, go find a game were you can power game. And, i wasnt trying to suggest that all power gamers say weaker characters 'suck', though whats interesting is you read through this whole thread, you will see SOME of them make exactly that statement. Not all rpers make the stormwind fallacy, and not all power gamers make the other fallacy-i just wanted to point it out to them. Also, i still stand by it, ive made characters weaker on purpose before in order to fit a concept i had. Some of the most fun characters i have ever played came from this-that makes them better in my view. Better is subjective to 'more fun for me'. Im not trying to change anyones mind, im saying people who dont like power gamers and dont want to play with them are justified, the reverse is also true.
Archangel62 03-28-07, 11:21 PM	Havent read the whole thread, but i still have a few words to tell the author of this thread. To be honest; shut up and stay out of his face. Have a friend who play Magic:The Gathering "powerplaying". Nothing wrong with that. But he did all the time keep on bickering about my inefficient deck-builds. Yes, i stink at building decks, have some trouble remembering 1k different cards and figure out how they can be used in relationship with each other to create a good deck. But to have him over my shoulder, asking me "if i am just testing a concept" because he cant believe i built a deck that bad... Or taking a quick glance over the deck, then rabbeling on why i dont just do like that, or that or that... I asked him to stop, i stopped playing over short times to make him get the idea... And i finally snapped, telling him to take my cards and build the decks himself, as he was the only one who saw the opportunities... Which he promptly did. Conclusion: Do NOT constantly try to "teach people how to do better builds", just because you are able to see all the optimal numbers which they don't. They will just hate you for it. :( To be honest, lay off the OP and please don't take out your frustration with your friend on him. You are being aggressive for apparently no good reason. Your comparison is also poor, offering a person a suggestion for a character is just somethign simple to do, he didn't insult him, didn't demean him, just offered an idea, then when he did he got snapped at for it. Also, character designs are different then deck designs for a game, D&D is a cooperative game by its nature. That also means that if a person makes a poor character the whole group can suffer, so forgive me for a bit of enlightened self preservation if I offer advice.
Gemstone 03-29-07, 01:19 AM	Say for example, that the idea of a hot-headed halfling brawler who likes to push others around because of an inferiority complex sounds like something fun to play. Normally, building a small-sized bull rushing warrior with a strength penalty is just plain foolish in a mechanical sense. I can actually build it though, and it works competently...sure those same tricks applied to a feral goliath half-minotaur with the dungeon crasher substitution features and knockback get way out of hand in a normal game, but when applied to a halfling, it just serves to make the character functional. I also might like the idea of the peasant hero, and I want to begin the game as a 3rd-level commoner with 7 ranks in Profession (farmer). Normally this would set me back tremendously, but I can make up for the slow start with a little character optimization, and by 6th-level become a worthwhile addition to the party And there's exactly what makes my experience and yours differ. The only powergamers and optimizers I've met couldn't play anything with less than at least a 16 or higher in the primary stat and 14 or higher in the two secondary (but not giving a crap about the rest), would never play anything that wasn't optimal for their class etc. etc. I would gladly have you in my game :) What's that? A slo-mo replay of an earlier part of his post? For heavy roleplayin, I prefer freeform. For heavy combat, stated games as DnD ;) Oh! That's gonna hurt him something awful, Dan. That last sentence is a clear violation of the Stormwind Fallacy. It could cost him the game. Looking back over the whole play, it looks like he tried to go for a standard rebuttal of a previous near-violation when he again made mention of one roleplayed character and one mechanically strong character, implying that the mechanically strong character couldn't have solid roleplaying behind it. That was fielded by Cael, who tried to say that mechanics and roleplay have to mesh in a multi-talent game like D&D. It looks like the judges are arguing, Dan! Some are saying that since Gemstone specifically called out that some good optimizers are also good roleplayers, nothing else in the post can be considered a violation of the Fallacy. Let's look back at that part of the play. What I did say, was that I haven't had any personal experience with good powergamers. Only the pack that makes powergamers and optimizers look bad. I haven't really invoked the fallacy, as I only call out my own personal experience (which tends to form our views yes, but I'm well open to the fact that there are POWERGAMERS WHO ROLEPLAY WELL). THere, I said it. Now can we please move on? Im not claiming the fallacy to be false, I just say that I have never really encountered such a player. Once again, you have committed the Stormwind Fallacy. You are assuming that people that have good integers are bad roleplayers. Even worse, you accuse me of being like that. This is, however, a standard tactic of the RP-ers. Well, let us look at the other side of the coin: If you want to be a drama-queen with stats that does not back up your grandiose claims, then stay away from my games because your klutz of a character just fell 10 storeys into a hard stone floor and died horribly because your Con stinks. 1. I did say it was in MY GAMES, never yours ;) 2. I have only have bad encounters with powergamers (not many, but they set me off for real :() 3. I haven't actually said that I believe the stormwind fallacy to be false, only that I believe there's a declining curve. The more powergamer you are, the less good roleplayer you tend to be. And now, to spell it out loud: IN MY EXPERIENCE. Im not saying that it's 100% true, only that IME (experience), it keeps repeating itself. 4. If you don't wan RPers in your game, then sure, go ahead. It's not like it affects me ;) (besides, calling all RPers drama queens is like calling all powergamers bad roleplayers :D)
Ack 03-29-07, 05:02 AM	Hmm. I have just one thing to add. Look at your character sheets, people, it will tell you the real truth of the matter. Like a character, a player doesn't start with all the 'skill points' in the world to sink into his gaming skills. He starts off with a few (well, actually he starts off with none, and gains a few after each game). Now, he can put them into learning to roleplay well and hope this carries him through the times when he doesn't know how to run his character effectively, or he can put them into learning the rules and how to make an effective character ... and thus the roleplaying suffers (or rather, never advances). However, as players get along in the world, they get good at what they do. They end up with enough experience (read: 'skill points') to be able to learn the rules well and to roleplay well. And seeing that 'roleplaying' is the ultimate cross-class skill (well, cross-system skill anyway) you'd think that they'd sink a few points into that, seeing as it's useful no matter what system they are playing. Unfortunately, some tend to go for "I know rules better, my character lives longer" and focus on the rules. This is partly because learning the rules can be done at home, and doesn't require any personal interaction. Others do actually learn to do both, and learn to do it well. But the fact remains that while learning to roleplay benefits you in the long term, learning to rollplay is easier in the short term. Newer players tend to go for the latter for that reason - though some bring roleplaying knowledge with them from other venues, and can thus jump straight into the rules. Long story short? Less experienced players will go for the powergame more often. More experienced players will go for the sanely optimised build and the roleplay. Because they know how :D But even that's not a hard and fast rule. YMMV
empty 03-29-07, 07:41 AM	To be honest, lay off the OP and please don't take out your frustration with your friend on him. You are being aggressive for apparently no good reason. Your comparison is also poor, offering a person a suggestion for a character is just somethign simple to do, he didn't insult him, didn't demean him, just offered an idea, then when he did he got snapped at for it. Also, character designs are different then deck designs for a game, D&D is a cooperative game by its nature. That also means that if a person makes a poor character the whole group can suffer, so forgive me for a bit of enlightened self preservation if I offer advice. How we play M:TG, it is also a "cooperative" game. It is nothing more boring for a person than to wipe out all his comrades in the five first rounds around the table. It is much more fun when everyone has about the same powerlevel in our decks. But its easier for the good player to make his deck weaker than it is for the weak player too make his deck stronger. And its nothing more irritating than being constantly reminded by the other player that every deck you make are weak compared to theirs, and how you SHOULD fix that. When we play DnD, i am the most "learned" in the group. And i can clearly see how inefficient they do combat. Its like seeing a group of lemens, and i as a DM just have to make sure they never reaches that cliffside... But to constantly point out how they can "do it better", it wont help if they doesnt take their time themself, by their own initiative, to take a closer look at the rules themselves. If i say "do that and that", they will only ask "why?", and dont understand my answer even if i think its quite obvious.
kelvinaw273 03-29-07, 08:42 AM	The question becomes, is the above statement a violation of the Stormwind Fallacy? It can be interpreted in two ways. This assumes that the assertion of the Stormwind Fallacy is true and valid in all cases. I have yet to see any evidence that it is. As such, it should not be quoted as a "Law". In my experience, optimizing and role-playing are not mutually exclusive, but I have met few players indeed that can do both to a high degree of success. For myself I find over-optimising limits role-playing oportunities and tends to result in cookie-cutter characters, but this is my opinion and is subjective. Simply put, the Stormwind Fallacy is a valid argument, but not true in all cases. As such you cannot claim it as absolute truth, this rather undermines your entire argument thread. It looks like we're coming to a unified decison here, Dan. The judges are passing the decision onto the refs and... man, that's harsh! They're giving control of the ball back to the powergamers, and penalizing the anti-powergaming side twenty feet! Well, that's all on that play. Stay tuned for more blow-by-blow action when we return! Now why is it that power gamers always see things in terms of Win or Lose? :D Why is is "powergamers" vs "anti-powergamers"? If you insist on seeing the debate in an adversarial manner you will never see the other side's point of view. Daydreamer made a number of valid points that as the DM should be tailoring the strength of the opposition to the party, so powergaming has no relevence other than in it's effect on relative power within the party, you counter by claiming that he is placing the onus on the DM. Can I point out that challenging the party appropriately IS THE DM'S JOB. Regardless of the style of play, the DM has to make the players feel challenged, involved and stimulated. As such, there is no inherent advantage to ANY style of play. It simply becomes a matter of preference of the players and what they enjoy. The real question is, if you find the rest of your group have a different style of play to your own, should you adjust your style to cater to the rest of the group? I believe that as D&D is a social game, and society is based upon compromise, the answer is Yes.
nastynate 03-29-07, 10:15 AM	This assumes that the assertion of the Stormwind Fallacy is true and valid in all cases. I have yet to see any evidence that it is. As such, it should not be quoted as a "Law". In my experience, optimizing and role-playing are not mutually exclusive, but I have met few players indeed that can do both to a high degree of success. For myself I find over-optimising limits role-playing oportunities and tends to result in cookie-cutter characters, but this is my opinion and is subjective. Simply put, the Stormwind Fallacy is a valid argument, but not true in all cases. As such you cannot claim it as absolute truth, this rather undermines your entire argument thread. If you have met people that can both role-play and powergame equally well then it proves that the two skills are not mutually exclusive, which entails that skill in one has no effect on the other. The Stormwind Fallacy is always true, its the players themselves who represent the exceptions; some people do not have the ability to do both. They are two seperate skills (like biology and football). You can be good at both, you can be good at one, or you can be good at neither. Nothing here is undermining the validity of the Stormwind Fallacy. You agree that good role-play and optimization can coexist. Since you are saying this, you are not actually refuting the fallacy at all. You agree with it. If the fallacy stated that intelligence and athleticism were not mutually exclusive few would argue. Harvard graduates can go on to play professional sports, even if some (or even most) do not. Optimizers can role-play even if some (or even most) do not. In the same way that a person can focus more on one skill than the other, it is equally possible that person can focus equally on both. None of can say truly how many optimizers out there role-play poorly, but poor role-playing is not inversely proportional to skilled optimization and vice versa. Now why is it that power gamers always see things in terms of Win or Lose? :D Why is is "powergamers" vs "anti-powergamers"? If you insist on seeing the debate in an adversarial manner you will never see the other side's point of view. Debate by its very nature is competative. While there is not necessarily a clear winner or loser, the objective of debate is to prove your case and refute your oposition's case. Powergamers (I guess optimizers is the politically correct term) tend to get miffed because we see threads like this one. You will rarely (if ever) see a thread titled "I'm a role-player; am I bad person?" We are almost always forced to be on the defensive, which tends to make for adversarial feelings. If role-players were expected to justify their play-style, they would understand. Have you ever played in a game where a single player does ALL the talking, and won't let anyone else get a word in edge-wise? I have...sometimes role-play hogs the spotlight too. Daydreamer made a number of valid points that as the DM should be tailoring the strength of the opposition to the party, so powergaming has no relevence other than in it's effect on relative power within the party, you counter by claiming that he is placing the onus on the DM. Can I point out that challenging the party appropriately IS THE DM'S JOB. Regardless of the style of play, the DM has to make the players feel challenged, involved and stimulated. As such, there is no inherent advantage to ANY style of play. It simply becomes a matter of preference of the players and what they enjoy. I agree whole-heartedly, though I would also like to add a few points regarding play style. Frankly the disparity in power level among the player characters is the one thing that most often leads to powergamer bashing, and rightfully so. When a player character is more clearly powerful than the rest of his party, it's bad news. Sometimes this isn't even the intention of the powergamer, but the result is the same no matter how competative or non-competative intent of the player may be. Of course sacrificing power to build an "interesting" but weak character in the name of "good role-playing" (which is equally as unecessary as powergaming), can and does lead to the exact same problem. It doesn't usually steal the spotlight (unless they insist on role-playing out every single NPC interaction no matter how trivial...don't laugh I've seen it), but it does hold the party back unecessarily. When a group is composed of players with different meta-game objectives, a middle ground needs to be found. It's up to the gaming group as a whole to ensure that their characters have a niche that isn't trumped or overshadowed by their fellow players, and that the relative power level among them is sufficiently balanced that the DM can do his job, and present challenges appropriate to the entire group (whether higher or lower than their CR). The real question is, if you find the rest of your group have a different style of play to your own, should you adjust your style to cater to the rest of the group? I believe that as D&D is a social game, and society is based upon compromise, the answer is Yes. I almost agree with this. While it may be the easiest solution to go with majority rule, that does tend to leave the minority out in the cold. Some concession has to made in the interests of the minority or it isn't actually a compromise at all. If the powergamer (or the anti-powergamer for that matter) gets the shaft and has to play something other than what he likes, he will be unhappy; that runs counter to the objective of the game. Maybe that means establishing an area of specialty for the minority player character that has the least impact on the majority play-style. If the powergamer is the minority this might entail building a character like a bard optimized to buff the party, a diviner optimized in reconnaissance, or a rogue optimized to find and disable traps. If the anti-optimizer is the minority this might entail maxing your ranks in Bluff, Diplomacy, and Sense Motive and serving as the party "face," or at the very least building a character with enough staying power to avoid instant death in combat situations (which even the most role-play focused player should be able to do...like building a character with a high Constitution score and AC). As I've been trying to argue all along, there is nothing inherently wrong with optimization; the process of building efficient characters is ingrained in the mechanics of the game...choice in feats, ranks in skills, class combinations, and synergy between them is part of D&D, and being good at that doesn't make you a bad person. Exploiting that knowledge to diminish the relevance of the other player characters does, but that kind of inconsiderate behavior is not the exclusive domain of optimizers. -Peace-
Tyraxus 03-29-07, 11:06 AM	If you have met people that can both role-play and powergame equally well then it proves that the two skills are mutually exclusive. No, it doesn't. Mutually exclusive means you cannot have both. The term you're looking for is closer to "independantly related," in that one has no effect on the other. This assumes that the assertion of the Stormwind Fallacy is true and valid in all cases. I have yet to see any evidence that it is. Yes, the nature of a logical fallacy is that the fallacy is always invalid (and thus the law is always valid). The "Stormwind Falalcy" is nothing more than an application and related rephrasing of the False Dichotomy logical fallacy to the game. On a related note, if you're prefacing your fallacious argument with "In my opinion..." such as here: 3. I haven't actually said that I believe the stormwind fallacy to be false, only that I believe there's a declining curve. The more powergamer you are, the less good roleplayer you tend to be. And now, to spell it out loud: IN MY EXPERIENCE. Im not saying that it's 100% true, only that IME (experience), it keeps repeating itself. then you're committing another fallacy: the Hasty Generalization fallacy.
Comus 03-29-07, 11:38 AM	Hello, everyone! I'm Comus, this is Dan Marino, and welcome to Internet Argument Talk! We've got a lovely game here today, Dan, with a lot of points being thrown around, and around, and around. Let's go to the play-by-play! What I did say, was that I haven't had any personal experience with good powergamers. Only the pack that makes powergamers and optimizers look bad. I haven't really invoked the fallacy, as I only call out my own personal experience (which tends to form our views yes, but I'm well open to the fact that there are POWERGAMERS WHO ROLEPLAY WELL). You know, Dan, a lot of people try to couch their arguments with phrases like 'my own personal experience'. I'm not a fan of the tactic myself, but from what I can tell, the idea becomes that, because they're expressing their personal experience, the points cannot be argued by the other side, and they're free from any calls of bias. Here, Gemstone seems to be trying an end-run, trying to get back the points he lost when the judges penalized him for the Stormwind Fallacy violation. Let's see how well this play worked. THere, I said it. Now can we please move on? Im not claiming the fallacy to be false, I just say that I have never really encountered such a player. It can be implied here, Dan, that Gemstone is trying to implicate that the Stormwind Fallacy is a logical construct that doesn't apply in the real world. Perhaps not the best footwork that he could have done. Once again, you have committed the Stormwind Fallacy. What the heck? This play is just right out of left field - Gemstone has taken the ball and is running away from his goal! Has he gone insane? Is he missing a quote? Whatever it is, Dan, I just don't understand what point he's trying to make with this play. You are assuming that people that have good integers are bad roleplayers. Even worse, you accuse me of being like that. I still don't see what this play is supposed to accomplish, Dan. Gemstone is trying to get a penalty applied when it seems clear to me that none exists. It reminds me of the time Jack Spencer tripped on the field and tried to accuse the opposition's HB of pushing him. He was really eating crow when a replay of the tapes clearly showed no one was even within ten feet of him. Now let's move onto Gemstone's next play, starting a few seconds in. 2. I have only have bad encounters with powergamers (not many, but they set me off for real :() Oh no, Dan! Gemstone has once again shown his bias against powergamers! This colors a lot of his statements in a different light, even if he didn't mean them that way. 3. I haven't actually said that I believe the stormwind fallacy to be false, only that I believe there's a declining curve. The more powergamer you are, the less good roleplayer you tend to be. And now, to spell it out loud: IN MY EXPERIENCE. Im not saying that it's 100% true, only that IME (experience), it keeps repeating itself. Once again, we have Gemstone using the 'in my experience' formation, hoping that no one will attack the points he's made. I really don't know why people use it, Dan, I really don't. If they just want to say 'I think powergamers RP poorly', they should say it, not throw so many 'please don't refute this' statements around it that it gets lost in the fold. 4. If you don't wan RPers in your game, then sure, go ahead. It's not like it affects me ;) (besides, calling all RPers drama queens is like calling all powergamers bad roleplayers :D) And here we can see Gemstone missing the interception. He must have misjudged where Cael was throwing the ball. From what I can tell on the instant replay, Cael was throwing right towards 'Stats should be used to back up roleplaying', and Gemstone went left towards 'Roleplayed characters have bad stats.' Not a good place to stumble into, Dan. Gemstone's last stumble, 'calling all RPers drama queens is like calling all powergamers bad roleplayers' is a pretty bad one, too. Considering he's been fielding a lot of 'powergamers are generally bad roleplayers', it seems to back up Cael's derogatory 'drama queen' tackle. Well, let's move onto kelvinaw's play, Dan. It's already been fielded by nastynate, but let's go over the play-by-play. This assumes that the assertion of the Stormwind Fallacy is true and valid in all cases. I have yet to see any evidence that it is. As such, it should not be quoted as a "Law". In my experience, optimizing and role-playing are not mutually exclusive, but I have met few players indeed that can do both to a high degree of success. This is a bad first down for kelvinaw, Dan. He's trying to attack the Fallacy, and that just doesn't work very well. Nastynate already got through the key weakness of the argument here, that the Fallacy doesn't state that optimizers are all good roleplayers, just that one doesn't interfere with the other. For myself I find over-optimising limits role-playing oportunities and tends to result in cookie-cutter characters, but this is my opinion and is subjective. This is a supremely bad move on kelvinaw's part, Dan. Folks at home, don't be taken in by arguments like this. See, there's no reason to think a build with one class is any easier to roleplay than one with ten, or that a character that's designed to make full use of a single tactic, like tripping, has his personality defined solely by that. We'll put the idea that most optimizers work from concept to build on the side for a moment, Dan, but what about the countless ways any one build can be roleplayed? If you allow any reflavoring, the possibilities really do become nearly endless. Simply put, the Stormwind Fallacy is a valid argument, but not true in all cases. As such you cannot claim it as absolute truth, this rather undermines your entire argument thread. I don't know what kelvinaw was trying to do here. The Stormwind Fallacy is always true, Dan. A powergamer who is a poor roleplayer is not a refutation of the Fallacy, as the Fallacy doesn't state that powergamers are good roleplayers, only that there's nothing preventing them from being good roleplayers. Now why is it that power gamers always see things in terms of Win or Lose? :D Why is is "powergamers" vs "anti-powergamers"? If you insist on seeing the debate in an adversarial manner you will never see the other side's point of view. Ooh! Kelvinaw missed the point of a debate, Dan, which nastynate took and ran with, as you can see in his play. Daydreamer made a number of valid points that as the DM should be tailoring the strength of the opposition to the party, so powergaming has no relevence other than in it's effect on relative power within the party, you counter by claiming that he is placing the onus on the DM. Can I point out that challenging the party appropriately IS THE DM'S JOB. Regardless of the style of play, the DM has to make the players feel challenged, involved and stimulated. As such, there is no inherent advantage to ANY style of play. It simply becomes a matter of preference of the players and what they enjoy. Nothing terribly wrong here, Dan, except that I maintain that DMs should not have to specially tailor every enounter to keep the players from dying. The real question is, if you find the rest of your group have a different style of play to your own, should you adjust your style to cater to the rest of the group? I believe that as D&D is a social game, and society is based upon compromise, the answer is Yes. Ooh! Kelvinaw tries for a few yards, here. I'm going to have to say I disagree with his statement 'society is based upon compromise', though, Dan. It's my personal belief that society is based on a lot of people following the few that don't compromise. Those were some exciting plays, Dan, and I hope to see more before the end of the day.
Ventilatory_Threshold 03-29-07, 12:14 PM	Nothing terribly wrong here, Dan, except that I maintain that DMs should not have to specially tailor every enounter to keep the players from dying. In fact, this is a form of the Oberoni Fallacy. Though the Oberoni Fallacy states that just because a problem can be fixed, it doesn't make it fine as-is. What kelvinaw states is effectively the following: Gimping your character is okay because the DM can just make you fight lower-level goblins all the time. This statement is obviously wrong, since 11th level characters are supposed to be able to take on Barbed Devils and Cloud Giants. If they can't then there's sometihng wrong.
kelvinaw273 03-29-07, 12:52 PM	This is a bad first down for kelvinaw, Dan. He's trying to attack the Fallacy, and that just doesn't work very well. Nastynate already got through the key weakness of the argument here, that the Fallacy doesn't state that optimizers are all good roleplayers, just that one doesn't interfere with the other. The Fallacy does not prove that all powergamers are good role-players, either, which was my argument. BUT when you make powergaming metagame decisions you have intrinsically limited the role-playing opportunities. Yes, you can incorporate those decisions into role-playing, but I personally find this overly restrictive. The more you powergame, the harder it becomes to role-play freely is my argument. Note that I do not say 'imossible', just harder. I have seen one player who both powergamed and roleplayed brilliantly, but did not do so every time he played - he found it too restrictive. It is true to say that role-playing and powergaming are independent skills, but it is untrue to say that one never interferes with the other. This is a supremely bad move on kelvinaw's part, Dan. Folks at home, don't be taken in by arguments like this. See, there's no reason to think a build with one class is any easier to roleplay than one with ten, or that a character that's designed to make full use of a single tactic, like tripping, has his personality defined solely by that. We'll put the idea that most optimizers work from concept to build on the side for a moment, Dan, but what about the countless ways any one build can be roleplayed? If you allow any reflavoring, the possibilities really do become nearly endless. I was stating an opinion, not making an argument. If that was ballplay, you just got suckered. I don't know what kelvinaw was trying to do here. The Stormwind Fallacy is always true, Dan. A powergamer who is a poor roleplayer is not a refutation of the Fallacy, as the Fallacy doesn't state that powergamers are good roleplayers, only that there's nothing preventing them from being good roleplayers. Which is the point I tried to make above that you attacked. Ooh! Kelvinaw missed the point of a debate, Dan, which nastynate took and ran with, as you can see in his play. Hey, you started this ballgame commentary and claimed to be winning. I'm not looking to win, I'm stating my experience and opinion and raising what I feel are valid points to consider. At the end of the day the experience of gaming is entirely subjective: at the end of the day lots of people will be happy to tell you what you SHOULD do, but in the end you do what you enjoy and no-one can tell you it is "wrong" merely that it does not gel with the other players in your game. Nothing terribly wrong here, Dan, except that I maintain that DMs should not have to specially tailor every enounter to keep the players from dying. I didn't think it needed mentioning - after all, if there was no chance of failure, there would be no challenge. Ooh! Kelvinaw tries for a few yards, here. I'm going to have to say I disagree with his statement 'society is based upon compromise', though, Dan. It's my personal belief that society is based on a lot of people following the few that don't compromise. [social debate mode]No way would I ever follow a leader who didn't know how to compromise. Compromise is how two people live in close proximity to one another peacefully. No compromise is how you get warfare, terrorism, extremism, fanaticism and a lot of things the world can do without. Think for a minute: do you deal with your friends in a way in which you ALWAYS get what you want, or do you deal with them where there is give and take? That is compromise.[/social debate mode]
Tyraxus 03-29-07, 01:13 PM	At the risk of derailing the topic, I can't let this pass: [social debate mode]No way would I ever follow a leader who didn't know how to compromise. Compromise is how two people live in close proximity to one another peacefully. No compromise is how you get warfare, terrorism, extremism, fanaticism and a lot of things the world can do without. Think for a minute: do you deal with your friends in a way in which you ALWAYS get what you want, or do you deal with them where there is give and take? That is compromise.[/social debate mode] Yes, while compromise does enable people to live together relatively well, the cold hard truth is that you can not compromise on everything, nor should you. Principles are principles in bad times as well as good, and if you're willing to compromise them you've nothing left. Compromise is an easy way to avoid a fight, but some things should simply not be compromised, and this is what Comus is getting at, I believe. Don't believe him? How about John Stuart Mill, one of the greatest minds of the 19th century: War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. Yes, society is stable because of compromise, but it is when one refuses to compromise that the true measure of a man may be taken. Anyway, back on-topic. I didn't think it needed mentioning - after all, if there was no chance of failure, there would be no challenge. But when you know that tracking the dragonprints back to the cave will be okay because the DM wouldn't throw anything at you that you can't handle, there's no adventure or feeling of accomplishment because "hey, the DM will just change the dragon to something we can handle." Challeneges are supposed to be just that: challenges. And not all challenges can be overcome.
kelvinaw273 03-29-07, 01:42 PM	AYes, while compromise does enable people to live together relatively well, the cold hard truth is that you can not compromise on everything, nor should you. Principles are principles in bad times as well as good, and if you're willing to compromise them you've nothing left. Compromise is an easy way to avoid a fight, but some things should simply not be compromised, and this is what Comus is getting at, I believe. Don't believe him? How about John Stuart Mill, one of the greatest minds of the 19th century: Oh certainly there are some things you have to stand for. But you don't start the process of diplomacy with a declaration of war ....;) ... you try to find common ground first, and the mere fact that you are prepared to go to war can be enough to get the other side to compromise before things get that bad. But when you know that tracking the dragonprints back to the cave will be okay because the DM wouldn't throw anything at you that you can't handle, there's no adventure or feeling of accomplishment because "hey, the DM will just change the dragon to something we can handle." Challeneges are supposed to be just that: challenges. And not all challenges can be overcome. One of the best talents any DM can develope is the ability to keep your PC's alive while making you believe he is out to get you! I will also qualify, "but the DM should not hold back when player characters do dumb things." You want to track those six-foot long footprints back to their lair ... your problem if you don't like what you find there!
Daydreamer 03-29-07, 01:57 PM	Actually, if dms shouldnt have to specially tailor every encounter by making it weaker why should they have to tailor every encounter just to challenge the pcs? If you look at the way statted npcs in the book are done, i think they provide a good model (heck even make the pcs a smidge tougher) of how pcs should look at various levels. Power gamer pcs tend not to look like these pcs, they are usually tripped out. Power gamed pcs tend to be much stronger than the level vs cr encounter chart and as such are forcing the dm to tailor it the other way. why is it a choice between weak characters ( as a long aside:i never contended that weak characters were better for roleplaying, but that i feel like playing a roleplaying a weak character, a weak character will be better for FUN for me.) and super optomized character. There is a middle ground here. Characters can be reasonably built without being weak or powergamed. OUr group actually is quite familar with the rule books we have and use, and could power game, we just dont, because we dont want to. Im not sure what argument there is to be had-except to say that some people dont enjoy power gaming, and that (within reason and allowing for some compromise) the pcs and dm are best suited themselves if they have a mutual conception of what makes d&d fun.
Greg K 03-29-07, 02:27 PM	Powergamers (I guess optimizers is the politically correct term) Except among those of us whom consider optimizing and powergaming as not being the same thing and both being on different axis.
Gemstone 03-29-07, 03:06 PM	then you're committing another fallacy: the Hasty Generalization fallacy. Far from hasty. Generalization yes, hasty? no. I've played with dozens of people, seen dozens of various people play etc. and in almost all cases, those who powergamed had a lower grade of roleplaying going on. Also, I may have made it sound so, but I didn't mean that all roleplayers have bad stats. What I did try to say (my bad for not saying it clear) was that you can have bad stats or good stats. If roleplayed well, the end result is always pretty nifty (unless game breaking :(), but if handled wrong, there's a whole lot of trouble coming. There are drama queens among the RPers, but I haven't met anyone myself, altough I know of there existance. There are good roleplayers among power gamers too, but sadly, I haven't met anyone.
Tyraxus 03-29-07, 03:37 PM	Far from hasty. Generalization yes, hasty? no. That's the name of the fallacy, mate, sorry. I sorely doubt that a dozen or so "powergamers" are a truely statistical sample of all powergamers out there. You'd need to have played long periods of time with at least a couple hundred to negate the fallacy.
nastynate 03-29-07, 03:49 PM	No, it doesn't. Mutually exclusive means you cannot have both. The term you're looking for is closer to "independantly related," in that one has no effect on the other. Thank you. I'll edit my post. :D
Cael 03-29-07, 03:52 PM	Except among those of us whom consider optimizing and powergaming as not being the same thing and both being on different axis. Precisely. Powergaming and optimizing are two different things altogether.
Cael 03-29-07, 03:55 PM	(besides, calling all RPers drama queens is like calling all powergamers bad roleplayers :D) No kidding. Perhaps that is why I did it, considering that you have been doing it all this time. That is the problem around here. The drama queens have no appreciation nor recognition of the fine art of irony.
Cael 03-29-07, 04:16 PM	This assumes that the assertion of the Stormwind Fallacy is true and valid in all cases. A fallacy is not a law. It is a fallacy. That should be obvious from the name. It is not true and valid in all cases because it is not meant to be. It is true and valid for all cases whose conditions fits its operating parameters. As an analogy, a Law is "water is H2O". A fallacy is "water is ice when it is 0C". The former is right is all cases. The latter only applies when a set of parameters have been met (namely the water is relatively pure).
Tyraxus 03-29-07, 04:29 PM	Thank you. I'll edit my post. :D No problem. It's a mistake I made all the time until my professor spent a week beating the difference into my skull. :twitch:
Geoste 03-30-07, 10:00 AM	I have played d&d for a couple of years now, and over the last year and a half I have found the playstyle that suits me the best; I powergame. I actually was going to say something based on just this sentence, until I came across this paragraph... I am the only player in the group who actually DOES real roleplaying, but because my characters is more powerful than the rest of the lot, it is just not good enough? I actually roleplay my bluff checks instead of just rolling to see if I can fool people, make sure that my character acts according to his/her alignment and personality, and my characters actually does things other than getting drunk in the tavern and hunting bad guys. I even write several pages of background stories to my characters and develop interesting personalities for them, but no one cares. I have a powerful character, so none of it is worth anything. You are exactly the kind of "powergamer" I do not mind, if your character backgrounds come up with a rationale as to why you are obsessively focused in one direction (aka the powergaming aspect). However, if your powergaming is really limited to common sense class selections and the like (as opposed to the uber layout of min/max skill points, Feat selection, etc to gain the maximum bonuses), then you aren't that bad of a powergamer. In fact, you may want to bring up the question if "powergamer" is even the label for you. There are other people who are far worse powergamers than you are. It sounds to me that the DM and other players do not care about your backgrounds. Therefore, it is they who should question thier motives about preventing powergaming. They seem to have an overly paranoid attitude about it and they seem to have singled you out. So be sure to tell your fellow players that you were giving simple common sense selection (which is what you are doing) as opposed to powergaming. After all, why wouldn't a necro wizard seek training in the warrior arts in order to use that scythe properly? Common sense. If the necro was merely wanting to pursue only his wizard levels in order to attain power, without sacraficing levels to Fighter, then that's OK. There was no reason to get uppity.
lastknightleft 03-30-07, 12:05 PM	Powergamers and optimizers aer different. Powergamers are able to roleplay, however some powergamers (not optimizers) tend (not all, or even a majority) to forget that the game unless a solo campaign is about working in a group and not just about hack/slash all the time. Some powergammers have a problem accepting stats that have negatives or don't have an 18 in at least one stat. Some powergamers use the rules systems and combos to make a character that would be better left for a solo-campaign rather than a group game. The problem is that when the players with said players mingle, they wind up leaving a bad taste in others mouths, then those people make generalizations and remember, people focus more on negative then positive, it's entirely possible that the people who say in their experience haven't seen a good roleplayer/powergammer might have actually played with a few without actually realizing that they were a powergammer because of how well that player balanced his powergamming with consideration for letting other players have the spotlight. The reason powergamers get a worse rap is because while a roleplayer that makes foolish choices and doesn't pull their weight doesn't tend to bother the other players (who will often just ignore the burden because it isn't an issue since that makes their character all the cooler looking since it shines more) as much as a powergamer who doesn't know how to properly work with a group and reign himself in. And once a bad impression is made, it takes less reinforcement for people to draw a line in the sand than it takes more obvious comprimise to make people willing to be accepting. The problem with this thread is that some posters just want to refute others statements rather than accept said argument and offer a counterpoint. If someone just wants to state their preference it shouldn't become a "your opinion is fallacy" or "You might not but most do". Now who's going to tell me my opinion is fallacy and that I might not, but most do?
lastknightleft 03-30-07, 12:07 PM	And roleplayers most of the time don't intentionally make weak characters, they make characters and then if they turn out to be weak, play with them anyways rather than look for a way to beef them up, note I'm not saying that this is what happens all the time.
Archangel62 03-30-07, 01:48 PM	How we play M:TG, it is also a "cooperative" game. It is nothing more boring for a person than to wipe out all his comrades in the five first rounds around the table. It is much more fun when everyone has about the same powerlevel in our decks. But its easier for the good player to make his deck weaker than it is for the weak player too make his deck stronger. And its nothing more irritating than being constantly reminded by the other player that every deck you make are weak compared to theirs, and how you SHOULD fix that. When we play DnD, i am the most "learned" in the group. And i can clearly see how inefficient they do combat. Its like seeing a group of lemens, and i as a DM just have to make sure they never reaches that cliffside... But to constantly point out how they can "do it better", it wont help if they doesnt take their time themself, by their own initiative, to take a closer look at the rules themselves. If i say "do that and that", they will only ask "why?", and dont understand my answer even if i think its quite obvious. MTG is not built as a team game however, it is built to be a competetive game. I know that you're not playing in a real tournament or anything still. With D&D, I don't pull punches when I run, and I have had to deal with party wipes due to lack of teamwork, inability to coordinate, massive stupidity, or players not realizing that each person needs the other party members. Main reason I get sick of the Drama Queen roleplayers is that they hog the spotlight outside of combat through personal force, but almost never have any useful abilities to use in a mechanical sense. I don't like ignoring players but sometimes I have to to make sure that everyone is given a chance to contribute. I've run into too many RPers who feel that the game is a grand story about their character and the rest of the guys are supporting cast.
Gemstone 03-30-07, 04:31 PM	No kidding. Perhaps that is why I did it, considering that you have been doing it all this time. That is the problem around here. The drama queens have no appreciation nor recognition of the fine art of irony. Err.. I haven't said that all powergamers are bad roleplayers. Just that there are few who manage to combine roleplaying with powergaming ;) On the other hand, you could make the same algory (or al gore ;) ) with roleplayers, that the at the higher ends of roleplaying, fewer are good optimizers or powergamers. I for example, are a poor optimizer and powergamer. Why? Because I like character's of various types that's hardly optimzed. My halfling fighter is still one of my best characters ever, even though he had crappy strength and con.
johnwhitmyre 03-30-07, 04:33 PM	YES YOU ARE A VERY BAD PERSON YOU SHOULD QUIT PLAYING FOREVER. nah just kiddin, have fun, if you, yer dm, and group is having fun thats all that matters, its when one of the above is not is when there is a problem
Cael 03-31-07, 06:24 AM	Err.. I haven't said that all powergamers are bad roleplayers. Just that there are few who manage to combine roleplaying with powergaming ;) On the other hand, you could make the same algory (or al gore ;) ) with roleplayers, that the at the higher ends of roleplaying, fewer are good optimizers or powergamers. I for example, are a poor optimizer and powergamer. Why? Because I like character's of various types that's hardly optimzed. My halfling fighter is still one of my best characters ever, even though he had crappy strength and con. No kidding. Wow. Hey, Jim! Here is another red shirt volunteering to beam down! Yep! Another one that *likes* dying. Flights of fantasy that cannot be backed up by ability equates to roadkill in just about any language. Remember that the next time you wish to mouth off to someone that will not only rip your head off and feed you your entrails, but also take a leak down the gaping hole in your neck. It may safe your life. This friendly tip of the day is brought to you by the Coalition of Optimisers. "Be the best you can. Your life will thank you for it."
Cardinal Teplin 03-31-07, 07:42 AM	Just because two things are not mutually exclusive, does not mean that they are not related, or inversely related. Powergaming does not necessarily mean you can't rolepaly. But taken to a certain extreme, to a certain level of optimisation, it will intefere with your roleplying, limiting character choices and constraining both the design and the growth of the character. Similarly, giving care and attention to your roleplaying doesn't mean you can't make choices to powergame your character. But beyond a certain point, making choices for games mechanic reasons is going to interfere with your character as a portrayal of a person. Yes you can do both. But getting seriously into one will eventually damage the other. Of course, someone may both powergame their character and roleplay them well, or at least better than those around them. But too much concentration on one will lead to limitations on the other, past a certain point.
Gemstone 03-31-07, 11:12 AM	No kidding. Wow. Hey, Jim! Here is another red shirt volunteering to beam down! Yep! Another one that *likes* dying. Flights of fantasy that cannot be backed up by ability equates to roadkill in just about any language. Remember that the next time you wish to mouth off to someone that will not only rip your head off and feed you your entrails, but also take a leak down the gaping hole in your neck. It may safe your life. This friendly tip of the day is brought to you by the Coalition of Optimisers. "Be the best you can. Your life will thank you for it." If you only play for combat, so be it ;) I play for the roleplaying :D Not every character must have that 18 in his score or be completly optimzed to be fun to play. That's the reason I like roleplaying over computer games. you don't HAVE to be absolutley best to survive Also, did I ever say that I liked to die? No, you put those words in my mouth ;) In your games, your DM may challenge your every single character in such a way that a single +1 damage can save your lives, but I don't play such games because frankly, then I rather run some WoW or Diablo II And truth to be told, using what you have goes a long way
nastynate 03-31-07, 01:34 PM	Just because two things are not mutually exclusive, does not mean that they are not related, or inversely related. Powergaming does not necessarily mean you can't rolepaly. But taken to a certain extreme, to a certain level of optimisation, it will intefere with your roleplying, limiting character choices and constraining both the design and the growth of the character. Similarly, giving care and attention to your roleplaying doesn't mean you can't make choices to powergame your character. But beyond a certain point, making choices for games mechanic reasons is going to interfere with your character as a portrayal of a person. Yes you can do both. But getting seriously into one will eventually damage the other. Of course, someone may both powergame their character and roleplay them well, or at least better than those around them. But too much concentration on one will lead to limitations on the other, past a certain point. If the objective of optimization was to make the most powerful character ever, there would be only one possible optimal character archtype. Since the vast majority of optimizers are not playing Pun Pun (at least I assume this to be true), they must have some other goal in mind. Optimizers build thier characters to be good at what they are conceptually conceived to do. An optimizer decides what he wants to do before he begins to plot out his build, and no matter how complex or potent that build may be, it is focused on the concept. Whether you build your pirate as a swashbuckler 20 or as a swashbuckler 3 / rogue 3 / fighter 4 / dervish 10 (with daring outlaw for good measure) it's the same character concept. Alternately optimizers might start with the mechanics. Some people really like the new dungeon crasher substitution features, so they begin to brew up a combination of classes, race, and feats that compliment this option. It's not too challenging to brew up a compelling background story and persona for a bull rushing half-ogre. Maybe he is a former slave gladiator, glad to put his brutal past behind him, but reluctantly forced to pick up his sword again in order to free friends and family that were unable to escape as he did. Basically what I am trying to say here, is that if role-playing wasn't an objective for the optimizer, then there is truly only one irrefutably best build. I am not saying that all optimizers role-play well, but that there is nothing stopping them from doing so. Since optimization takes place out of game (largely away from the gaming table), there is no reason at all that it should impare your ability to role-play at the gaming table. Your metagame decisions can certainly affect what your character can do, but not how well you play it. I simply don't understand how this can be refuted. What optimization can limit, is the number of options you have for character concepts. For example, an optimizer will not play a bungling, clumsy, rogue with a low intelligence score, unless he can find a way to make this character useful in some other way. For a die hard anti-optimizer this character concept is still fair game. If by limiting role-playing, you mean limiting yourself to role-playing competent skilled characters, then yes optimization limits you to optimized characters (imagine that!); it doesn't mean you can't role-play it well though. Of course I can dream up thousands of different possible optimized characters even within those constraints, so this seems like a moot point.
Archangel62 03-31-07, 03:10 PM	I\ Alternately optimizers might start with the mechanics. Some people really like the new dungeon crasher substitution features, so they begin to brew up a combination of classes, race, and feats that compliment this option. It's not too challenging to brew up a compelling background story and persona for a bull rushing half-ogre. Maybe he is a former slave gladiator, glad to put his brutal past behind him, but reluctantly forced to pick up his sword again in order to free friends and family that were unable to escape as he did. What's spooky is you listed my character design for a dragonlance game, same day as the first game too.
Cardinal Teplin 04-01-07, 03:12 PM	If the objective of optimization was to make the most powerful character ever, there would be only one possible optimal character archtype. Since the vast majority of optimizers are not playing Pun Pun (at least I assume this to be true), they must have some other goal in mind. Except that Pun-Pun isn't allowed in most games, and most games in general don't use all the rules that have ever been prinited. (I'm also not convinced that Pun-Pun actually works, mechanically, particularly the part about gaining deity ranks, which assumes that gaining rank 0 twice over would somehow 'stack' into rank 1. But I digress...) There are plenty of people around who do indeed try and create the most powerful character ever, within limits set either by themselves or the campaign. I am not saying that all optimizers role-play well, but that there is nothing stopping them from doing so. Since optimization takes place out of game (largely away from the gaming table), there is no reason at all that it should impare your ability to role-play at the gaming table. Your metagame decisions can certainly affect what your character can do, but not how well you play it. I simply don't understand how this can be refuted. Well let's take an example. You're in a game that only uses core books and some of the complete series. You have a build that's going for Fighter 1/paladin4/pious templar X. Power attack is a must, clearly, and you need weapon focus and true believer to get into the class. You have to plan in advance, getting weapon focus in the right weapon for the temple you plan to join when your character gets high enough level. All well and good. Unfortunately, during play the temple you want to join turn out to have something wrong with them. May your character doesn't get on with them, maybe they end up quarrling with the rest of the party. However we arrive at it, you end up with a choice. Do you do what is most appropriate for the character, which is to turn your back on the temple and seek your future elsewhere, thus spoiling your chances of getting into pious templar. Or do you stick with your original plan, ignore the experiences of the actual game, and go with the temple as planned? To put it more simply you can get into situations where following your planned build conflicts with the personality and experiences of your character. Take another example - Your tribe is wiped out by goblins, and with his dying breath the tribal shaman tells you where the great tribal artifact, the axe of dang-fooie, is and charges you to carry it into battle for the sake of honour of the tribe. How will your spiked-chain weilder react? Obviously there are plenty of ways you can fudge these particular examples, not least by putting pressure on the DM to make allowances for your desire to play a particular build. But such conflicts are one way that powergaming and rolepalying can come into conflict. What optimization can limit, is the number of options you have for character concepts. <snip> If by limiting role-playing, you mean limiting yourself to role-playing competent skilled characters, then yes optimization limits you to optimized characters (imagine that!); it doesn't mean you can't role-play it well though . No, but it does put limits on what you can do, and ultimately the extent to which the character can grow away from it's original concept. Many roleplayers like to have their characters grow to take into account the experiences they've had, the people they meet, and their goals and expectations and values. Sure, most of the time powergaming and roleplaying don't have to come into conflict. But sooner or later there will come a conflict between what's right for the character you've ended up with and the optimised build, and you need to decide how much to compromise. To paraphrase an old adage - compromise once, and you'll know it. Twice, and your fellow players will know it. Three times, and the whole game will know it.
Cael 04-01-07, 03:55 PM	If you only play for combat, so be it ;) I play for the roleplaying :D Not every character must have that 18 in his score or be completly optimzed to be fun to play. That's the reason I like roleplaying over computer games. you don't HAVE to be absolutley best to survive Also, did I ever say that I liked to die? No, you put those words in my mouth ;) In your games, your DM may challenge your every single character in such a way that a single +1 damage can save your lives, but I don't play such games because frankly, then I rather run some WoW or Diablo II And truth to be told, using what you have goes a long way Oh, so, you are in one of those groups that do not have combat at all. I see. How... sad. There is an entire section of the Core books dedicated to that, and a whole slew of spells and feats that have combat as their main application. You are missing such a vast part of DnD and you don't even realise it. If I were you, I'd try the combat part of DnD. It is an integral part of the system. If you are truly not interested, I would suggest you try the Storyteller system from White Wolf. In that one, you can do as you describe to a much larger extent: using skills and abilities without the mechanical stats to back them up. All you have to do is be creative and badger the GM (something that I am sure you drama queens would have very little problems with and very little regrets doing) until he gives in.
Daydreamer 04-01-07, 03:57 PM	Defining what i dont like about the way power gamers play is like defining what i dont like about certain peoples personalities. It doesnt necessarily make them bad people, it just means we dont get along in the game. Its an intangible mindset and approach to the game that just feels wrong to me. I dont care what other people do in there games, nobody needs to justify that, but power gamers who try to come play with my group will be asked by me and my fellow players to leave, we are not interested in putting up with that, and i don't think we need to justify that. HEck our dm even runs occasionally another game that is for power gamers with his real life friends-he says dming it feels like work lol. 'Roleplaying' doesnt mean building a weak character, it means not going for the absolute extreme optomizations. Take a look at high level constructions of npcs-those are generally reasonable examples to pattern pcs after, but pcs rarely follow this pattern-which is fine if you push it past a little bit, but some people just take it way to far -IN MY OPINION. I dont even know what this argument is about per se... its like people arguining whether vanilla or chocolate is the best flavour of icecream. Some people like one or the other, some people like both, or one a bit more but meh. Do what you like in your game, but others have the right to do as they please in theres.
Daydreamer 04-01-07, 04:28 PM	This is a quote from the Eberron boards. Speaking as someone who's been playing D&D for over 25 years, and who is not concerned with numbers and how many of this or that I get, I think the main focus of playing any character should be how fun it is. Too many people are powergamers (I like the old term munchkins) and are obsessed with stats and numbers and how ridiculously powerful their charcters are after bending, twisting and distorting the rules. Yes, other races get more special things than humans. But that doesn't make humans any less fun to play. I've played pretty much every classic race and class there is over the years, and it all comes down to how you play your character, not stats and numbers. If you want to play a Changeling because it'll be cool and you have a nice concept for the character, then go for it. if you play it simple as an exercise of "I get better stats" then I think you may have missed the point of D&D as a whole.
Ventilatory_Threshold 04-01-07, 05:54 PM	I already don't like DrOfDemonology. He seems to miss the point of D&D too: Having fun. Some people have more fun when they don't die. Some people have more fun by having larger numbers. DrOfDemonology doesn't seem to get that, and he needs to get that he doesn't get it. Or he can start getting it, same as all of the other judgemental crazies out there. Bottom line: Either start getting it or get that you don't get it. Capisce?
Daydreamer 04-01-07, 06:03 PM	That argument doesnt fly. Power gaming does not help you 'not die' as the npcs should be of appropriate challenge to the pcs. This is like saying that being lower level sucks bc higher level pcs are less likely to die. They are just as likely (though granted high level npcs can raise themselves :P). Ive been in power gaming groups/non power gaming groups. There is NO, survival edge if the dm is doing what he is supposed to be doing.
Gemstone 04-01-07, 06:09 PM	Oh, so, you are in one of those groups that do not have combat at all. I see. How... sad. There is an entire section of the Core books dedicated to that, and a whole slew of spells and feats that have combat as their main application. You are missing such a vast part of DnD and you don't even realise it. okay, please stop putting words in my mouth. I did not say I dislike combat, else I would use another system entierly. The problem here is apporach. If you don't think you can survive without having max stats (such as having a cruel DM. I once had... hrr... never gonna play with him again). We have lots of combat in our games, which is okay in my book. Having to fight your way over a bridge to save an entire town from destruction because of some obscure objective is fun, but I don't have to deal max damage or have max hp to enjoy that! When I create a character, I create a concept, not a build, because I don't play for the numbers, I play for the Role Or, for me to reprhase it, into terms that you apparently like: Oh I see, you belong to a group that only cares about the numbers and not about the character. How about taking a trip into town and buying a book about theoretical mathematics? There's entire books dedicated to that with integrals, derivations and simple aretmetics. You are missing such a great deal of the integer world that's out there! that aside... If you are truly not interested, I would suggest you try the Storyteller system from White Wolf Been there, done that. I can only say: "Ugh". I didn't like that system at all actually. In that one, you can do as you describe to a much larger extent: using skills and abilities without the mechanical stats to back them up. All you have to do is be creative and badger the GM (something that I am sure you drama queens would have very little problems with and very little regrets doing) until he gives in. ...In those books, you can crunch the numbers to a much larger extent: Using your own skills and abilities with all the formulaes to back them up. All you have to do is follow the rules and optimize the formulaes (something that I am sure you powergamers would have very little problems with and very little regrets doing) until they give you the numbers you want. see how irritating that is? ;) Bottom Line: We have lots of combat (sometimes to much if you ask me, that is, most of game time is rolling damage) and we thrive even though we don't have max stats, max damage etc. For me, it's about the story. For you, its about building fun characters. Deal with it
Ventilatory_Threshold 04-01-07, 06:10 PM	That argument doesnt fly. Same as DrOfDemonology's argument. It smacks of a lack of understanding of human nature and comprehension of how varied people can be. Also, it wasn't an argument. I was mocking him. Power gaming does not help you 'not die' as the npcs should be of appropriate challenge to the pcs. No, but it helps you excel at what you're supposed to be doing. That, in turn, makes you better at what you do and as a result, more likely to live. This is like saying that being lower level sucks bc higher level pcs are less likely to die. They are just as likely (though granted high level npcs can raise themselves :P). Faulty comparison caused by a lack of understanding of what I was saying. Ive been in power gaming groups/non power gaming groups. There is NO, survival edge if the dm is doing what he is supposed to be doing. You're not going to say it's the DM's job to kill the party, are you?
Gemstone 04-01-07, 06:18 PM	You're not going to say it's the DM's job to kill the party, are you? Far from. He's saying what basicly stands in the DMG (altough I can't find it now -_-) The DM is supposed to CHALLENGE the party, not matter the level or power of the group. Power scales
Daydreamer 04-01-07, 06:41 PM	The challenges are going to be on par with the strengh of the pcs-being weaker does not make you less likely to survive. remember non power gaming dms with non power gaming pcs tend to have lower powered worlds. IN our world if you kill 10 people by yourself (lets say a 10th level figther) your considered nearly legendary in power and status... its actually incredibly cool to be in a game like that-and you didnt get the person he was responding to get the person i quotued specific point. I was just using it to illustrate a mindset. Still since theres all this talk about 'fallacies of logic' and i'm a logic major i though i would draw out another such fallacy. Namely-if power gaming makes you a bad roleplayer is a logical fallacy (which i agree- it is). Then power gaming helps you survive is also a logical fallacy. You cant ever have an inherent advantage over the npcs-they are as strong as the dm makes them, and he should be making them to challenge your pcs. Your dm shoudlnt throw a cr 20 monster at a cr 4 party (excepting circumstances where the pcs ask for it, storyline reasons etc). Anymore than he should throw a super powerful creature at a group of pcs with weak characters. 2ndly..everyone ends up strong in the end, my fav pc of all time had his highest first level stat at 14-but in a low powered world it felt awesome when he was level 8 and respected world wide for his abilities as a swordsman. Though i doubt he would have been on par with your typical 8th level figther-let alone a power gamed one. i dont see what the issue is, im not saying to you dont power game, im just saying we are not missing any part of the game by not powergaming.
Cael 04-01-07, 08:41 PM	okay, please stop putting words in my mouth. I did not say I dislike combat, else I would use another system entierly. The problem here is apporach. If you don't think you can survive without having max stats (such as having a cruel DM. I once had... hrr... never gonna play with him again). We have lots of combat in our games, which is okay in my book. Having to fight your way over a bridge to save an entire town from destruction because of some obscure objective is fun, but I don't have to deal max damage or have max hp to enjoy that! When I create a character, I create a concept, not a build, because I don't play for the numbers, I play for the Role Or, for me to reprhase it, into terms that you apparently like: Oh I see, you belong to a group that only cares about the numbers and not about the character. How about taking a trip into town and buying a book about theoretical mathematics? There's entire books dedicated to that with integrals, derivations and simple aretmetics. You are missing such a great deal of the integer world that's out there! that aside... Been there, done that. I can only say: "Ugh". I didn't like that system at all actually. ...In those books, you can crunch the numbers to a much larger extent: Using your own skills and abilities with all the formulaes to back them up. All you have to do is follow the rules and optimize the formulaes (something that I am sure you powergamers would have very little problems with and very little regrets doing) until they give you the numbers you want. see how irritating that is? ;) Bottom Line: We have lots of combat (sometimes to much if you ask me, that is, most of game time is rolling damage) and we thrive even though we don't have max stats, max damage etc. For me, it's about the story. For you, its about building fun characters. Deal with it It's a total female canine when the other guy turns the tables and do unto you what you did unto them, isn't it? If you don't like the way I have phrased things, perhaps you should refrain from taking the "all powergamers are not roleplayers" stance, and keep the "roleplaying is the only schnitzl way to play, yo, dawg!" to a minimum. If there is anything religion got right, it is when Confucius expoused the "do unto others" schtick. In your words: Deal with it. In mine: Deal with it, kid.
Ventilatory_Threshold 04-01-07, 09:14 PM	Then power gaming helps you survive is also a logical fallacy. You cant ever have an inherent advantage over the npcs-they are as strong as the dm makes them, and he should be making them to challenge your pcs. All player should be able to handle level-appropriate challenges. If you're throwing Goblins at a party of 3rd-level adventurers, and they still have a hard time beating them, then there's something wrong. Powergaming is supposed to give you an inherent advantage over equal-leveled non-powergamed NPCs. Optimization is supposed to make you competent.
Daydreamer 04-01-07, 09:22 PM	Nobody is that weak generally speaking. I understand powergaming to be actively searching for making your character as strong as possible. Often times therefore such pcs end up being much stronger than the cr challenges for there level. Typically (in my experience) such people even when they do roleplay and are good roleplayers, choose the concept they wish to play to justify the mechanical decisions they make. Competent is a relative standard. I know a group in town that dm runs the most powerful npcs in the world-his pcs power game and in some cases outright cheat-the result being that despite his pcs being 10x stronger than the pcs in my game, they are incompotent by his worlds standards and die alot. Alot more than us. IN our game if your able to defeat 8 normal first level warrior orcs, people consider you more than competent they hold you in awe, and you will be strong relative to the world. I am not suggesting one make there pcs incredibly weak, though i have no issue with those who wish to. I am simply saying that what i think for a fair amount of power per level is probably lower than you, and that i prefer to game that way. It works fine in our world bc of the way the dm builds the encounters-though for what its worth, when we are third level we can usually handle a few goblins just fine :P Also when you 'should' be able to handle appropriate level challenges. First off, our group can, its just difficult-but should implies a normative standard. If i wanted to play d&d different than that nothing would be wrong with it, its just different than how you would play. I dont think people should or shouldnt power game, i just dont like it and don't want to play that way myself, because its not fun for me.
Cael 04-01-07, 11:23 PM	Nobody is that weak generally speaking. I understand powergaming to be actively searching for making your character as strong as possible. Often times therefore such pcs end up being much stronger than the cr challenges for there level. Typically (in my experience) such people even when they do roleplay and are good roleplayers, choose the concept they wish to play to justify the mechanical decisions they make. Competent is a relative standard. I know a group in town that dm runs the most powerful npcs in the world-his pcs power game and in some cases outright cheat-the result being that despite his pcs being 10x stronger than the pcs in my game, they are incompotent by his worlds standards and die alot. Alot more than us. IN our game if your able to defeat 8 normal first level warrior orcs, people consider you more than competent they hold you in awe, and you will be strong relative to the world. I am not suggesting one make there pcs incredibly weak, though i have no issue with those who wish to. I am simply saying that what i think for a fair amount of power per level is probably lower than you, and that i prefer to game that way. It works fine in our world bc of the way the dm builds the encounters-though for what its worth, when we are third level we can usually handle a few goblins just fine :P Also when you 'should' be able to handle appropriate level challenges. First off, our group can, its just difficult-but should implies a normative standard. If i wanted to play d&d different than that nothing would be wrong with it, its just different than how you would play. I dont think people should or shouldnt power game, i just dont like it and don't want to play that way myself, because its not fun for me. Wrong. Powergaming is wanting a +5 Vorpal Greatsword at level 1. Optimizing is to be the best you can be *given a set of parameters*. Whether the parameters is the PrCs allowed, type of stats generation/rolled, a set archetype (e.g., Halfling Fighter, Half-Orc Wizard, etc.), or others, it does not matter. That is where the drama queens usually fall over in their arguments. They keep claiming that optimizing will not allow for "weak" characters. That is patently untrue. It allows for "weak" characters. Just that they are not as "weak" as an unoptimised one. In fact, an optimised Half-Orc Wizard might have just enough power to replace a normal Wizard, instead of just being roadkill. This is something that the drama queens never got. Instead, they go for the Stormwind Fallacy each and every time. It is rather amusing to watch them make that kind of a flying leap. Sometimes, I wonder if they have lemming blood in them, the way they jump off the "cliff" of the Fallacy en massed.
Daydreamer 04-01-07, 11:39 PM	If every power gamer you meet is a bad role player its not a bad bet to say the next one will be. When i hear the word power gamer referenced to someone i expect to meet a bad power roleplayer, though as mentioned i know exceptions. My point about power gaming is more analogous to how people feel about psionics. Some people just dont like the flavor of it, others do. I dont like the flavor of powergaming-or optomizing ( in an extreme sense). Irregardless of whether the person is a good role player or not. ONce again, you wont be road kill if the dm challenges you correctly. That halfing fighter, half orc wizard, dwarf bard, elf barbarian group is just fine without optimization if the dm tailors the encounters.
nastynate 04-01-07, 11:59 PM	If the objective of optimization was to make the most powerful character ever, there would be only one possible optimal character archtype. Since the vast majority of optimizers are not playing Pun Pun (at least I assume this to be true), they must have some other goal in mind. Except that Pun-Pun isn't allowed in most games, and most games in general don't use all the rules that have ever been prinited. (I'm also not convinced that Pun-Pun actually works, mechanically, particularly the part about gaining deity ranks, which assumes that gaining rank 0 twice over would somehow 'stack' into rank 1. But I digress...) There are plenty of people around who do indeed try and create the most powerful character ever, within limits set either by themselves or the campaign. Trust me, any powergamer worth his salt can break the game wide open if that is his intention. I know tricks to gain infinite wishes, unlimited hit points, unlimited damage, and so forth. Some of the nastiest tricks in the game can be accomplished with nothing more than the PHB, DMG, and MM. Destroying the game is not condusive to actually playing it though, so I refrain from doing so. I am not saying that all optimizers role-play well, but that there is nothing stopping them from doing so. Since optimization takes place out of game (largely away from the gaming table), there is no reason at all that it should impare your ability to role-play at the gaming table. Your metagame decisions can certainly affect what your character can do, but not how well you play it. I simply don't understand how this can be refuted. Well let's take an example. You're in a game that only uses core books and some of the complete series. You have a build that's going for Fighter 1/paladin4/pious templar X. Power attack is a must, clearly, and you need weapon focus and true believer to get into the class. You have to plan in advance, getting weapon focus in the right weapon for the temple you plan to join when your character gets high enough level. All well and good. Unfortunately, during play the temple you want to join turn out to have something wrong with them. May your character doesn't get on with them, maybe they end up quarrling with the rest of the party. However we arrive at it, you end up with a choice. Do you do what is most appropriate for the character, which is to turn your back on the temple and seek your future elsewhere, thus spoiling your chances of getting into pious templar. Or do you stick with your original plan, ignore the experiences of the actual game, and go with the temple as planned? To put it more simply you can get into situations where following your planned build conflicts with the personality and experiences of your character. What's stopping you from continuing on your planned mechanical path here? You take levels in pious templar anyway, and you stand behind the beliefs you had all along. Others might deviate from the faith, but that doesn't mean you have to, nor does it mean that you lose faith, or choose to take a different class (unless you actually want to ). So long as the feats and classes you choose still match your vision of what your character should do there is no conflict. Now you find yourself fighting against the people in control of the church (as a pious templar no less). It is they who have lost sight of the teachings of your deity, not you. You are still defending your temple in the name of your deity, it just so happens that the greatest threat to the temple is actually within the church itself. This sounds like a great story to me and stays true to the player's plans for his character, instead of forcing him/her to do what you want as the DM (assuming you play the role of DM in this scenario). If you choose to turn your back on the pious templar class that is your choice. The DM's job is to throw challenges at you, and this is certainly a challenge...one I personally would not back down from. Take another example - Your tribe is wiped out by goblins, and with his dying breath the tribal shaman tells you where the great tribal artifact, the axe of dang-fooie, is and charges you to carry it into battle for the sake of honour of the tribe. How will your spiked-chain weilder react? Why does the DM want to do that to your character? He obviously knows you dedicated a large portion of your feats and skills towards mastery of the spiked chain, so the only reason to do this is to intentionally gimp your character, or because he could care less about what you actually want. It might be "in character" to drop the spiked chain and use the axe, but the entire scenario reeks of DM railroading. A player that builds a fighter specialized in the spiked chain should not be punished for it. I'm all for organic development of your character's persona, but once the DM starts pushing you down a path you never inteded to go it starts to feel petty. At this point (if I were playing the spiked chain fighter in question), I'd ask if I could use the retraining options in the PHB2. I'd reconfigure my build around the new mechanical direction the DM wants, but I wouldn't be too happy about it. How hard would it have been for the DM to make the "axe of dang-fooie" a spiked chain, a suit of armor, a helm, or any other number of things that actually meshes with the concept that the player had in mind? As a DM I write stories for the PCs; I don't force things down their throats that run completely counter to what they want. A couple bumps in the road are only natural, but this scenario is un-fun. Obviously there are plenty of ways you can fudge these particular examples, not least by putting pressure on the DM to make allowances for your desire to play a particular build. But such conflicts are one way that powergaming and rolepalying can come into conflict. Wait you have to put pressure on the DM? Isn't that exactly what the DM just did to the player here? he certainly didn't put the pressure on the character (picking up the axe of dang-fooie is a no brainer); the DM is allowed to do this, but the player isn't? The entire conflict was built by the DM to screw with the player...I don't feel I have to fudge with anything here. The DM is the one meddling where he doesn't belong. Ok maybe (just maybe) the DM had no intention of screwing with the PC. If so, he must be completely oblivious to the fact that the player actually has a concept already in mind for his character. The DM must have noticed that the character has been using that spiked chain for a while, and if he hasn't then he's clearly not really interested in the repurcussion his story will have on that choices his player already made up until this point. Nothing about this sounds fair. What optimization can limit, is the number of options you have for character concepts. For example, an optimizer will not play a bungling, clumsy, rogue with a low intelligence score, unless he can find a way to make this character useful in some other way. For a die hard anti-optimizer this character concept is still fair game. If by limiting role-playing, you mean limiting yourself to role-playing competent skilled characters, then yes optimization limits you to optimized characters (imagine that!); it doesn't mean you can't role-play it well though. Of course I can dream up thousands of different possible optimized characters even within those constraints, so this seems like a moot point. No, but it does put limits on what you can do, and ultimately the extent to which the character can grow away from it's original concept. Many roleplayers like to have their characters grow to take into account the experiences they've had, the people they meet, and their goals and expectations and values. If you grow away from your original concept it is your choice to do so, just as your original build outline or plan was also your choice. There is nothing wrong with revising your character as you go along, and you can even optimize the new direction you choose to take. I roleplay too ya know, so I know from personal experience that this is entirely possible. It takes effort and work to produce a powerful character after you decide mid-game to pursue another avenue of development, but it is not impossible. Just because some people can't do it, doesn't mean there is a conflict. Sure, most of the time powergaming and roleplaying don't have to come into conflict. But sooner or later there will come a conflict between what's right for the character you've ended up with and the optimised build, and you need to decide how much to compromise. To paraphrase an old adage - compromise once, and you'll know it. Twice, and your fellow players will know it. Three times, and the whole game will know it. I respectfully disagree. The conflict(s) in question has to be created by the DM. The conflict itself is a metagame fabrication (just like every other adventure we play), and just like enemies which should be an appropriate challenge to the PCs, the story itself should be compatable with their characters. Unless the player himself expresses a desire to deviate from his build, the DM has no right to back him into a corner and force it on him. DM (addressing his players): "Ohhh, you all want to play wizards eh? that's cool." DM (in the back of his mind): "Well then you'll fight nothing but iron golems." Is this really any different than making a player decide between his spiked chain (which he designed his character to use) and the axe of dang-fooie? I don't see a difference.
Daydreamer 04-02-07, 12:13 AM	Roleplaying and power gaming dont have to come into conflict. But they often times do with power gamers. You can justify nearly any mechanical choice, but sometimes it feels like a politician using double talk, it sounds possible but nobody believes you. However, whether one wants to play with powergamers or not doesnt have to have anything to do with how they roleplay, and could be merely an issue of flavor. Though there is something between optomizing and playing a 'gimped' character. There is a pc about on par with his cr in terms of power. I have no trouble with pcs like this. But when someone goes far beyond this, whether you call it optomizing, or powergaming i call it something i dont like.
Jefuri no Oni 04-02-07, 12:31 AM	Anybody who tries to melee a hill giant when they have a D4 for their hit die is an idiot. You did a good thing when you tried to make his character concept work and had he listened to you his undead horse riding necromancer might have had an actual chance of survival.
nastynate 04-02-07, 12:51 AM	Roleplaying and power gaming dont have to come into conflict. But they often times do with power gamers. You can justify nearly any mechanical choice, but sometimes it feels like a politician using double talk, it sounds possible but nobody believes you. However, whether one wants to play with powergamers or not doesnt have to have anything to do with how they roleplay, and could be merely an issue of flavor. Though there is something between optomizing and playing a 'gimped' character. There is a pc about on par with his cr in terms of power. I have no trouble with pcs like this. But when someone goes far beyond this, whether you call it optomizing, or powergaming i call it something i dont like. I can certainly respect people who don't care for high power games. This is the way you like to play, and conversely I like to play in games with a more epic feel. The one thing that gets my goat is this so called "justification" for the mechanical choices I make. Why is it that I need to justify my play style, but you don't? Why is it that I get compared to a double talking politician? I have yet to slander anyone on the anti-optimization side, and expect nothing less than the same treatment in return. I have yet to make generalizations about anti-optimizers like... Roleplaying and power gaming dont have to come into conflict. But they often times do with power gamers. Sounds to me like you are the one justifying things here. You have to insult the optimizers to strengthen your point. I don't have to resort to insults to support my mine. When I build my swashbuckler 3 / rogue 3 / fighter 2 / exotic weapon master 2 / dervish 10, I need no justification at all. These are all practically flavorless classes with no in-game role-playing requirements or flavor. I am the one who creates the persona and flavor of my character not the mechanics. Is this build flat out better than a swashbuckler 20? Yes. Is there something wrong with that? No. Can I still role-play it in the exact same way if I had built a swashbuckler 20 instead? Yes. Your move.
nastynate 04-02-07, 01:01 AM	Anybody who tries to melee a hill giant when they have a D4 for their hit die is an idiot. You did a good thing when you tried to make his character concept work and had he listened to you his undead horse riding necromancer might have had an actual chance of survival. The OP is gone. He worked out the differences he had with his group, built a melee warrior (which they don't seem to feel threatended by), and has since moved on. In your defense, without reading the whole thread from the beginning you would have missed this. The rest of us still here are just debating the topic of the Stormwind Fallacy now. Simply put, some people still feel that optimization needs some sort of justification, powergaming is wrong, well-built characters are usually poorly role-played, and so on. Cael, myself, and few others are trying to show that this is a fallacious assumption (despite the fact that we all know it's a lost cause). -Peace-
Daydreamer 04-02-07, 01:04 AM	I didnt have you in mind at all nastynate when i was making a my point. I am not talking about you at all, i have no gaming experience with you and can't form a judgement about you. I am refering to my gaming experience with power gamers, and i was attempting to explain our (that is 'non powergamers') mindset to the 'power gamers'. That often times even the power gamers who do roleplay have this pjeroative feel about them. Once again, ive met a handful (2) specifically in my 14 years of playing that i would consider good roleplayers who were out and out power gamers, so i know its not a law. My comments where for elucidation, to make a point understood, not as a position im putting forward. And there have been alot of back and forth 'insults' in this thread. My comments have never been directed at anyone on this board, because i have nothing to judge them on. The only position i put forward is that power gaming is a stlye of playing that some people do like others dont, and some people are in the middle. And i think we all know the sort of player i was refering to being like a politician in providing a rational for what they are doing. Its no different than the sort of rational you get from metagamers, or people who steal from /kill party members, or SOME powergamers claiming they are roleplayers when making mechanical changes. Its not a law, but ive had it come up in experience alot. I know the op is gone, but this has evolved into a new discussion entirely. And a relatively interesting one. I dont feel power gaming requires a 'meta-justification' which is to say, if your power gaming and everyone wants to power game more 'power' to you. You don't need to justify your play style. However if your claiming to roleplay then the choices you make do require some sort of justification. By its very nature this is the case since your supposedly have some rational for why your character would do X, i have to provide roleplaying justifications for my pcs actions. With power gamers sometimes i believe such rationals are pseudo justifications, ie not the real motives for the change but to keep the pretense of being a roleplayer. I have had this happen alot, maybe your experiences are different. But again, if i was a betting man and such a survey could be completed of gamers at large. I am only making a case for the roleplayer who doesn't optimize as a legitimate and fun way to play the game for certain people. To each there own.
nastynate 04-02-07, 02:00 AM	I didnt have you in mind at all nastynate when i was making a my point. I am not talking about you at all, i have no gaming experience with you and can't form a judgement about you. I am refering to my gaming experience with power gamers, and i was attempting to explain our (that is 'non powergamers') mindset to the 'power gamers'. That often times even the power gamers who do roleplay have this pjeroative feel about them. Once again, ive met a handful (2) specifically in my 14 years of playing that i would consider good roleplayers who were out and out power gamers, so i know its not a law. My comments where for elucidation, to make a point understood, not as a position im putting forward. And there have been alot of back and forth 'insults' in this thread. My comments have never been directed at anyone on this board, because i have nothing to judge them on. The only position i put forward is that power gaming is a stlye of playing that some people do like others dont, and some people are in the middle. And i think we all know the sort of player i was refering to being like a politician in providing a rational for what they are doing. Its no different than the sort of rational you get from metagamers, or people who steal from /kill party members, or SOME powergamers claiming they are roleplayers when making mechanical changes. Its not a law, but ive had it come up in experience alot. I know the op is gone, but this has evolved into a new discussion entirely. And a relatively interesting one. I dont feel power gaming requires a 'meta-justification' which is to say, if your power gaming and everyone wants to power game more 'power' to you. However if your claiming to roleplay then the choices you make do require some sort of justification-and sometimes i believe such rationals are pseudo justifications, ie not the real motives for the change but to keep the pretense of being a roleplayer. I have had this happen alot, maybe your experiences are different. But again, if i was a betting man and such a survey could be completed of gamers at large. I am only making a case for the roleplayer who doesn't optimize as a legitimate and fun way to play the game for certain people. To each there own. Don't worry, I know you weren't calling me out specifically. Your personal experiences are tainted though, and your prejudices are evident in your responses (like in your previous post). I can't fault you for feeling the way you do, given the experiences you have had, and the people you have played with, but you can't make generalizations about others based upon that. I got robbed at knife point by a latino teenager once (true story), but I don't assume every latino person I meet is going to rob me. If I were to make such a generalization and express that opinion (say for example, on a message board like this one) it would be a stretch to expect another person (especially a latino) not to get upset. Since I am an optimizer and you have expressed insulting generalizations about people like me, I was insulted. I am not the exception to the rule, just as it would be incorrect for me to assume that most role-players are incapable of making mechanically competent characters. Watch what happens if I change a few words in your post... I am refering to my gaming experience with women, and i was attempting to explain our (that is mens') mindset to the women. That often times even the women who do roleplay have this pjeroative feel about them. Once again, ive met a handful (2) specifically in my 14 years of playing that i would consider good roleplayers who were women, so i know its not a law. WOW! That sounds pretty bad now doesn't it? All I did was replace role-players with men and powergamers with women. Everything else is a direct quote from you. In your defense, when certain other posters called the anti-optimizers "drama queens," I felt the sting too. Tossing around insults is a surefire way to go nowhere, fire up feelings, and start flame wars. If that ticked you off, you now know how I feel, so lets just put that crud behind us.
Daydreamer 04-02-07, 02:14 AM	The analogy with racism isnt exactly a fair one. I think of gaming type variations more along the lines of prefering flavors of ice cream. I dont think your analogy maps well with what we are discussing at all. Obviously my personal experience 'bias's' my view. But i have two seperate points. 1. That i am explaining WHY many 'roleplayers' dont like power gamers. Comparing this to racism, would be like comparing my dislike of certain flavor of icecream to racism-it just doesnt compute to me im sorry. 2. That irregardless of why people dont like powergaming (or do like it for that matter) they dont need to justify this and go ahead and play whatever they want. Lastly, i still would expect my claim to be true for the most part. If i said that generally speaking people gifted at mathimatics were not gifted at poetry, im sure there are exceptions, but i believe the observation would be largely true (and even if this claim is not true we can all come up with general claims that we believe would be generally true, im following a convention here for simplicity of example). I've also played with hundreds of gamers, conventions, gaming stores, the university, my experience is broad not narrow. I do give power gamers a chance to prove themselves as roleplayers like i said ive met two who have-and ive met many people who can't/don't optomize who are terrible roleplayers. Still I still woudlnt want to play with power gamers, they can have chocolate icecream, i like vanilla. I wouldnt take my comments on the level of which you are, it jsut doesnt seem to fit what is being talked about here.
nastynate 04-02-07, 03:52 AM	The analogy with racism isnt exactly a fair one. I think of gaming type variations more along the lines of prefering flavors of ice cream. I dont think your analogy maps well with what we are discussing at all. Obviously my personal experience 'bias's' my view. But i have two seperate points. 1. That i am explaining WHY many 'roleplayers' dont like power gamers. Comparing this to racism, would be like comparing my dislike of certain flavor of icecream to racism-it just doesnt compute to me im sorry. 2. That irregardless of why people dont like powergaming (or do like it for that matter) they dont need to justify this and go ahead and play whatever they want. hmm...if the issue were simply a matter of different taste then I would be blowing things out of proportion, but since we are talking about disliking people because of their personal taste, I don't think I am. If you slandered people that liked chocolate ice cream for having different taste than you, it would seem just as petty an unjustifed to me as it does in the current context. I was comparing your reasons why role-players dislike powergamers to equally unfounded reasons people site for sexism or racism. These aren't reasons at all, they are excuses for pre-determined judgements about others. There is no excuse you can give me, that justifies disliking a whole group of people based upon your experiences with a small number of similar people. Look, I know sexism and racism are much larger issues, but I'm not comparing you to a sexist or a racist. I'm saying that the "reasons" you are giving for your position have no stronger basis in reality than the "excuses" given by sexists and racists for their behavior. You are giving negatively toned generalizations about a large group of people based upon your personal experiences with a but a fraction of them; tell me, is that not also a very appropriate definitition for prejudice of any kind? Lastly, i still would expect my claim to be true for the most part. If i said that generally speaking people gifted at mathimatics were not gifted at poetry, im sure there are exceptions, but i believe the observation would be largely true (and even if this claim is not true we can all come up with general claims that we believe would be generally true, im following a convention here for simplicity of example). I've also played with hundreds of gamers, conventions, gaming stores, the university, my experience is broad not narrow. I do give power gamers a chance to prove themselves as roleplayers like i said ive met two who have-and ive met many people who can't/don't optomize who are terrible roleplayers. Still I still woudlnt want to play with power gamers, they can have chocolate icecream, i like vanilla. I wouldnt take my comments on the level of which you are, it jsut doesnt seem to fit what is being talked about here. Would you also have described those mathmaticians and chocolate lovers as "double talking politicians" that need to "justify" their skills and/or personal tastes? You said that about optimizers, so it stands that you would say something equally connotative about these folks. If you don't have something negative to say about them, then it's actually not a fair comparison to what you said previously at all. If I were a mathmatician and you claimed that mathmeticians generally can't write poetry, would I be insulted? What if I wrote poetry? What if you said REAL poets don't care about double talking mathmeticians and their justifications for what they call poetry? I know this is silly, but think about it. Sometimes we say things and don't even realize that they are in fact insulting and unfair to a potentially larger group of people than we know of. Basically your entire line of reasoning is faulty becuase it doesn't give other human beings the benefit of the doubt. Even if I were the only person on Earth that could role-play and optimize with equal aptitude, I would still deserve the benefit of the doubt. You simply aren't giving the optimizers on this board the common courtesy they deserve. Your posts feel judgemental and despite the efforts you have made to clairify your position in a more politically correct manner, you haven't changed your root stance. It is not OK to make statements that cast large groups of people that you don't know in a negative light. The following points address the lack of conviction in your posts...hinting that you might indeed realize that you're position doesn't really have a leg to stand on. (Minus the part where we can all play the game as we see fit, which has no such lack of conviction.) 1. "In my experience" has no place in this debate. Either its a valid point for all of us or its only valid to you. You are probably subconsciously reaching out to others who might have shared your experiences, without actually comitting to your position until someone speaks out in support of you. Maybe you just don't want to offend people, so you are candy-coating things in such a way that they don't seem so abrasive. I can't say for certain what you are doing here, but I know that "in my experience," doesn't sound too convincing or commited. 2. "most" (in this case most powergamers) has no place in debate. Most implies that you actually have some statistical backing for your data. You don't. Most does however, leave some leeway for possible exceptions, but that's just a cop out. You are still making an unfounded generalization without any real data to back it up. This implies that if you are a good role-player and powergamer you are some sort of amalgamation. I'm not some incredibly special person here. These are two very simple skills that are both part of the same darned hobby. There must be people out there who can do both. 3. "generally speaking" has no place in a debate. Make strong points with some conviction if you expect them to hold water. If you can't state something with conviction, you don't really bring credibility to your position. Generally speaking is just being used to skirt around absolute positions. My positions are absolute, so your counters should be too. I'll go eat my chocolate/vanilla swirl ice cream cone now, and wonder why others haven't figured out that both flavors are good.
Puritan13 04-02-07, 04:03 AM	Dude, you like the vanilla part of that ice cream? You must be one of those powergamers...
Daydreamer 04-02-07, 04:16 AM	I dont dislike them as people though, that was my exact point about why the analogy was flawed. There are many powergamers i think are nice folk. I just dont like the way they play, and my guess is my statements are true in general, its a guess i admit as much. Perhaps your an exception. Chocolate and vanilla arent good or bad, they are good if you like them not otherwise. NOw in real life i do like both lol, but in d&d i only like vanilla :P. I have nothing against people who like chocolate, but since d&d is a group game, i dont like it when people try to put chocolate into my vanilla!
Puritan13 04-02-07, 04:20 AM	*shivers* Ewwww, vanilla. I tend to like playing effective characters as well. And in my college group (the only group that I haven't been the only DM for) I was often referred to as a good Role Player. I prefer to think of myself as a Great Role Player. Yeah, Great.
Leilond 04-02-07, 09:05 AM	I readed not all.. but enought There is nothing wrong to be a "powergamer"... until you accept to play with others and accept the "limits" that the DM will put to rules to "limit" your powering If all the players in a group are powergamer and the DM uses "powergamer" enemies, the game "balance" still remain and everyone can have his share of fun BUT if you're the only powergamer of the party... there's a problem... there are two different game style in the same place... someone is going to "not have fun". Are you ready to "tune down" your powergaming to better fit the other players abitude? If the answer is "NO", you need to look for anothe group where your gamestyle fit better... You're not better or worse
Tyraxus 04-02-07, 10:29 AM	Still since theres all this talk about 'fallacies of logic' and i'm a logic major i though i would draw out another such fallacy. Namely-if power gaming makes you a bad roleplayer is a logical fallacy (which i agree- it is). Then power gaming helps you survive is also a logical fallacy. You cant ever have an inherent advantage over the npcs-they are as strong as the dm makes them, and he should be making them to challenge your pcs. I'm sorry, I know this is long past, but since you claim to be a logic major you should know better. A fallacy is an established and recognizable pattern of faulty reasoning, and as such, the argument made with the fallacy is always invalid. Thus the Stormwind Fallacy, which is nothing more than a rehash of False Dichotomy, which assumes that there is no middle ground (or in the case here, that you can be either a good roleplayer or build mechanically powerful characters, ignoring the possibilities that one could do both or neither). However, your example (that powergaming helps you to survive) is not a fallacy but rather a difference in starting assumptions. If it is assumed that the DM is balancing encounters based on the CR system, then it is perfectly acceptable to say that powergaming helps you survive. Meanwhile, if the DM is using some measure of party power other than level, then it is quite possible that powergaming would not help you survive. Since there exists a case where the reasoning is sound, and the difference between the true and false cases are in the initial premise, then we don't have a fallacy but a difference of assumptions. It's like you saying 1+1=2 and I say 1+1=10; both are correct, but I'm assuming binary and you're assuming something with a base of >=3. Okay, back on-topic. BUT if you're the only powergamer of the party... there's a problem... there are two different game style in the same place... someone is going to "not have fun". Are you ready to "tune down" your powergaming to better fit the other players abitude? If the answer is "NO", you need to look for anothe group where your gamestyle fit better... That's dancing around the issue without addressing it. I've noticed the problem most people have with "powergamers" in "non-powergamer games" is that the "powergamer" is stronger than the other characters or outshines the other characters. If you're like me and don't have other groups to play with (my fiance and I refuse to play at my FLGS b/c there are some people that hang around there with no social skills that set off her "Wierd-O-Meter" and she's not comfortable with that, so we're limited to the one group of our friends), then I'd suggest playing either a generally-accepted "weak" character (using hexblade as a tank maybe?) and souping it up to be useful or a party support character and using the "powergamer skills" to make everybody better (a bard?). Someone mentioned playing something with the ability to kick butt six ways to Sunday, but holding back; I don't know if I agree with this, because there's the good possibility that your group will feel betrayed by this, since about the third time you go nova and kill everything to save the party, they might start feeling like you're only toying with them. As with anything, YMMV, and it depends on the mindset of your group and how they feel about an obviously powerful character that doesn't shine often, but shines brighter than the sun at midday when it does.
Gemstone 04-02-07, 10:46 AM	There is nothing wrong to be a "powergamer"... QFT
Comus 04-02-07, 11:16 AM	I dont dislike them as people though, that was my exact point about why the analogy was flawed. There are many powergamers i think are nice folk. I... I don't have to tell you how many times racists/sexists/worse have used that exact argument, do I? For Pete's sake, man... I just dont like the way they play, and my guess is my statements are true in general, its a guess i admit as much. And without data, your guesses are worth nothing. Perhaps your an exception. Chocolate and vanilla arent good or bad, they are good if you like them not otherwise. NOw in real life i do like both lol, but in d&d i only like vanilla :P. I have nothing against people who like chocolate, but since d&d is a group game, i dont like it when people try to put chocolate into my vanilla! Okay. Let's take that one step further - your group is going to pitch in and get a half-gallon of ice cream to share. You want vanilla. Charles wants Chocolate. You end up getting Neopolitan. If you got vanilla instead, then you aren't compromising with Charles, you're just telling him his view doesn't matter to you.
nastynate 04-02-07, 11:33 AM	...then I'd suggest playing either a generally-accepted "weak" character (using hexblade as a tank maybe?) and souping it up to be useful or a party support character and using the "powergamer skills" to make everybody better (a bard?). Someone mentioned playing something with the ability to kick butt six ways to Sunday, but holding back; I don't know if I agree with this, because there's the good possibility that your group will feel betrayed by this, since about the third time you go nova and kill everything to save the party, they might start feeling like you're only toying with them. I totally agree. If you are the lone power-gamer in the group, you are far more likely to keep your friends happy by optimizing a character concept that is underpowered to begin with (marshal, bard, soulknife, etc), and using your optimization-fu to make something worthwhile out of it. Alternately (as I mentioned a number of pages back), you could offer your optimizing services and advice to the other players; maybe a few tips on feat selections, or a particular prestige class, or a simple tactical suggestion (use web and stinking cloud together if you really want to neutralize threats), could bring an otherwise weak character back up to par without compromizing the role-playing concept or sense of ownership people want in their characters. People don't usually want to play the chump of the party, but it isn't necessarily your responsibility to dumb-down your build to make the other suboptimal characters feel relevant. Unless you have a proven track record for disrespecting the other players (which is entirely possible, if you have been a rampaging cheese munchkin), they should be expected to find a middle ground with you, rather than taking a stance of majority-rule. (Sometimes even democracy isn't fair for all parties involved; it's only fair if nobody walks away feeling like they got a raw deal.) Making a really potent character and holding back until the last moment is totally condecending. Once the other players realize that they are only able to contribute because you allow them to, they will not be pleased. That isn't really cooperation or compromise; that's just doing the same thing in a sneakier way. You won't win allies by deceiving people. I would never recommend this course of action as a solution; this is exponentially worse behavior than just being an honest optimizer from the get-go. If you truly believe that your optimizing play-style is not wrong, you shouldn't have to hide what you are doing from the other players. I... I don't have to tell you how many times racists/sexists/worse have used that exact argument, do I? For Pete's sake, man... See. Comus gets it. Nothing you can say justifies slandering a person or making negative generalizations about others based upon your experiences with somebody else. It doesn't matter that you don't actually mean it as a personal insult if others are still insulted by it. That's why we don't toss around the N-word like ignorant bumpkins...even in jest, ignorance, or without malice someone will take it personally. And without data, your guesses are worth nothing. Even with supporting data (which Daydreamer lacks) assertions such as this are worth nothing. I don't think racial profiling by the police or the CIA (supported by statistics) is justified either. People should be assumed innocent until proven guilty, regardless of statistical evidence or superfluous similarities to others. Without statistical evidence or supporting data these guesses are worth nothing and ignorant. Perhaps your an exception. Chocolate and vanilla arent good or bad, they are good if you like them not otherwise. NOw in real life i do like both lol, but in d&d i only like vanilla. I have nothing against people who like chocolate, but since d&d is a group game, i dont like it when people try to put chocolate into my vanilla! For the last time...I am not an exception. It's not OK for you to state that people who like chocolate generally don't like vanilla, but perhaps you're an exception. That's faulty logic based on your personal preferances and dislikes. Making a possible exception for me doesn't make your logic sound; it just makes your stance look shaky.
Tyraxus 04-02-07, 12:00 PM	(Sometimes even democracy isn't fair for all parties involved; it's only fair if nobody walks away feeling like they got a raw deal.) Democracy is never fair for all parties involved; true democracy is simply the majority getting 100% of what they want, and the minority getting 0% (don't belive me? Look at the US Congress). That's why I prefer systems with lots of choices, because then you at least have to compromise to get a majority, in the style of the British Parliament. Making a really potent character and holding back until the last moment is totally condecending. Once the other players realize that they are only able to contribute because you allow them to, they will not be pleased. That isn't really cooperation or compromise; that's just doing the same thing in a sneakier way. You won't win allies by deceiving people. I would never recommend this course of action as a solution; this is exponentially worse behavior than just being an honest optimizer from the get-go. If you truly believe that your optimizing play-style is not wrong, you shouldn't have to hide what you are doing from the other players. You said that soooooo much better than I did, or even could have. I and my lack of explantory skills thank you. Alternately (as I mentioned a number of pages back), you could offer your optimizing services and advice to the other players; maybe a few tips on feat selections, or a particular prestige class, or a simple tactical suggestion (use web and stinking cloud together if you really want to neutralize threats), could bring an otherwise weak character back up to par without compromizing the role-playing concept or sense of ownership people want in their characters. That sounds like what the OP did, though, with his "Maybe you could pick up a couple of levels of fighter," bit. The thing is, sometimes people don't want to listen, and if they're ticked at you to start with ("$^%# powergamer breaking the game!!!") then they're probably not going to see constructive advice as advice, but attempts to dictate or meddle. It's a basic human response to get defensive when someone you don't like is saying "Why don't you...?" See. Comus gets it. Nothing you can say justifies slandering a person or making negative generalizations about others based upon your experiences with somebody else. It doesn't matter that you don't actually mean it as a personal insult if others are still insulted by it. I dunno, I tend to fall on the other side: if you're going to say something, then just out and say it, don't pussyfoot around the issue with PC BS. If someone's insulted by what you have to say, well, you can (and should!) open a dialogue about it, but I don't think you ought to not say something you believe because "Oh, it might hurt somebody's feelings." PC crap like that does nothing more than have a chilling effect on speech and expression, and while it might make for a more nicey-nice environment, it's a mere step away from Orwellian groupthink. Doesn't mean what somebody says is right or should go unchallenged (open dialogue, remember! Communication is key!) but they should be able to say it. </rant>
Daydreamer 04-02-07, 12:12 PM	I still dont get the analogy with real life racism by comparing my preferance for gaming. The reason i dont like to play with power gamers is not because my experience with them is that they dont roleplay well in general-even if one was an excellent roleplayer, i wouldnt want to play with them-its the stlye of play that i dont like and this is why i don't game with them.These are two seperate points entirely. Secondly someone commented on my lack of compromise, and i agree entirely! My entire group views the game the way i do, none of us have to compromise the way we play when we game with each other-which is what makes it so fantastic. If the only groups around were power gamers id compromise, or more likely, just not play d&d at all. Commenting about stlyes of play is quite different than commenting about issues of human identity. On an issue like this 'reality' is a matter of preference and we merely like different things.
nastynate 04-02-07, 12:43 PM	I dunno, I tend to fall on the other side: if you're going to say something, then just out and say it, don't pussyfoot around the issue with PC BS. If someone's insulted by what you have to say, well, you can (and should!) open a dialogue about it, but I don't think you ought to not say something you believe because "Oh, it might hurt somebody's feelings." PC crap like that does nothing more than have a chilling effect on speech and expression, and while it might make for a more nicey-nice environment, it's a mere step away from Orwellian groupthink. Doesn't mean what somebody says is right or should go unchallenged (open dialogue, remember! Communication is key!) but they should be able to say it. I feel the same way actually. I'm just pulling teeth here. While I disagree with some of the things Daydreamer has said, I'm trying to get him to just say them instead of trying to be politically correct. If he really felt the things he said were justified and true, he would just flat-out say them. Optimizers don't role-play. Optimizers need to justify their actions. Optimizers have no place in my games. If he makes acceptions for me or anyone else, then his statements have no conviction. While my belief that optimizer's can role-play needs no such exception to retain its validity. I am totally behind my statement with 100% certainty, so if he wants to refute that he had better be equally as certain. Otherwise Daydreamer's not actually making a point at all. I still dont get the analogy with real life racism by comparing my preferance for gaming. Well I think I spelled it out pretty clearly. When you compared optimizers to double talking lawyers, and stated that the "justification" (as if it were needed at all) for their builds was full of holes, you made your opinion about us quite clear. I say that your opinion is as unfounded as any other form of ignorance and prejudice. If you don't understand why name-calling is bad, I can't help you; you should already know that by now. The reason i dont like to play with power gamers is not because my experience with them is that they dont roleplay well in general-even if one was an excellent roleplayer, i wouldnt want to play with them-its the stlye of play that i dont like and this is why i don't game with them.These are two seperate points entirely. If you won't stand behind your insults, then you should have never brought them up. Since you continue to make fallacious statements like the one in bold above, you had better be prepared for the backlash. That is a personal insult to anyone who does optimize. I haven't said that most people dedicated to role-playing can't build a competent character. Perhaps if I repeated this fallacious statement over...and over...and over, you might see how rediculous you sound. I've never contended your right to like a certain playstyle, and I haven't once questioned that. Your second point is received, understood, and agreed upon. Secondly someone commented on my lack of compromise, and i agree entirely! My entire group views the game the way i do, none of us have to compromise the way we play when we game with each other-which is what makes it so fantastic. If the only groups around were power gamers id compromise, or more likely, just not play d&d at all. You are in an ideal situation then. You never have to compromise your stance, no matter how faulty it is, because it will never come up at your gaming table. Unfortunately on the boards there are people of a different mindset, and we don't agree with you. Commenting about stlyes of play is quite different than commenting about issues of human identity. On an issue like this 'reality' is a matter of preference and we merely like different things. You're driving me nuts! your playstyle is fine. there is nothing wrong with it. Your ignorant generalizations about people you don't know are not fine. Stop insulting me, my play style, and people like me, and I'll back off.
Daydreamer 04-02-07, 02:08 PM	Convient bolding of the quote from me, once again i said in my experience they have not roleplayed well, i didnt comment about them in general. The reason i dont like powergamers is because they power game, not because they cant roleplay (not like in the sense of not like to play d&d with some are perfectly nice people). I also dont like people who cant roleplay-some people dont power game and also cant roleplay, i dont like them either. And if someone powergames and cant roleplay then they really are people i dont like to play with. Maybe we have to agree to disagree. I understand your comments about 'generalizations' i just dont think they fit the analogy of racism-if i made a comment on the way certain basketball teams tend to play basketball being a way i dont like would we accuse this as being analogous of racism? I see that as being a more fit analogy. Like-the timberwolves tend to be selfish with the ball and while they have individual talent there team struggles as a whole. Generalizations are made all the time on a wide variety of issues-it is the common platform of disciplines like psychiatry and sociology-but not all generilizations provide an analogy with racism though they might seem like it in logical structure they are not in content. In fact i could accuse you of making generalizations of people who generlize. Secondaly regarding your comments on 'justification'-i was trying to draw a distinction. I'll be more clear. You don't need to justify how you game or play-ie if you power game. But if your claiming to roleplay then you require a justification for the decisions your character makes-because roleplaying by definition requires motives(justifications) for your characters actions. Now, you probably know people who provide such justifications that are really a cover for mechanical motives and allow them to keep the facade of roleplaying-irregardless of whether power gamers tend to or not. This is the sense in which i mean justification-not how you choose to play. And what i have noticed with alot of power gamers is this facade-and id make an emperical claim that this is true in general. I could be wrong about such a claim neither one of us has substantial data, but i can reiterate that ive gamed with literally hundreds of players and in different countries ( i used to live in Ireland and england) and ive gamed for about 15 years, its not shallow but broad personal experience i have. I know for a fact some power gamers are excellent roleplayers two of the best ive ever met were power gamers, and nice people as well. I still would rather not game with them. NOt wanting to play with power gamers has NOTHING to do with roleplaying, I dont like to play with power gamers because they powergame, i dont like to play with people who cant roleplay because they cant roleplay, and i really dont like to game with people who cant roleplay and powergame-which from what ive seen goes together alot.
Comus 04-02-07, 02:30 PM	Now, Daydreamer, I want you to replace the term "powergamers" with, say, "black people" or "Roman Catholics". It doesn't change what you're saying at all, just points towards a different group. Yet it instantly becomes offensive, doesn't it? Well, to powergamers its already offensive. Do you see yet?
Daydreamer 04-02-07, 02:36 PM	I see that when you translate gaming terms into issues of real life human identity you get a misunderstanding. My arguments have the logical form of something problematic, not the content. Try this replacement, I was quoted on the paragraph below earlier in the thread. Lets try the type of changes i think provide an analogy. " I am refering to my gaming experience with 'the timberwolves', and i was attempting to explain our (that is 'the spurs') mindset to the 'the timberwolves'. That often times even the 'timberwolves' who do roleplay ('have game') have this pjeroative feel about them. Once again, ive met a handful (2) specifically in my 14 years of playing that i would consider good roleplayers (gamers) who were 'from the timberwolves', so i know its not a law. " Following your guys analogy EVERY sports coach ever was a racist-THEY ALL make generlizations about how teams play etc, they HAVE TO DO this in order to be efficient wiht organizing the type of teams they want and can coach. Heck i even heard Pat riley make a comment on tv that was basically exactly what i quoted here when refering to some teams he coached in the past. Now this analogy refers to a real life team that hasnt actually been bad for fourteen years, but if it was problematic for this length of time then it would be accurate.
nastynate 04-02-07, 03:07 PM	I see that when you translate gaming terms into issues of real life human identity you get a misunderstanding. My arguments have the logical form of something problematic, not the content. We are talking about real life human identity. I am an optimizer. I enjoy making powerful characters with interesting mechanical interactions. This is part of my identity, and one of my defining characteristics as a D&D player. Try this replacement, I was quoted on the paragraph below earlier in the thread. Lets try the type of changes i think provide an analogy. Go for it. "I am refering to my gaming experience with 'the timberwolves', and i was attempting to explain our (that is 'the spurs') mindset to the 'the timberwolves'. That often times even the 'timberwolves' who do roleplay ('have game') have this pjeroative feel about them. Once again, ive met a handful (2) specifically in my 14 years of playing that i would consider good roleplayers (gamers) who were 'from the timberwolves', so i know its not a law." Would this be offensive if you were a Timberwolf? YES! Following your guys analogy EVERY sports coach ever was a racist-THEY ALL make generlizations about how teams play etc, they HAVE TO DO this in order to be efficient wiht organizing the type of teams they want and can coach. Heck i even heard Pat riley make a comment on tv that was basically exactly what i quoted here when refering to some teams he coached in the past. Now this analogy refers to a real life team that hasnt actually been bad for fourteen years, but if it was problematic for this length of time then it would be accurate. They know who they are talking about. You don't. Generalizations made without negative connotation or slander are simple human nature. Generalizations made for strategic purposes (aka winning a basketball game, after studying film, playing against the opponent, and making a judgement about their strategy) help you win. You have not met me, studied my playstyle, played with me, or been paid to defeat me in D&D. So what's your motivation for insulting me? You don't win a debate by trash talking. So Pat Riley has called out some people? Who cares? At least Pat Riley knows something about the people he's talking about. When the goal is not cooperative (Pat Riley doesn't care if the opponent doesn't like him), there is little reason to make nice. He gets paid to win, not to make friends. You on the other hand, have no reason not be nice. Nor do you have the same kind of information about the people you are passing judgement on that Coach Riley has on the players of the NBA. The only thing you gain by making insulting comments about optmizers is the satisfaction of making other people feel bad. Bravo. Job well done. I can't believe you cannot understand this. Do I have to hurl mud back for this to sink in, because I'm not going to sink to that level. Take the blinders off and realize that you have been insulting me and people like me...I don't care if you don't see it that way, because you don't get to decide if I'm insulted...I DO
Daydreamer 04-02-07, 03:22 PM	You can hurl mud back all you want, d&d represents a negliblble part of my self identity and i probably wouldnt care. yes the timberwolves would be offended, thats not my point, my point is its not racist. A persons identity as a player-or gamer-can be called out. Yes i dont have acess to the stats pat riley has so of course my judgements are more likely to be in error-but what im making is a claim that is either true or false, and if false, then im merely wrong, not racist. We disagree on a matter of fact here, about which neither one of us has ultimate proof to reference. I never claimed to be talking about you, in fact i specifically said i can't, so i dont know what you mean when you say this. If you mean im talking about powergamers in general-your not a powergamer in general your you specifically. Besides there is nothing wrong with people who don't roleplay-some groups i know dont even really like roleplaying they just like grinding combat games and roleplaying is an inconvience. As long as everyone at the table wants this and has fun theres nothing wrong with that. There is nothing inherently pjorative in saying someone doesnt roleplay, just like there is nothing inherently pjorative in saying someone doesn't powergame. roleplaying like powergaming, is an aspect of the game one can like-or not. Some people, (apparently like yourself) enjoy both- i enjoy just the former. And i suspect most people tend to favor one or the other. (this isnt black and white after all almost everyone will have some mix of this). Its true we are not involved in a competition, or paid millions, or for that matter are we involved in co operation. WE have no gaming interaction whatsoever. You are trying to drag my comments into representing my attitudes-which in the manner you seem to be discussing them, they simply dont. I could care less about how other people play the game, and when i say most power gamers i know dont roleplay, i dont think less of them for that, anymore than you think less of most roleplayers who don't power game. Its how they want to play-good for them. But i still have noticed a tendency, about which the worst that can be said is that i am simply wrong, at which point i would go 'oh well- i guess power gamers are good/bad roleplayers just as frequently as the rest of us.' And i still wouldnt game with them, just like some people dont like to game with psionics-its just not my cup of tea. My attitudes don't go any deeper than that on the subject.
Cael 04-02-07, 04:00 PM	If every power gamer you meet is a bad role player its not a bad bet to say the next one will be. When i hear the word power gamer referenced to someone i expect to meet a bad power roleplayer, though as mentioned i know exceptions. My point about power gaming is more analogous to how people feel about psionics. Some people just dont like the flavor of it, others do. I dont like the flavor of powergaming-or optomizing ( in an extreme sense). Irregardless of whether the person is a good role player or not. ONce again, you wont be road kill if the dm challenges you correctly. That halfing fighter, half orc wizard, dwarf bard, elf barbarian group is just fine without optimization if the dm tailors the encounters. I call male bovine feacal matter. Why is it that the drama queens *always* insist that the optimiser be inserted into a drama queen group and would therefore wreak the dynamics, and yet, when talking about themselves, the drama queens are always inserted into a drama queen group and never into an optimised group? Is it because that would show the world that a drama queen in an optimised group is just as disruptive as an optimiser in a drama queen group? Look, drama queens, time to be fair. Either insert the drama queen into an optimised group and the optimiser into a drama queen group, or compare either to a normal group. In my opinion, the drama queen would be more disruptive. So the optimiser is good at a couple of things, so what? Any DM worth his salt can cope with that. The drama queen, on the other hand, would demand the DM's attention and invariably, it becomes a one-on-one session between them, while the other players just jump in when there is a fight or some other situation requiring dice rolls that the drama queen would just really suck at.
Daydreamer 04-02-07, 04:05 PM	I suppose this guy doesnt help your case nastynate with the drama queen comments. Lol though pretty funny though. No Cael, my group doesnt have drama bc we all enjoy the same version of the game, and your right sometimes people who dont power game can be disruptive in a game were that is the norm. Other times it doesnt matter power gamer in a roleplaying group and roleplayer in a power game group bc nobody cares. I suspect the amount of disruption is proportional to the attitudes of the people playing and not which fish is out of water. Play the game you want with people who play the way you like and drama doesnt happen. if you dont have that option some amount of compromise is necessary or one can stop playing. thats basically it :P
Comus 04-02-07, 04:18 PM	yes the timberwolves would be offended, thats not my point, my point is its not racist. A persons identity as a player-or gamer-can be called out. Yes i dont have acess to the stats pat riley has so of course my judgements are more likely to be in error-but what im making is a claim that is either true or false, and if false, then im merely wrong, not racist. We disagree on a matter of fact here, about which neither one of us has ultimate proof to reference. Okay. I can see you really need this spelled out for you. WE AREN'T SAYING YOU'RE RACIST. WE ARE COMPARING YOUR IRRATIONAL DISLIKE OF POWERGAMERS FOR THE IRRATIONAL DISLIKE RACISTS HAVE. I am doing everything in my power not to flame you, but frankly I am reaching my limit. Please try to get a clue.
Kobold_Avenger 04-02-07, 04:19 PM	Actually, character creation is inherent metagaming. It's necessary metagaming, but metagaming nonetheless. Character advancement is also metagaming, so are character classes, feats, skills. If you want to avoid all metagaming, never play an RPG. Real life is about as good as it will get for you. Quoted for truth
Daydreamer 04-02-07, 04:49 PM	Okay. I can see you really need this spelled out for you. WE AREN'T SAYING YOU'RE RACIST. WE ARE COMPARING YOUR IRRATIONAL DISLIKE OF POWERGAMERS FOR THE IRRATIONAL DISLIKE RACISTS HAVE. I am doing everything in my power not to flame you, but frankly I am reaching my limit. Please try to get a clue. First off, im pretty sure it did get directly equivocated with racism by some comments like "I say that your opinion is as unfounded as any other form of ignorance and prejudice". This comment leads naturally to the conclusion i reached and others are more explicit, so if i formed that conclusion it seems pretty obvious why. Secondly-what irrational dislike? i dont dislike power gamers, i dislike power gaming. I presume you wouldnt like the style of game i play, is this irrational? I think you guys are trying to polarize or make my opinions more radical and complex than they are. Also, i could be wrong but i detect a hint of aggitation, whereas for me this discussion is a matter of indifference-not that i dont value your insights, i just dont find it any way aggravating.
Tyraxus 04-02-07, 04:54 PM	I suppose this guy doesnt help your case nastynate with the drama queen comments. Lol though pretty funny though. Many in the RP-first camp call us "munchkins" and "twinks," while using terms like "powergamer" and "optomizer" as slurs and epithets. You may not use as many words, but the same feeling is there, so why should we not fight back? For the record, I'm an actor by hobby, and I'm told I'm a pretty good one, so I can roleplay quite well, thanks, and could probably be better than a lot of people you game with if I wanted to. But just like "powergaming," I don't always feel the need to get in-character to play a game. But the point is that a lot of RP-first guys, both that I've played with and here on the boards, fit the "drama queen" label far better than the "powergamers" fit the "can't RP" label, and many of the "RPers" have just as much drama queen tendencies as the gay actors I've worked with (nothing on them, they're great guys, but you wouldn't believe some of the stuff they'd pitch a hissy fit over). It's fallacy out the wazoo, and it's not scientific, but since that's what you're arguing from, there you go. Also, i could be wrong but i detect a hint of aggitation, whereas for me this discussion is a matter of indifference-not that i dont value your insights, i just dont find it any way aggravating. You're not forced to defend your preferred playstyle as often as we are. Hell, we're forced to formalize a fallacy defending ourselves, is it any wonder we get uppity when someone commits it over and over?
Daydreamer 04-02-07, 04:58 PM	On the contrary i would agree. Many 'roleplayers' are in fact just that, drama queens. In fact while i dont like playing with any power gamers, i also dont like playing with most roleplayers-for exactly the reason you outlined. I would say that quite often roleplayers are drama queens-which is why i found his comment funny. Though just like power gamers, its not a law. I would exempt my group from this, we have essentially nothing that would evoke images of drama queen to mind. When i join a game i play by the conventions of that game, if i dont like it, i talk to people reasonably, if they dont want to or simply don't change i leave, without moaning or complaining. Over time i got in with like minded individuals and the past few years of gaming have been quite nice. As for your comments on fighting back, i wasnt sure we were in a fight at all. I dont feel like im in one. But with all the comments on generilizations going around i though it was funny when that guy blurted in with the drama queen comments. I really couldn't care less what his perceptions of roleplayers in general is like-i know the kind of gamer i am and like the kind of game i run.
Cardinal Teplin 04-02-07, 05:09 PM	I can't believe you cannot understand this. Do I have to hurl mud back for this to sink in, because I'm not going to sink to that level. Take the blinders off and realize that you have been insulting me and people like me...I don't care if you don't see it that way, because you don't get to decide if I'm insulted...I DO I don't understand it either I'm afraid. Nastynate, I really don't think you're making sense here.
Comus 04-02-07, 05:17 PM	First off, im pretty sure it did get directly equivocated with racism by some comments like "I say that your opinion is as unfounded as any other form of ignorance and prejudice". This comment leads naturally to the conclusion i reached and others are more explicit, so if i formed that conclusion it seems pretty obvious why. Argh. You are so dense I could compare you to a neutron star. You do not understand the difference between comparing one irrational dislike (racism) to your own... and saying you're a racist. Great. I'll try to use small words. "Quality A, which is known to be bad, is similar to Quality B, which you have." /= "You have Quality B." Do you understand now? Will you ever? The world may never know. Secondly-what irrational dislike? i dont dislike power gamers, i dislike power gaming. I presume you wouldnt like the style of game i play, is this irrational? You dislike power gaming. And power gamers. You've said so yourself, back in post #351. "The reason i dont like powergamers..." Besides, every time you say "I dislike power gaming", you're saying "I dislike powergamers", because what is a powergamer? Someone who powergames. Hell, man, you've said yourself that you'd never even consider being in a D&D game with anyone who power games, even if they're a great roleplayer! THAT IS WHAT I CALL IRRATIONAL HATRED. I think you guys are trying to polarize or make my opinions more radical and complex than they are. Also, i could be wrong but i detect a hint of aggitation, whereas for me this discussion is a matter of indifference-not that i dont value your insights, i just dont find it any way aggravating. Your opinions aren't radical or complex. They're very simple. You know who else had simple reasons? Hitler. That's right. I Godwinned the thread. DISCUSSION OVER. EVERYONE LOSES.
Daydreamer 04-02-07, 05:25 PM	Actually my eqovication on that matter was quite natural-because your posts are compatible with both interpretations. I suspect many people reading the boards might have felt that is what i was being accused of. So while you intended A, your statements were compatible with both A and B. Now that youve clarified your original point i understand what you meant to say. That you believe my dislike of power gaming parrellels racism in terms of being irrational-not in terms of the content of my belief being racist or not. I disagree that it is irrational ( or that its rational) its an arbitrary preference either way. It is not more rational to be ok with power gaming or not. My dislike of power gaming doesnt come from bad experiences with power gamers, it comes from my not liking that flavour of game. SEcondly, my approach to this dialogue has been casual because it really doesn't matter to me, this discussion is merely entertaining. That is to say i have not always been exact in expressing my meaning-and when i said i dislike powergamers, i should have said, i dont like playing with power gamers. I have friends who like power gaming for what its worth, we get along in real life, we just dont game together. I have no desire to form any sort of "power gamer concentration camps" i assure you. (hmm i wonder where my racist interpretations came from :rolleyes: ). Heck, i dont even think saying someone doesn't roleplay is an insult, the same as (i presume) you guys dont think saying someone doesn't power game is an insult. Its just one more way of playing. If you feel ive made an error in my suspected conclusion about most power gamers-you could well be right-but who cares its not like my opinions impact the games of anyone else. I am not trying to put forward any normative notion at all, but merely the observation that most internal conflicts in games arise from disagreements over how the game should be played, and that my solution was to find people who enjoyed the same style of game as me. I presume you would like to play in a group of like minded players ( or do already enjoy this).
Cardinal Teplin 04-02-07, 06:04 PM	Many in the RP-first camp call us "munchkins" and "twinks," while using terms like "powergamer" and "optomizer" as slurs and epithets. You may not use as many words, but the same feeling is there, so why should we not fight back? Well, for one, you can either be like the people you dislike, or you can be different to them. You can't both look down on them and immitate them all at the same time. For the record, I'm an actor by hobby, and I'm told I'm a pretty good one, so I can roleplay quite well, thanks, and could probably be better than a lot of people you game with if I wanted to. That doesn't really follow. I know plenty of actors, some of them are good roleplayers, some of them aren't particularly. I'm an actor by hobby myself. It's fallacy out the wazoo, and it's not scientific, but since that's what you're arguing from, there you go. Personal experience is all any of us have to go by. If you have a scientific experiment to recommend, by all means go right ahead. He's merely expressing an opinion. You may of course disagree, but it certainly isn't a fallacy. You're not forced to defend your preferred playstyle as often as we are. How would you know? Or are we talking personal experience again? Hell, we're forced to formalize a fallacy defending ourselves, is it any wonder we get uppity when someone commits it over and over? The so-called fallacy doesn't really work, unfortunately. Just because there is no _necessary_ connection between powergaming and roleplaying, doesn't mean they have no influence on eachother. Maybe we should try formulating this another way. If there was a form or aspect of roleplaying that was incompatible with any kind of powergaming, would you necessarily know? If there was a particular form of powergaming that was compatible with all forms of roleplaying, would you necessarily know? People are talking about fallacious reasoning, prejudice, and so on, but I don't feel that any of this is justified. There is no way that you can prove that two people share the same experience of powergaming or roleplaying, even if they're on the same table. All I can suggest is to try the preferences of eachother. Try optimsiing a character and see if it does hold back your roleplaying. Try basing a character build entirely on character and personality criteria without reference to optimisation and see what happens. And of course you'd need a suitable group for each. And most importantly of all, if one works for you, or doesn't work for you, realise that the same doesn't necessarily hold true of other people.
Daydreamer 04-02-07, 06:17 PM	This illustrates alot of my points cardinel, thank you. For what its worth ive tried on the power gamer hat a few times. Its just not me :P
Cael 04-02-07, 08:59 PM	I suppose this guy doesnt help your case nastynate with the drama queen comments. Lol though pretty funny though. No Cael, my group doesnt have drama bc we all enjoy the same version of the game, and your right sometimes people who dont power game can be disruptive in a game were that is the norm. Other times it doesnt matter power gamer in a roleplaying group and roleplayer in a power game group bc nobody cares. I suspect the amount of disruption is proportional to the attitudes of the people playing and not which fish is out of water. Play the game you want with people who play the way you like and drama doesnt happen. if you dont have that option some amount of compromise is necessary or one can stop playing. thats basically it :P Way to go misinterpreting the point of my previous post. I wonder if that is deliberate, a case of "neener-neener, I am not listening, la la la la la la la!", or did you truly not get what I was trying to say, trivially simple though it was...
Daydreamer 04-02-07, 09:14 PM	If you read my comments in the following posts you would note i was pointing this out as a piece of sarcasm. :p
Tyraxus 04-02-07, 10:06 PM	Well, for one, you can either be like the people you dislike, or you can be different to them. You can't both look down on them and immitate them all at the same time. Or, you know, NOT look down on people who play differently than myself. I don't look down on RPers, if they're having fun more power to them. If I've got one in the game I'm playing in, more power to him. That doesn't really follow. I know plenty of actors, some of them are good roleplayers, some of them aren't particularly. I'm an actor by hobby myself. Then you've either a different definition of roleplaying or a couple of bad actors. Because after all, acting is merely playing a role, so a good actor will BY DEFINITION be a good roleplayer, barring wit (which I have a sad lack of, limiting my RP abilities). Personal experience is all any of us have to go by. If you have a scientific experiment to recommend, by all means go right ahead. He's merely expressing an opinion. You may of course disagree, but it certainly isn't a fallacy. My point was that it's a fallacy to say "In my experience, all X are Y, so all X are Y," because people's experiences are not a scientific or statistically valid sample. You're right, that's all any of us have to go by, and that was what I was saying. How would you know? Or are we talking personal experience again? Indeed, although I have been lucky enough to not run into said prejudices in my groups, but rather here on these forums. But I will note that I have never noted a "powergamer" attacking an "RPer" for his playstyle unless he was attacked by an RPer first, though I've never really looked too deeply. The so-called fallacy doesn't really work, unfortunately. Just because there is no _necessary_ connection between powergaming and roleplaying, doesn't mean they have no influence on eachother. Of course it works, it's a straight-out-of-the-textbook application of the false dichotomy logical fallacy. It's been restated for the context, or re-flavoured if you will, but the premise is the same: the two (mechanical power and roelplaying potential) are not mutually exclusive; there exist other possibilities, namely being good at both and being good at neither. All I can suggest is to try the preferences of eachother. Try optimsiing a character and see if it does hold back your roleplaying. Try basing a character build entirely on character and personality criteria without reference to optimisation and see what happens. And of course you'd need a suitable group for each. I already have. I built a backstory for a pirate, fully fleshed out who he was including several pages of backstory, motivations, beliefs, etc., and then built him. He turned out pretty good, and was decently optomized at killing hordes of small creatures (killing six enemies in one round at level 8 is pretty good, especially for my third ever game). Meanwhile, I've tricked out a Warblade/Swordsage named Tydeus Antarus, built and fleshed out a backstory for him, and played him as the evil version of Jackie Chan (think Jackie Chan meets James Bond meets the Terminator: a nimble, agile assassin with a license to kill, no conscience, and utterly unstoppable); played him well enough that one of the guys told me he dreamed about Tydeus the night after our session (and I might still be banned from playing anything evil, he freaked everybody out so much). The character had come alive, and he started out nothing more than a group of numbers on the page and a "what-if" mechanics concept.
Daydreamer 04-02-07, 10:40 PM	Despite being accused of it i dont actually look down on powergamers. Or consider the way they play to be worse or better, just different, ive said this explicitely many times. I also didnt say in my experience x is y, therefore all x is y. I said in my experience most x is y, and im guessing that most x would be y in general-but i could be wrong. I think perhaps you guys are used to people commenting on bieng rpers and therfore looking down on powergamers, or people saying that in there xp x is y therefore all x is y, and therefore when you hear something similar being said here you come to that conclusion. But neither of those statements is an accurate reflection of what ive said here, or what i think. So if that is the only reason why you have a problem with me, then there is no problem.
OHPLEASE 04-02-07, 10:45 PM	Nothing is wrong with powergaming. I have had a few in my games. I have one player now, although I would not say he is a powergamer, that plans out six to seven levels ahead of time. I don't see that as taking away from the game. I see that as adding variety to it. Now if you were a self-appointed co-DM there would be a problem. As long as after you make your builds you "roleplay' your character and don't indulge in metagaming I think powergaming is fine. Nothing wrong with wanting a powerful character, as long as you are willing to work in-game to do it. I had one guy that we booted from the game, by making him not want to show up(If any DMs want the secret PM me. It works like a charm.). He wanted power handed to him on a silver platter. He would come to me with dumb ideas like "You know what would be cool? To start the game off as gods." Then he would sit there looking at me expecting me to give him the green light to start playing the equivalent of Marvel Super Heroes in my D&D game. He did not last long. -O.P.
Cael 04-03-07, 03:52 PM	If you read my comments in the following posts you would note i was pointing this out as a piece of sarcasm. :p Way to go avoiding the issue once again. Please address the charges brought against you, that of an unfair comparison, one that is and has been committed by every drama queen out there, including you: Why is it that it is always a single optimiser in a group of drama queens, but when the tables are turned (as it inevitably will be, since the drama queens usually have as much a leg to stand on as the white supremacist skinheads' views on racial matters), it is always a drama queen in a group of drama queen, never a drama queen in a group of optimisers? Heck, I am tempted to call this Cael's Law of L33ter "Logic" (in reference to a term coined by someone that, sadly, doesn't seem to be posting here any more). Not a fallacy, but a Law. It just happens that often and under such replicable terms.
Cael 04-03-07, 03:57 PM	Despite being accused of it i dont actually look down on powergamers. Or consider the way they play to be worse or better, just different, ive said this explicitely many times. I also didnt say in my experience x is y, therefore all x is y. I said in my experience most x is y, and im guessing that most x would be y in general-but i could be wrong. I think perhaps you guys are used to people commenting on bieng rpers and therfore looking down on powergamers, or people saying that in there xp x is y therefore all x is y, and therefore when you hear something similar being said here you come to that conclusion. But neither of those statements is an accurate reflection of what ive said here, or what i think. So if that is the only reason why you have a problem with me, then there is no problem. Sure you don't... http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=11919283&postcount=282 I am sure you will just pooh-pooh his analysis away, but let us just say he isn't the only one seeing your condescension towards optimisers. When a group says that something is wrong with someone, and that lone someone say he is right, generally and statistically speaking, the group is correct.
Daydreamer 04-03-07, 04:09 PM	Way to go avoiding the issue once again. Please address the charges brought against you, that of an unfair comparison, one that is and has been committed by every drama queen out there, including you: Why is it that it is always a single optimiser in a group of drama queens, but when the tables are turned (as it inevitably will be, since the drama queens usually have as much a leg to stand on as the white supremacist skinheads' views on racial matters), it is always a drama queen in a group of drama queen, never a drama queen in a group of optimisers? Heck, I am tempted to call this Cael's Law of L33ter "Logic" (in reference to a term coined by someone that, sadly, doesn't seem to be posting here any more). Not a fallacy, but a Law. Ok.... ill try to address the issue which i already have if your read my post. Your question why is it always a 'drama queen' in a group of 'drama queens' never a 'drama queen' in a group of 'optomisers'. Now, this doesnt seem like the issue that was being discussed here at all. Btw nice piece with the skinhead comparison. So here goes, ill have my 'thesis' in simple terms, so you can understand. 1. There is no better/worse way to play. 2. This includes whether one power games or not, or whether ones a good roleplayer or not. AS long as people in the group have fun. 3. Most conflicts in the game arise from internal people in the group having competing visions of how the game should be run. 4. the best way, if the situation allows, to avoid such conflict is to find people who have as close as possible to you a conceoption of how the game should be run and play with them. 5. People have the right to choose who they play with. 6. Since i dont like power gaming at all, i play with people who dont like power gaming at all. We- and our dm- have more fun this way. YOu can power game all you want, i really dont care or think less of you for it man-so stop saying i do, when i clearly dont...i actually wonder if youve even read my posts. Also, im not sure about the group usually being right. Consider this quote by Nietzsche 'madness is rare in individuals, but in nations, groups, religions, orginzations it is the norm". Regardless i still dont care about power gamers and this is something i know for a fact, its not even a debate. AT this stage youve come down to telling me how i feel. Besides, lets be honest about being condescending-making a skinhead comment-then calling us drama queens-then saying why dont u just pooh pooh his analysis away...i mean man show some consistancy! If being condescending is a problem-then youve got more to worry about than me. And ill try to make sense of your last question about the drama queens in optomiser groups. I do know situations like this actually-and sometimes they cause as much disruption as the power gamers in a 'drama queen' group. Sometimes the power gamers help them out or they just dont care, and if nobody cares about the situation obviously there is no problem. Thats about as much sense as i can make of your question.
Ventilatory_Threshold 04-03-07, 04:09 PM	Well, for one, you can either be like the people you dislike, or you can be different to them. You can't both look down on them and immitate them all at the same time. Of course he can. It just makes him a hypocrite. Hypocrisy doesn't bother me, though, as I frequently am guilty of it myself. For the record: I'm in the "Play-however-the-****-You-Want" camp. I also agree with Comus if what he meant what I think he meant: Those who bash optimizers, min-maxers and powergamers show symptoms similar to those of racists (D&D nazis?). They even have slurs for them (munchkins and twinks, and the gratuitous use of 'powergamer' and 'min-maxer' in a derogatory manner). Weak, dudes, seriously weak.
Gemstone 04-03-07, 04:31 PM	Forget this.. wrong post
Ventilatory_Threshold 04-03-07, 05:01 PM	As Gemstone said something he didn't intend, it's only fair that I delete my post.
Daydreamer 04-03-07, 05:25 PM	Ok, Ventilatory_Threshold. I entered this thread in response to a post by you. I went back and read every post from page 8 onwards-which is when i started taking turns talking in this thread. Ive noticed that my posts from the very start having been stating what im stating now, that there is no normative (ie, right or wrong ) way to play D&D. I say as much in my first post. What i was actually defending was my perception of such normative claims by you. Such as the following That article about PrCs being at the DM's discretion is as outdated as the guidelines for balancing stats. PrCs have become an integral part of the game, and nearly all supplements include at least one or two. It's assumed that players want to PrC out, and the people that cling to the DMG to justify their position smack of reactionism as far as I'm concerned. Sorry about the personal attack, if you disagree with reactionist policies, but these "justifications" are really starting to annoy me. Its interesting you would later comment on what you percieved as peronsal attacks from me, but irregardless, the dm does have the right to ban stuff-it may make him an idiot-in your opinion-but if he finds like minded pcs then there is no problem. This was my original point. What kelvinaw states is effectively the following: Gimping your character is okay because the DM can just make you fight lower-level goblins all the time. This statement is obviously wrong, since 11th level characters are supposed to be able to take on Barbed Devils and Cloud Giants. If they can't then there's sometihng wrong. This statement contains too elements. 1. That making your characters weak means your not able to match up with the cr of monsters and therefore the dm has to tailor every encounter bc your too weak. The dm 'can fix' this but that doesnt make it not a problem. -First off, the opposite is true with power gaming, the dm has to tailor every encounter to make it strong enough to challenge you. -Secondly this implies a normative standard-this isnt a problem with the mechanics-this is people actually not using certain elements of said mechanics to do something different. D&D has balance problems but you cant balance peoples choices to be weaker. You say 'should' this implies a normative standard. The only should is people should play how they want-but this means playing with people who allow them to play how they want. Which is my point All player should be able to handle level-appropriate challenges. If you're throwing Goblins at a party of 3rd-level adventurers, and they still have a hard time beating them, then there's something wrong. Powergaming is supposed to give you an inherent advantage over equal-leveled non-powergamed NPCs. Optimization is supposed to make you competent. Again your saying something is wrong here. Why is it wrong when thats what the pcs and dms want? I noticed that my posts never contained personal attacks-that i am not as you once remarked-facist. That on the contrary from the start ive been the one defending peoples rights to play how they wish and youve been the one putting a normative standard on the game. I encourage you to go back and read for yourself the dicussion over, it gave me some new perspective on the debate. However-this is why i entered the debate-to defend peoples rights to play how they want. Then it turned ironically into me having to defend the fact that i don't like playing with power gamers. YOu cant possibly (i assume) be saying that i should have to play with peoples whos stlye of game i dont like-and if your not saying that then what should i be doing differently? Youve accused me of feeling a certain way about them, but i honestly just dont care if people power game as long as im not in there group. Saying people should be able to play how they want means saying they have the right to play with who they want. You,not me, have been putting forward the normative standards saying ppl should or shouldnt do this. What i would like before we continue-bc im actually wondering what we arguing over now is answers to the following questions. 1. What exactly do you see as the problem with me? 2. What do you think i should do differently? 3. What explicately do you think i am saying?
Gemstone 04-03-07, 05:28 PM	I think this supports Cael's point about some people not appreciating irony. actually, ignore what I said. I kinda misread your entire post -_-. I reread it and realized that I had skipped a sentence or two, so just pretend it never happened
Comus 04-03-07, 06:01 PM	1. What exactly do you see as the problem with me? That you are extremely biased against a certain group of people. Refusing to admit the bias in the face of overwhelming evidence you've presented yourself is another one, but we'll get to that later. 2. What do you think i should do differently? One of two things. Either admit you are biased against powergamers and thus do not have a valid position to argue the pros and cons of powergaming, or stop posting entirely. 3. What explicately do you think i am saying? I think you are saying "Powergamers play the game wrong. I won't admit this or say it out loud, but will instead strongly imply it. After all, the DM can just fix the game and throw the CR system out the window!" By the way, any argument that hinges on the DM 'fixing' the game by discarding the Rules as Written (including the CR system) is a violation of yet another board fallacy. I believe it goes "Something is not balanced just because you can use house rules to balance it." Or something like that. Someone'll bring it up in full in a moment, I expect.
Ventilatory_Threshold 04-03-07, 06:05 PM	Okay, Daydreamer, what I'm trying to do is establish a common ground so people can debate to at least some extent. The most logical common ground would be Rules as Written. I'm not making a case for powergaming, I'm making a case for playing in whatever style people want to play. But for the purposes of this argument, I'm trying to adhere to rules. I agree powergaming can unbalance too. I never contested that. Optimization is not powergaming. I'm saying that to keep the balance, people should at least try to be good at what they do because the system assumes that they are able to take on an encounter designed for them (that is an EL 11 for 11-level characters). On the subject of Prestige Classes and banning in general. I said there are two legitimate reasons for banning: Flavor and de facto balance (I named the Planar Shepherd as a clearly overpowered PrC). Using any other reason to justify it ("the DMG says I should" or "because I can") makes you an asswad. Nowhere do the rules say you can be an asswad.
Daydreamer 04-03-07, 06:11 PM	Edit: for clarity this is directed to Comus, two posts above. 1. Bias? I have played in power gaming groups alot. What exactly do you mean i have a bias agaisnt a certain group of people. Its more like i have a certain way i like to play the game and its not the way some people do. Maybe you have a bias against me becasue youve been on the defensive from roleplayers for a long time. 2. What pros and cons?-its what people want or dont want that is important. Pros/cons implies that we could arrive at some universal way people should or shouldnt play. Pros/cons of power gaming isnt even on my radar. 3. IF you read my very first post in this thread i say nobody can play the game wrong and the important thing is to find players who can enjoy playing with, the best way to do this is to find players who agree with you on how to run the game. Again, your trying to tell me how i feel about power gaming, i know for a fact i dont feel the way your saying i do. IN fact, its people on the 'i like to power game' who have used the words should play like this, or something is wrong with that. not me. This is coming not from my bias but from yours i believe you guys are so used to these arguments taking a certain form that ive been lumped in with a group of people i dont belong to. Namely these so called anti-power gamers-power game all you want. My contention is that i shouldnt have to put up with power gaming in my group bc its not how id want to play-thats not facist, the opposite of that is facist, saying i dont have the right to choose who i game with! Lastly with regard to 'second fallacy' namely the dm fixing things in the mechanics doenst mean there is not a problem with the mechanics. This i completely agree with, however, it has NOTHING to do with what im talking about. It isnt the mechanics that are of concern to me, its the players and dms choices-if the dm and player choose to houserule a mechanic because they want something different. That isnt a pro or for that matter a con with the mechanic-its a groups choice. You can't balance peoples metamechanical choices is what i am trying to say-hell it may even be there intent to unbalance things! Whats wrong with that if they all have fun and agree. Man you really need to read my posts more carefully.
Ventilatory_Threshold 04-03-07, 06:14 PM	Wow, for a second there, I thought Daydreamer was replying to me. I was, like, "Where the hell is he getting all that from?"
Gemstone 04-03-07, 06:46 PM	I think you are saying "Powergamers play the game wrong. I won't admit this or say it out loud, but will instead strongly imply it. After all, the DM can just fix the game and throw the CR system out the window!" He could also handle it by giving the PC's an effective LA for their extreme power. A very powerful character who passes into the realms of an average character a level above, could possible varant such an LA. This however, is just a possible way to deal with it :)
Daydreamer 04-03-07, 06:47 PM	Wow, for a second there, I thought Daydreamer was replying to me. I was, like, "Where the hell is he getting all that from?" No, hehe i edited the above post to make that more clear, hopefully. Clarity has been a big issue in this discussion i should be more careful about being casual going forward. I don't, and my fellow pcs don't, have a problem with people being on par with Cr challenges of there level. WE typically play slightly below this level, but i have no issue with this personally. By optimize you might mean what i mean by 'resonably built characters' (obviously according to my subjective characterization of reasonable). However, most groups bend the rules slightly, and there is nothing wrong with this. For what its worth we play almost entirely in key with the rules and have almost no houserules. WE have alot of stuff that is banned however-or self monitored, like the polymorph spells are easily abused...so much so that WOTC has banned those spells from its own official campaigns-we dont ban them we just don't abuse them. We also believe the rules arent black and white, but have intent behind them, and when evaluating something we try to factor in such intent. Ie, with the use of polymorph spells. The rules say the dm can do whatever he wants. That doesnt make him always right-in fact most dms i play with make calls (i think) are wrong, BUT, they have that right. In fact if they played with pcs who felt the same way, there would be no problem really. But in a sense dms have the right to be wrong as it were. It seems however ventilatory we might have reached that common ground your speaking about.
Gemstone 04-03-07, 06:53 PM	The rules say the dm can do whatever he wants. That doesnt make him always right-in fact most dms i play with make calls (i think) are wrong, BUT, they have that right. In fact if they played with pcs who felt the same way, there would be no problem really. But in a sense dms have the right to be wrong as it were. It seems however ventilatory we might have reached that common ground your speaking about. Rule 1: The DM is never wrong Rule 2: If the DM ever should happen to be wrong, she rule 1. From Drakar & Demoner. Possible the best rule ever written IMO ;)
Daydreamer 04-03-07, 06:57 PM	Except that the dm is never right either. thats the key. hes an arbitrator-and this means arbitrary. His choices only are only good measured on his individual groups standards. Put my dm in front of a group of power gamers and shes a bad dm. Put her in front of us and shes fantastic. The dm is never wrong or right. People just agree or disagree on issues of taste. What we mean by norms in d&d are really patterns.
Willybot 04-03-07, 07:36 PM	In my experience, I've found that 'Powergaming' (or optimization) and play-acting a character (roleplaying) are not mutually exclusive. Take the OP example of the 'Grim-Reaper' type character. He and his buddy conceptuallized the same character. They could be role-played the exact same way with the exact same skill regardless of the build. The difference lies in that one of these two examples has greater odds mechanically of addventuring (or even surviving, really) in your average game. Is one build <I>better</I> than the other? Not at all, especially in a role-play heavy group. If a group spends the majority of their time play-acting characters, then mechanical optimization of said characters become less important. However it would seem in the OP's situation, that the character's mortality does hinge on the mechanical aspect of the game via combat. In that case, character optimization is hardly hurts you. I guess to sum up, I think that any conflict between role-players and percieved roll-players is generally just misunderstanding. Optimized or not, the soul of a character lies in the player, not the numbers. The numbers can simply allow the character to be played after combat is over. Proposed solution to situations like this? Sit with each of the other players with the DM present. Ask the player to explain the concept and personality of the character they wish to have. Give input and ask questions regarding that character's combat/non-combat style and spellcasting, if any. Then propose an optimized build. Work with the player to create a storyline place for each feat and class level as befitting their particular story and the overall campaign of the DM. Through this, it can help the player realize that mechanical attributes can have story applications and vice-versa. Hopefully that can help.
Cael 04-03-07, 08:39 PM	Ok.... ill try to address the issue which i already have if your read my post. Your question why is it always a 'drama queen' in a group of 'drama queens' never a 'drama queen' in a group of 'optomisers'. Now, this doesnt seem like the issue that was being discussed here at all. Btw nice piece with the skinhead comparison. So here goes, ill have my 'thesis' in simple terms, so you can understand. 1. There is no better/worse way to play. 2. This includes whether one power games or not, or whether ones a good roleplayer or not. AS long as people in the group have fun. 3. Most conflicts in the game arise from internal people in the group having competing visions of how the game should be run. 4. the best way, if the situation allows, to avoid such conflict is to find people who have as close as possible to you a conceoption of how the game should be run and play with them. 5. People have the right to choose who they play with. 6. Since i dont like power gaming at all, i play with people who dont like power gaming at all. We- and our dm- have more fun this way. YOu can power game all you want, i really dont care or think less of you for it man-so stop saying i do, when i clearly dont...i actually wonder if youve even read my posts. Also, im not sure about the group usually being right. Consider this quote by Nietzsche 'madness is rare in individuals, but in nations, groups, religions, orginzations it is the norm". Regardless i still dont care about power gamers and this is something i know for a fact, its not even a debate. AT this stage youve come down to telling me how i feel. Besides, lets be honest about being condescending-making a skinhead comment-then calling us drama queens-then saying why dont u just pooh pooh his analysis away...i mean man show some consistancy! If being condescending is a problem-then youve got more to worry about than me. And ill try to make sense of your last question about the drama queens in optomiser groups. I do know situations like this actually-and sometimes they cause as much disruption as the power gamers in a 'drama queen' group. Sometimes the power gamers help them out or they just dont care, and if nobody cares about the situation obviously there is no problem. Thats about as much sense as i can make of your question. *beep*! Red herring alert! You very clearly stated (about two pages ago) that a Half-Orc Wizard is at home in a group with a Halfling Fighter, et al. You see, when I brought up how an optimised Half-Orc Wizard would be on par with the power level of a normal group, you immediately said that he doesn't need optimising because he is at home in a drama queen group. However, the first thing you did in this threat is to charge optimisers with the "fact" that they disrupt a group that is made up primarily of drama queens. That is what I am referring to. Your reaction is very telling. Talk about a powergamer and he is an automatically disruptive element because the rest of the group is a drama queen group. Talk about a drama queen and he is the schiztl because he is in a drama queen group. Your first reaction is never how disruptive he would be in an optimised group. Thus, you are not comparing apples with apples. You have already made up your mind, and to heck with the facts of the matter. There is a word for that state of affairs: "biased". You are biased. Period and QED. My question was meant to make you think on your actions (well, that of the other drama queens as well, but since I am addressing you...). Instead, it evoked a reaction that was, while predictable and predicted, was quite disappointed. The ultimate aim was to hold a mirror up and let you see that your actions are contradicting your claims, that you are the person you claim yourself not to be. Whether you accept it or not is not relevant to the exercise. Showing the world the kind of person you are is just icing on the cake. I hope that is sufficiently clear to you about my question. Also, my comment on skinheads and calling you drama queens: Once again you have shown us what sort of a person you are with your reaction. You see, you have been using the words "optimiser" and "powergamer" as some sort of epithet ever since you joined this thread. Oh, you claim otherwise, but the "tone" of your posts indicates otherwise. I decided to put up another mirror by throwing out the "drama queen" comment. As expected, you picked up on the phrase, but not the intent, and ran your mouth off about it. This is like, what? The third post from you decrying that I am using degoratory phrases when referring to you and your ilk? As you can see, you have no sense of irony. That is fine by me, because I am quite amused by your reactions to my rather ironic comments. As amused, I am sure, most others who have picked up on it. Here is my advice for you (while not as direct as Comus was): Do not do unto others what you do not want returned in full. Oh, speaking of Comus, the fallacy is called the Oberoni Fallacy, after the poster.
Daydreamer 04-03-07, 09:00 PM	Sigh, your just not giving me a fair day in trial man. Is the irony that im supposed to see how the use of terms like drama queens is offensive? First off, i took up the language that was being used in this forum when i started posting in this thread. People were using the word powergamer to reference something, i followed that already adopted convention. About the half-orc wizard- your point is that a half-orc wizard if 'optimized' can be on par with non optomized player characters. My point was that he can also be on par with other characters who go with traditionally weaker builds-as long as none of them optomize. It was not a 'refutation' of your point, it was a completely different point. What actions are contradicting my claims? I mean what the hell do you think my claims are? I'm claiming that there is no right or wrong way to play the game and that as long as the pcs get along and share there way of percieving the game that is the key factor. In fact i say exactly that in my VERY first post in this thread. How can my actions contradict that? by then saying you should play a certain way? i never said that. The 'tone' of my posts, man how about the 'tone' of your responses. i mean hell just go back and read the posts from page 8 forward ive been more calm and less insulting than many of the people responding to me. This 'tone' you percieve is something YOU ARE READING INTO ME. I know for a fact that i do not feel the way in which you are saying i do. AS if i could care less about how you play, i hope you have fun, thats about it. I dont know what you mean comparing apples with apples? Im not comparing power gaming vs not power gaming. Im saying some people prefer one, others prefer another. You keep saying im biased then QED...i mean no offense but from my subjective standpoint it seems you are being biased. NOw if i through QEd after that have i won the argument? i mean. The words power gamer and optimizor are not derogatory terms to me-they are descriptive terms...so there is nothing ironic in using drama queens. whats funny is ine one of my posts i even conceeded that many so called role players are like drama queens-in fact id say more often than not pro roleplay, anti-power game people are like this. Omg theres me making a general claim again!!! Maybe im also wrong this time, but either way it doesnt describe me. And so you know its the refernece to skin headism etc that i find out of place and derogatory, i mean does that even sound in the ballpark of a fair comment to make? Man i dont even know what you want from me...i cant state it more simply than what im about to, so if this doesnt work, nothing will. I came into this thread EXPLICITLY stating that people should play however they want in response to a post that was suggesting otherwise. I never said i care about if people power game in there own games, i said i don't like to play with power gamers. Your irony-to me is just a misunderstanding-power gamer isnt a derogatory term...i don't see it as such...and it isnt my epitat, its been in use in this very discussion before i joined it. If you don't believe me when i express my attitudes-then i really can't care. But if you want to talk about Bias-its that you have to cut passed what ive objectively said here-and the rational that follows from that-to suggest you know what i 'really mean to say and intend'. I have a better vantage point to know what i intend to say than you, and i can assure you, the picture your painting isnt it. So deal with the issues and dont pretend like you can read my mind-and then claim what you read in me is my bias-when its your bias by reading this into me!
Cael 04-03-07, 09:08 PM	Sigh, your just not giving me a fair day in trial man. Is the irony that im supposed to see how the use of terms like drama queens is offensive? First off, i took up the language that was being used in this forum when i started posting in this thread. People were using the word powergamer to reference something, i followed that already adopted convention. About the half-orc wizard- your point is that a half-orc wizard if 'optimized' can be on par with non optomized player characters. My point was that he can also be on par with other characters who go with traditionally weaker builds-as long as none of them optomize. It was not a 'refutation' of your point, it was a completely different point. What actions are contradicting my claims? I mean what the hell do you think my claims are? I'm claiming that there is no right or wrong way to play the game and that as long as the pcs get along and share there way of percieving the game that is the key factor. In fact i say exactly that in my VERY first post in this thread. How can my actions contradict that? by then saying you should play a certain way? i never said that. The 'tone' of my posts, man how about the 'tone' of your responses. i mean hell just go back and read the posts from page 8 forward ive been more calm and less insulting than many of the people responding to me. This 'tone' you percieve is something YOU ARE READING INTO ME. I know for a fact that i do not feel the way in which you are saying i do. AS if i could care less about how you play, i hope you have fun, thats about it. I dont know what you mean comparing apples with apples? Im not comparing power gaming vs not power gaming. Im saying some people prefer one, others prefer another. You keep saying im biased then QED...i mean no offense but from my subjective standpoint it seems you are being biased. NOw if i through QEd after that have i won the argument? i mean. The words power gamer and optimizor are not derogatory terms to me-they are descriptive terms...so there is nothing ironic in using drama queens. whats funny is ine one of my posts i even conceeded that many so called role players are like drama queens-in fact id say more often than not pro roleplay, anti-power game people are like this. Omg theres me making a general claim again!!! Maybe im also wrong this time, but either way it doesnt describe me. And so you know its the refernece to skin headism etc that i find out of place and derogatory, i mean does that even sound in the ballpark of a fair comment to make? Man i dont even know what you want from me...i cant state it more simply than what im about to, so if this doesnt work, nothing will. I came into this thread EXPLICITLY stating that people should play however they want in response to a post that was suggesting otherwise. I never said i care about if people power game in there own games, i said i don't like to play with power gamers. Your irony-to me is just a misunderstanding-power gamer isnt a derogatory term...i don't see it as such...and it isnt my epitat, its been in use in this very discussion before i joined it. If you don't believe me when i express my attitudes-then i really can't care. But if you want to talk about Bias-its that you have to cut passed what ive objectively said here-and the rational that follows from that-to suggest you know what i 'really mean to say and intend'. I have a better vantage point to know what i intend to say than you, and i can assure you, the picture your painting isnt it. So deal with the issues and dont pretend like you can read my mind-and then claim what you read in me is my bias-when its your bias by reading this into me! So, in other words, you are saying that you never try to refute someone else's point, even if they are refuting yours, but just ignore it and make some other point and hope like heck that the other person just drop the matter. And you are accusing me of not giving you a fair trial? Are you trying to make me laugh?
Daydreamer 04-03-07, 09:31 PM	Points are layered, sometimes a refutation can take the form of making another point, and not actually showing the point as false. The reason i did that, is actually because i don't think there is a right/wrong way to play. Your point was valid, so was mine. I was showing you another way, not saying your way was wrong. I really don't know what you mean trying to make you laugh. Its hard for me to talk to you because you say that its what i intend to say your debating, but im going :confused: because what your saying i intend, i dont. So if i am making you laugh your making me go, :confused: :confused:
Cael 04-03-07, 10:25 PM	Points are layered, sometimes a refutation can take the form of making another point, and not actually showing the point as false. The reason i did that, is actually because i don't think there is a right/wrong way to play. Your point was valid, so was mine. I was showing you another way, not saying your way was wrong. I really don't know what you mean trying to make you laugh. Its hard for me to talk to you because you say that its what i intend to say your debating, but im going :confused: because what your saying i intend, i dont. So if i am making you laugh your making me go, :confused: :confused: "Irony is wasted on drama queens." - Cael's Third Law of L33t-isms
Daydreamer 04-03-07, 11:35 PM	Your point is only ironic if your actions are supposed to parrellel what ive said and draw out a likewise reaction from me. They don't parrellel what ive said, they are not ironic they illustrate you didnt understand me. But, try to spell it out, in case ive missed something, maybe i have, hopefully it will help me understand you. the closest i can figure from re-reading your posts is that i have a bias against powergaming and am therefore not equiped to fairly talk about it. But i am actually not having, or trying to have a discussion on whether power gaming is good or bad. Such language doesn't make sense to me, play the way you want, and ill play the way i want. I have no interest, and am making no attempt, to discuss the merits/demerits of power gaming. I don't like power gaming its true ive said that, but i dont care if other people do it, i am talking about my personal preference. The only other alernative is that by bias you mean -i dont like powergaming, therefore im biased agasint it, then sure. But by that logic youd have a bias against the way i play. If you mean i really think people shouldn't play that way, then your just making a false claim and one ive denied since my very first post in this forum before i was involved in any argument.
Board_Rider 04-03-07, 11:45 PM	Just reading the OP...no, your not.
Comus 04-04-07, 01:24 AM	He could also handle it by giving the PC's an effective LA for their extreme power. A very powerful character who passes into the realms of an average character a level above, could possible varant such an LA. This however, is just a possible way to deal with it :) The DM shouldn't just do that. See, here's the thing - I know what you're trying to say here. You're saying that adding LA to a well-built character can make it 'even' with the average or below-average builds used by other players. The problem is that it's unfair, first, to the player - its penalizing him for good play, which is a big no-no. Then, you have to figure out at what point you start assigning LA, which can start a lot of arguments and bad feelings. That said, I don't have a problem with a player who is more experienced deciding, on his own or with the DM's suggestion (but not order) to start at a lower level and catch up with the others, to give them time to find their niches.
nastynate 04-04-07, 02:17 AM	nastynate - :clap: Very nice summary. It's too bad he won't listen. I'm going to make an amazing prediction with my psychic powers - he's going to respond with some long bit about how "I don't really hate powergamers, stop putting words in my mouth, I just said powergamers were born of jackals." I was raised by wolves. ;) Only jackals powergame. Wolves are good people.
Greg K 04-04-07, 02:38 AM	In order to be a powergamer one must powergame. Therefore it seems reasonable to assume that by stating your dislike for one in infers dislike of the other. And it may very well be wrong to infer such. Powergaming is a style of play and, as far as I am aware, doesn't necessarily have any correlation to what an individual is like away from gaming. I have had friends and co-workers that I just will not game with. One group was pure hack 'n slash w/ god powered characters wielding green lantern rings and wolverine claws. They were having fun, but I was bored to tears. The easiest solution was for me to choose not to game with them. The fact that we did not game together had no effect on our friendship as our friendship was not predicated on gaming, but other interests. We'd still hang out and do other things such as go to movies, ball games, whatever. We just didn't game together. Or maybe prior to this post you already said several times that you don't like powergamers. . Now, this is entirely different situation from the above and, whether intentional or not, the OPs comments were directed at powergamers rather than specifically at the playstyle.
nastynate 04-04-07, 03:36 AM	And it may very well be wrong to infer such. Powergaming is a style of play and, as far as I am aware, doesn't necessarily have any correlation to what an individual is like away from gaming. I have had friends and co-workers that I just will not game with. One group was pure hack 'n slash w/ god powered characters wielding green lantern rings and wolverine claws. They were having fun, but I was bored to tears. The easiest solution was for me to choose not to game with them. The fact that we did not game together had no effect on our friendship as our friendship was not predicated on gaming, but other interests. We'd still hang out and do other things such as go to movies, ball games, whatever. We just didn't game together. I would normally understand (and possibly agree), but in the context of the way Daydreamer expressed his dislike it wasn't so easily shaken off. Did you tell your friends that they sounded like double talking politicians making justifiactions for the builds they use? it's fine to have different tastes, but it isn't fine to tell someone theirs is inherently flawed or inferior. I too would graciously bow out of such a game, but I wouldn't slander their playstyle. Disliking the style of game being played is not the same as vehemently expressing said feelings to those who do. On the boards, that's flame bait and trolling, in real life that ruins freindships. I have played with power gamers though, numerous numerous numerous times. Ive been playing d&d just shy of 15 years, and with my current group for just shy of 3. You've got to be kidding me when you dont recognize the difference between inductive and deductive logic. If i meet 10 crows that are black and someone says ive got a crow i expect it to be black. Its not necessary that it is black, but one can see the reason WHy someone might feel this way. Ps, im not the only one who mentioned this observation. Inductive logic-means taking your experience and carrying it forward. YOu also take me out of context sometimes. What have I taken out of context? The talks i was doing about my personal experience where specifically-AND ONLY-to deal with all this stormwind fallacy stuff. By pointing that the stormwind fallacy only works for deductive logic, but not inductive logic. However, inductive logic is fallible-which means i could be wrong in my claims which i admit. We all agree that personal experiences vary. My point is that your personal experiences give you no right to hurl insults. Roleplaying-like powergaming is a stlye of playing. Some groups dont like to roleplay much but are more like almost warhammer game sessions. There is nothing wrong with that. To me saying someone doesn't roleplay isnt an insult anymore than saying someone doesnt powergame is. I just couldnt care less if they are having fun. I know. YOur example 1. Power gamers cause conflict-but others dont...if you read my posts i actually say others do. I even said a person who doesnt power game in a power gamer group can be disruptive explicitely. power gaming is a stlye of play for petes sake. Saying i dont like that style of play IS not a big deal. I mean comon some people here have already said they dont like the way i play the game. How does that impact me? How is that an insult?! Your response-if you dont like power gaming, who power games? power gamers,therefore you dont like them. Lets try that like this- I also dont like hockey-heck i must dislike hockey players!! it doesnt work, if we want a new fallacy here it is. "saying someone doesn't like a stlye of play or wont play that way DOES NOT MEAN HE IS PUTTING FORWARD A JUDGEMENT ON PEOPLE WHO DO OR THAT HE IS MAKING A NORMATIVE CLAIM ABOUT PLAYING THIS WAY" BS. Nothing I quoted you saying above is justifiable. You are putting forth a judgement, based upon fallacious assumptions. You cannot insult people and then expect those of us offended by it to accept your posts as innocent observations. Yes it was insulting when you made the double-talking lawyer comment. Yes it was insulting when you repeatedly said most optimizers are poor role-players; even after you were told it was insulting you kept doing it! These are insults, not innocent observations of the power-gaming playstyle. Because you used generalized terminology, your comments were also prejudiced. If you honestly think i care about what other people do in there games your mistaken. This at least i know for a fact, if you dont believe me, the there really is no point in talking is there. I don't think you care at all. I think you have decided the way you like to play (that's fine), and expressed it (also fine), but in doing so have also insulted others (not fine), and denied doing so (not fine). And yes i don't feel the need to compromise how i play the game? I mean you can't seriously be suggesting i should be forced to play with some people who i don't want to. I wouldnt say that about anyone. That's not what I'm saying. What I am saying is that some people you turn away or refuse to play with might actually grow, learn, and evolve as gamers. In time you might be wishing you hadn't turned them away. They might be able to teach you something or broaden your horizons in a way you never before imagined. As for point (2) power gamers need to justify there builds. You missed my point actually. I said nobody needs to justify the way they play, but that when your roleplaying you need in game motives(ie justifications) for what you do. Non power gamers have reasons for there pcs choices-ie justifications-ie consistant roleplaying etc. If your roleplaying, you need to justify what WHY your character would make certain choices. If a power gamer is roleplaying just like (not uniquely) a roleplayer he would need reasons for his characters actions. Its defintional-roleplaying requires in game reasons for what your character decides. I don't see the feats on my sheet or the spells in my spell books as things that need in-game justification or backing from character motives. Feats, spells, and class features are just the mechanism that defines what my characters can and cannot do. When a wizard gains two new spells for gaining a level, he does not need to role-play the whole process out or justify why he would select the fly spell over the tongues spell. Maybe in your games that might be the case, but that's not the case as far as the rules are concerned. Lastly point 3. 'Power gamers sound like double talking politicians". Your missing my point again-i said sometimes ive observed power gamers who call themselves roleplayers but they are really like this. Ive noticed people who are not power gamers do this-ie metagamers trying to give justifications as to why there characters no things they woudlnt think of in game. I didnt even make this an in general claim. Maybe you should re-read what you actually said. You made no such exceptions for non-powergamers when you posted this. You only cited the flaws in power-gaming, without providing any counter-point or justification for your rude insult. I count myself among "most powergamers." Lastly but not least-people still seem to be equating my dislike of playing with power gamers with my experiences of them not being the best roleplayers. It has NOTHING to do with that. If the opposite of the fallacy was true-and that every power gamer was a good roleplayer without fail, every single one. Id still search out for non power gamers who can roleplay. I dont like power gaming because i dont like power gaming. That's your prerogative. I mean seriously im getting tired of people making this claim about how i feel. OK your saying im going beyond the bounds of my knowledge saying 'i suspect this is true in general of power gamers' i admit, i could be completely wrong-everypower gamer ive never met could be a great roleplayer. However neither one of us really knows whether my claim is true or false. Did I make assumptions about the way you feel? I quoted you. I don't care if your claim is true. Statistically accurate insults are still insults, and proper ettiquete assumes innocence until guilt is proven. You seem to be implying guilt first as a legitimate position. Now your trying to tell me youve got 'behind what im saying' to my attitudes. Man, this i do know, unlike you i know exactly how i feel about the issue. Youve gone beyond what u can legitmately claim to know, but this time i do know your wrong. Show me a quote. If you mean the smelly math teacher examples, then yes. I am assuming intent. There are only two reasons to insult a person ignorance (you don't realize it was an insult) or malice (you wanted to hurt them), barring some combination of both. I personally thought you were just ignorant for a while, but now I'm not so sure. If you dont believe that-whatever-as if i care-ive had to put up with alot of hostility and insults on this board. Including being compared to a skinhead FOR A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION ON HOW I FEEL ABOUT PLAYING A ******* GAME. Then ive been called stupid and other things. Points which are supposed to be ironic and hold up a mirror as i understand it-but which really reflect nothing because i wasnt trying to broadcast hate. Wtf did i say that parrellels with skinhead comments? We have to use blunt examples because you don't respond to logic. Your comments are prejudiced against those of us who optimize. Since you don't understand that, we are then compelled to give examples, which you still don't understand. Then we give really obvious examples of prejudice and you cry foul. Does the dictionary help? prej·u·dice n (plural prej·u·dic·es) 1. opinion formed beforehand: a preformed opinion, usually an unfavorable one, based on insufficient knowledge, irrational feelings, or inaccurate stereotypes 2. the holding of ill-informed opinions: the holding of opinions that are formed beforehand on the basis of insufficient knowledge 3. irrational dislike of somebody: an unfounded hatred, fear, or mistrust of a person or group, especially one of a particular religion, ethnicity, nationality, or social status 4. law disadvantage or harm: disadvantage or harm caused to somebody or something Ive been on the defensive since i got here and accused of this and that, and because i didnt really think much of it, ive had to clarify and clarify what i mean over and over. You haven't clarified anything. You have denied wrong-doing and tried to cover your butt. That is why you are on the defensive. I (and others) agreed whole-heartedly with some of your comments and posts early on...it was your own condescending posts a few pages later that started this. That's when I put you on the defensive. I dont even care if a certain power gamers doesnt roleplay, or for that matter a person who isnt a power gamer doesnt roleplay. Roleplaying plays the same optional role in style of game to me as does powergaming. Its irrelevant whether one does it or not. I know you don't, but what you don't seem to realize that insulting a play-style that others enjoy is not going to win you friends or debates. Mud slinging sometimes works in politics, but that's only because ignorant people respond more to Springer than they do to CNN. It doesn't usually fly here. Honestly man-get a grip and stop telling me how i feel-just respond to the logic of what i have to say and stop looking for something behind the words. If ive made a logical error we can clarify and move on with our lives. I wish this was a physical conversation so you could really hear my tone-this is the first post ive made with a feeling of some frustration. You have flawed logic (based upon prejudices), so debate is impossible until you realize it. I haven't told you how you feel, only what can be implied by the context of your posts.
Gemstone 04-04-07, 07:12 AM	n (plural prej·u·dic·es) 1. opinion formed beforehand: a preformed opinion, usually an unfavorable one, based on insufficient knowledge, irrational feelings, or inaccurate stereotypes 2. the holding of ill-informed opinions: the holding of opinions that are formed beforehand on the basis of insufficient knowledge 3. irrational dislike of somebody: an unfounded hatred, fear, or mistrust of a person or group, especially one of a particular religion, ethnicity, nationality, or social status 4. law disadvantage or harm: disadvantage or harm caused to somebody or something 1. He formed his oppinion after having gamed with powergamers/optimizers. He doesn't have insufficient knowledge about it. He has stated clearly what powergaming is. He has feelings based upon his experiences. Innacurate stereotypes... hmm... can't really say that one, since I'm not him and I can't really say exactly what view he has of powergamers. 2. see above. 3. See above. He doesn't fear them, he has stated why he mistrusts them and he dislikes them, not hate them. 4. He hasn't actually done any law disadvantage to them, unless you refer to not wanting to play with them or wanting in game justifications. This however, is nitpicking, so feel free to ignore it :)
nastynate 04-04-07, 09:19 AM	1. He formed his oppinion after having gamed with powergamers/optimizers. He doesn't have insufficient knowledge about it. He has stated clearly what powergaming is. He has feelings based upon his experiences. Innacurate stereotypes... hmm... can't really say that one, since I'm not him and I can't really say exactly what view he has of powergamers. 2. see above. 3. See above. He doesn't fear them, he has stated why he mistrusts them and he dislikes them, not hate them. 4. He hasn't actually done any law disadvantage to them, unless you refer to not wanting to play with them or wanting in game justifications. This however, is nitpicking, so feel free to ignore it :) It's all good Gemstone, but I disagree. He formed his opinion on most powergamers without actually knowing most powergamers. That is insufficient knowledge. His sterotypes are inaccurate because he doesn't have sufficient knowledge to make generalizations about most powergamers. These opinions are derogatory and condecending. Assuming that most powergamers are also poor role-players or shady people that have to justify their characters with double talk is indeed ill-informed and irrational. And yes, he has disadvanted optimizers. he and his gaming group don't give optimizers a fair shake and have banned them from his gaming table without giving them a chance on the basis of individual merit. Not being given the chance to prove themselves as individuals is rather disadvantageous, since the non-optimizers he plays with don't have to prove themselves by the same standard. Mistrust and dislike fit the definitition just fine. You don't have to hate someone to be biased against them. Nor do you have to qualify for every possible definition of prejudice in order to be prejudiced; Daydreamer just so happens to have met all four possible definitions, which leaves no possible doubt. As I said before Daydreamer is welcome to play the game as he sees fit, but he can't slander the rest of us (or in his words most of us) on our style of game play without coming across as prejudiced against us. I won't ignore irrational bias against my gaming style on a public forum; I have the right to defend myself, and the way I play the game. Daydreamer is on the defensive not for his style of play, but for attacking the way other people play. We (meaning myself, Cael, Comus, Vesticular Thumb [or whatever his screen handle is now], and a few others) don't really care how he plays, but we do care when he passes judgement on the way we play.
Tyraxus 04-04-07, 09:49 AM	1. He formed his oppinion after having gamed with powergamers/optimizers. He doesn't have insufficient knowledge about it. He has stated clearly what powergaming is. He has feelings based upon his experiences. Innacurate stereotypes... hmm... can't really say that one, since I'm not him and I can't really say exactly what view he has of powergamers. 2. see above. 3. See above. He doesn't fear them, he has stated why he mistrusts them and he dislikes them, not hate them. 4. He hasn't actually done any law disadvantage to them, unless you refer to not wanting to play with them or wanting in game justifications. This however, is nitpicking, so feel free to ignore it :) 1 and 2. If he'd restricted his displeasure to people he'd gamed with, he'd be fine. But he doesn't know me, has never gamed with me, doesn't know my playstyle, and yet he claims he would not allow me at his table because of how I describe myself. He quite clearly has insufficient knowledge of who I am and how I play, yet he formed an opinion beforehand. 3. He doesn't trust me to or like me due to my involvement in the social group "powergamers." It's irrational because I've never given him a reason to think I'd break his game or be a horrible roleplayer. 4. Eh, legal terminology. I have the feeling it was included in the definintions given for completeness, for not for application.
Gemstone 04-04-07, 11:25 AM	1 and 2. If he'd restricted his displeasure to people he'd gamed with, he'd be fine. But he doesn't know me, has never gamed with me, doesn't know my playstyle, and yet he claims he would not allow me at his table because of how I describe myself. He quite clearly has insufficient knowledge of who I am and how I play, yet he formed an opinion beforehand Indeed. If you openly were a powergamer and asked to join his table he would not let you there, unless you would try to lessen the extent of powergaming or optimzation etc. A preferablity of style, not some bias. He hasn't said anything about your personalites, just that he dislikes powergaming and/or optimization (not clear on the optimization part). 3. He doesn't trust me to or like me due to my involvement in the social group "powergamers." It's irrational because I've never given him a reason to think I'd break his game or be a horrible roleplayer I barely believe powergamer to be a group of its own, more like a sub-group of roleplayers, but that's just me ;) If you join a group who is anti-powergamer if you are a powergamer, you will break the game (as in cause conflict between people) in 99% of the time, unless you choose not to optimize or powergame. Also, just by saying that you powergame, you have given him a reason to say "no, I don't want a powergamer at my table" because it would cause dents in the playstyle they try to achieve. This is also true for drama-queens. If a drama-queen joins an anti-drama queen group, he'll have to adjust or find himself outside of that game. 4. Eh, legal terminology. I have the feeling it was included in the definintions given for completeness, for not for application. Yeah, I thought so too :)
Comus 04-04-07, 11:26 AM	I'd like to note that my amazing psychic powers have proven their potency once again. But what I find most amazing about Daydreamer is that even though he knows his arguments are an arse-load of bull... However, inductive logic is fallible-which means i could be wrong in my claims which i admit. ... he still continues to make them! He just doesn't seem to get that "I'll never play with anyone who power games" does not make for a fair and balanced opinion, even if he says in the same breath "even if some of them are good roleplayers."
Gemstone 04-04-07, 11:38 AM	I'd like to note that my amazing psychic powers have proven their potency once again. But what I find most amazing about Daydreamer is that even though he knows his arguments are an arse-load of bull... ... he still continues to make them! He just doesn't seem to get that "I'll never play with anyone who power games" does not make for a fair and balanced opinion, even if he says in the same breath "even if some of them are good roleplayers." I suggest you either actually contribute something to the discussion rather than throwing around "my amazing psychic powers..." etc. Also, he has tried to game with powergamers, but found that it doesn't suit him. IMO that's at least as valid as "I can play with both".
Gemstone 04-04-07, 11:43 AM	The DM shouldn't just do that. See, here's the thing - I know what you're trying to say here. You're saying that adding LA to a well-built character can make it 'even' with the average or below-average builds used by other players. The problem is that it's unfair, first, to the player - its penalizing him for good play, which is a big no-no. Then, you have to figure out at what point you start assigning LA, which can start a lot of arguments and bad feelings. That said, I don't have a problem with a player who is more experienced deciding, on his own or with the DM's suggestion (but not order) to start at a lower level and catch up with the others, to give them time to find their niches. By giving a character who is much more powerful than the rest of the group a "virtual LA", you can solve a whole lot of issues. True, it's a difficult mechanic to use (I don't because I'm not a good judge of power), but at leasts its an idea how to solve the powergame vs. weak build conflict. The game is balanced for four characters with the elite ability score row and from four classes. if you have three characters who are perfectly average and one that is twice as good, its a possible solution. Not something I say you should do though ;)
Comus 04-04-07, 11:58 AM	By giving a character who is much more powerful than the rest of the group a "virtual LA", you can solve a whole lot of issues. True, it's a difficult mechanic to use (I don't because I'm not a good judge of power), but at leasts its an idea how to solve the powergame vs. weak build conflict. The game is balanced for four characters with the elite ability score row and from four classes. if you have three characters who are perfectly average and one that is twice as good, its a possible solution. Not something I say you should do though ;) Another point to consider is the wide variance of power in classes - the biggest being between Fighter and Druid. A Druid's animal companion can actually do just as good - and better, half the time - a job as a melee tank as a Fighter. Does this mean the Druid needs a LA just because of the class he chose? Further, it's very difficult to actually gauge the difference in strength between any two characters. Different abilities have different value based on circumstance - a thousand points of damage per round can't always replace stealth or diplomacy. As a side note, there isn't much discussion to contribute to. There is a lot of posting, but not discussion.
nastynate 04-04-07, 12:20 PM	Indeed. If you openly were a powergamer and asked to join his table he would not let you there, unless you would try to lessen the extent of powergaming or optimzation etc. A preferablity of style, not some bias. He hasn't said anything about your personalites, just that he dislikes powergaming and/or optimization (not clear on the optimization part). I can't really speak for Comus specifically here, but I do feel you have not actually read some of the things I quoted Daydreamer on. I agree that Daydreamer has the right to set a standard for the style of play at his gaming table. He has a preferance, and doesn't want to compromize that preferance to admit optimizers into his group dynamic. That's his prerogative, but it isn't exactly fair; what if one of his friends did like optimization? He has however, explicitly said several things that he dislikes about powergamers. I quoted about a dozen of them up above, so yes he has attacked us as a whole; he hasn't specifically named anyone, but he has made negative generalizations about a group of people among whom Comus and I clearly identify ourselves as belonging to. If your not clear on how Daydreamer interprets powergaming/optimization he has himself claimed that he views them as synonymous. If your not clear about some of the things he said which inflamed us here's an example (there are dozens more): Roleplaying and power gaming dont have to come into conflict. But they often times do with power gamers. You can justify nearly any mechanical choice, but sometimes it feels like a politician using double talk, it sounds possible but nobody believes you. hmm...that sounds like an insult to me. This isn't a comment about the powergaming style of play. This is a comment about powergamers. It is a baised opinion. How else should I interpret that? By giving a character who is much more powerful than the rest of the group a "virtual LA", you can solve a whole lot of issues. True, it's a difficult mechanic to use (I don't because I'm not a good judge of power), but at leasts its an idea how to solve the powergame vs. weak build conflict. I suppose that if you think its fair and just to penalize one player and not the others than this is an option. Just because I know the rules inside and out, and can make powerful characters does not mean I am doing something wrong. I know something has to be done to balance the dynamic of the party (when there are conflicting player goals), but finding a more amicable solution through open dialogue and compromise is far better. The virtual LA you propose is simply handicapping a person based on superior skill in one aspect of the game; unless the other players are similarly handicapped in their best skills this is just poppycock. That's no different than cutting down on intelligent interactive encounters (traps, zombies, and oozes for the win) when an immersive role-player joins a monty haul style game. In either case you are really not going to resolve the issue at hand. You are going to cause hard feelings and drive away the player representing the minority faction of the group. I wouldn't do that to somebody.
Greg K 04-04-07, 12:38 PM	He hasn't said anything about your personalites, just that he dislikes powergaming and/or optimization (not clear on the optimization part). The definitions that I most familiar with: Optimization: to conciously assign numbers and other resources to best meet a concept. It doesn't matter if the concept is a Conan clone, mechanical (e.g., spiked chain wielder), or a slightly above average stregnth and highly intelligent fighter who grew up on a farm you assign the numbers as apppropriate for the concept/background. In the lat case, you give the fighter a strength of 12 or 13, a high intelligence score and at least one skill rank in profession farmer and handle animal, because that is the concept. Powergaming: playing out of the desire of playing powerful characters and/or a primary focus upon the accumulation of power. The more extreme cases of the latter are sometimes described as playing to kill things and take their stuff so that one's character becomes more powerful allowing them to kill more powerful things and take their stuff.
Greg K 04-04-07, 12:44 PM	He has a preferance, and doesn't want to compromize that preferance to admit optimizers into his group dynamic. That's his prerogative, but it isn't exactly fair; what if one of his friends did like optimization? . His friend adopts the style of the rest of the group if he wants to play. I suppose that if you think its fair and just to penalize one player and not the others than this is an option. Just because I know the rules inside and out, and can make powerful characters does not mean I am doing something wrong. It does make you wrong if you are playing with a group that approaches the game with a different playstyle. Its similar to playing tackle football when people are playing flag football. You adapt to the rules that the others are playing by or find another game.
Tyraxus 04-04-07, 01:02 PM	It does make you wrong if you are playing with a group that approaches the game with a different playstyle. Its similar to playing tackle football when people are playing flag football. You adapt to the rules that the others are playing by or find another game. First, it's not wrong, it's different. Second, that's not a true parallel; something similar would be: Me: Hey, guys, what's up? Daydreamer: Putting together a game of football. Me: Can I play? DD: Sure. Me: I normally play tackle, is that cool? DD: NO! Tackle ruins the game! We're touch football only, you dumb stupid jock! You can't play with us and tell the rest of your dumb stupid jock friends that play tackle football to stay the hell away from us! Me: Uhh... I can play touch too, but ok. :( That's how he comes off with his "I'd never play with double-talking politician powergamers" rhetoric. It may not be precisely what he means to say, but that is indeed what I (and I think, we) hear him say, especially when he says he would never play with powergamers even if they are really good roleplayers.
Comus 04-04-07, 01:03 PM	His friend adopts the style of the rest of the group if he wants to play. The arguments I've seen presented on the powergaming side are that the entire group should reach a compromise so everyone has fun. I'm not going to get into what that compromise might be, because it's different for every group (could just be 'well, I'll roll up a Kobold Fighter' or 'Okay, I promise not to play a Druid'). On the other hand, all I've seen from the roleplaying crowd is that no compromise can be reached, and the friend must absolutely fold to the will of the group. Well, not all I've seen. There are some moderates. But compromise is definitely not part of Daydreamer's vocabulary, and he's the most vocal anti-powergaming personality here. It does make you wrong if you are playing with a group that approaches the game with a different playstyle. Its similar to playing tackle football when people are playing flag football. You adapt to the rules that the others are playing by or find another game. That's not quite accurate - tackle football and flag football have two different sets of rules. Your example would be accurate for someone using 32-point buy in a 25-point game, though. I think a more valid description is playing touch football, but the powergamers want to run actual plays and do the best they can to win, while the roleplayers just want to play football and don't coordinate.
Greg K 04-04-07, 01:29 PM	On the other hand, all I've seen from the roleplaying crowd is that no compromise can be reached, and the friend must absolutely fold to the will of the group. Well, not all I've seen. There are some moderates. But compromise is definitely not part of Daydreamer's vocabulary, and he's the most vocal anti-powergaming personality here.. To be fair to Daydreamer, I have seen the same from many powergamers and combat optimizers on these boards with regard to to those who don't powergame or optimize mechanically for combat. Usually, the suggested solution on these boards is kill the character or drop them from the party and repeat until the offending players makes an appropriate character that the rest of the group finds acceptable or quits. That's not quite accurate - tackle football and flag football have two different sets of rules. Your example would be accurate for someone using 32-point buy in a 25-point game, though. I think a more valid description is playing touch football, but the powergamers want to run actual plays and do the best they can to win, while the roleplayers just want to play football and don't coordinate. My point is that they are playing by playing the style they are, they are playing differently from . Or possibly you are (nothing in the rules mandates that one must powergame). Look at the DMG where it actually describes to different styles of playing the game. It explains that their are different approaches to how the game is played with most groups preferring somewhere in the middle. Regardless, at some point, in point in playing the game, they set up understood rules of what is acceptable and unacceptable for the game as they play it. They might not be explicitly told you that they are playing a different/modified ruleset. They might not have such rules written down. They might not even be aware of it themselves, but they are. Welcome to group dynamics. Oh, and playing tactically to win is not powergaming. One doesn't have to play tactically to win to be a powergamer. Playing to win probably falls under gamist approach which is not how everyone approaches the rules. Some people actually approach the game with a primary emphasis on creating or experiencing a story rather than playing with a win/lose mentality.
Comus 04-04-07, 01:39 PM	To be fair to Daydreamer, I have seen the same from many powergamers and combat optimizers on these boards with regard to to those who don't powergame or optimize mechanically for combat. Usually, the suggested solution on these boards is kill the character or drop them from the party and repeat until the offending players makes an appropriate character that the rest of the group finds acceptable or quits. The most common suggestion I hear is to have the other players help the weak link design his character so everyone has fun. I already know how the argument thread on that goes so I'll just run through the whole thing right here... Help him design his charcter. No, that's forcing him to play something different! No it isn't, we're just helping the mechanics match the concept. Yes it is - it isn't the character he designed! But he said he doesn't care about mechanics, only about the roleplaying. It doesn't matter - he should get to play the character he designed! But it's a drag on the group dynamic! *decents into pointless argument, thread dies* Note the above applies to most arguments about powergaming, with some modification. My point is that they are playing by a different or modified set of rules. Or possibly you are (nothing in the rules mandates that one must powergame). Regardless, at some point, in point in playing the game, they set up understood rules of what is acceptable and unacceptable for the game as they play it. They might not be explicitly told you that they are playing a different/modified ruleset. They might not have such rules written down. They might not even be aware of it themselves, but they are. Welcome to group dynamics. They aren't playing by a different set of rules - they're playing by the same rules, but with a different expectation of what parts of the rules are important. Oh, and playing tactically to win is not powergaming. One doesn't have to play tactically to win to be a powergamer. It is the best analogy I could quickly come up with - powergaming is using the rules for their best effect. In football, that'd be playing tactically.
Greg K 04-04-07, 01:47 PM	It is the best analogy I could quickly come up with - powergaming is using the rules for their best effect. In football, that'd be playing tactically. Well, I would disagree with that definition of powergaming. Then again, its not the definition that I have encountered in over twenty years . Powergaming is merely playing with a focus to either play powerful characters and/or with the emphasis upon the desired accumulation of power as the motivating reason for playing. One can powergame without optimization
Daydreamer 04-04-07, 01:53 PM	The only reason i even brough up the point about 'personal experience' was in response to someone mentioning this stormwind fallacy-which i do understand, and agree with. Youve taken what ive said as insults-if this was a physical conversation you would have heard me talking in a calm matter of fact relatively indifferent voice. Perhaps it would have been clear how little i care about these differences then. Whats this about calling such people double talk politicians?- i cant remember the embedded context of what i was thinking at the time-but i believe it was something like sometimes so called roleplayers are really people who use psuedo justifications for what they are doing. I wasnt even correlating this with the tendency to power game, i mentioned them as examples from my history-because we are talking about power gamers its also true of other play stlyes. Im not slandering your playstyle-i said my experience has led me to believe this is true in general? Do you have proof im wrong about that statement? I don't have proof im right, i just leave it at that-but you keep insisting that i harbour some hostility when i dont. Its a claim of fact-im either right or im wrong, neither one of us knows that. Its completely superfulous to what im really trying to say. I was actually thinking of it like a scientifc claim-like a sociologist expecting to find a certain behavior in a people. I honestly didnt make this conjecture with anything more than intellectual interest. Especially since i don't consider people who dont roleplay a problem-its one more option, so for me saying a group doesn't roleplay as often as other groups isnt even on the radar for an insult. Its akin to saying scottish people arent prone to wearing hats. Thats how i really do view it. Also you say "I don't see the feats on my sheet or the spells in my spell books as things that need in-game justification or backing from character motives. Feats, spells, and class features are just the mechanism that defines what my characters can and cannot do. When a wizard gains two new spells for gaining a level, he does not need to role-play the whole process out or justify why he would select the fly spell over the tongues spell. Maybe in your games that might be the case, but that's not the case as far as the rules are concerned" Two points-the other group my dm runs, she and her players continue playing were every skill/spell needs to be learned-they make access easy, but even spells per level have to be researched after you level before you get them -and in this sense, they roleplay this out. whats wrong with that? Secondly-Moving to a say become a cleric of a god-ie multiclassing-is not quite like gaining abilities for level-this is the sort of change i would want to roleplay out the reasons for. People have twisted my words into something offensive-and then insulted me-and then said its not ok to insult people. If you CHOOSE to feel insulted by my views id actually suggest its your own problem not mine. I am not trying to backdown from anything, because i am honestly perplexed by these accusations. I tend to be a relaxed person-and state my views a little laxidasically, and i can see how they might be misinterpreted. I dont think power gamers are 'double talking politicians' at any more frequent rate than other types of gamers- and this was not a claim made by me, I mentioned that some people do this, I mentioned some power gamers from my past did this. Unlike the roleplaying comment I said nothing about in general. I also don't think saying they tend not to roleplay in my experience (and im guessing in general ) is slander-because whether one roleplays or not is irrelevant-its a piece of style as well. So its from my point of view not an insult to say this. It would be like me saying-irish people (using my own ethnicity so i dont get accused of racism when employing a metaphor) tend to not powergame. Is that slandar? Well what about scottish people tend to not roleplay. Those are the same damn type of statements in my mind. It makes as much sense to me as an irish guy standing up to go 'whoa whoa we do powergame how dare you say that' more like 'actually plenty of irish people power game' in which case im simply wrong. If I am wrong I am wrong, that’s all. Lastly the people who i 'turn' away at this stage arent all because they dont fit our game style-we have our group-it has as much members as we want- and its not even up to me really, my fellow pcs are content with the way things are as well. And its been a good few years. Heck im not the dm-shes actually concretely the one doing the turning away. Your insulted because you understood what i had to say in a certain way-i didnt see it that way. I have clarified things here, i hope, if not and your still offended, thats not my fault anymore. It is the best analogy I could quickly come up with - powergaming is using the rules for their best effect. In football, that'd be playing tactically. except that best is relative in d&d. I sometimes purposively make my characters weaker to fit a concept of mind. They are now 'better' for what i want from them.
Daydreamer 04-04-07, 02:25 PM	By no compromise i only mean i intend to game the way i want to game. I have the freedom to game the way i want to game without compromise would more accurately say what i mean here. YOu can play how u want, i honestly dont care. edit: Mozart also had a policy of no compromise when it came to setting up his art projects. People tried to change them to be more publically understood-he saw that as degradation. TIme has shown him right.
Daydreamer 04-04-07, 02:39 PM	I think its supposed to be 'ironic' but its only ironic if it mirrors something weve done, and nothing ive said comes close to nazism-that is just plain ridiculous and attacks me personally.
Ventilatory_Threshold 04-04-07, 02:42 PM	So it insults you?
Daydreamer 04-04-07, 02:55 PM	It depends. If they are saying what im talking about reminds them of nazism-that just confuses me-and is why im trying to correct what im saying. But if im being called a nazi-yes i find that offensive-while im from Ireland my mother is jewish...so i guess i take that one a littler personally.
Daydreamer 04-04-07, 03:34 PM	i said people with fundamentally different visions of the game are disruptive. If you put a powergamer in my group and he power games its going to be disruptive, i give it about 5 mins till my dm would toss said person. It has nothing to do uniquely with power gamers being disruptive-but is a reflection on different playstlyes. The stormwind fallacy deals with an error in a deductive claim-not an inductive claim. Roleplaying and powergaming are not linked logically-but perhaps for reasons of culture certain trends might exist-perhaps not-we dont have enough data. I merely think they would. YOu quoted me on providing an example of a double talk politician. NOT in making a claim that all powergamers, or most powergamers, or only power gamers do this. considerate to assume innocent till proven guilty? Man its not a crime to not roleplay it has no consequences,its not even-from my view-derogatory. Besides its a hypothesis. If we were sociology students doing a survey and we had to state what we expect to find at the start-well this is what i would expect to find. Also, im being assumed guilty-ive expressely said that your interpretations are not what i mean by what i said-and what ive said is logically compatible with the other alternatives. But im being assumed guilly arent i? When i point to my group or the way groups i know does stuff it isnt because i expect other people to justify according to my houserules-its to point out the difference-not say its better. I can see why people would be insulted-but only because i was a bit laxidasical in my speech earlier-so it was compatible with such and such interpretations, interpretations that do not reflect my own attitudes. I wasnt aware i would need a lawyer to draft up exactly what i mean and have clauses and second clauses before posting on the forums- i merely spoke loosely.
Comus 04-04-07, 03:37 PM	Man, this thread has hit Godwin Level Eight. Anyway, Daydreamer, one of the biggest problems is that you've said, repeatedly, that you would never, ever, under any circumstances, play with powergamers - even if you knew they were also extremely good roleplayers. I feel that's horridly biased. And I will never understand people who have a problem with powergamers in an RP-heavy game. So the powergamer gets a lot of spotlight in the rare combat encounter? Great! He deserves it, because that's what his character is built to do. But if the game is really RP-heavy, and has a decent DM, then every character should have a chance to shine through their own parts of the story. And building a character as being purposely weaker is silly as well. I don't mean "Every fighter should use build X" or "Everyone should play a cleric", but... well, take Raistlin as the classic example. In the books (and the way the guy RPed him), Raistlin was coughing up blood, had almost no stamina, and so forth. Do you know what his Con score was? 10. Perfectly average. All of that came from roleplaying, because it didn't have or need a mechanical effect.
Daydreamer 04-04-07, 03:43 PM	Thats not the point Comus. My not liking to play with power gamers has nothing to do with there roleplaying, its that i don't like power gaming at all. Its not an issue of bias-its an issue of taste. I wouldnt play a d20 modern game-i dont like playing games ina modern setting. I dont look down on people who play it though. If i was offered to join such a game id say 'no thanks'. But i woudlnt say 'no you should be playing the way i play blah blah blah-or your all double talking liars blah blah blah' building someone weaker isnt silly-its different than what you do. If it helps me have fun, its a good thing, not a bad thing. I dont always do it, i sometimes do it, yes im aware of Raistlin.
Greg K 04-04-07, 04:42 PM	How about everyone calm down, take this online test for fun, and then report back the results? http://quizfarm.com/test.php?q_id=62192
Ventilatory_Threshold 04-04-07, 04:48 PM	Power Gamer - 100% Method Actor - 100% Storyteller - 100% Butt-Kicker - 100% Specialist - 83% Tactician - 75% Casual Gamer - 25% I'm a genetically engineered super gamer!
Comus 04-04-07, 04:52 PM	Heck, why not? You scored as Tactician. You're probably a military buff who wants to have the chance to think through complex problems. You want the rules, and your GM's interpretation of them, to match up what happens in the real world or at least be consistant. You want challenging yet logical obstacles to overcome. Tactician - 92% Method Actor - 75% Power Gamer - 67% Storyteller - 67% Specialist - 58% Butt-Kicker - 50% Casual Gamer - 8% Seems accurate enough.
Greg K 04-04-07, 05:22 PM	Here are my results (Note: I know from having taken this test on multiple occassions that on any given day I may experience roughly a five percent variance-the exceptions being method actor, specialist, casual gamer which always stay the same. Today storyteller and buttkicker are on the high side while tactician is a little low). Storyteller: You're more inclined toward the role playing side of the equation and less interested in numbers or experience points. You're quick to compromise if you can help move the story forward, and get bored when the game slows down for a long planning session. You want to play out a story that moves like it's orchestrated by a skilled novelist or film director. Storyteller 75% Method Actor 75% Specialist 67% Tactician 33% Power Gamer 25% Butt-Kicker 17% Casual Gamer 0%
Ventilatory_Threshold 04-04-07, 05:26 PM	BTW you spelled "whup" wrong. I spell it however I want.
nastynate 04-04-07, 05:37 PM	Power Gamer - 100% Method Actor - 100% Storyteller - 100% Butt-Kicker - 100% Specialist - 83% Tactician - 75% Casual Gamer - 25% I'm a genetically engineered super gamer! LOL! I wanna be a gentically engineered super gamer too! Tactician - 92% Method Actor - 92% Storyteller - 92% Power Gamer -67% Butt-Kicker - 67% Specialist -67% Casual Gamer - 25% I guess I'm like a third generation clone of a genetically engineered super gamer (no 100% ratings fo me :( ) Comus and nastynate, are you okay with me sending this thread to hell? It's halfway there already, so I thought I'd finish it off. Do what you gotta do. I put Daydreamer on my ignore list, and there isn't anybody left giving me headaches, so this thread has run its course for me.
Ventilatory_Threshold 04-04-07, 05:38 PM	You still get respect for having high percentages in many fields.
WizO_Cat 04-04-07, 10:04 PM	Ok, let's: 1) Knock off the personal attack posts. Keep the posts on the subject of the thread, not other guests and, 2) Knock off the posts that refer to real life political figures and organizations. Both are considered to be against the Code of Conduct. If it continues, further disciplinary actions will be taken. Fair warning.
Archangel62 04-05-07, 12:10 AM	How about everyone calm down, take this online test for fun, and then report back the results? http://quizfarm.com/test.php?q_id=62192 You scored as Tactician You're probably a military buff who wants to have the chance to think through complex problems. You want the rules, and your GM's interpretation of them, to match up what happens in the real world or at least be consistant. You want challenging yet logical obstacles to overcome. Tactician: 100% Storyteller: 83% Method Actor: 75% Power Gamer: 58% Specialist: 58% Butt-Kicker: 50% Casual gamer: 33%
Cael 04-05-07, 06:11 AM	You scored as Storyteller. You're more inclined toward the role playing side of the equation and less interested in numbers or experience points. You're quick to compromise if you can help move the story forward, and get bored when the game slows down for a long planning session. You want to play out a story that moves like it's orchestrated by a skilled novelist or film director. Storyteller 92% Method Actor 92% Tactician 75% Power Gamer 75% Butt-Kicker 67% Specialist 58% Casual Gamer 25% ==================================== Ironic, isn't it, considering who I have argued *against* in this thread...
Tyraxus 04-05-07, 09:19 AM	Here goes. You scored as a Butt-kicker. You like a streightforward combat character. After a long day at the office, you want to clobber foes and once more prove your superiority over all who would challenge you. Tactician 100% Butt-Kicker 100% Storyteller 92% Specialist 83% Method Actor 83% Power Gamer 75% Casual Gamer 8% That's probably about right, although I do enjoy high-Int combat characters because 1)Gishes are fun, and 2)there's nothing quite like spending a mere five-ten minutes figuring out a way around the DM's brilliant plot to kill us all or railroad us into something. Pirate campaign, we're transporting an artifact on the ship when we're attacked by Sahuagin raiders. The DM describes the deck shuddering, the ship stopping, and a few more shudders as Sahuagin start climbing over the rails. I ask "As a pirate for the past five-ish years, have I encountered Sahuagin rading parties before?" DM: "You probably know the basics of their tactics and you've dealt with them a couple of times as allies. The deck shudders again." Me: "They're flanking us, gonna come up through the hold! I need three crewmen and the ship's carpenter!" DM: "What's your Int?" Me: "16 :D " DM: "Crap." After we fight off the Sahuagin in the hold, he tells me "Thanks loads, now I've wasted the past week writing a 'Recover the Artifact from the Bottom of the Sea' adventure." Me: :D Same campaign: We're running from an Antipaladin who is intent on killing us all, and the only real way to save our skins is to get three artifacts to the local temple so the high priest will put us under his protection (since we're level 8 and the Antipaladin is level 14ish). The DM tells us we figure it'll probably take our Raptoran sorceror three trips for the artifacts, or one trip each, and starts to roll for how many rounds it'll take the Antipaladin to find us once he takes off, when I go "Hey, if <Cleric> casts Bull Strength on him, he's strong enough he can carry all three. He's only got two arms, so he can only hold one, but there's rope in the corner and we're sailors, I'm sure we can rig something up so he can get all three in one trip. When they see him and shoot arrows, he can use Wind Wall to not get hit. And <Rogue>, you have a wand of invisibility, right, so you use it on him and he can get close and maybe slip by before they even see him!" The DM just stopped and asked "what's your Int?" "16 :D " *Dm crunches numbers* "Crap, it could work."
WizO_Cat 04-05-07, 11:45 AM	Ok, I've removed the more recent personal posts. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to e-mail me - however, leave the replies out of the thread. Please keep in mind that my original post goes to all prior offending posts. If a post is submitted after my last response that you feel violates the Code of Conduct, please report the thread. However, don't call them out on the boards, since that it a form of Baiting as well.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 04-05-07, 12:16 PM	Tactician 100% -- Not all that surprising. Although i mostly DM now...damn I've never seen players more terrified then when they fought their first hand made NPC. A monster they can metagame, even if only to reasure themselves. An NPC with class levels, and/or templates... that they have absolutely no clue about. Story teller 100% - If i want to sit around and role dice all day long I'll go to the casio and play craps. Power gamer - 67% I was once told by a player of mine, and friend, that I'm the best "character builder" he knows. To me the rules are a means to an end. When i make a character I am generally looking for a certain style, a panash. Something special. I can usually find a away to represent that physically with the rules. Be it a sword fensing elf that has a unquec way of fighting. the curiouse wizard/druid who feild of research is the different plains, maybe an EX-covert ops specialist rogue/mage. Point is I enjoying playing many different characters. The rules don't cover flavour, or personality. that comes soully from the player. What the rules to cover is the methood through whcich the charcter physically acts upon the world. They should represent how that character does that. Specialist - 67% - This one i don't understand. I can play whatever, whenever. I tend to favour magic, but that is becuase it is the most versatile. Generally speaking i make characters to fill gaps with in the party. Then the powergamer in me comes out, becuase for the most part my chaarcters have at some magic in them. Casual gamer - 50% - Not at all. I game, and I love it.
Greg K 04-05-07, 01:08 PM	Here is what the categories mean as best as I have been able to determine: Storyteller: Importance on creating a story. Method Actor: The importance of rping an actual character. How much you identify with the character and base your decisions on the characters personality. Specialist: The importance of both having the tools necessary to build the character as you envision it and how far you go in using those tools. This appears to be optimization Tactician: The importance of needing to come up with detailed strategies. It also appears to be degree of simulationist and, possibly, wargamer/strategy gamer. Powergamer: The importance of having powerful characters and the need for mechanical rewards (e.g., experience point, new abilties ) that increase the character's power rather than the satisfaction of an enjoyable session being enough of an reward. Buttkicker: The importance of killing things Casual Gamer: The importance of your friends playing to your desire/willingness to participate in a session or your willingness to play just to play a game.
Greg K 04-05-07, 01:21 PM	Casual gamer - 50% - Not at all. I game, and I love it. Lol. I think that "not at all" would be me. I actually scored 0%. I like to have my friends play, but they are not a necessity. I will not play a game that I don't enjoy just to hang out. Nor, will I game just for the sake of being able to game.
Tyraxus 04-05-07, 01:23 PM	Powergamer: The importance of having powerful characters and the need for mechanical rewards (e.g., experience point, new abilties ) that increase the character's power rather than the satisfaction of an enjoyable session being enough of an reward. This, I think, is part of the disagreement between the "RPers" and "powergamers." RPers value a well-RPed session more, while powergamers value a strong character more. The problem, I think, is that RPers tend to think powergamers view "an enjoyable session" just as much as they do, and want even more for their power, while some powergamers just don't care about the RP in a session and want to kill things. That leads to some RPers thinking powergamers want "more" out of the game, rather than "different." I'm sure there are powergamers out there who reverse it and do the same thing, but they seem to be less common on these boards. Meh, it's not making sense. What I'm trying to say is that people's opinions on what "an enjoyable session" is differs, and that's the root of a large portion of the disagreement. Does that make any sense? Other than that, good analysis of the categories.
Greg K 04-05-07, 01:35 PM	Tyraxus, Yes people have differences in what they find rewarding. One of my reasons for recommending the test is that I wanted to use it to point out that these categories are not binary Each is a a continuom on its own axis and, for the most part, we all have bits of each category in us (except for myself, who appears to lack any casual gaming). It is the degree of importance on various categories in which we may differ. So, yes. A person scoring highly as powergamer may very well enjoy the the session, but depending upon the degree of powergaming one enjoys, the person on the higher end of the scale may enjoy games in which there are more tangible in-game rewards that increase character power than someone to the far left. At least, under this test, as far as I can tell. As for killing things being important to powergamers, there is no relation between powergaming and killing things under this test. Killing things falls under butt kickers. However, you pointed out the differences in what people find enjoyable in their gaming can lead to conflict especially when given individuals preferred styles come into confict- obviously, this more likely to occur the more that the preference of participants falls opposing ends of the spectrum. This, I think, is part of the disagreement between the "RPers" and "powergamers." RPers value a well-RPed session more, while powergamers value a strong character more. The problem, I think, is that RPers tend to think powergamers view "an enjoyable session" just as much as they do, and want even more for their power, while some powergamers just don't care about the RP in a session and want to kill things. That leads to some RPers thinking powergamers want "more" out of the game, rather than "different." I'm sure there are powergamers out there who reverse it and do the same thing, but they seem to be less common on these boards. Meh, it's not making sense. What I'm trying to say is that people's opinions on what "an enjoyable session" is differs, and that's the root of a large portion of the disagreement. Does that make any sense? Other than that, good analysis of the categories.
Tyraxus 04-05-07, 02:10 PM	Powergaming and butt-kicking are related, though, as how else do you get that "UB3R-AW3SOM3 L33T +27 SWORD!!!!111eleven" if not by 1)killing things and getting the XP to craft it, or 2)slaying that ancient black dragon and taking it from the hoard? They're sides of the same coin, since a powergamer will kill things to get power, while a butt-kicker will get power to kill things. That's why I scored so highly on butt-kicking and lower on powergaming: I don't want power for power's sake, I want to USE it! I don't kill the dragon to get the +5 sonic burst lightning burst greathammer, I get said Thunder Hammer to kill the dragon and the lich and the... However, you pointed out the differences in what people find enjoyable in their gaming can lead to conflict especially when given individuals preferred styles come into confict- obviously, this more likely to occur the more that the preference of participants falls opposing ends of the spectrum. I think you're right, the more you're in it for X, the more ticked you are if the game is less X and more Y.
Greg K 04-05-07, 02:21 PM	Powergaming and butt-kicking are related, though, as how else do you get that "UB3R-AW3SOM3 L33T +27 SWORD!!!!111eleven" if not by 1)killing things and getting the XP to craft it, or 2)slaying that ancient black dragon and taking it from the hoard? They're sides of the same coin, since a powergamer will kill things to get power, while a butt-kicker will get power to kill things. That's why I scored so highly on butt-kicking and lower on powergaming: I don't want power for power's sake, I want to USE it! I don't kill the dragon to get the +5 sonic burst lightning burst greathammer, I get said Thunder Hammer to kill the dragon and the lich and the.... Ah, but power is not always related to buttkicking/combat- the character's power maybe releated to non-combat situations-- For example, the ability to manipulate people with social power to do what you want through the use of magic, psionics, or ridiculous skill levels.
Tyraxus 04-05-07, 02:30 PM	Ah, but power is not always related to buttkicking/combat- the character's power maybe releated to non-combat situations-- For example, the ability to manipulate people with social power to do what you want through the use of magic, psionics, or ridiculous skill levels. True... but I'm a buttkicker, so that's what I use/gather power for :D And still, even if you're not cutting its head off, I figure you're still kicking butt if you're having your way with it (puny-looking half elf diplomancer stares down a hulking orc guard with a helluva intimidate check, for example). Guess it's just the way I look at things.
Daydreamer 04-05-07, 05:45 PM	Meh, it's not making sense. What I'm trying to say is that people's opinions on what "an enjoyable session" is differs, and that's the root of a large portion of the disagreement. Does that make any sense? . this is accurate, and goes back to some of the points i was trying to make in my very first post in this thread. Summerized below The dm is never FORCED to do anything, and your never forced to play in his or her game. I dislike pcs who argue normative standards for the dm, there is no normative way to play d&d, i like role playing intensive-stick with the rules firmly but dont power game style. Other ppl like something different, as long as everyone agrees is the key. Essentially d&d is 'good' when the pcs and dm have the same vision in mind with how they think d&d should be done/run.
Greg K 04-05-07, 06:02 PM	Daydreamer, Did you try the test?
Daydreamer 04-05-07, 06:14 PM	Ya, but the mods deleted the post i made with regard to it-i believe because i was responding to someone else trying to implicate me for saying all sorts of nasty stuff that i didnt. I scored something like 100% storyteller i also scored high-70's? for tactician. and ofc, i scored low for powergamer.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 04-05-07, 06:32 PM	Tyraxus: Your close to what the terms mean. they are fully explained in Robin's laws of Good gaming. I highly recomend it for anyone wishing to improve their game. There also exsists a bastardised version in the DMG 2. To summerise: Tactician: In it for the tacts. Loves to think through problems, and solve the puzzles. Wants over come enemies with well thought out tactical plans and manuvuers. Wants to be challenged int he same manner. main draw to the game is the strategy/wargame side of things. Usually perfers a more structured, rulkes orientated game. Story teller: This person wants imaginative, creative and interesting story lines. The rules, and other things are secondary to the story. It has to be there, and it has to be moving. They will often go along with a lot, like railroading, so long as it moves the story forward. Powergamer/power acumulator: They are in it for the power of the character. For the game to be fun their character has to be the best, and everyone, and everything has to know it. This isn't nessesarily a bad thing... It's more like a hockey player strieving to beat a record. Often they have acool idea that they want to make powerful. Kinda like a character whos goal is to be the best archer in all of history. method actor: For this player their charcter is everything. Not the mechanics, but the personality. they want to explore every aspect of it. From it's fear of water, to how it feels about Aunt Agnes. Mechanics, the story, everything else don't matter, so long as the player role players the character to perfectly to what the character would do. But Kicker: This player shows up to kick but and take names. usually blowing off steam sometimes they just like to make the fury animals scream. either way the has to be plenty of doors to be smashed, and but to booted. Specialist: This player has onec oncept that is super uber cool. and that all they like to play. Example: Winged elf fanboys. Or that player who also plays a half-orc bouncer who uses a great axe and flies into a berserker rage. I've had 2 such players. one had a hard on for monks, and the other thinks half orc/orge (big green bad-ass) barbarains are the shizznit. casual: This guys only there to spend time with his freinds. the game itself doesn't matter, and he often doesn't care for it. He just wants to gang out with the gang. They prefer staying in the background and would prefer not to be the center of attention. I think a lot of the problems DMs have G/B/F tag alongs is that they don't actually want to/ give a dame about the game. They just want to spend time with the S.O.
Greg K 04-05-07, 07:04 PM	On_the_wings, Actually I tried supplying the definitions. It is interesting to see the actual definitions.. Storyteller, I may have rated as storyteller, but I hate railroads (both as a player and a DM). Perhaps that is why my storyteller rating was only about 75%. Specialist: It seems I got this wrong. I'm not sure why I rated so high. Maybe, because I will not play a character just to round out the group. My view the group has no cleric-so what? The DM should take that into account when designing the adventures or make clerics of individual dieites more unique and interesting for their world. I like rogues (phb or wilderness variant), rangers, sorcerers, wizards, monks and even fighters or barbarians (preferably the hunter variant from UA). To get me to play cleric the dm needs to really flesh out the pantheons and clerical orders of his or her world.
Leilond 04-06-07, 08:57 AM	You scored as Method Actor. You think that gaming is a form of creative expression. You may view rules as, at best, a necessary evil, preferring sessions where the dice never come out of the bag. You enjoy situations that test or deepen your character's personality traits. Method Actor 58% Storyteller 50% Specialist 42% Butt-Kicker 33% Tactician 33% Power Gamer 25% Casual Gamer 17% You can be a "powerplayer", a "metagamer" or all other things that usually people use like "bad words". The only important things is that you talk with your friends, find a common place to play and all have fun. Friendship requires this
Greg K 04-06-07, 10:23 AM	You can be a "powerplayer", a "metagamer" or all other things that usually people use like "bad words". The only important things is that you talk with your friends, find a common place to play and all have fun. Friendship requires this Leilond, First, the message you quoted was not negative labels. They were the results of a test designed ot try and help that one determine how strong their preferences rate in several key areas/styles of gaming defined by Robin Laws, the author of several gaming books. Second, you appear to be under the mistaken impression that everyone finds the same thing fun. As the test demonstrates, different people have different preferences as to what makes the game fun for them. Recognizing how strong one's preferences are in different areas can help make the game more fun by helping the DM include each person's preference or to help find a common ground. At the same time, it can, imo, also help indicate when compromise may not work and conflict among playstyles may occur (e.g., if two or more individuals have preferences that fall towards the opposite extremes on someone's key preference). Third, not everyone games with friends. Some people have to play with strangers, because their friends don't play or they have recently moved (or move frequently). Often these individuals find new groups with whom they eventually become friends. Others only get to play at conventions.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 04-06-07, 10:43 AM	Second, you appear to be under the mistaken impression that everyone finds the same thing fun. As the test demonstrates, different people have different preferences as to what makes the game fun for them. Recognizing how strong one's preferences are in different areas can help make the game more fun by helping the DM include each person's preference or to help find a common ground. At the same time, it can, imo, also help indicate when compromise may not work and conflict among playstyles may occur (e.g., if two or more individuals have preferences that fall towards the opposite extremes on someone's key preference). Its kinda funny how amazingly odviouse that statement is, yet how easily it is forgotten. It was taking the test myself, and then comparing the results with my wife that really hammered it home. Now I have made a fundamental change in the manner with which I DM. I tend to try and see what aspects each of my players enjoy, and play into those. In turn they come out to the game more, and a more enjoyable time is had by all. learning this really did save my game, and is probally the best advice I can give anyone trying to improve their game.
UltimateReality 04-06-07, 12:34 PM	I finally broke down and took that test yesterday. Apparently I needed a tie-breaker between method actor and specialist (both at 92%). Tactician was not far behind (83%), then storyteller at 75% (maybe this explains why I only DM in short bursts :P). Powergamer and butt-kicker tied at 67%, and casual gamer was a low 8%. I found the quiz very interesting, given that I had previously read Robin's Laws and tried to place myself and my group from his descriptions. (I also, at one point, handed a photocopy of that portion of the book to all the players and asked them to describe each other. It was an interesting exercise.)
Daydreamer 04-06-07, 02:33 PM	Leilond, First, the message you quoted was not negative labels. . this has been one of the key misunderstandings in this entire thread :rolleyes:
Cardinal Teplin 04-07-07, 07:25 AM	Hmm... I got 92% Method Actor 92% Tactician tied for first place. Everything else was around 50 or lower. While I'm naturally sceptical of the ability of a 21 question test to capture everyone's playing style, this seems reasonably accurate as far as it goes.
Greg K 04-07-07, 11:33 AM	While I'm naturally sceptical of the ability of a 21 question test to capture everyone's playing style, this seems reasonably accurate as far as it goes. That was my initial response with regards to my own results.
Sareld 04-07-07, 01:36 PM	Neat little test! Power Gamer 92% - Not a surprise. I like a well built character, and I like to accumulate as many wierd skills/powers that I can get away with. Tactician 92% - Also not a surprise.. I like to think my7 way through tricky situations. Specialist 83% - Heh, this is because I am always playing some kind of spellcasting stealth character. I just prefer them above all else, because they have the tools to pull off my cunning plans.. Method Actor 78% - I like to get into character, but it is not the only thing I show up for when I play d&d. Storyteller 50% - 50%? Well, I guess that it depends on the story that I am a character in a lot. In my current game, there hardly is one. I sure miss the days where I could always sneak off into the night and dig into whatever I felt like, and thereby get caught in all sorts of interesting situations that might throw off a good story. Barbarians do no such things, and rarely expirience anything but killing BBEGs and drunkenness at the tavern... Butt-Kicker 38% I am not at all surprised that I score low here. My last rogue/mage didnt even take a life before lvl 6, and my characters usually see killing guards as the mark of incompetent thieves... ah well. Casual Gamer 0% - 404 - File not found.
kelvinaw273 04-07-07, 07:48 PM	Well, I got: Method Actor = 100% Storyteller = 100% Tactician = 75% Specialist = 58% Power Gamer = 50% Butt-Kicker = 33% Casual Gamer = 25% Which isn't a half bad a description of how I play. I've followed the last few pages without comment, mainly because I've been away form my desk on the nightshift for a week or so. I have (finally) caught up with the pace of things, and it has made some interesting reading. Why I don't like Power Gaming / Extreme Optimizing / Min-Maxing: Disclaimer: The following represents a personal opinion on my own style of play. It is in no way an attempt to tell others that their playing style is incorrect, wrong or antisocial. I am stating it here as it may articulate the arguments that others have sought to present in more clearly understood terms, and offer some enlightenment to others who may be asking why someone who could play in a certain way they enjoy would choose not to. I like to role-play. My kick in a game comes from getting into my character, feeling out what makes them tick and running through the gammut of emotions with them. I find that when I start making mechanical choices in the metagame and having to justify them (if only to myself) I have lost some of that, so I don't like to do it. This does not mean that I gimp my characters; on the contrary, I like to optimise to some degree because I want a character that is caperble at what they do and contributes to the party as a whole. However, I don't allow these choices to dominate my character build. I like to be flexible. I prefer generalist characters to specialists, as a rule. I don't like to have huge glaring weaknesses, instead I prefer to have a character less brilliant at one thing and more talanted at several. I find this gives me more choices. As the saying goes: "If all you have is a hammer, sooner or later all your problems start to look like nails." There are many games in which a single min-maxed character that has one option when faced with a problem has ruined the game for others by charging in with his one trick, when another character could have solved the problem far more effectively. Why did they do this? Because they were bored, and couldn't do anything else. I'm not saying all min-maxers do this, but I like to be active, and that means having variety in what I can do. I don't see the point. When you have a single character in a group that outshines the group, you can have a problem, and I don't want to cause a problem. If everyone in the group optimizes to that extent, then while you don't have a problem, you haven't actually increased the survivability of any of the party, because the DM will only up the level of challenge you face in some way. DMs do this, it's their job. They do it when they don't send a CR10 encounter at level 1 party, and they do it when they decide to challenge said part with a lone CR3 BBEG to make them work hard. If the party is optimized and can defeat challenges several CR above those they would normally be expected to face, then they will recieve those challenges regularly. The same goes for a weak party. So in essence, the only time in which I can see a point in power-gaming is if a person wants to outshine the rest of the group's characters' - and that can cause problems, because the DM then has the issue of challenging that character without slaughtering the rest of the party, and in any rate it's a form of 'showboating*' which isn't nice. In any event, as I stated, I like to roleplay, so if I am in a group in which everyone starts building for power because one player does, I am losing my RP fun (see 1 above) and gaining ... well, nothing tangible. I like to treat Prestige Classes with respect. Again, this is my opinion, and it applies more when I DM, but I feel that prestige classes are largely something special. Some merely represent a self-taught difference in development, but others are linked to societies or rely on finding an individual to teach a person a technique or set of techniques. These latter PrCs are not, as far as I can see, just for dipping. You don't get in if you don't show a lot of dedication, and if you are dedicated, you don't dabble. The same sometimes applies to some core classes too. Having a core class often represents a great deal of background training and even experience. As a DM I don't mind players putting that training into their backstory, even retroactively, but again, some core classes like Cleric require some interaction and formality - a cleric often has to be accepted into the holy orders of a church; it is not as easy as waking up one morning and saying: "Hey, today I'll level up into cleric, that'd be cool!" If the character has the inclination, they need to follow it IC as well as OOC - not perhaps by taking skills or feats that gimp them, but perhaps by following the ethos or trend before they take the class level. * Yes, I know that it isn't the only form of showboating, drama queens can showboat too. I merely mention that it is a method of doing so. I do not accuse all people who power-game of showboating by any means. Hence I do understand why Daydreamer says that he will not play with power gamers. It isn't because he thinks they are wrong, or because he has any bias against their style per se, it just doesn't suit him. If he did game with them, it would have one of three results if his reasons for not power gaming are the same as my own: He'd have to power game in a group of power gamers, which would restrict his RP fun He'd not power game in a group of power gamers,which would give him a short life expectancy, and unless the game is Vampire, no-one really likes playing a corpse. He'd not power game in a group of non-power gamers with a single power gamer in it, which could mean a broken game. Although he has not said so, I suspect that his answer would be the same as mine if a power-gaming player joined his table and said: "I'd like to play, I know I normally go a bit mad on my builds, but I'm happy to tone it down for your game if you'll have me" - to which I'd respond: "pull up a chair."
Daydreamer 04-07-07, 09:26 PM	yes i would invite anyone to play if they agreed to play by the rules and the spirit of the rules of the table. In the past when i joined power gamer groups, i actually did powergame-just wasnt me. Nice summary-the thing is i think ppl got so upset at me they stopped listening to what i had to say, but more or less its what your saying.
Tyraxus 04-09-07, 10:29 AM	I like to role-play. My kick in a game comes from getting into my character, feeling out what makes them tick and running through the gammut of emotions with them. I find that when I start making mechanical choices in the metagame and having to justify them (if only to myself) I have lost some of that, so I don't like to do it. This does not mean that I gimp my characters; on the contrary, I like to optimise to some degree because I want a character that is caperble at what they do and contributes to the party as a whole. However, I don't allow these choices to dominate my character build. Except for two facts: 1)Out of game, how much you powergame (if any) has no direct relation to your RP ability. See the rest of this thread. 2)In-game, as I pointed out towards the front of this thread, any character that expected to survive a year in the world while adventuring would necessarily do at least some powergaming, because in a world where second place means you're a decaying corpse, nobody wants to finish second. Take a look at the American or British special forces (SAS, Delta Force, Marine Scout Snipers, Navy Seals, etc.): they train all the time, they work to be the best they can be and plan everything out, because when it's a question of life-or-death, it's far, far better to be strong than dead. I like to treat Prestige Classes with respect. Again, this is my opinion, and it applies more when I DM, but I feel that prestige classes are largely something special. Some merely represent a self-taught difference in development, but others are linked to societies or rely on finding an individual to teach a person a technique or set of techniques. These latter PrCs are not, as far as I can see, just for dipping. You don't get in if you don't show a lot of dedication, and if you are dedicated, you don't dabble. The same sometimes applies to some core classes too. Having a core class often represents a great deal of background training and even experience. As a DM I don't mind players putting that training into their backstory, even retroactively, but again, some core classes like Cleric require some interaction and formality - a cleric often has to be accepted into the holy orders of a church; it is not as easy as waking up one morning and saying: "Hey, today I'll level up into cleric, that'd be cool!" If the character has the inclination, they need to follow it IC as well as OOC - not perhaps by taking skills or feats that gimp them, but perhaps by following the ethos or trend before they take the class level. You seem to be under the impression that it takes 1,855,746,908 sources and 16 different 1-level PrC dips to "powergame." On the contrary, my current favourite "I kill you" build uses three base classes: three levels of Rogue and a mixture of ToB classes. There's not enough difference in ToB classes to warrent any kind of switch to or from anything flavour- or RP-wise; they're all martial artists. The Rogue makes sense because he started out as a street urchin and later gang thug before being taught the Sublime Way, and he sees a way to blend the skills he learned in both parts of his life. At level 9, this build could kill the party he was in with little to no problem at all (yes, including the druid if he played smart). It doesn't take much, and a little bit of power goes a long way.
Dan Hemmens 04-09-07, 11:24 AM	Why I don't like Power Gaming / Extreme Optimizing / Min-Maxing: Disclaimer: The following represents a personal opinion on my own style of play. It is in no way an attempt to tell others that their playing style is incorrect, wrong or antisocial. I am stating it here as it may articulate the arguments that others have sought to present in more clearly understood terms, and offer some enlightenment to others who may be asking why someone who could play in a certain way they enjoy would choose not to. Fair enough. These responses are my personal opinions also. I like to role-play. My kick in a game comes from getting into my character, feeling out what makes them tick and running through the gammut of emotions with them. I find that when I start making mechanical choices in the metagame and having to justify them (if only to myself) I have lost some of that, so I don't like to do it. This does not mean that I gimp my characters; on the contrary, I like to optimise to some degree because I want a character that is caperble at what they do and contributes to the party as a whole. However, I don't allow these choices to dominate my character build. So how do you deal with, well, anything that involves interacting with the game mechanics in any way at all? When your character is trying to bluff his way past a guard, do you find yourself thinking "but ... in character I don't even know what the Bluff skill is." Do you worry about picking feats because your character wouldn't have known he could learn them? D&D character building is a wholly mechanical process. It in no way interferes with your ability to "get into your character". I like to be flexible. I prefer generalist characters to specialists, as a rule. I don't like to have huge glaring weaknesses, instead I prefer to have a character less brilliant at one thing and more talanted at several. I find this gives me more choices. As the saying goes: "If all you have is a hammer, sooner or later all your problems start to look like nails." There are many games in which a single min-maxed character that has one option when faced with a problem has ruined the game for others by charging in with his one trick, when another character could have solved the problem far more effectively. Why did they do this? Because they were bored, and couldn't do anything else. I'm not saying all min-maxers do this, but I like to be active, and that means having variety in what I can do. And a non-optimised character will not be able to solve any problems at all. A generalist is still an optimised character, they're just optimised for flexibility. I don't see the point. When you have a single character in a group that outshines the group, you can have a problem, and I don't want to cause a problem. If everyone in the group optimizes to that extent, then while you don't have a problem, you haven't actually increased the survivability of any of the party, because the DM will only up the level of challenge you face in some way. DMs do this, it's their job. They do it when they don't send a CR10 encounter at level 1 party, and they do it when they decide to challenge said part with a lone CR3 BBEG to make them work hard. If the party is optimized and can defeat challenges several CR above those they would normally be expected to face, then they will recieve those challenges regularly. The same goes for a weak party. So in essence, the only time in which I can see a point in power-gaming is if a person wants to outshine the rest of the group's characters' - and that can cause problems, because the DM then has the issue of challenging that character without slaughtering the rest of the party, and in any rate it's a form of 'showboating*' which isn't nice. In any event, as I stated, I like to roleplay, so if I am in a group in which everyone starts building for power because one player does, I am losing my RP fun (see 1 above) and gaining ... well, nothing tangible. So why does it matter. If you're roleplaying because you want to "get into your character" what does it matter how many people another person's character can kill in a round of combat? I like to treat Prestige Classes with respect. Again, this is my opinion, and it applies more when I DM, but I feel that prestige classes are largely something special. Some merely represent a self-taught difference in development, but others are linked to societies or rely on finding an individual to teach a person a technique or set of techniques. These latter PrCs are not, as far as I can see, just for dipping. You don't get in if you don't show a lot of dedication, and if you are dedicated, you don't dabble. The same sometimes applies to some core classes too. Having a core class often represents a great deal of background training and even experience. As a DM I don't mind players putting that training into their backstory, even retroactively, but again, some core classes like Cleric require some interaction and formality - a cleric often has to be accepted into the holy orders of a church; it is not as easy as waking up one morning and saying: "Hey, today I'll level up into cleric, that'd be cool!" If the character has the inclination, they need to follow it IC as well as OOC - not perhaps by taking skills or feats that gimp them, but perhaps by following the ethos or trend before they take the class level. And again, I just don't see how this jibes with your "I roleplay to get into my character" ethos. If you're all about your character, surely their class shouldn't matter. It's not like the character knows they've gone up a level, or that they've multiclassed, or increased their BAB or their Hitpoints. Classes are an abstract game mechanic. If you think about them in-character, I don't see how you can get into character at all.
Daydreamer 04-09-07, 03:31 PM	tomato tamato guys. Hes talking about the way he feels about the game and how percieves it-not the way the game is or has to be. Your not honeslty suggesting he start playing a different way are you? YOu do it your way, he will do it his, he doesnt need to justify that.
Maekrix_Waere 04-09-07, 03:42 PM	Ta-may-to, ta-mah-to, guys. He's talking about the way he feels about the game and how percieves it-not the way the game is or has to be. You're not honestly suggesting he start playing a different way are you? You do it your way, he will do it his. He doesnt need to justify that. Correct, he doesn't need to justify it. Neither do we. However, most of the people who agree with you constantly force us to justify our gaming style. And, since it is our gaming style, we have the right to defend it when people such as kelvinaw273 tell us how much they hate it, just as you have the right to defend yours...if we were ever to attack it.
Tyraxus 04-09-07, 03:44 PM	The only place I came anywhere close to saying he should do X is when I said that, logically, all characters would want to powergame. He's fine playing the say he is, I'm not going to say otherwise, but if you think about it from a purely RP-ing standpoint, there's no way in the Nine Hells I'd go up against glabrezu, black dragons, vampire lords, etc., unless I was very sure I was strong enough to take them... and that, more often than not, means getting ahold of a decent bit of power, which translates into powergaming and optomizing. It seems like simple survival to me. He says he doesn't want what a character can do to overshadow who he is... well, in the here-and-now parallel to D&D, the Special Forces unit, you are indeed "The Sniper," even if you are Ding Chavez, with a wife and kids and a small house in rural Virginia*. In an adventuring party it's the same: you do your job and do it damn well or everybody's a corpse. *My apologies to Mr. Clancy for painting such a shallow portrait of the character.
Cael 04-09-07, 03:48 PM	tomato tamato guys. Hes talking about the way he feels about the game and how percieves it-not the way the game is or has to be. Your not honeslty suggesting he start playing a different way are you? YOu do it your way, he will do it his, he doesnt need to justify that. But the optimisers have to justify their play choices? Another episode of "Double Standards, Double Speak" brought to you by the Coalition of Primadonna Drama Queens (CPDQ). We hope you have enjoyed this episode and hope to see you again next half-hour on this same channel.
kelvinaw273 04-09-07, 04:23 PM	1)Out of game, how much you powergame (if any) has no direct relation to your RP ability. See the rest of this thread. I have already explained how in my case I find having to make metagame choices ahead of RP choices can cramp my RP experience. 2)In-game, as I pointed out towards the front of this thread, any character that expected to survive a year in the world while adventuring would necessarily do at least some powergaming, because in a world where second place means you're a decaying corpse, nobody wants to finish second. Take a look at the American or British special forces (SAS, Delta Force, Marine Scout Snipers, Navy Seals, etc.): they train all the time, they work to be the best they can be and plan everything out, because when it's a question of life-or-death, it's far, far better to be strong than dead. First, please see my comment on why I don't see the point of power gaming. If everyone games the same way, it absolutely doesn't matter. If they don't, you can have some big problems. Second, special forces can be relied on to always do the same thing in the same circumstance that they are trained to do. This is all well and good. BUT there are times when I don't want to take the shot and kill the bad guy ... there are times when I may be playing a character who believes he can redeem the bad guy instead, and talk him down. It means more risk, less payoff, and frankly it may not work. But it's real, it's human, it shows a committment to a cause and a dream that goes above and beyond just 'winning' the encounter. Some people don't train to be the best they can be as a cog in a machine, they strive instead to be themselves. If you want to 'win' D&D then the special forces way is OK, I guess, but I don't enjoy that option so much as the 'human' option. A D&D party isn't a special forces team, although a dungeon crawl can give that impression, it's a collection of individuals each with their own methods, motives and desires. Hence while there may be a way to ensure you win every situation, that does not make it the best way from a character point of view. That said, as I have stated I do prefer to make characters that are effective and can contribute - I just don't take it to an extreme. You seem to be under the impression that it takes 1,855,746,908 sources and 16 different 1-level PrC dips to "powergame." On the contrary, my current favourite "I kill you" build uses three base classes: three levels of Rogue and a mixture of ToB classes. There's not enough difference in ToB classes to warrent any kind of switch to or from anything flavour- or RP-wise; they're all martial artists. The Rogue makes sense because he started out as a street urchin and later gang thug before being taught the Sublime Way, and he sees a way to blend the skills he learned in both parts of his life. At level 9, this build could kill the party he was in with little to no problem at all (yes, including the druid if he played smart). It doesn't take much, and a little bit of power goes a long way. Nope, I am well aware that one class all the way can do it - Druid! I am also aware that to some players 'dipping' is entirely what it's all about. So how do you deal with, well, anything that involves interacting with the game mechanics in any way at all? When your character is trying to bluff his way past a guard, do you find yourself thinking "but ... in character I don't even know what the Bluff skill is." Do you worry about picking feats because your character wouldn't have known he could learn them? I work role-play first, metagame second. In such circumstances, I think about what my character would say or do in that situation, and act on that. THEN I worry about what skills are involved in performing the action. D&D character building is a wholly mechanical process. It in no way interferes with your ability to "get into your character". Some characters slip easily into class and feat roles, some do not, I find. I know the mechanics reasonably well so I am fortunately able to usually find a a mechanical way of representing the concept I have. As I said above, concept first, metagame second is the way I like to do things. And a non-optimised character will not be able to solve any problems at all. A generalist is still an optimised character, they're just optimised for flexibility. You win the prize for spotting this one :D . Myself, I don't believe that there is such a thing as a useless skill or feat, given the right approach to the right situation. I once had a character that I designed where I put a lof skill points into Craft (tattoo) for purely IC reasons. When landed in the slammer, I used the skill to escape (I shall leave it to various other posters to work out how), demonstrating that it was not a useless skill. So why does it matter. If you're roleplaying because you want to "get into your character" what does it matter how many people another person's character can kill in a round of combat? It matters when I enter a combat situation and don't get time to swing before it is over. It matters when the DM is throwing creatures way above my CR at us just to break this character into a sweat, and I'm dead every other time. It matters when I'm trying to appeal to a character's better nature to join us and the powergamer just steams in and splits their head upon 'because he can'. It matters when I can't play my character because the self-appointed party leader has the power to splatter any three of the rest of the party and insists everything has to be done his way, and takes any hint of personality as treason. I know, a lot of these are player issues, but they are all issues I have encountered with players who 'powergame to win.' I am not saying all powergamers are like that by any means, but concerns on party balance are valid in any circumstances. And again, I just don't see how this jibes with your "I roleplay to get into my character" ethos. If you're all about your character, surely their class shouldn't matter. It's not like the character knows they've gone up a level, or that they've multiclassed, or increased their BAB or their Hitpoints. Classes are an abstract game mechanic. If you think about them in-character, I don't see how you can get into character at all. Class matters because what the character can do effects who they are. If my character concept is of a arcanely charged mystic, blessed by the gods, what concept should I take? Sorcerer with Celestial Herritage or Fighter? It's a no-brainer really. Learning a prestige class is equivilent in role-play terms to studying a discipline. You can dabble if it is the sort of thing you pick up books on at the library, but if the only place you can learn it is an obscure Tibetan monastory that takes three months of travel on yak-back to reach, you aren't even going to go there unless you have the intention of mastering it completely.
kelvinaw273 04-09-07, 04:36 PM	Correct, he doesn't need to justify it. Neither do we. However, most of the people who agree with you constantly force us to justify our gaming style. And, since it is our gaming style, we have the right to defend it when people such as kelvinaw273 tell us how much they hate it, just as you have the right to defend yours...if we were ever to attack it. I don't ask anyone to justify their style, myself. If you are happy spending hours working out how to inflict an extra 1.3 hp of damage with each swing, good for you. I merely wished to explain to powergamers who do not understand that powergaming is not always the logical way to play, and why this is so. I do not hate powergaming, it's just not my prefered method of play. I have played that way before, and if it is the only game available I will again - as long as I don't have to do so all the time. Moreover, I do agree that party members should be effective in their roles. Some drama-queens (and here I, a Role Player, will use that term in a derogatory fashion) seem to think that "good role-playing" justifies playing a wizard that refuses to / cannot cast spells, or a pacifict fighter, or some such. While such characters may exist, and may even make fun characters in a book, they don't work so well in a D&D environment. I just don't think that "effective" has to mean "min-maxed to death", because I find that boring.
Daydreamer 04-09-07, 04:36 PM	But the optimisers have to justify their play choices? Another episode of "Double Standards, Double Speak" brought to you by the Coalition of Primadonna Drama Queens (CPDQ). We hope you have enjoyed this episode and hope to see you again next half-hour on this same channel. Like i said before, no one has to justify there play stlye. but if your 'roleplaying' then by definition your character has justifications for his choices. if a group of roleplayers descides to do something-they have a justification for this. But they dont need to justify roleplaying. If a group of powergamers who roleplay decide to have there character do something-they also need to justify this, ie character's have motives. There is no double standard your just not following the distinction. Play stlye does not require justification. If your roleplaying, what your character does usually requires some justification by definition. This applies to both roleplayers and power gamers.
daggeroflath 04-09-07, 04:46 PM	To answer your thread title, you may be a bad person but if so it's not because you're a power-gamer. There's nothing wrong with character optimization and strategy. Of course some things are just cheesy and exploiting rules loopholes is very close to cheating, but baring that there is nothing wrong with powergaming. If you try as a player to enjoy your game, help the other players to enjoy the game and help the GM enjoy running the game then you're a great gamer. If powergaming helps you enjoy the game and you do it a way that doesn't harm the enjoyment of everyone else, then go for it. I'm a bit of a power-gamer, but I prefer to riddle my characters with deliberate flaws because I enjoy playing the challenge they provide. I don't suggest everyone does this, it's just my own personal preferred style.
kelvinaw273 04-09-07, 04:46 PM	Like i said before, no one has to justify there play stlye. but if your 'roleplaying' then by definition your character has justifications for his choices. if a group of roleplayers descides to do something-they have a justification for this. But they dont need to justify roleplaying. If a group of powergamers who roleplay decide to have there character do something-they also need to justify this, ie character's have motives. There is no double standard your just not following the distinction. Play stlye does not require justification. If your roleplaying, what your character does usually requires some justification by definition. This applies to both roleplayers and power gamers. Even I had to read that twice. What I think that Daydreamer is trying to say (correct me if I am wrong here) is: "Your character's actions always have to be justified IC, not in the metagame, because that is the nature of an RPG. If you are making actions based primarily on the RP aspects IC, this is not a problem. If your decisions however are based in the metagame, you have to come up with an IC justification for them."
UndefinedDemonicEntity 04-09-07, 05:02 PM	but if your 'roleplaying' then by definition your character has justifications for his choices. I sometimes justify my choices with "I felt like it", so I thin that's justification enough in-game.
Tyraxus 04-09-07, 05:07 PM	If you want to 'win' D&D then the special forces way is OK, I guess, but I don't enjoy that option so much as the 'human' option. A D&D party isn't a special forces team, although a dungeon crawl can give that impression, it's a collection of individuals each with their own methods, motives and desires. Hence while there may be a way to ensure you win every situation, that does not make it the best way from a character point of view. That said, as I have stated I do prefer to make characters that are effective and can contribute - I just don't take it to an extreme. I'm not talking about "winning" D&D; that can't be done. If you want something that's less of a dungeon crawl, then anybody worth his salt is still going to want to be very good at what he does and keep training. Ex: I'm an accountant by trade, and I do training and continuing education all the freaking time. Why? To keep my skills sharp (and it's required to keep my license) so I can do what I do effectively. If I'm working off standards that are two years out of date because I didn't try to be my best, I'm not going to be employed for very long. I'm not saying you have to play Pun-Pun (because face it, anything other than playing Pun-Pun is suboptimal from a "most powerful" standpoint), but I am saying that you're going to want a character that has the mechanics to back up your awesome roleplaying; if you don't, might I suggest something a little less RPG and a little more "writing a novel"?
Cael 04-09-07, 06:20 PM	First, please see my comment on why I don't see the point of power gaming. If everyone games the same way, it absolutely doesn't matter. If they don't, you can have some big problems. *beep!* Cael's Fallacy alert! "When optimising is used as a comparison, it is always in a mixed group, where the optimiser causes problems. When drama queens are used as a comparison, it is always in a group of equally useless drama queens, so that there is no disruption." - Cael I would just like to point out the inherent bias present in such a stance (and therefore the point of the whole Fallacy) for those to whom irony is foreign.
Dan Hemmens 04-09-07, 06:21 PM	I work role-play first, metagame second. In such circumstances, I think about what my character would say or do in that situation, and act on that. THEN I worry about what skills are involved in performing the action. Okay, but if you wanted your character to be the sort of guy who likes to talk his way out of a tough situation, you'd want to put some points into Diplomacy, yes? And if you wanted your character to fight with two weapons, you might consider taking the Two Weapon Fighting feat? You design your character build based on what you want your character to be like. So does the "powergamer" they just do it better. Some characters slip easily into class and feat roles, some do not, I find. I know the mechanics reasonably well so I am fortunately able to usually find a a mechanical way of representing the concept I have. As I said above, concept first, metagame second is the way I like to do things. And that's how most powergamers do it too. The examples in the original post aren't anything different to what you describe. The guy had his character concept but, to his group's dismay, he actually tried to make them game mechanically effective as well. You win the prize for spotting this one :D . Myself, I don't believe that there is such a thing as a useless skill or feat, given the right approach to the right situation. I once had a character that I designed where I put a lof skill points into Craft (tattoo) for purely IC reasons. When landed in the slammer, I used the skill to escape (I shall leave it to various other posters to work out how), demonstrating that it was not a useless skill. This is a bit of an aside, but "I used this skill once in this one game and it was really important" is not evidence that a given skill is not useless. Unless you actually managed to use it regularly it's still useless. It matters when I enter a combat situation and don't get time to swing before it is over. It matters when the DM is throwing creatures way above my CR at us just to break this character into a sweat, and I'm dead every other time. It matters when I'm trying to appeal to a character's better nature to join us and the powergamer just steams in and splits their head upon 'because he can'. It matters when I can't play my character because the self-appointed party leader has the power to splatter any three of the rest of the party and insists everything has to be done his way, and takes any hint of personality as treason. I know, a lot of these are player issues, but they are all issues I have encountered with players who 'powergame to win.' I am not saying all powergamers are like that by any means, but concerns on party balance are valid in any circumstances. Okay, breaking your criticisms down: The first one is essentially your fault. If you can build a combat effective character and don't, then you shouldn't expect to be good in combat. The second is only an issue if there's an *extreme* power imbalance, or if one person is playing a spellcaster in a low magic game. The third is, as you say, a player issue. Class matters because what the character can do effects who they are. If my character concept is of a arcanely charged mystic, blessed by the gods, what concept should I take? Sorcerer with Celestial Herritage or Fighter? It's a no-brainer really. Learning a prestige class is equivilent in role-play terms to studying a discipline. You can dabble if it is the sort of thing you pick up books on at the library, but if the only place you can learn it is an obscure Tibetan monastory that takes three months of travel on yak-back to reach, you aren't even going to go there unless you have the intention of mastering it completely. Ah, you see that's where there's two schools of thought. You say what a character can do affects who they are, I say that who a character is affects what they can do. If my character is - say - an assassin (small a), an evil rogue whose schtick is killing unwitting people for money, I should not need some specific in-character event to justify taking a level of Assassin when I get the prerequisites. All I'm doing is taking a level which better reflects what my character has always been. The same is true of most "builds", the classes and abilities taken slowly build up to create the character as they always have been.
Daydreamer 04-09-07, 06:27 PM	Even I had to read that twice. What I think that Daydreamer is trying to say (correct me if I am wrong here) is: "Your character's actions always have to be justified IC, not in the metagame, because that is the nature of an RPG. If you are making actions based primarily on the RP aspects IC, this is not a problem. If your decisions however are based in the metagame, you have to come up with an IC justification for them." Umm somewhat. I dont have an explicit problem with metagaming. All pcs and groups metagame somewhat, in our group for example to make the game run smoother we tend to trust fellow pcs more than npcs. If a group decides to completely metagame i really dont care, its not per se the nature of an rpg. However i would loosely define roleplaying as your characters actions not betraying credulity. That one guy who said -my character did it because he felt like it-that COULD actually be the underlying motif behind your character, maybe a chaotic neutral spontaneous sort. But eventually credulity can be strectched. LIke when you start coming up with justifications for your character being suspicious of some NPC-who from having read source material you know is a villian. Or trying to place your character in position to hear about a pretisge class group or organization he wants to join-though his pc has no awareness of its existence. Now nothing is inherently wrong with the above, if your group doesnt care, but my group does care, and thats the way WE like to play. My dm put it to me like this when i asked her about it yesterday. If i feel your thinking in character and then looking to the mechanics to see how you can do what you want, thats ok, if i feel your looking to the mechanics and then thinking about how to justify this via roleplaying, thats not. Its just flavor, and thats intangible. Its not true/false kinda thing, so its hard to define. its just the way i find the game fun to play.
daggeroflath 04-09-07, 06:40 PM	Sorry Cael, it's early in the morning here, I'm tired and I can't figure out what you're saying about the fallacy. Could you explain it to me please? It sounds interesting.
Daydreamer 04-09-07, 06:45 PM	Its really quite simple The stormwind fallacy works like this. Often times 'powergamers' are critiqued as being 'bad roleplayers'. The stormwind fallacy holds that power gaming, and role playing are on completely different Axis. They have no causal interaction with each other. That is to say, one can not be a power gamer and a terrible roleplayer, and one can be a power gamer and a great roleplayer. One has nothing to do with the other. So saying power gamers are bad roleplayers is not only not true, but a bad reason to ban them from there game. [My response:] While its true there is no logical link between A and B, ive noticed a tendency for A and B to go together-and though i don't have sufficient data to maintain that this is true in general. i suspect it is. Secondaly-the trick here is somewhat semantic. If i define power gamer as: builds strong mechanical characters. Then there is no connection. If i define power gamer as : Puts mechanics in a game first and seeks only/ultimately mechanical power. Then there is a logical connection. many 'roleplayers' when they say power gamers cant roleplay have the second defintion in mind. So really they are not so much wrong as talking about something different. Words after all dont have more meaning than we choose to attach to them. I also like to introduce my own fallacy: There is NO logical connection between power gaming and success-or survival. The dm can (and if there is a should in d&d probably should put appropriate challenges in front of you). Being stronger 'objectively' doesn't necessarily mean being stronger 'relatively' to the challenges and npcs you face. IN fact, from having been in power gamer groups and watching other groups in the game store, ive noticed that such groups have roughly the same or higher mortality rates than my own 'suboptimal' group.
Cardinal Teplin 04-09-07, 06:46 PM	And that's how most powergamers do it too. The examples in the original post aren't anything different to what you describe. The guy had his character concept but, to his group's dismay, he actually tried to make them game mechanically effective as well. The problem is that, depending on your play style, it may not be as well, it may be instead of. And this is where the problem really emerges. There are times and points where making a decision from a metagaming standpoint and making a decision from a roleplaying persepective come into conflict. If your character would, in character, make a choice that is mechanically suboptimal, then what do you do? Go with what your character would do, or go with what's more likely to keep him alive? There are three possible approaches to this kind of problem. Being a powergamer, being a drama queen, or claiming the problem doesn't actually happen. The last certainly seems popular on this list. However, because of the great variety in play styles there are in this game, there is no reason to suspect that what works or doesn't work for you works for everyone else. For those who do find that the two come into conflict, rejecting one almost entirely in order to maximise the experience of the other is only sensible.
Dan Hemmens 04-09-07, 06:56 PM	The problem is that, depending on your play style, it may not be as well, it may be instead of. And this is where the problem really emerges. There are times and points where making a decision from a metagaming standpoint and making a decision from a roleplaying persepective come into conflict. In which case it's a question of priorities, not a question of wholly serving one side or the other. If your character would, in character, make a choice that is mechanically suboptimal, then what do you do? Go with what your character would do, or go with what's more likely to keep him alive? It's quite rare for a character-building decision to be one that you *could* make from an in-character perspective. Classes and Feats (by and large) are not in-character concepts after all. There are three possible approaches to this kind of problem. Being a powergamer, being a drama queen, or claiming the problem doesn't actually happen. The last certainly seems popular on this list. However, because of the great variety in play styles there are in this game, there is no reason to suspect that what works or doesn't work for you works for everyone else. For those who do find that the two come into conflict, rejecting one almost entirely in order to maximise the experience of the other is only sensible. Not really. When two things come into conflict you have to pick which one to prioritise at which point, that's all. Sometimes the "metagame" response conflicts with the "in-character" response, but it usually doesn't, if only because your character usually has a vested interest in their own survival.
daggeroflath 04-09-07, 07:05 PM	Ah thankyou Daydreamer, I see now. Is there nothing enjoyable about playing a group of powerful characters who are seamlessly integrated to function together as a brilliant team? Sometimes it can be fun to be the X-men and sometimes it can be fun to be the Mystery Men. Different groups have their own tastes as to how often they'd like to do either. In roleplaying the only "sin" I'd recognise, is acting to decrease everyone elses enjoyment of the game. Anything else is a matter of taste and style. Just as a note, everyone here so far seems of the opinion that accurately portraying a character's behaviour is a good thing within a roleplaying game. Not that I necessarily disagree, it's just an interesting assumption that doesn't seem to be getting questioned here.
Daydreamer 04-09-07, 07:11 PM	earlier in the thread i questioned it. I said roleplaying, just like power gaming, is optional, some groups find it a chore and just want to grind monsters/dungeons. Nothing is wrong with that either, i just suspect that a small nod in the direction of roleplaying is probably the most universla norm ull find in d&d.
kelvinaw273 04-09-07, 07:24 PM	*beep!* Cael's Fallacy alert! "When optimising is used as a comparison, it is always in a mixed group, where the optimiser causes problems. When drama queens are used as a comparison, it is always in a group of equally useless drama queens, so that there is no disruption." - Cael I would just like to point out the inherent bias present in such a stance (and therefore the point of the whole Fallacy) for those to whom irony is foreign. Ceal's ability to read in bias where there is none is becoming quite remarkable. Where did I say that this had to be a group of role players with an optimizer, and not a group of optimizers with a drama-queen? I merely stated that having two very different play styles in a game can cause disruption. I implied that those two styles were role-play intensive and optimise-intensive styles. At not point did I mention the proportions thereof. Please try and read the words that are on the screen in front of you, because your assumption that anyone who does not like powergaming is a power-gamer-hating drama-queen is starting to get annoying. Okay, but if you wanted your character to be the sort of guy who likes to talk his way out of a tough situation, you'd want to put some points into Diplomacy, yes? And if you wanted your character to fight with two weapons, you might consider taking the Two Weapon Fighting feat? You design your character build based on what you want your character to be like. So does the "powergamer" they just do it better. Define "Better". In my experience, extreme-optimizers focus on being very good at one or two things. I prefer to be reasonably good at several things. And that's how most powergamers do it too. The examples in the original post aren't anything different to what you describe. The guy had his character concept but, to his group's dismay, he actually tried to make them game mechanically effective as well. The diference is in the emphasis - I produce a concept of a character personality first, then add the details of what they will be good at, then flesh the mechanics around that. Most power gamers I have met or heard described here seem to build the mechanics of what the character will be good at first, adding the character details to it and finally top it off with a personality that fits. This is a bit of an aside, but "I used this skill once in this one game and it was really important" is not evidence that a given skill is not useless. Unless you actually managed to use it regularly it's still useless. Now you see that is the attitude I keep encountering. Think about all of the class features of some classes ... how often are they used? All of them regularly, all the time? Some are highly specialised and only get used infrequently, but when they do are very useful. This is not 'useless', in my view. All characters will have abilities and skills they use more rarely than others. Sometimes those skills are not required, sometimes they require imagination on behalf of the player to be used. It's not what you got, it's what you do with it that counts. Okay, breaking your criticisms down: They are examples, not criticisms. The first one is essentially your fault. If you can build a combat effective character and don't, then you shouldn't expect to be good in combat. I do build my combat oriented characters effectively, by a definition of effective. I don't build them to be combat gods or one-trick ponies, though. The second is only an issue if there's an *extreme* power imbalance, or if one person is playing a spellcaster in a low magic game. Yes, that is correct. An extreme imbalance is bad. As for a spellcaster in a low-magic game, that is a DM issue - and spell casters generally need protection from non-spell casters anyway. Ah, you see that's where there's two schools of thought. You say what a character can do affects who they are, I say that who a character is affects what they can do. If my character is - say - an assassin (small a), an evil rogue whose schtick is killing unwitting people for money, I should not need some specific in-character event to justify taking a level of Assassin when I get the prerequisites. All I'm doing is taking a level which better reflects what my character has always been. The same is true of most "builds", the classes and abilities taken slowly build up to create the character as they always have been. In some cases this is very true, and it works very well. The exceptions are classes which require specialist training and prestige classes which require membership of obscure organisations. I'm not saying you have to play Pun-Pun (because face it, anything other than playing Pun-Pun is suboptimal from a "most powerful" standpoint), but I am saying that you're going to want a character that has the mechanics to back up your awesome roleplaying; if you don't, might I suggest something a little less RPG and a little more "writing a novel"? I do make characters with the mechanics to back it up. But I tend to make three dimensional characters, which means for rounded personalities I get a rounded set of skills and abilities - as opposed to, for example, a two dimensional character good only at one or two things. As I have stressed, I do optimize to a degree, I just don't go overboard on it, and it certainly is not the object of the game for me. I sometimes justify my choices with "I felt like it", so I thin that's justification enough in-game. Nothing wrong with that, if you have a chaotic alignment.;)
daggeroflath 04-09-07, 07:34 PM	Earlier in the thread i questioned it. I said roleplaying, just like power gaming, is optional, some groups find it a chore and just want to grind monsters/dungeons. Nothing is wrong with that either, I just suspect that a small nod in the direction of roleplaying is probably the most universal norm you'll find in d&d. I must have missed that, somewhere amongst the 17 pages on this topic. (eep!) I agree. While I certainly like playing a role, I don't think there's anything wrong with a game about pitting your character sheet against someone elses (I think I'd even enjoy the occasional game like that). With CRs and Templates for easy monster creation and appropriate use, I think 3.5e is even more suited to such a game than 2e was. Kelvinaw. As you say, a skill that you use once isn't useless if that one use saves your character's life.
kelvinaw273 04-09-07, 08:07 PM	Kelvinaw. As you say, a skill that you use once isn't useless if that one use saves your character's life. It actually saved the entire adventure, as by trading on that skill in jail I (a) survived jail, (b) traded for the things I needed to escape with it (bribed the guards, basically), and (c) stayed there long enough to find and talk to the sage we didn't know that we needed information from to complete the adventure.
Cael 04-09-07, 08:31 PM	Ah thankyou Daydreamer, I see now. Is there nothing enjoyable about playing a group of powerful characters who are seamlessly integrated to function together as a brilliant team? Sometimes it can be fun to be the X-men and sometimes it can be fun to be the Mystery Men. Different groups have their own tastes as to how often they'd like to do either. In roleplaying the only "sin" I'd recognise, is acting to decrease everyone elses enjoyment of the game. Anything else is a matter of taste and style. Just as a note, everyone here so far seems of the opinion that accurately portraying a character's behaviour is a good thing within a roleplaying game. Not that I necessarily disagree, it's just an interesting assumption that doesn't seem to be getting questioned here. Actually, he did not explain the Cael Fallacy to you. He explained the Stormwind Fallacy, which is a totally different kettle of fish. He also explained it in a pseudo-logical sounding, biased way in order to try and disprove the Stormwind Fallacy because it is something that he and his ilk have committed so many times. I would give you a real life example of this, but that would be against the CoC. Anyway, the Cael Fallacy is the following: Whenever a prima donna drama queen moan about optimisers, they are always talking about how disruptive the optimiser is in a group of drama queens. When someone point out how stupid and useless a prima donna Half-Orc Wizard is, their reply is inevitably "everyone else is the same, so there is no problems". See a couple of pages back for an in-thread example of this. It is never an optimiser in a group of optimisers. It is never a drama queen in a group of optimisers. It is always the optimiser causing problems, but the drama queen sailing along smooth as. In other words, they are not comparing apples with apples. The Cael Fallacy simply holds a mirror up to them and point out this biased viewpoint as a fallacy in and of itself.
Cael 04-09-07, 08:35 PM	Ceal's ability to read in bias where there is none is becoming quite remarkable. Where did I say that this had to be a group of role players with an optimizer, and not a group of optimizers with a drama-queen? I merely stated that having two very different play styles in a game can cause disruption. I implied that those two styles were role-play intensive and optimise-intensive styles. At not point did I mention the proportions thereof. Please try and read the words that are on the screen in front of you, because your assumption that anyone who does not like powergaming is a power-gamer-hating drama-queen is starting to get annoying. You don't see the point of optimising is when it starts. I didn't think I needed to say more, considering how Tyraxus already made a very good post addressing this.
Greg K 04-09-07, 08:40 PM	It is never an optimiser in a group of optimisers. It is never a drama queen in a group of optimisers. It is always the optimiser causing problems, but the drama queen sailing along smooth as. Really? I have seen it stated several times that drama queen would be a problem in a group of powergamers (for this thread read heavy optimizers even though optimizng and powergaming are not the same thing).
Daydreamer 04-09-07, 08:49 PM	Actually, he did not explain the Cael Fallacy to you. He explained the Stormwind Fallacy, which is a totally different kettle of fish. He also explained it in a pseudo-logical sounding, biased way in order to try and disprove the Stormwind Fallacy because it is something that he and his ilk have committed so many times. I would give you a real life example of this, but that would be against the CoC. Anyway, the Cael Fallacy is the following: Whenever a prima donna drama queen moan about optimisers, they are always talking about how disruptive the optimiser is in a group of drama queens. When someone point out how stupid and useless a prima donna Half-Orc Wizard is, their reply is inevitably "everyone else is the same, so there is no problems". See a couple of pages back for an in-thread example of this. It is never an optimiser in a group of optimisers. It is never a drama queen in a group of optimisers. It is always the optimiser causing problems, but the drama queen sailing along smooth as. In other words, they are not comparing apples with apples. The Cael Fallacy simply holds a mirror up to them and point out this biased viewpoint as a fallacy in and of itself. perhaps you could explain what i didnt understand about it? From my perspective, it is that i have understood something you have not. Which is that the word power gamer is applied ambigously and that this causes alot of confusion. So ppl need to define what they mean by there terms. And that conclusions which are not logically linked can be linked via tendencies. Ie psychologists say abused victims tend to harbour major emotional problems. Some dont, most do there is no logical connection between A and B, but there is a tendency. I am not evening saying such a tendency does exist with power gamers, im saying i think it does. If we were talking out a bet, id bet on it, i could lose. But i have not made an error of understnding the stormwind fallacy.
Cael 04-09-07, 09:27 PM	Really? I have seen it stated several times that drama queen would be a problem in a group of powergamers (for this thread read heavy optimizers even though optimizng and powergaming are not the same thing). By the optimisers, yes. But not by the drama queens. As I said, look a few pages back for the Half-Orc Wizard incident and note the drama queens' reactions to that.
Cael 04-09-07, 09:32 PM	perhaps you could explain what i didnt understand about it? From my perspective, it is that i have understood something you have not. Which is that the word power gamer is applied ambigously and that this causes alot of confusion. So ppl need to define what they mean by there terms. And that conclusions which are not logically linked can be linked via tendencies. Ie psychologists say abused victims tend to harbour major emotional problems. Some dont, most do there is no logical connection between A and B, but there is a tendency. I am not evening saying such a tendency does exist with power gamers, im saying i think it does. If we were talking out a bet, id bet on it, i could lose. But i have not made an error of understnding the stormwind fallacy. The fact that you try to link the optimising/roleplaying axis is ludicrous. What facts have you to state that there is a correlation? I said facts, not personal experiences. After all, I can say that it is my personal experience that Race X are a bunch of murdering, fanatical psychopaths, but is that correct? I think not. Not because that it is not the done thing to do (I care little for being politically correct), but because logically, there is no correlation between being born Race X or not and behaviour (genetic theories not withstanding). Being *brought up* by Race X, however, well, you might have an argument there. There you go. Psychology 101: Nurture vs Nature.
ElberethSilverleaf 04-09-07, 09:43 PM	I am a powergamer. Am I a bad person? Yes, if you're ruining everyone else in the groups enjoyment of the game....
ChaoticAwsome 04-09-07, 09:49 PM	Pure roleplayers and pure powergamers dont mix. :hoppingma
Einvaldurinn_mikli 04-09-07, 09:55 PM	Pure roleplayers and pure powergamers dont mix. :hoppingma You can have both you know...
Daydreamer 04-09-07, 11:10 PM	I said that im betting they would be, and not claiming that they in fact are. YOur betting (perhaps) they would not be. And if i was right, it woudlnt be any knock against them, roleplaying, like powergaming, is really just a matter of personal taste. Either one of us could be right/wrong on this issue. Additionally the word power gamer IS USED ambigously by different people and some ppl use the word to mean someone who puts power first always, in which case such a person would have a link with roleplaying. The claim they are making is different than the refutation, and ppl need to define there terms for clarity. AS for the half orc wizard incident, i was pointing out an alternative solution to what you were presenting. your point was, if i optomize a half orc wizard, ill be on par with non optomized characters, hence have a good group dynamic. I said equally true if you played a half orc wizard in a group of people playing no mechanically advantageous builds were no one optimizes.
Daydreamer 04-09-07, 11:11 PM	You can have both you know... could be a definational issue. Perhaps he means people who JSUT power game versus people who JUST roleplay wont mix. Which is accurate.
Tyraxus 04-09-07, 11:22 PM	I also like to introduce my own fallacy: There is NO logical connection between power gaming and success-or survival. The dm can (and if there is a should in d&d probably should put appropriate challenges in front of you). Being stronger 'objectively' doesn't necessarily mean being stronger 'relatively' to the challenges and npcs you face. :censored: :headexplo :banghead: I've already addressed this (multiple times, though several weren't in this thread). It isn't a fallacy, it's a difference in assumptions. In order for your "fallacy" to be true, then it assumes that the DM throws the CR system out the window and rebalances the entire game around the perceived power of the party. Can he do that? Sure, it just takes a LOT of work. However, if you assume that the CR system is indeed in place, then a "powergamed" player or group would indeed stand a better chance of survival than one with lesser power at its disposal. In fact saying that there's no problem (or no better chance of survival) because the DM can rebalance everything violates another commonly-accepted "fallacy" on the boards (my apologies, I can't remember the name of it, but it states that to say that there exists no problem because the DM can Rule 0 it away is fallicious; I place the word "fallacy" in quotes because I haven't seen the definition lately and never looked at it from a logical standpoint). I do make characters with the mechanics to back it up. But I tend to make three dimensional characters, which means for rounded personalities I get a rounded set of skills and abilities - as opposed to, for example, a two dimensional character good only at one or two things. So you optomize with a mind towards flexabilty or being a generalist? It's still optimization; optimization does not (and never has, to my knowledge) require doing only one thing well. It is the process of being good at what you want to be good at, whether that's one thing or doing everything. Note that Gish builds, approaching the height of doing everything, are always popular on the CO boards. I didn't think I needed to say more, considering how Tyraxus already made a very good post addressing this. Really? Sweet, I made a good point. It's times like these I wish I had an ego pad.
Cael 04-09-07, 11:38 PM	:censored: :headexplo :banghead: I've already addressed this (multiple times, though several weren't in this thread). It isn't a fallacy, it's a difference in assumptions. In order for your "fallacy" to be true, then it assumes that the DM throws the CR system out the window and rebalances the entire game around the perceived power of the party. Can he do that? Sure, it just takes a LOT of work. However, if you assume that the CR system is indeed in place, then a "powergamed" player or group would indeed stand a better chance of survival than one with lesser power at its disposal. In fact saying that there's no problem (or no better chance of survival) because the DM can rebalance everything violates another commonly-accepted "fallacy" on the boards (my apologies, I can't remember the name of it, but it states that to say that there exists no problem because the DM can Rule 0 it away is fallicious; I place the word "fallacy" in quotes because I haven't seen the definition lately and never looked at it from a logical standpoint). It is called the Oberoni Fallacy, after the poster. It is quite accurate in that it states something along the lines of "someone claiming that a DM can always use Rule 0 to make parameters, e.g., classes, PrCs (Planar Shepherd, I am looking at you), game mechanics, CR, rules, etc., inconsequential, is not a good measure of whether the parameter is overpowered or underpowered". In other words, just because a DM can Rule 0 things to neuter an overpowered parameter or shore up an underpowered one doesn't mean they are not overpowered/underpowered. In fact, if you think about it logically the fact that the DM have to Rule 0 something would mean the exact opposite (i.e., it *is* weak or overpowered). EDIT: Oh, by the way, I had to repeat "irony is wasted on drama queens" three times in this thread and Daydreamer still hasn't gotten the fact that I am being ironic when I start generalising drama queens (in the manner he generalises "powergamers"). In fact, he is still complaining about how I am being a bad boy for generalising him and his ilk and seems to be totally oblivious to the irony of that statement. Anyway, I thought I'd tell you to save your head from being too flattened by that brick wall.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 04-10-07, 12:26 AM	The fact that you try to link the optimising/roleplaying axis is ludicrous. What facts have you to state that there is a correlation? I said facts, not personal experiences. After all, I can say that it is my personal experience that Race X are a bunch of murdering, fanatical psychopaths, but is that correct? I think not. Not because that it is not the done thing to do (I care little for being politically correct), but because logically, there is no correlation between being born Race X or not and behaviour (genetic theories not withstanding). Being *brought up* by Race X, however, well, you might have an argument there. There you go. Psychology 101: Nurture vs Nature. To say that there is an optimising/roleplaying "axis" as you put it would be a voilation of the storm wind fallacy. Stating that the two are on an axis implies that they are at oposite ends, and thus mutually exculsive. As if one were the oposite of the other. Such as Good/bad, or hot/cold. This is not the case as an optmised character may be roleplayed just as well as an unoptimised character. The level to which one optimizes is a matter of personal taste, and does not effect how one role plays at all. Pure roleplayers and pure powergamers dont mix. :hoppingma Orly? care to back that statement with anything resembling a logical arguement? :censored: :headexplo :banghead: I've already addressed this (multiple times, though several weren't in this thread). It isn't a fallacy, it's a difference in assumptions. In order for your "fallacy" to be true, then it assumes that the DM throws the CR system out the window and rebalances the entire game around the perceived power of the party. Can he do that? Sure, it just takes a LOT of work. However, if you assume that the CR system is indeed in place, then a "powergamed" player or group would indeed stand a better chance of survival than one with lesser power at its disposal. This isn't nessecarily true. The avergae party need not be otimized in order to survive monsters equal to there CR straight out of the monster manual. Nor do they need to be optimized to succeeed against custom build NPCs apropriate to there level. the convers is also true that an optimized party is not always garenteed to be equiped to handle everything. For example a party that is composed of a fighter, sorcerer, bard, and monk should still be able to take on most animals, goblins, kobolds, etc at level 1 through 4ish. (after that the party becomes too strong for thoughs encounters.) Simmiliarily a 5th level party will have a hard time against a troll with out acid or fire damge. You could argue that most parties of 5th level have sources of fire and acid, but not nessecarily. Suppose the party is made up of a druid focusing on summons, and animal buffs for its riding dog (trained for war) animal companion. The front line tank is a gish build that focuses magic on personal buffs to augment its combat abilities. The rogue, is well a rogue focusing on skills. And the arcane caster is a wizard that specialises in crowd controll magic. Some DMs choose monsters according to their parties strengths and weaknesses. (I would be one of them.) The CR system is not totally bunk for them, (still not much more then a guideline) but they are a little more choosy with their critters. For a DM like me power is a relative thing. Regardless of how strong or weak the party is, so long as they are roughly equal to each other, I can balance an encounter for them. On that note however other DMs run what is called a "status quo" camapign. This style of DMing has everything stated out ahead of time. If the barbarain war lord is 15th level, and the PCs decide to go after him, then he is 15th level regardless of if the Pcs are first level, or 21st level. In this type of camapign I agree that optimized characters stand a better chance of survival. But not in the type I run, for it makes little difference what your power level is. In fact saying that there's no problem (or no better chance of survival) because the DM can rebalance everything violates another commonly-accepted "fallacy" on the boards (my apologies, I can't remember the name of it, but it states that to say that there exists no problem because the DM can Rule 0 it away is fallicious; I place the word "fallacy" in quotes because I haven't seen the definition lately and never looked at it from a logical standpoint). Oberoni's fallacy doesn't really fit here. His fallacy stated that just becuase the DM can close a rule loop hole, or shut down a broken combo, with rule zero, it does not follow that said rule or combo is broken. However the spirit of the fallacy is applicatble in this case. Rule zero is not a balancing factor, and should be regarded as such. And the above point still remains the same. A dm can definately balance their game to whatever power level the PCs are. Choosing to do so, or not is matter of person perference, no more, no less. So you optomize with a mind towards flexabilty or being a generalist? It's still optimization; optimization does not (and never has, to my knowledge) require doing only one thing well. It is the process of being good at what you want to be good at, whether that's one thing or doing everything. Note that Gish builds, approaching the height of doing everything, are always popular on the CO boards. I was waiting for someone to point that out. That is actualy my perferred method of min/maxing as well. And yes oddly enough most 90% of my charatcer have spell caster spliced in. I think it is becuase magic is the most versatile set of rules in the game, and thus most powerful. In the sence that options = power. the powergamer VRS roleplayer debate is an odd one in that it is like debating what is better: pizzia, or star-trek. Niether are mutually exclusive. Some love one, and hate the other. while others like both, or dislike both. for me I like to optimize my characters. Its a fun challenge, and keeps the game fresh. I also like to role play, as it makes the game interesting after character creation is done. Below is break down of the party I DM for: Disclaimer I will use the terms: powergamer, tactician, story tell, method actor, specialist, casual gamer, and but kicker as i defined on page 16 of this thread. Min/maxer is defined as a player who minizes their weaknesses, while maximizing their strengths. Example a wizard who take a high con score to minimize the low hit points the d4 gives. Munchkin is defined as player who cheats by bending, misinterpriting, or ignoring certain rules, or parts of rules. Ardul. Drow mage (homebrew class). Focuses on enchanting. Is a story teller tactician. Like me. Generally tries to stay in the background as she is tired of being the group leader. One of the better min/maxers I've seen, but i don't think powergaming is what attracts her to the game. Chalcus: Human mage. fucuses on transutation for buffs. Looking forward to entering the war weaver PrC. Enjoys kicking but and taking names. the game is an out let for stress, and he is going to blast anything that gets upity. Definatly a powergamer/buttkicker. Whats a powerful chaarcter, and everyone to know it. Sal: Mindblade. Lately has been a casual gamer. i throw things at him, but lately he just wants to hang out in the back. I won't force him to come, he'll do that when he's ready. Razgor: This is one of my specialist, butkickers. He loves his orcs/half orcs barbarians. Actually it is any large big monster type race (I waived the half orge under his nose and he fell in love with it on first sight.) Basically he wants to be that big guy in the prison yard no one messes with. Build like a **** brick house, and not afriad to kick you in the head. He also enjoys chaarcters with leadership qualities, although he posses almost none himself. Kahesha: She is a specialist story teller, with mehtod actor tendacies. Enjoys high action and excitement, and with out the story line the game is meaningless. She has two type of chaarcters that she always plays; fire mage, and infaltrader rogue. I've watcheed her continuesly make disioned based on what her character would do. Zen: Definately a casual powergamer. He plays to spend time with the group, and just kinda hangs out in the back. he enjoys laughing at players when mishaps happen. Like when razgor unknowing stepped into a gladatorial match against a huge viper. He makes characters to fill out the ranks in the party, not surprisingly he often finds himself behind the wheel of a cleric healing battery. He also powergames the be the best at whatever niche they are filling. I look at debates like this with poeple throwing out wild staements about how different players can't mix, and yadda yadda, and I just laugh. My group has all 7 player triats and our game rocks. i start another thread on the method with which i DM for tall these different tasts, at another time. For now though i will say this, i am not perfect. i can't DM for Emo, aingsty method actors. They drive me bonkers.
Cael 04-10-07, 12:31 AM	To say that there is an optimising/roleplaying "axis" as you put it would be a voilation of the storm wind fallacy. Stating that the two are on an axis implies that they are at oposite ends, and thus mutually exculsive. As if one were the oposite of the other. Such as Good/bad, or hot/cold. This is not the case as an optmised character may be roleplayed just as well as an unoptimised character. The level to which one optimizes is a matter of personal taste, and does not effect how one role plays at all. Replace the "i" with an "e".
Daydreamer 04-10-07, 01:02 AM	Oberoni's fallacy doesn't apply here because this is not an issue of a rule problem, or a mechanical issue, but rather a deliberate CHOICE being made by the pcs and dm. Oberoni's fallacy is that the ability to house rule, or rule zero a given rule doesnt mean that rule is not problematic. What does that have to do with pcs deliberately not optomizing characters? Obviously if pcs CHOOSE to play in a style different from the standard, the dm will have to rule zero things. There is no way to balance around that. So i dont see how it applies. Its not a problem with the rules because it is rules that are being left on the side. (that doesnt mean d&d rules dont hav eproblems , they do, but not because of this) And CaeL: not only did i not take offense at your irony, except jokingly once, but i even commented on the fact that the ironic generalizations you were making actually had some truth to them. Go back and look at my posts i expliclity even agree with you on this once. And no i dont take offense to your mock generilizations, i took offense to the personal attacks and referecens to nazism.
Maekrix_Waere 04-10-07, 01:51 AM	I don't ask anyone to justify their style, myself. If you are happy spending hours working out how to inflict an extra 1.3 hp of damage with each swing, good for you. No, you weren't, and I never said you did. Also, 1.3? Is that a joke? I merely wished to explain to powergamers who do not understand that powergaming is not always the logical way to play, and why this is so. I do not hate powergaming, it's just not my prefered method of play. I have played that way before, and if it is the only game available I will again - as long as I don't have to do so all the time. But you didn't. You explained why you didn't like Powergaming/Xtreme optimising/Min-Maxing. In that explanation, you included three points which, though perhaps not meant to be, were attacks against our gaming style. They were points #1, 2, and 4. Putting those points in was pretty much saying, "I don't like Powergaming because it limits roleplaying, makes your character inflexible, and disrespects prestige classes." Saying that is an attack, and we are allowed to defend. Moreover, I do agree that party members should be effective in their roles. Some drama-queens (and here I, a Role Player, will use that term in a derogatory fashion) seem to think that "good role-playing" justifies playing a wizard that refuses to / cannot cast spells, or a pacifict fighter, or some such. While such characters may exist, and may even make fun characters in a book, they don't work so well in a D&D environment. I just don't think that "effective" has to mean "min-maxed to death", because I find that boring. No problems with this...though I would have underlined the "has" in that last sentance. Also, what is with this min-maxing buisness? Please, I'll take the max, you keep the min.
daggeroflath 04-10-07, 03:26 AM	I'm back and fully awake. Though powergaming and roleplaying aren't mutually exclusive, they are both things that require concentration and effort. Through natural talent or practised skill people can increase the ammount of concentration and effort that they can bring to a game, or decrease the effort that these two actions require. They are of course not the only traits that people have to work towards. Metagaming, in the interests of group cohesion, (my character would do this, but won't because that would destroy the game) is another good example. Thus powergaming reduces your ability to roleplay at the exact same time, however with practise and ability you can compensate and this won't happen as much. This is also ignoring the issue that the personality traits of a player which may encourage acting on one trait, may discourage the other. Causal links (or rather chains) do exist, but they're (edit)NOT(/edit)so simple as to place the two on either end of a single axis. The appropriatness of an abundance of one trait, or the absence of another vary from group to group. Part of being a good player is to find a group that suits your preferred style, or the ability to enjoy multiple styles.
Dan Hemmens 04-10-07, 07:28 AM	Define "Better". More effectively. In my experience, extreme-optimizers focus on being very good at one or two things. I prefer to be reasonably good at several things. That is their choice and yours. The game, however, rewards specialisation. Massively. The diference is in the emphasis - I produce a concept of a character personality first, then add the details of what they will be good at, then flesh the mechanics around that. I'm not one hundred percent sure I know what you mean by "personality first". Personality, to my mind, is almost wholly unconnected to ability (at least in D&D). "I want to play a violent thug" could lead you towards playing a fighter, a barbarian, a rogue, or a wizard (who uses his powers in a violent and thuggish manner). At some point you have to sit down and think about the following things: what you want your character to be capable of, and how you can achieve that in the system. Most power gamers I have met or heard described here seem to build the mechanics of what the character will be good at first, adding the character details to it and finally top it off with a personality that fits. Most roleplayers I have met or heard described anywhere seem to build the mechanics of what their character will be good at first, adding character details to it and finally top it off with a personality that fits. The reason for that is that when you are talking about roleplaying with somebody you always talk mechanics first. When somebody says "tell me about your character" you will, nine times out of ten, start off by saying "well he's a half-elf Bard..." People frequently go to their GM and say "Hi, I'm thinking of playing a Hexblade, will that fit with the rest of the party" they very rarely feel the need to say "Hi, I'm thinking of playing a character with a profound longing for the simpler days of his youth, will that fit with the rest of the party." D&D isn't like Unknown Armies or Pendragon. Your character's personality is not reflected anywhere in their game mechanical capabilities, so why should it matter whether you put personality first or second? You still ultimately design your character based on what you want them to be good at. Now you see that is the attitude I keep encountering. Think about all of the class features of some classes ... how often are they used? All of them regularly, all the time? Some are highly specialised and only get used infrequently, but when they do are very useful. This is not 'useless', in my view. All characters will have abilities and skills they use more rarely than others. Sometimes those skills are not required, sometimes they require imagination on behalf of the player to be used. It's not what you got, it's what you do with it that counts. It's not what you do with it, it's what you *can* do with it compared to what you would be capable of doing with something else. Yes, a creative player can escape from prison using only their Knowledge: Recipes for Cabbage Soup skill, but they could escape a damned sight easier if they'd just had a few ranks of Open Lock. They are examples, not criticisms. Okay, then let's have a look at your example. I do build my combat oriented characters effectively, by a definition of effective. I don't build them to be combat gods or one-trick ponies, though. That's not the point. The point is that if you're only there to get into character then you shouldn't care how well your character stacks up against the other PCs. All you should care about is experiencing the "gamut of emotions" your character feels as he watches the spiked-chain wielder hack down all the enemies in round one. Yes, that is correct. An extreme imbalance is bad. As for a spellcaster in a low-magic game, that is a DM issue - and spell casters generally need protection from non-spell casters anyway. I'm all with "extreme imbalance is bad" but the point is that "extreme imbalance" is not necessarily the result of dysfunctional play by any party. Sometimes it just winds up that way. Not all imbalance is the result of powergaming, not all powergaming results in imbalance. In some cases this is very true, and it works very well. The exceptions are classes which require specialist training and prestige classes which require membership of obscure organisations. This is the age old "what do prestige classes represent" issue. In my personal opinion, since "Class" in D&D is transparently a metagame concept which provides characters with a vaguely themed progression of abilities, I don't see why people should have to "justify" multiclassing or prestige classes any more than they have to justify, say, taking another level of Wizard without spending five years in dedicated study of the arcane secrets. I do make characters with the mechanics to back it up. But I tend to make three dimensional characters, which means for rounded personalities I get a rounded set of skills and abilities - as opposed to, for example, a two dimensional character good only at one or two things. Again you're confusing personality with ability. Just because a character is only good at one thing does not in any way imply that they have a one dimensional personality. A player should not have to waste points on useless skills or nonsensical class-dips just to prove that his character is "three dimensonal".
Limousine_Liberal 04-10-07, 08:27 AM	In my experience, it's all about emphasis. We all like to have complex and interesting characters, and we also all like to have characters who are badass, mechanically, within the bounds of what we see as "their niche." (That niche might be melee combat, or ranged, or as a battlefield controller, or even as a party "face" or as a general skill monkey, it can be pretty much anything governed by the mechanical rules of the game). Some players, though will happily change their character's personality/* if they discover that it in some way conflicts with mechanical optimization, some will forgo mechanical optimization if the "optimized" character conflicts with their vision of personality. Many are highly variable...sometimes leaning one way, and sometimes the other depending on the particulars of the situation, their mood, etc. ----- /* Actually, "change" is usually not the right word. "Contort" is probably closer to the mark, and often "contort, but pretend that he hasn't contorted anything at all." ----- Me personally, I do prefer those who focus on development of character personae over those who focus on optimization. As the guy who normally DMs, that's more interesting to me. There is no optimized build that I, as DM can't beat the snot out of if I wanted to, so "awesome" builds are just not that interesting. Deep, complicated characters, on the other hand...they stick with me. Both development of a character persona and the development of a "build" are skills, though. Those focused on (and good at) optimization pour over books, make connections between skills and feats and class abilities and have to be true experts in the minutiae of the rules. Those who lean towards (and are good at) character development can spend just as much time and effort (more sometimes, since so many of the "optimizers" in my group pull "their" ideas from the CharOp board), but they have to spend their time crafting and writing the backstory. That requires an intimate knowledge of the fluff of the campaign setting and a great deal of brainstorming. Being good at one doesn't necessarily mean being bad at the other, but in my experience, a passion for one does suggest a willingness to compromise on the other.
Dan Hemmens 04-10-07, 09:45 AM	Some players, though will happily change their character's personality/* if they discover that it in some way conflicts with mechanical optimization, some will forgo mechanical optimization if the "optimized" character conflicts with their vision of personality. Many are highly variable...sometimes leaning one way, and sometimes the other depending on the particulars of the situation, their mood, etc. You see, this is what I still don't get. I am at a loss to think of one single circumstance under which a character's personality would in any way affect their mechanical "optimisation". In fact, the only time I can see it being an issue is if your DM is one of those people who insists that you "justify" your character building decisions "in-character" thereby forcing a player who wants to take a level of Fighter to sign up with a "Fighter School" or some such, but that's the DM's fault, not the player's.
Tyraxus 04-10-07, 10:34 AM	Or if the DM has a different idea of the character than the player does (the whole "Your character wouldn't do that," thing). That opens a whole other can of worms, though. EDIT: Good example: I was playing a pirate character in an evil game that had completely forsaken religion (couldn't stand it, or priests; the only reason he was able to tolerate the clerics in the party was that he stood the night watch while they took the day, and they weren't too preachy when he did come in contact with them). This was due to a fairly traumatic childhood, where the Church and priests of Pelor had basically screwed him, his family and friends over. Basically, he was born with abnormal eyes: the irises were completely black. The Church preached that such things were abnormal and abominations, so his family (being good, upstanding members of the Church and loving parents at the same time) basically hid Ty away. He had no friends, no contact with anyone at all in town, because they didn't want him burned over a pyre for being tainted with evil. His mother, Jenna, taught him to read and his father, Tomas the smith, taught him metalworking, all in complete secrecy; as far as the town knew, Ty was stillborn and never existed. Then his father ticked off a merchant in town by running against him for local office, who unbeknownst to anyone was the head of the local criminal underground (gotta love small-town politics). The merchant sent his thugs to rough up Tomas, but they got carried away and killed them while Ty watched from his hiding place beneath the stairs. They then raped and killed Jenna, and set fire to the house and attached smithy to cover their deeds. The bandits were caught, but after a moving speech by the town priest of Pelor (in the merchant's pocket) on the topic of forgiveness and innocence, and a substantial bribe from the merchant to the local sherriff, the bandits were pardoned and let free. Ty (sneaking about town by this point) saw the people that killed his family granted clemency by the Church, so he took matters into his own hands and killed them in their sleep two days later. The murders were discovered, and the brutality with which they had been carried out (Ty not only killed them but mutilated their corpses in a fit of rage) prompted the Church to declare that it was an evil fiend that had done the deed, and sent Paladins after him, who chased him from town to town and then bandit camp to bandit camp (the bandits didn't judge him to be a monster, and accepted him, so he joined them where he could; the Paladins followed and slaughtered them as agents of evil for harbouring a fiend) until he wound up with a pirate crew and managed to shake the pursuit. So Ty has no reason to love religion at all. But during the campaign, he meets the High Priest of a foreign god, the God of Secrets and Mysteries. The High Priest demonstrated his power to save Ty and his group, and Ty therefore saw a "good" side to religion and fell in love with it. I told the DM that he was going to miss the next couple of sessions (I'd play the captain's cohort, or roll up a subpar character and have him play redshirt) to train to be a cleric of The One Called Night. The DM looked at me and said "He wouldn't do that," when I knew, I knew that he was smitten with the power that The One Called Night granted to his clerics and overcome by devotion for the High Priest for saving him and his friends. It was very literally a "religious experience," the kind that leads people to convert, the kind people talk about all the time. But the DM had decided that Ty was a rough thug devoted to atheism rather than a complicated, troubled man who had nothing but anger towards the gods because they'd done nothing but ill to him. EDITx2: Why did I just tell that story? I had a point, a good point, and now I can't for the life of me remember what it was.
Comus 04-10-07, 11:35 AM	The DM looked at me and said "He wouldn't do that," when I knew, I knew that he was smitten with the power that The One Called Night granted to his clerics and overcome by devotion for the High Priest for saving him and his friends. It was very literally a "religious experience," the kind that leads people to convert, the kind people talk about all the time. But the DM had decided that Ty was a rough thug devoted to atheism rather than a complicated, troubled man who had nothing but anger towards the gods because they'd done nothing but ill to him. And the correct response is "you're wrong - he's my character and I know what he would do a lot better than you do." I mean, seriously, I couldn't stand a DM that tried to tell me what my character would do. Oh, and like Dan, I also cannot think of a situation where personality, an in-game concept, would interfere with optimization, an out-of-game concept. Can anyone give an example of this happening?
Limousine_Liberal 04-10-07, 01:27 PM	You see, this is what I still don't get. I am at a loss to think of one single circumstance under which a character's personality would in any way affect their mechanical "optimisation". In fact, the only time I can see it being an issue is if your DM is one of those people who insists that you "justify" your character building decisions "in-character" thereby forcing a player who wants to take a level of Fighter to sign up with a "Fighter School" or some such, but that's the DM's fault, not the player's. I can give you a few examples, if you want. (1) First, from many years ago: a (good) party learned of an artifact of some power that could only be used by evil characters. The adventure was (to ignore a lot of detail) basically a seek and destroy mission. They found the item, and discovered that it was *really* powerful (though dangerous). In less than two sessions their CG barbarian transitioned to full blown CE behavior because he wanted it for himself. I didn't force him to justify himself, but it was a very abrupt change and the only reason he volunteered was that he wanted the artifact for his character. (2) It does also comes up when players create characters. That same player, for example, never (never) includes any NPCs his character cares about in his character's backstory. A few campaigns back I commented on this (thinking it was an oversight) and asked him to jot down a few details about some, and he explained that his character had none. Fair enough. That campaign ended and we started a new one. Same thing happened. I noted that the character must at least have parents so to jot down a few details about them, so he rewrote his background to make himself an orphan. Ever since then, he's played a string of orphans. Why? He hates having his character's background and personality constrain his character's decisions (and "loved ones" can be exploited by villains or otherwise become troublesome once worked into the campaign). Heck, he hates his character's low charisma scores (always a dump stat, in every game I've been in with him) dictate his character's personal magnetism. We've had loud arguments about why NPCs weren't overly impressed by his 5 Charisma barbarian. (His response was that they would respect him deeply because they know he could "easily kill them." I had to point out to him that neither Charisma, nor Diplomacy, nor even Intimidate works that way.) Not that he is a "bad roleplayer" in a certain sense. He does get into character and speaks in the character's voice better than many players I've known, but that personality tends, when you boil it down, to be some variant of "I am the most badass [Insert description] ever." (3) Another player—my other reliable "powergamer"—once played a (LG) Defender of Sealtiel (Book of Exalted Deeds). He got into major combat in a crowded city street (not his fault) and there were civilian casualties (also not his fault). One of those casualties was a fairly powerful NPC who was in the street when the fighting broke out and Dominated by an enemy during the fight. This NPC had some very nice equipment. The player was well aware that the NPC was acting against his will during the fight. The player, running a supposedly "exalted" character, tried to find a way to convince me he was entitled to loot the man's body and keep the stuff. I explained that the dead man's equipment belonged to the man's heirs (the PC was well aware that this notable NPC had family and even how to find them). I basically said outright that if he looted the body and kept the equipment for himself, that that might be "crossing the line" and I'd have to think about whether the character would lose his exalted status. The player uttered many bad words that day and said that that ruling made exalted characters "unplayable" (his word). My ruling did not make exalted characters "unplayable" in any realistic sense, all it did was suggest that "good" characters sometimes have to pass on loot if they want to do the "good" thing. Exalted characters just have it worse that run-off-the-mill good characters because they are held to higher standards. (4) Another alignment based one...in my games, in general, good characters cannot kill helpless enemies who pose no immediate threat without risking their alignments. If the fight is over, and an enemy is still breathing, the "good" thing is to try to save his life, even if taking prisoners is tremendously inconvenient or poses a risk to your character. You can stabilize the fellow and leave him behind (still unconscious), but the fact that he might wake up in a day or two and then heal up and *maybe* come fight you again is not an authorization for good characters to kill that person. This originally caused many fights with my powergaming players. In the end, between this and the events of scenario (3) they both simply stopped playing good characters. Why? Because the personality traits suggested by their character's alignments were constraining their awesome killing power, and they value the awesome killing power more than the their characters' personae. They're still both good players and they both do role play, but they limit their range of role playing options in order to facilitate their powergaming. There's nothing wrong with that, but their characters are generally less interesting to me, as a DM, than the characters of players who prioritize differently.
Dan Hemmens 04-10-07, 01:50 PM	Okay, from the top. And for what it's worth, these are all pretty much exactly what I was worried about. I can give you a few examples, if you want. (1) First, from many years ago: a (good) party learned of an artifact of some power that could only be used by evil characters. The adventure was (to ignore a lot of detail) basically a seek and destroy mission. They found the item, and discovered that it was *really* powerful (though dangerous). In less than two sessions their CG barbarian transitioned to full blown CE behavior because he wanted it for himself. I didn't force him to justify himself, but it was a very abrupt change and the only reason he volunteered was that he wanted the artifact for his character. In which case he made a legitimate character decision to be tempted by an offer of great power. I mean, you do realise that if you change "artefact" to "mentor" that this could accurately describe the behaviour of Anakin Skywalker in Revenge of the Sith, don't you? (2) It does also comes up when players create characters. That same player, for example, never (never) includes any NPCs his character cares about in his character's backstory. A few campaigns back I commented on this (thinking it was an oversight) and asked him to jot down a few details about some, and he explained that his character had none. Umm ... and how is that contrary to his character's personality? In fact, isn't that just a description of his personality? Fair enough. That campaign ended and we started a new one. Same thing happened. I noted that the character must at least have parents so to jot down a few details about them, so he rewrote his background to make himself an orphan. Ever since then, he's played a string of orphans. Again, that's got nothing to do with mechanics. Why? He hates having his character's background and personality constrain his character's decisions (and "loved ones" can be exploited by villains or otherwise become troublesome once worked into the campaign). So perhaps he just doesn't want to play a game about rescuing his character's sister from mortal danger. Perhaps he doesn't want to let the GM use his character background as a stick to beat him with, which frankly sounds quite likely. Heck, he hates his character's low charisma scores (always a dump stat, in every game I've been in with him) dictate his character's personal magnetism. We've had loud arguments about why NPCs weren't overly impressed by his 5 Charisma barbarian. (His response was that they would respect him deeply because they know he could "easily kill them." I had to point out to him that neither Charisma, nor Diplomacy, nor even Intimidate works that way.) So he objects to the fact that you arbitrarily punish him for his character's stats? He's completely right. Charisma is not a coolness tax, it's not the points you have to waste in order to prove you're a real roleplayer so the NPCs will take you seriously. Not that he is a "bad roleplayer" in a certain sense. He does get into character and speaks in the character's voice better than many players I've known, but that personality tends, when you boil it down, to be some variant of "I am the most badass [Insert description] ever." What do you expect, he's playing D&D. Your entire character sheet is a measure of your character's badassness and nothing else. (3) Another player—my other reliable "powergamer"—once played a (LG) Defender of Sealtiel (Book of Exalted Deeds). He got into major combat in a crowded city street (not his fault) and there were civilian casualties (also not his fault). One of those casualties was a fairly powerful NPC who was in the street when the fighting broke out and Dominated by an enemy during the fight. This NPC had some very nice equipment. The player was well aware that the NPC was acting against his will during the fight. The player, running a supposedly "exalted" character, tried to find a way to convince me he was entitled to loot the man's body and keep the stuff. I explained that the dead man's equipment belonged to the man's heirs (the PC was well aware that this notable NPC had family and even how to find them). I basically said outright that if he looted the body and kept the equipment for himself, that that might be "crossing the line" and I'd have to think about whether the character would lose his exalted status. The player uttered many bad words that day and said that that ruling made exalted characters "unplayable" (his word). Again, you're playing D&D, a loot-based game. It's a game about killing things and taking their stuff. Killing things and taking their stuff is, in fact, all player characters can reliably do without relying on GM goodwill. My ruling did not make exalted characters "unplayable" in any realistic sense, all it did was suggest that "good" characters sometimes have to pass on loot if they want to do the "good" thing. Exalted characters just have it worse that run-off-the-mill good characters because they are held to higher standards. So you penalised him for playing a good character, and you wonder why they switched to playing evil characters? (4) Another alignment based one...in my games, in general, good characters cannot kill helpless enemies who pose no immediate threat without risking their alignments. If the fight is over, and an enemy is still breathing, the "good" thing is to try to save his life, even if taking prisoners is tremendously inconvenient or poses a risk to your character. You can stabilize the fellow and leave him behind (still unconscious), but the fact that he might wake up in a day or two and then heal up and *maybe* come fight you again is not an authorization for good characters to kill that person. This originally caused many fights with my powergaming players. In the end, between this and the events of scenario (3) they both simply stopped playing good characters. Why? Because the personality traits suggested by their character's alignments were constraining their awesome killing power, and they value the awesome killing power more than the their characters' personae. They're still both good players and they both do role play, but they limit their range of role playing options in order to facilitate their powergaming. No. You limit their roleplaying options by dictating to them how characters of a particular type are supposed to act. You actively penalise them for playing characters who aren't murderous amoral psychopaths (by denying them loot they would otherwise have had, by having the villains use their family members against them, and so on) and then you wonder why they finally just give up and play Evil characters. There's nothing wrong with that, but their characters are generally less interesting to me, as a DM, than the characters of players who prioritize differently. No, their characters are less interesting to you because these guys are playing the characters they want to play instead of the characters you want them to play. Because they aren't willing to have you *punish* them for making legitimate in-character decisions. There is nothing about the way these guys play that could not be solved by a GM who was actually willing to work with them instead of against them.
LCD2YOU 04-10-07, 01:55 PM	I already don't like DrOfDemonology. He seems to miss the point of D&D too: Having fun. Some people have more fun when they don't die. Some people have more fun by having larger numbers. DrOfDemonology doesn't seem to get that, and he needs to get that he doesn't get it. Or he can start getting it, same as all of the other judgemental crazies out there. Bottom line: Either start getting it or get that you don't get it. Capisce?I don't have fun when I sit next to someone who is squeezing the penny so tight that Lincoln is put back into his Memorial when it comes to rules and their explotation. I will not be in a game with a Uber Min/Maxer Power Munchkin as I have no fun.
Comus 04-10-07, 02:28 PM	I pretty much agree with Dan to the letter about the examples given by Limousine. Just to give my interpretations of each... 1 - Absolute power corrupts absolutely. The exact transition that character went through is a staple of literature from every genre. The One Ring, perhaps? 2 - Oh noes. The player has a certain style he likes, and that style doesn't include NPC baggage. Do I usually include NPCs in my backstory? Yes. But that's because I like that kind of plot hook. So he wants to play "badass #X"? Who cares? I've known a lot of people that had a favorite character type to play, and stuck to it. The only problem is that you don't like the kind of character he's made. There's not even a hint of optimization here, so I don't even know why this is relevant. 3 - This is a problem with Exalted characters, not with optimization. Before you can let anyone play an Exalted character, you have to make sure you're both on the same page in terms of what that means. 4 - "I'm holding all characters of good alignment to standards even Paladins don't have to uphold by the RAW, and now for some reason my players won't play good-aligned characters!"
UndefinedDemonicEntity 04-10-07, 03:05 PM	I will not be in a game with a Uber Min/Maxer Power Munchkin as I have no fun. He specifically mentioned only optimizers, i.e. people that create characters that are good at what they do, which means less likely to die. What you said was the equivalent of "I will not be in a swimming competition with a shark as I have no fun." D&D isn't a competition, it's a co-operative game. Everyone has a share in the adventure. If he upstages you in combat, that's your own fault, not his. You can upstage him somewhere else, or start focusing on combat. Maybe you'll gain the lead. On a side note: 'munchkin' is a derogatory and inflammatory word. It's best that you stay away from accusing people of it.
LCD2YOU 04-10-07, 03:07 PM	(4) Another alignment based one...in my games, in general, good characters cannot kill helpless enemies who pose no immediate threat without risking their alignments. If the fight is over, and an enemy is still breathing, the "good" thing is to try to save his life, even if taking prisoners is tremendously inconvenient or poses a risk to your character. You can stabilize the fellow and leave him behind (still unconscious), but the fact that he might wake up in a day or two and then heal up and *maybe* come fight you again is not an authorization for good characters to kill that person.Sorry Limo but I'd never play anything that smacked of being good in your game. In fact, I'd intentionally go after "Good groups" because I know they'd be so stupid to let me live. I'd especially go after Paladins around my level as they'd be the best targets. Without a doubt if I fell to "good" NPCs in your game I know they'd take me prisoner. They'd treat me well and I'd laugh at them for being easy marks. At my second or third opportunity to escape, when they drop their guard, I'll slit their throats. That sounds like Good = Stoopid to me, but that's my opinion.
Limousine_Liberal 04-10-07, 03:52 PM	Without a doubt if I fell to "good" NPCs in your game I know they'd take me prisoner. They'd treat me well and I'd laugh at them for being easy marks. At my second or third opportunity to escape, when they drop their guard, I'll slit their throats. That sounds like Good = Stoopid to me, but that's my opinion. I think it's more like in-game Good being somewhat akin to real world good. For example, in the real world, cops aren't known for shooting suspects once those suspects are incapacitated or have surrendered. Why? Because society sees killing people under those circumstances as bad. You'd really hate my games...I frown on good characters torturing people for information too. :D
Tyraxus 04-10-07, 04:09 PM	Sorry Limo but I'd never play anything that smacked of being good in your game. In fact, I'd intentionally go after "Good groups" because I know they'd be so stupid to let me live. I'd especially go after Paladins around my level as they'd be the best targets. Without a doubt if I fell to "good" NPCs in your game I know they'd take me prisoner. They'd treat me well and I'd laugh at them for being easy marks. At my second or third opportunity to escape, when they drop their guard, I'll slit their throats. That sounds like Good = Stoopid to me, but that's my opinion. Indeed. The name of the alignment is X GOOD, not X Stupid. A Paladin or Cleric might have to show mercy or risk needing atonement, but your garden variety CG Fighter/Rogue? A NG Wizard? What part of "good" means these characters are required to save the bandit king's life rather than let him bleed out and thereby stop the raids on the farming village? I think it's more like in-game Good being somewhat akin to real world good. For example, in the real world, cops aren't known for shooting suspects once those suspects are incapacitated or have surrendered. Why? Because society sees killing people under those circumstances as bad. You'd really hate my games...I frown on good characters torturing people for information too. :D Right, except that PCs aren't generally cops dealing with criminals past level 5-6, they're SpecOps forces dealing with magic-wielding madmen, wild beasts, demons, subdeities, etc. Why on earth would a Delta Force operator or Navy Seal commando leave the terrorist's guards alive behind him, assuming he missed and only wounded them with his opening shots? If I'm reading you right, you let them kill enemies in battle, but what about a coup de grace against a webbed enemy? He's helpless, after all. 'Course I tend more towards CG or CN (when I decide he just doesn't care about good/evil), but why do I have the feeling that any of my pragmatic characters in your game would wind up as NE or CE? Remember that alignments are descriptions rather than boxes. You sound like you're doing this right, but be sure to never say things like "You can't do that because of your alignment," and rather "That's more neutral than good, if you do that a lot you'll have to change the entry on the CharSheet." Why do people get so hung up on alignment, anyway? It's a set of arbitrary descriptors that do nothing at all for the character, similar to knowing your MBTI category (INTP, btw).
On_the_wings_of_TPK 04-10-07, 04:15 PM	How did this get onto the topic of alignment? Doesn't really matter the justification. Killing helpless feos is evil. refusing to help someone mortally wounded is neutral, and actually showing merci and compassion is the "good" thing to do. It may not be tactically the best mavuer, but it is the morally right thing to do.
Tyraxus 04-10-07, 04:20 PM	... Killing helpless feos is evil. ... So every Paladin that ever administers a coup de grace automatically falls? Even if the person he was administering it to was an evil Cleric who was only stopped from summoning his deity's avatar to destroy the world by the Wizard's web spell? Harsh.
Limousine_Liberal 04-10-07, 04:32 PM	First of all, DanHemmens, I didn't insult you or anyone in my posts. Too bad for me you don't have my manners. If you don't like my blunt assessment of you listed below, please remember that you were the one who was rude first. Please bear in mind, that I don't give a damn whether you think I'm a good DM. My players keep coming back to my games, and they have options. I require that good characters be "good". Obviously, you can't comprehend that and find it to be unfair, but that's on you. In which case he made a legitimate character decision to be tempted by an offer of great power. Except he went from "protecting the weak" to "I need to remorselessly kill infants so that I can get my character sheet to say CE." If all he did was feel tempted by the artifact and try to use it, that would be fine. He went from good guy to psycho in one fell swoop. That is changing one's personality in order to powergame...exactly what you asked me to describe. I don't give a damn that you agree with him. I know you're a powergamer first, role player second. There's nothing wrong with that. I mean, you do realise that if you change "artefact" to "mentor" that this could accurately describe the behaviour of Anakin Skywalker in Revenge of the Sith, don't you? Except there it was gradual and it was based initially on a desire to protect the woman he loves and over deep pains relating to the death of the mother he loves. As I noted, this player never has any deep ties to anyone. More importantly, the change was abrupt, like flipping a switch. "The artifact does what? Oh, okay, then my character stabs the nearest peasant." Besides, are you saying that Anakin Skywalker is your ideal of a deep character? If so...I think my standards are a bit higher than yours. Umm ... and how is that contrary to his character's personality? In fact, isn't that just a description of his personality? Actually it is shaping his backstory in order to avoid his being at all realistic. Yay powergaming. Boo to role playing. It is a way to allow him to ignore realistic characterization because it would interfere with his attempts to powergame. To take the cliche, if the BBEG has your baby sister hostage (or worse, if your baby sister now works for the BBEG), it makes it hard to kill indiscriminately and maintain a realistic personality. His solution is to invent implausible backstories that never leave him vulnerable to the actions of NPCs. So he objects to the fact that you arbitrarily punish him for his character's stats? He's completely right. Charisma is not a coolness tax, it's not the points you have to waste in order to prove you're a real roleplayer so the NPCs will take you seriously. Yes, I "punish" him. :rolleyes: I also punish him by not letting his 5 STR characters move 1,000 pound boulders with one hand. Look, I have NPCs in my world, and I need to decide how they react. If you have a 5 CHA. ::shock:: they will treat you as if you have a 5 CHA. What a bad DM am I! My players are free to think their characters are impressive and magnetic individuals. They are not free to tell me that my NPCs see them that way. If he had a 5 CHA and ranks in Intimidate, then his dreams of being tremendously impressive might have come true. He had 0 ranks in any social skills. That was a -3 penalty to Intimidate. That you (and he) think that he should be viewed as intimidating despite that is just a matter of your not understanding the game. Again, you're playing D&D, a loot-based game. It's a game about killing things and taking their stuff. Killing things and taking their stuff is, in fact, all player characters can reliably do without relying on GM goodwill. The definition of good does not change just because you'd like it too. Similarly, the laws of inheritance apply in my world. If you walk down the street and the man in front of you drops dead of a heart attack, you don't get to take and keep his wallet and watch. His family is going to want those things. I let good players strip the bodies of enemies and evil creatures, not innocents. You don't sound like you understand what "good" really means, or, at least, you don't have any truly good character in your games. No. You limit their roleplaying options by dictating to them how characters of a particular type are supposed to act. You actively penalise them for playing characters who aren't murderous amoral psychopaths (by denying them loot they would otherwise have had, by having the villains use their family members against them, and so on) and then you wonder why they finally just give up and play Evil characters. Please look up a book on goodness. Once you understand the term, implement it in your games. If you think the things you advocate are "good", try looting the bodies of the dead in the real world, then ask people to describe your moral character. You must honestly believe that the word "good" has an entirely different and unrelated meaning in game than it does in real life. I have no idea why you think that. No, their characters are less interesting to you because these guys are playing the characters they want to play instead of the characters you want them to play. Because they aren't willing to have you *punish* them for making legitimate in-character decisions. There is nothing about the way these guys play that could not be solved by a GM who was actually willing to work with them instead of against them. My players love my games, so plainly you have no idea what you are talking about. That's why I always wind up being the DM. They can do all the things they like. I don't stop them at all. I let them loot and pillage and kill to their hearts content. They just can't do those things willy-nilly and maintain that they are shining examples of goodness. Guess what? If they want to rape virgins, they also won't be "good." From what you've written, I understand that you see that as me imposing my harsh dictatorial will on their characters, but in my world, forceable rape is evil. You can still do it, but you won't be "good." (Your character might *think* he's good, but mechanically he'll Detect as evil, and any powers he has that require his being good will be stripped away). Your notion of good and evil are nonsensical. Goodness is not "doing whatever I want to do and the DM can never say otherwise."
Dan Hemmens 04-10-07, 06:36 PM	First of all, DanHemmens, I didn't insult you or anyone in my posts. Too bad for me you don't have my manners. If you don't like my blunt assessment of you listed below, please remember that you were the one who was rude first. I never insulted you. I might have insulted your GMing, but that's a different thing entirely. Please bear in mind, that I don't give a damn whether you think I'm a good DM. My players keep coming back to my games, and they have options. I require that good characters be "good". Obviously, you can't comprehend that and find it to be unfair, but that's on you. Oh I comprehend it utterly, you have an idea, in your head, of how a "good" character should behave, and you expect everybody with the word "good" written on their character sheets to behave accordingly. A lot of people run games that way. I don't play their games. Except he went from "protecting the weak" to "I need to remorselessly kill infants so that I can get my character sheet to say CE." If all he did was feel tempted by the artifact and try to use it, that would be fine. He went from good guy to psycho in one fell swoop. That is changing one's personality in order to powergame...exactly what you asked me to describe. No, he changed his character's alignment in order to procure an artifact in character. His character's personality remained the same throughout. I don't give a damn that you agree with him. I know you're a powergamer first, role player second. There's nothing wrong with that. No, I'm a roleplayer, I just have a different definition of that to you. Except there it was gradual and it was based initially on a desire to protect the woman he loves and over deep pains relating to the death of the mother he loves. As I noted, this player never has any deep ties to anyone. More importantly, the change was abrupt, like flipping a switch. If I recall correctly the way it went in RotS was actually that abrupt. Anakin goes from being a slightly angsty Jedi to being a child murdering psychopath in a heartbeat, all because Palpatine offers him power. And not even tangible power either. "The artifact does what? Oh, okay, then my character stabs the nearest peasant." An accurate portrayal of the corrupting effect of power. Besides, are you saying that Anakin Skywalker is your ideal of a deep character? If so...I think my standards are a bit higher than yours. Anakin Skywalker is my ideal of a reasonably well plotted archetypal character. If you want depth of characterisation, do not play D&D. It's a game about looting ruins. Actually it is shaping his backstory in order to avoid his being at all realistic. No, it's shaping his backstory in order to be the way he wants it to be. Yay powergaming. Boo to role playing. So "my character is an orphan" is powergaming but "my character is not an orphan" is roleplaying? Please explain to me where you gain game mechanical advantage by playing an orphan. It is a way to allow him to ignore realistic characterization because it would interfere with his attempts to powergame. Or it is a way to allow him to ignore his GM's ham-fisted attempts to railroad him into a predetermined course of actoin. To take the cliche, if the BBEG has your baby sister hostage (or worse, if your baby sister now works for the BBEG), it makes it hard to kill indiscriminately and maintain a realistic personality. His solution is to invent implausible backstories that never leave him vulnerable to the actions of NPCs. Yes, and he is correct to do so, and to continue doing so until such a time as his GM learns to engage with is character properly. Yes, I "punish" him. :rolleyes: I also punish him by not letting his 5 STR characters move 1,000 pound boulders with one hand. Look, I have NPCs in my world, and I need to decide how they react. If you have a 5 CHA. ::shock:: they will treat you as if you have a 5 CHA. What a bad DM am I! Yes, you are. You're giving your NPCs access to metagame information. Your NPCs don't know what a PCs stats are, they just know what they look and talk like. These guys stay in character pretty much full time, you say, so you should be reacting to the way they play their characters, not their statlines. It's not about "letting a character with a strength of 5 lift a 1000lb boulder" it's about not letting a character with a strength of 5 lift his own bodyweight. My players are free to think their characters are impressive and magnetic individuals. They are not free to tell me that my NPCs see them that way. This is true. This is true because D&D is not a democracy. Your players are not free to do anything. It doesn't stop you being a bad DM who likes to arbitrarily punish his players. If he had a 5 CHA and ranks in Intimidate, then his dreams of being tremendously impressive might have come true. He had 0 ranks in any social skills. That was a -3 penalty to Intimidate. That you (and he) think that he should be viewed as intimidating despite that is just a matter of your not understanding the game. No, it's a matter of understanding the game, and understanding that the game rules frequently suck, and should be ignored in favour of good sense. Ogres, for what it's worth, have Charisma 7 and zero ranks in Intimidate. The definition of good does not change just because you'd like it too. Similarly, the laws of inheritance apply in my world. If you walk down the street and the man in front of you drops dead of a heart attack, you don't get to take and keep his wallet and watch. His family is going to want those things. I let good players strip the bodies of enemies and evil creatures, not innocents. Oh I see. So the laws of inheritance apply, but not to bad people. Well that clears that up. You don't sound like you understand what "good" really means, or, at least, you don't have any truly good character in your games. Because clearly "good" behaviour means going out of your way to help somebody who, not five minutes ago, you were hitting in the head with a sword. I'm once again reminded of the old Vampire: Bloodlines computer game, where your character could kill, maim, and mutilate as much as he liked in combat, but if he accidentally killed a bum while feeding, he'd lose Humanity. What makes the first ten sword thrusts acts of goodness and the last one an act of evil? Please look up a book on goodness. Once you understand the term, implement it in your games. If you think the things you advocate are "good", try looting the bodies of the dead in the real world, then ask people to describe your moral character. I never said looting the bodies of the dead was "good", I said it was suitable behaviour for a good-aligned PC in a D&D game. You must honestly believe that the word "good" has an entirely different and unrelated meaning in game than it does in real life. I have no idea why you think that. Because real life isn't D&D. In real life, setting out to right the world's wrongs by killing people with a sword is distinctly dubious. In D&D it's the thing to do. My players love my games, so plainly you have no idea what you are talking about. That's why I always wind up being the DM. They can do all the things they like. I don't stop them at all. I let them loot and pillage and kill to their hearts content. They just can't do those things willy-nilly and maintain that they are shining examples of goodness. So they can do what they want, as long as they let you tell them what their actions imply about their personalities? And then you wonder why they don't put "roleplaying" first? It's because you're doing the roleplaying for them. You aren't letting them decide for themselves whether what they are doing is right. Guess what? If they want to rape virgins, they also won't be "good." From what you've written, I understand that you see that as me imposing my harsh dictatorial will on their characters, but in my world, forceable rape is evil. You can still do it, but you won't be "good." (Your character might *think* he's good, but mechanically he'll Detect as evil, and any powers he has that require his being good will be stripped away). I like the step from "loot a fallen opponent in combat, like they do after every combat and have complete sanction in doing" to "rape virgins". Your notion of good and evil are nonsensical. Goodness is not "doing whatever I want to do and the DM can never say otherwise." Nor is it "doing whatever the DM says," which is how you seem to define it. What it comes down to is this. Every single complaint you lay at the feet of "powergaming" is actually just an issue of players not doing what you want them to do. That's not bad roleplaying, in fact it isn't even powergaming - killing peasants doesn't take a brilliant character build after all. All it is is some players who don't get on with your particular GMing style for, frankly, understandable reasons.
Dawnshadow 04-10-07, 06:37 PM	Limousine_Liberal, if that is your basis for "Good", then I wonder what your basis for "lawful" or "chaotic" is.. your examples on looting bodies and killing seem very much related more to law/chaos then good/evil. For instance, it's not "good" that keeps prisoners alive, it's "law". Good determines whether or not you torture, how you treat them. Law determines whether or not they are executed summarily, or hauled back to civilization. With looting the bodies of fallen foes... it's law that determines if possessions should go to heirs, not good. There are two different alignment axes for a reason, after all. Good could very well coup de gras fallen foes -- they don't, of necessity, care about the law, so bandits who raided the caravan could be put down hard and the survivors executed. The reasoning? It would be reckless and dangerous to leave them alive to menace another caravan later, and could be stupidly dangerous to take them with the caravan. The "Good" course of action then is obviously to stop them, by whatever means necessairy. (This is specifically taken from the train of thought of a NG character of mine -- although, to be fair, I happen to agree with the principle behind it. That is to say, if you have the ability to prevent future evil by those who have already demonstrated their willingness to do it, and you choose not to stop them, you are partially responsible for that evil.) LG would have issues on that depending on the laws of the land -- those might mandate capture and incarceration. Or, they could indicate that the proper course of action is to string them up from a tree and leave them hanging there as a warning. What Good would indicate is that you have a measured response. You don't behead everyone who insists on a toll for crossing a ford -- you do exterminate, root and branch, the bandit gang that leaves nothing but burned wagons, dead bodies, and missing young women..
Dan Hemmens 04-10-07, 06:39 PM	On another point: A page or so back, somebody talked about a DM who had point blank refused to accept that a particular character would ever have a religious experience, essentially saying "your character wouldn't do that." Doing the same with Alignment is just as bad. The DM does not have the right to tell a player what his character would and would not do. Period.
Pandaemoni 04-10-07, 06:58 PM	On another point: A page or so back, somebody talked about a DM who had point blank refused to accept that a particular character would ever have a religious experience, essentially saying "your character wouldn't do that." Doing the same with Alignment is just as bad. The DM does not have the right to tell a player what his character would and would not do. Period. I don't think that's right. You can certainly eliminate alignments in this game but the alignments do not mean what the players say they mean. They mean what the DM, overlord of the game multiverse, says they mean. If you write LN on yoru character sheet and then play the character in a way that the DM thinks is Chaotic Neutral, the DM shouldn't say "you can't so that", but he does have the right to rule that the "L" has become a "C." If you'd actually read LL's posts closely, he clearly indicates that he didn't directly force his players to play a particular way--like saying, "No, you can't do that because your character wouldn't"--he wrote that their styles were, in his opinion, inconsistent with their stated alignments. In some cases, like let's say for monks and paladins, deviating from alignments can have very bad consequences. Whether a character is deviating from his stated alignment is, per the rules, for the DM to decide, not the player.
Daydreamer 04-10-07, 07:02 PM	i think the issue many of us have with roleplaying is about credbility. Its hard to define in a situation, because legitimate roleplaying considerations allow for almost any action in any situation. However, when your character changes 'who' he is over and over and over again, in a completely inconsistant manner, whenever there is a power advantage to be obtained, such a character looses credibility. I think this is what they have in mind, its not that roleplaying is on the left hand and power is on the right and they cant meet, in any specific situation. Its that , over a characters carreer, watching such a person develop you eventually begin to get a picture of who they are, when that person changes over and over and over for reasons of self advantage, it can become frustrating to other roleplayers. It can ruin the atomsophere of a game. It isnt about whether a justification can be provided for there actions, its about whether you believe there justification or suspect anther motive is behind there actions. Your quite correct to say you don't have the right to tell someone how to play, but my group of pcs, of which i am one, police very heavily the sort of game enviroment we like to play in. WE have been playing for years so thankfully this is no longer an issue, but we wouldnt play with someone we felt was -as i put it earlier- a double talking politicians, whos rationalizations are a facade for the real motives. You cant provide specific situations where roleplaying and power contradict, its imposible bc roleplaying encompass's all possible reactions. Its over the course of a characters career that they become someone, and when that concept is consistantly and conviently violated that one might have a problem. Assuming the players and the dm care, which in our group they do, and we are perfectly entilted to feel this way. Additionally, while you have pointed to alternative ways in which a pc might react to situtions, the other ways are also perfectly legitimate choices. As such a pc can roleplay in a way that would reduce his personal power and sometimes this is what i feel my character would do, so i do that. Its not that power and roleplaying necessarily conflict in any situation. Its that they can conflict over the course a career. Its intangible guys, its like trying to describe why you don't get along with someone. There isnt in my mind anything wrong with the choices you make dan, but i woudlnt want to play in a game with you. Probably vice versa as well. i dont see a big deal about that.
Daydreamer 04-10-07, 07:03 PM	I don't think that's right. You can certainly eliminate alignments in this game but the alignments do not mean what the players say they mean. They mean what the DM, overlord of the game multiverse, says they mean. If you write LN on yoru character sheet and then play the character in a way that the DM thinks is Chaotic Neutral, the DM shouldn't say "you can't so that", but he does have the right to rule that the "L" has become a "C." If you'd actually read LL's posts closely, he clearly indicates that he didn't directly force his players to play a particular way--like saying, "No, you can't do that because your character wouldn't"--he wrote that their styles were, in his opinion, inconsistent with their stated alignments. In some cases, like let's say for monks and paladins, deviating from alignments can have very bad consequences. Whether a character is deviating from his stated alignment is, per the rules, for the DM to decide, not the player. this is a very good point, alot of the arguments in this thread is because concepts and what people are saying are being narrowly interpreted. Peoples positions usualyl have nuances, its worth digging to see if you can find them.
Maekrix_Waere 04-10-07, 07:57 PM	What in the Nine Hells are we talking about alignments for?
Cael 04-10-07, 08:53 PM	I think it's more like in-game Good being somewhat akin to real world good. For example, in the real world, cops aren't known for shooting suspects once those suspects are incapacitated or have surrendered. Why? Because society sees killing people under those circumstances as bad. You'd really hate my games...I frown on good characters torturing people for information too. :D Real world "Good" often isn't. There is *nothing* Good about allowing a terrorist to live, for example, when he will go on to kill hundreds in his career. Similarly, there is nothing "Good" about turning the other cheek when people are dying in the streets because of it. Being on your high horse is fine, so long as you don't have to pay the consequences. But what the proponents of "Good" in the real world often forget is that there is *always* someone *else* paying for their views. This type of hypocracy is something that I cannot abide. I have read your posts and the way you do things, and for the record, I agree 100% with Dan when he analyses your actions. In fact, I would have replied in a far more vehement manner than him, which is why I am glad he responded before I did. The WizOs would frown on the way I would have phrased things.
CradleofLife 04-10-07, 09:03 PM	I think what your party is trying to say is that you should make a character with a few weaknesses. No one enjoys a character that kills all of the monsters while the rest just collect the loot. Don't take all of the feats and skills, just a few. They don't want a god, they want a normal player that is on the same level as they are.
NoldorForce 04-10-07, 10:06 PM	They don't want a god, they want a normal player that is on the same level as they are.From what the OP said, fulfilling both of these criteria (normal character, same power level as the rest of the party) is impossible. Recall the whole "sorcerer in melee getting squished" thing?
WizO_Cat 04-10-07, 10:18 PM	Ok just a reminder: for some of the posts, they're getting personal once again. Let's knock it off. Keep the posts on the subject of the thread, not other guests. People have been getting Official Warns for their actions due to this kind of activity. Let's keep it polite. Last warning.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 04-10-07, 11:04 PM	So every Paladin that ever administers a coup de grace automatically falls? Even if the person he was administering it to was an evil Cleric who was only stopped from summoning his deity's avatar to destroy the world by the Wizard's web spell? Harsh. Barring that the paladin is caring out a lawfully, and fairly, sentence of death. Given by a legitament magistriagght with the authority to do so. yes absolutely they fall. they have both willing, and knowing committed an evil, and unlawful act. First off it is evil becuase killing someone is murder, and that disregards the santity of life. Someone good characters strieve to uphold. Further more it is unlawful becuase it taking the law into ones own hands, essentially vigalantism. Typically a choatic act. Being a good character is not simple the avoidance of evil. that would be neutral. It is the active promotion, and demostration of good. E.I avoiding being evil is not good enough to maintain a good alignment. One must actively be good. Which means doing the good "right" thing. Real world "Good" often isn't. There is *nothing* Good about allowing a terrorist to live, for example, when he will go on to kill hundreds in his career. Similarly, there is nothing "Good" about turning the other cheek when people are dying in the streets because of it. <snip> can you give life to those who deserve it? Then who are you to give death to those whom you determine deserve it? Further more i would argue that killing the terrorist would not bring back any of his/her victims. Nor would earase any of the wrong done. Killing someone as a punishment serves only as revenge, not justice. And murder for any reaosn is wrong. However forgiveness, mercy, and compassion those are true signs of "good". "An eye for an eye will leave the world blind" --Ghandi
UndefinedDemonicEntity 04-10-07, 11:29 PM	can you give life to those who deserve it? Then who are you to give death to those whom you determine deserve it? Further more i would argue that killing the terrorist would not bring back any of his/her victims. Nor would earase any of the wrong done. Killing someone as a punishment serves only as revenge, not justice. And murder for any reaosn is wrong. However forgiveness, mercy, and compassion those are true signs of "good". "An eye for an eye will leave the world blind" --Ghandi So everyone truly Good is a wussy-ass doormat? It doesn't matter if killing the terrorist won't bring his victims back; what should matter to the Good-aligned person is to prevent him from killing more people. Seriously, if everyone was like you described (excluding me), I'd be in business. The one who determines who lives and who dies is the one who has the power to do something about it.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 04-10-07, 11:41 PM	So everyone truly Good is a wussy-ass doormat? It doesn't matter if killing the terrorist won't bring his victims back; what should matter to the Good-aligned person is to prevent him from killing more people. Seriously, if everyone was like you described (excluding me), I'd be in business. The one who determines who lives and who dies is the one who has the power to do something about it. So everyone who isn't a murdering terrorist is wussy dormat? You honestly think more killing is the way to peace? thats like having sex for virginity. The ones who have the power to do something about it? And just who the hell is that? Who has the power to grant grant life? I know poeple can take it. they take it very easily. And when poeple who you are told are enemies take life they become terrorists. When your country commits the same crime they preventing killings? the good guys? How does killing someone prevent death? And why is murder a crime to some, and just for others?
UndefinedDemonicEntity 04-10-07, 11:59 PM	So everyone who isn't a murdering terrorist is wussy dormat? You honestly think more killing is the way to peace? thats like having sex for virginity. Way to twist my words. It's not all black and white. You don't have to be a murdering terrorist to be not considered a wussy. You have to be a wussy to be considered a wussy. What I mean by wussy is the defeatist in your example. What he is doing, effectively, is giving up. The ones who have the power to do something about it? And just who the hell is that? Who has the power to grant grant life? I know poeple can take it. they take it very easily. The one who pulls up a gun and shoots the jerk who's threatening innocent people is the one who has the power to protect the life to those people. IMO, status quo is also a factor. If I found a retired war criminal (say, a torturer) who'd disappeared to avoid being court marshalled, I wouldn't do anything to him (assuming I were one of them Good people (the non-wussy kind)). Maybe someone may feel he deserved it, but at this point it would just be prolonged bitterness, which is NOT an excuse. And when poeple who you are told are enemies take life they become terrorists. When your country commits the same crime they preventing killings? the good guys? How does killing someone prevent death? And why is murder a crime to some, and just for others? Grasshopper, it's time you learn what murder means. It means killing without a legal excuse (i.e. self-defense or defense of others). Pre-emptive killing also falls under this. What you're proposing is something I've always found weird: Why is the terrorist's life equal in value to those of the innocents he kills? And say he's getting caught, so he takes a hostage. What makes you think he deserves to live the same as his hostage? He put the ultimatum on the table, so it's logical that he's the one who gets his trick thrown back in his face. It's just defeatism at its worst.
Dawnshadow 04-11-07, 12:02 AM	Why do paladins not fall when they kill in fair combat? Why aren't the only good characters the ones with Vow of Nonviolence? Because Good and "Not killing" are only nodding acquaintences in D&D for the most part. Good guys are allowed to kill. Otherwise, the only weapons good PCs could use would be saps and whips -- and any other weapon that deals only nonlethal damage. Bringing real-world morality into it doesn't capture the essence of the absolute good/absolute evil situation. The pinnacles of good kill people -- Solars use Arrows of Slaying. Always. Therefore, good can kill. For those that are interested, here's the logic: If taking another person's life is fundamentally evil, then those who are good do not kill. (If A, then B) Those who are good kill (Not B, example: Solars) Therefore, Taking another persons life is not evil (Not A) Now, you can argue the fundamentally evil part.. of course, since other posters have just made the argument that killing is killing, I really don't see how that is in any way consistent. If killing for the sake of saving lives is evil, then you can't kill to save your own life and still be good. If you can kill to save your own life, and still be good, then killing for the sake of saving lives is not evil. Which means that the BBEG, Bandit King, whoever, can be killed by good people, who will remain good, whether or not he's fighting back, because doing so will save lives.
Cael 04-11-07, 12:17 AM	Barring that the paladin is caring out a lawfully, and fairly, sentence of death. Given by a legitament magistriagght with the authority to do so. yes absolutely they fall. they have both willing, and knowing committed an evil, and unlawful act. First off it is evil becuase killing someone is murder, and that disregards the santity of life. Someone good characters strieve to uphold. Further more it is unlawful becuase it taking the law into ones own hands, essentially vigalantism. Typically a choatic act. Being a good character is not simple the avoidance of evil. that would be neutral. It is the active promotion, and demostration of good. E.I avoiding being evil is not good enough to maintain a good alignment. One must actively be good. Which means doing the good "right" thing. can you give life to those who deserve it? Then who are you to give death to those whom you determine deserve it? Further more i would argue that killing the terrorist would not bring back any of his/her victims. Nor would earase any of the wrong done. Killing someone as a punishment serves only as revenge, not justice. And murder for any reaosn is wrong. However forgiveness, mercy, and compassion those are true signs of "good". "An eye for an eye will leave the world blind" --Ghandi Just because I cannot give life doesn't mean that I must stand by and let more lives be taken. This is a strawman argument. Just because I can't change what the terrorist have done doesn't mean I can't change what he is going to do. This is another strawman argument. Murder is not wrong when it is done to preserve life. It is not even murder. There are several whole legal categories for that: Justifiable Homocide, Excusable Homicide, Involutary Manslaughter, etc. Forgiveness, mercy and compassion are only "Good" if no one has to pay for your acts of mercy, forgiveness and compassion. If someone does, and you do it anyway, you are most definitely not "Good". In fact, that is the epitome of selfishness, which is more or less defined as Evil in the PHB. Why? You are lifting yourself up at the expense of others. In other words, you are harming others for your own jollies. You, my friend, are Evil. By the way, "An eye for an eye will leave the world blind, but turning the other cheek just gets you slapped twice, with a slit throat to follow." "You back down to bullies, you get stepped on. You fight back, they go away to find other prey."
Comus 04-11-07, 12:21 AM	Hey, hey. If you want to argue alignment and honor, hop over to the "What's a DM to do?" board and get into one of the seemingly dozens of threads about that. Besides, I think we're starting to get into an argument where some people are talking about the average good person, and other people are talking about someone upholding the idea of good - and those are two very different things.
tharivol266 04-11-07, 12:29 AM	you know everytime i see the title of this board i think jokingly "yes, yes you are and you should be ashamed." however this is my first time in this thread and i havent read any of it. just thought i would share.
Daydreamer 04-11-07, 12:41 AM	I think real life morality is very ambigous and confusing, i think it provides only a loose parody for D&d aligntment. Which is more clear cut, and even to a certain extent mechanical. D&d morality matchs up with real life morality in the same way d&d combat mathcs up with real life combat, that is too say not very accurately. (well its better than that but...) Each dm is going to have to descide based on what he think is rational, in each sitaution, what appropriate conduct a particular alightment would fall under. The terrorist incident is highly complicated and ambigious in some circumstances. (im from ireland, our terrorists won us a free country and im not living under british oppression for this reason..err when i lived in ireland). IN D&d its usually not complicated, its an undead with the idea of planting a poision in the water to make all the villagers undead. Even if it is ambigious, its bc the pcs uncover a plot by the city to damage his people and neither side is right/wrong and the quest become to forge a piece. The morality of d&d is as complicated as the situations and plot call for. IN a grind it out d&D game with just dungeon crawls-moral concerns may not even be a concern or come up. In certain roleplaying games, part of the 'challenge' the pcs might face is what to do, or what sacrificies to make when they act. Its really not that important how it matches up with real life morality, its important what functional role it plays in a dms game, and that the dm and pcs are on the same page by what they mean by these words. ie, lawful good etc.
Comus 04-11-07, 12:57 AM	Its really not that important how it matches up with real life morality, its important what functional role it plays in a dms game, and that the dm and pcs are on the same page by what they mean by these words. ie, lawful good etc. Yes. I totally agree with this. The most important thing about alignment is to make sure everyone in a game is on the same page about it. That's why Limousine's examples got to me - his players figured out what page he was on, and he doesn't like that they decided non-good alignments were where they wanted to be based on his definitions. Somehow he attributed this to powergaming, and thrown us into this tangent.
Maekrix_Waere 04-11-07, 02:53 AM	For the love of the 12 Major Deities! If you want to talk about morality and what-not, then make a thread about it. Please, people, stop hijacking this thread. Lets get back on topic, or lets close this thing up.
Dan Hemmens 04-11-07, 04:16 AM	I don't think that's right. You can certainly eliminate alignments in this game but the alignments do not mean what the players say they mean. They mean what the DM, overlord of the game multiverse, says they mean. If you write LN on yoru character sheet and then play the character in a way that the DM thinks is Chaotic Neutral, the DM shouldn't say "you can't so that", but he does have the right to rule that the "L" has become a "C." He absolutely has that right. He also has the right to declare that rocks fall and everybody dies. It doesn't mean it isn't a crappy thing to do. If you'd actually read LL's posts closely, he clearly indicates that he didn't directly force his players to play a particular way--like saying, "No, you can't do that because your character wouldn't"--he wrote that their styles were, in his opinion, inconsistent with their stated alignments. And then he declared this to be "putting powergaming ahead of roleplaying". His players interpreted the alignment system differently to him, and his immediate response was to declare that they were ignoring their character's personality. LL persistently defined "doing what he expected or wanted" as "roleplaying" and "doing anything else" as "powergaming." In some cases, like let's say for monks and paladins, deviating from alignments can have very bad consequences. Whether a character is deviating from his stated alignment is, per the rules, for the DM to decide, not the player. Everything in D&D is for the DM to decide, that doesn't prevent some DM decisions from being bunk.
Pandaemoni 04-11-07, 04:41 AM	He absolutely has that right. He also has the right to declare that rocks fall and everybody dies. It doesn't mean it isn't a crappy thing to do. And then he declared this to be "putting powergaming ahead of roleplaying". His players interpreted the alignment system differently to him, and his immediate response was to declare that they were ignoring their character's personality. LL persistently defined "doing what he expected or wanted" as "roleplaying" and "doing anything else" as "powergaming." Everything in D&D is for the DM to decide, that doesn't prevent some DM decisions from being bunk. You're wrong, but that's for another thread.
Dan Hemmens 04-11-07, 04:51 AM	You're wrong, but that's for another thread. Feel free to PM me with a full explanation.
Daydreamer 04-11-07, 07:17 AM	to bring this back into focus. The connection here is that some times powergamers who roleplay are really making mechanical decisions and then working backwords to find roleplaying reasons, rather than making roleplaying decisions and then working backwords to find mechanical ways of doing that. I think this is intangible, as i said earlier, in any given situation a roleplaying justification exists for nearly every action. But after a person begins to develop a character, his actions eventually have roleplaying crediblity or they do not. The later is just one of the ways some power gamers, who claim to be roleplayers, are really not. Nothing is wrong with this, but call a spade a spade. That said, there are powergamers, who really are good roleplayers and dont do this. But this i think was the point about connecting roleplaying and powergaming.
Dan Hemmens 04-11-07, 08:11 AM	to bring this back into focus. The connection here is that some times powergamers who roleplay are really making mechanical decisions and then working backwords to find roleplaying reasons, rather than making roleplaying decisions and then working backwords to find mechanical ways of doing that. I don't disagree that you can look at things mechanics-first or character-first. What I disagree with is the idea that this has anything to do with "roleplaying" versus "power-gaming". When you draw your sword to attack a monster you are making both a mechanical decision and an in-character decision. The sword is both an in-character object and a game-object. It's completely fatuous to suggest that you can somehow choose to make a Power Attack because it's "what your character would do." I think this is intangible, as i said earlier, in any given situation a roleplaying justification exists for nearly every action. But after a person begins to develop a character, his actions eventually have roleplaying crediblity or they do not. The later is just one of the ways some power gamers, who claim to be roleplayers, are really not. Nothing is wrong with this, but call a spade a spade. So if you like the way I play my character, I'm a roleplayer, and if you don't like it, I'm a powergamer? That's what it has to boil down to, because you can't quantify what is and is not "credible" for a given character. That said, there are powergamers, who really are good roleplayers and dont do this. But this i think was the point about connecting roleplaying and powergaming. Roleplaying and powergaming, as the well-known fallacy states are orthogonal. Your character does not choose their class in character, they do not choose their feats in character, they don't really even choose their actions in combat in character. You never have to make a character-effectiveness decision in character.
UndefinedDemonicEntity 04-11-07, 01:02 PM	perhaps then you could explain what you ment? I meant exactly what I said. I named an extreme, you named an extreme. That does NOT mean there are no in-betweens. But he can not bring those who are dead an deserve to live back? If he has to take a life becuase there is no other way, then he is defending the innocent. But if he hunts down and kills a terrorist to prevent killing then he is guilty of murder. No different then if a husband hunts down and kills the man sleeping with his wife. Wait, what? If he's hunting down terrorists, then he IS protecting innocents: By pre-emptively killing those that seeks to hurt those he cares about. This is what I hate about pacifism: It tends to go hand-in-hand with defeatism so tightly that it's a wonder why people don't just lay down and die as soon as they face adversity. It's okay to fight for your lives and those of who you love. The villains (I decided to go with this term instead, as it's less inflammatory) are bringing their deaths upon themselves by going around killing people. That's how nature works. thats my point, except I aply it to anyone who is not a direct threat at the exact moment. He can't be a threat (direct or indirect) in general. So if a police officer catches a rapist. The rapist has surrendered, and is ready to go to jail for his crimes. The cop circles around back and shoots him in the back of the head. Is that not murder, wrong? That's murder because the rapist has surrendered. By doing that and allowing himself to be handcuffed, the rapist stops posing a threat in general. He may have hurt people in the past, but that's not what he's going to be doing any time soon. What if the police officer knew that there was not enough evedence to get a conviction. meaning the rapist would be out on the street agin soon. And the police felt that he would be likely to reoffend. Is it still wrong? As a note: I don't care about right and wrong. They are way, way too subjective to hold any value to me. If the rapist is going to get out, then he DOES pose a threat. I'm not going to go into the morality of the deed, but some people might consider it a viable option. It doesn't fall under the alignment definition of Good in the PHB, though. If you are about to answaer yes we should follow that logic for a second. The recidism rate is aproximately 80%. Basically anyone who is released from prison is 80% likely to reoffend, often times their crimes become worse, and more voilent. Could we not then say that in order to protect the innocent we should kill everyone who enters a prison? Killing to prevent more killings still seem like a "good" act? Good people don't take the chance of the person being in the 80%. He might be in the 20% that gets rehabilitated. I am not arrognat enough to even pretned to be able to judge the value of poeples lifes. You judge them by preference. Would you not lift a finger to save your mother's life? Or would you just go on ranting about the sanctity of life as you tried to whup the villain's ass without killing him? You'd be at a disadvantage, you know. And if you failed, your mother would die. IMO, that's more Evil than killing him, because you're risking someone's life, and your own, because you respect some stranger too much to kill him. Is that it? Is that what you mean? Would the hostage still matter if it was a convicted killer? A teacher? A pedofile? A nun? Your best friend? your brother, sister, mother, father, child? What about someones elses friend, brother, sister, mother, father, child? It doesn't matter. It's an individual, that unless I hated him/her, I'd consider more worthy of living than the jackhole who's trying to kill him and bestowing a so-called hard choice on me. See, it's not about judging the value of a life when it comes down to it. It's all about what benefits you and/or the people you like/love. It's not only shameful, it's just downright disgusting to judge the life of a hostile stranger as equal to that of a family member. Do you honestly believe that a terrorist is an isloated individual with family or friends? And again who are you to decide you lifes, and who dies? more powerful maybe. the guy with the gun sure. God? is that it, you believe that gun makes you a god? Are you truely that arrogant? No, I'm the one trying to save the people I love. You're the one going on about the sanctity of life and killing your family at the same time. It's not about who's God. It's about who has more power to save himself and his. And killing poeple prevents death how? It's healthy to judge the lives of the people you know best as superior to those of strangers. If someone attacks someone you love with lethal force, you have to be a ****ing idiot to not try to kill the aggressor. It's in our nature to protect those we love. Well lets look at this. you kill a terrorist to prevent futher killing. Now you'll probally feel that other terrorists should be killed to prvent more death. Thus you are highly likely to kill poeple. Therefor I should kill you to prevent death. but then some should kill me to prvent me from killing you. maybe your family. then my family would have to kill them. Then your friends would have to kill my family. And my friends would have to kill your friends...See were this is going... Whose side are you on anyways? Yeah, if I go after your family, it's natural for you to jump in and try to pre-emptively kill me to save their lives. And then someone may go after you. Is your point really that morally healthy people lay down and die? I would also remind you that, in 1775 the patroits fighting for "freedom" from britan would have been considered terrorists by the british poeple. the difference between freedom fighter and terrorsit is who wins the war, not the ideal they take up arms for. And? Let's face it: Terrorist tactics are among the best tactics you can find. From the perspective of the person you're attacking, you're a bastard that deserves to die. I'd bet the feeling is mutual. *Lots of inflammatory crap that I'm not touching* I ask you agin how killing prevnts death at all? It doesn't. Well, it does, actually, in a selective manner. By killing an attacker on your family, you've prevented their deaths. That is the thing that matters, not the family of the dumbass who willingly put himself in this situation. hate begets only hate. And voilents breeds only more voilents. Killing and war will not bring peace. Peace will only come when both sides learn to put down their guns, and bombs, and tools of hate. We will only survive by not destroying each other. Get with the program.
Tyraxus 04-11-07, 01:49 PM	And voilents breeds only more voilents. Killing and war will not bring peace. Incorrect. Hasty, misapplied half-measuers violence only begets more violence. Properly thought-out, directly applied, and full-followed through violence doesn't beget more violence because at that point, the other guys are dead. The Romans understood this quite well, and they lasted over a thousand years (until infighting rotted the Empire from within and allowed external pressures to crack the hardened extreiour like a ripe mellon). Is that good or evil? NEITHER! Violence is an act, while goodness and evilness are judges of MOTIVATIONS. If I shoot a guy dead in the street so I can take his wallet, that's going to be an evil act. If I shoot that same guy dead in the street because he's drawn a gun on a little old lady and demanding her purse, that's a definite good act. Actions do not determine what is good and evil (even the Judeo-Christian God ordered the extermination of the inhabitants of Canaan down to the last man, woman, child, and animal), but motivations do. ACTIONS are judged on the lawful/chaotic scale. For example, Jack Bauer from 24. I would place him at CG, because he's willing to do whatever it takes to stop the bad guys and save the nation. Noble goals, but he'll break every law in the book to do it if he has to. Back on-topic, I have to disagree with Dan where he said: Your character does not choose their class in character, they do not choose their feats in character, they don't really even choose their actions in combat in character. You never have to make a character-effectiveness decision in character. There is a certain amount of in-character development going on there, if nothing more than "Well, I like using bows to shoot things from range, so I'm going to train to able to shoot from further," which is the Far Shot feat. Or maybe "I use this giant axe; I wonder if I could hit any harder with it if I didn't care quite so much about accuracy?" leading to the Power Attack feat. Okay, granted, there's not a lot of RP material there, but you can't say there's nothing going on in-character at that point. I will agree, though, that classes are wholely metagame concepts; a character doesn't know he's a Fighter/Wiz/Abj Champ/Eld Knight, he's Gandalf (from "The Hobbit" and early in the LotR when he still had his sword). He's not a Swash/Rogue/Scarlet Corsair, he's Blackbeard. He's not a fighter/ranger/bard, he's Robin of Locksley.
Cael 04-11-07, 04:24 PM	Incorrect. Hasty, misapplied half-measuers violence only begets more violence. Properly thought-out, directly applied, and full-followed through violence doesn't beget more violence because at that point, the other guys are dead. The Romans understood this quite well, and they lasted over a thousand years (until infighting rotted the Empire from within and allowed external pressures to crack the hardened extreiour like a ripe mellon). Is that good or evil? NEITHER! Violence is an act, while goodness and evilness are judges of MOTIVATIONS. If I shoot a guy dead in the street so I can take his wallet, that's going to be an evil act. If I shoot that same guy dead in the street because he's drawn a gun on a little old lady and demanding her purse, that's a definite good act. Actions do not determine what is good and evil (even the Judeo-Christian God ordered the extermination of the inhabitants of Canaan down to the last man, woman, child, and animal), but motivations do. ACTIONS are judged on the lawful/chaotic scale. For example, Jack Bauer from 24. I would place him at CG, because he's willing to do whatever it takes to stop the bad guys and save the nation. Noble goals, but he'll break every law in the book to do it if he has to. Back on-topic, I have to disagree with Dan where he said: There is a certain amount of in-character development going on there, if nothing more than "Well, I like using bows to shoot things from range, so I'm going to train to able to shoot from further," which is the Far Shot feat. Or maybe "I use this giant axe; I wonder if I could hit any harder with it if I didn't care quite so much about accuracy?" leading to the Power Attack feat. Okay, granted, there's not a lot of RP material there, but you can't say there's nothing going on in-character at that point. I will agree, though, that classes are wholely metagame concepts; a character doesn't know he's a Fighter/Wiz/Abj Champ/Eld Knight, he's Gandalf (from "The Hobbit" and early in the LotR when he still had his sword). He's not a Swash/Rogue/Scarlet Corsair, he's Blackbeard. He's not a fighter/ranger/bard, he's Robin of Locksley. I have to agree with you on the whole violence thing. What I cannot stand from the lunatic fringe is the multitude of platitudes they set up in order to excuse their own cowardice, inhumanity and selfishness. People that cannot understand that sometimes you have to kill in order to preserve lives (whether you like it or not, which really defines the essence of Good and Evil) are not worth associating with, even over the medium of the Internet. Anyway, I also agree with you on the whole classes being metagame concepts. However, I would go further as to say that feats are also metagame concepts. Sure, you can say that you have been training up to that feat, and you taking it represents a threshold where it becomes effective. However, that line of thought is not applied across the board where the drama queens are concerned. Their rather ironic fixation on the raw numbers of skill points (and asking people to justify their skill choices) and stats numbers are quite telling. In fact, without those numbers and mechanics to represent your character, we are reduced back to the days of "I shoot you", "No you didn't! I got super-duper uber bulletproof armour!" Three year old territory... What I am saying is that everything about DnD supports the fact that you need the mechanical side of the game in order to play it. You need the "metagame" to play the game. Without the "metagame", there is no game. Thus, the metagame is the game. This is something that the primadonnas cannot seem to accept, and I think that we should stop skipping around the subject and get right to it: The primadonnas are dead wrong in insisting that roleplaying with a total lack metagaming is the "right" way to play the game. If they are playing DnD without the metagame, they are not playing DnD. They are playing "Your daily dose of fantasy story writing."
Cardinal Teplin 04-11-07, 04:41 PM	I'd have to disagree with most of what Dan said. I'm ill though, so I'll keep it brief. The problem is that there are many many ways to play the game. Dan has a very set and reasonably narrow view of what is AD&D: "Again, you're playing D&D, a loot-based game. It's a game about killing things and taking their stuff. Killing things and taking their stuff is, in fact, all player characters can reliably do without relying on GM goodwill." The problem is that everyone has their own ideas of what Ad&D is and isn't, and most of them don't agree with Dan. Whether or not a particular set of behaviour is or is nor excessively powergamey or excessively drama queeny depends what sort of norms you start with and what extremes you're used to seeing. ANY strong deviation away from how the participants see the game as being played can potentially cause problems, as people constantly betray eachother's expectations. Are you supposed to be playing a perosn in a particular society first and foremost, or just so far as it allows you gather loot from random passersby? There isn't a right answer overall, but there is a right answer for each game.
Daydreamer 04-12-07, 12:23 AM	I said actions which strain crediblity. Choice of main character class doesn't. Though-if one bounces around there attitude according to whats convienent, or does break away from established behavior without a reason on a regular basis, it can become difficult. Idk how to express, i think we all know when someone merely views there character as a lump of stats, or when someone doesn't. edit: and someones a power gamer not because they are bad roleplayers, or roleplay in a way i dont agree. They are power gamers becasue they power game-in my opinion, someone who is well above the cr rating for his level-without the dm making it a high powered game-is a power gamer. Obviously if the dm uses a 50 point buy your going to be powerful. but if he runs things as standard and you still end up stronger than your cr by a large amount, without some dm explanation (like handing out too much magic items etc) its powergaming. Additionally, power gamers will rarely make a choice that would mechanically disadvantage them. They would 'rather roleplay' someone who makes the other choice, and yes its roleplaying, but it may not be the road the rest of the group wants to travel. If your willing to roleplay yourself into mechanically weaker positions, id say thats a good sign of not being a roleplayer-not if your roleplaying is good or bad.
Draco_Whitewind 04-12-07, 06:20 AM	to the OP, it seems like you're stuck with a really horrible party. I'm in the same camp as you, I love optimized characters, and yet I'll make one with personality. it seems they're just stuck in low power equals flaver Gooberhead syndrome. Not much you can do there, sadly. :( just tell the DM flat off and heck show him the relevant parts in these threads. I'll post this very character as soon as I update his story to prove it too.
Dan Hemmens 04-12-07, 08:08 AM	I'd have to disagree with most of what Dan said. I'm ill though, so I'll keep it brief. The problem is that there are many many ways to play the game. Dan has a very set and reasonably narrow view of what is AD&D: Actually I have a faintly sardonic, and reasonably narrow view of D&D... [quite]"Again, you're playing D&D, a loot-based game. It's a game about killing things and taking their stuff. Killing things and taking their stuff is, in fact, all player characters can reliably do without relying on GM goodwill." The problem is that everyone has their own ideas of what Ad&D is and isn't, and most of them don't agree with Dan. Whether or not a particular set of behaviour is or is nor excessively powergamey or excessively drama queeny depends what sort of norms you start with and what extremes you're used to seeing. ANY strong deviation away from how the participants see the game as being played can potentially cause problems, as people constantly betray eachother's expectations. Are you supposed to be playing a perosn in a particular society first and foremost, or just so far as it allows you gather loot from random passersby? [/QUOTE] Ah, but that's the problem. Gathering loot from a random passerby is game mechanically rewarded. You get loot, which you can convert directly into stat boosts. Well not directly, but the loot becomes GP, the GP becomes magic items. By contrast, the system has no way to reward you for playing a person in a particular society beyond GM goodwill. What this means is that if the mores of your society interfere with your collection of loot, the system punishes you regardless of what the assumptions of your gaming group are.
daggeroflath 04-12-07, 12:22 PM	I'm not 100% sure why this thread has turned to discussion of alignment, but it's an interesting topic so here's my thoughts. At its simplest... It is lawful to kill a person if the laws of your land permit it, some higher order to which you ascribe permits it or the act will help bring order to the world. It is chaotic to kill a person in defiance of the above aspects. It is good to kill a person if it will prevent/cure greater suffering and/or death or help other people to act in a good way. It is evil to kill a person in defiance of the above aspects. To make it more complex... If you kill a person when there is a better way to do good (as in some cases sparing the foe may be), then your action becomes less good and shifts towards neutral. If you kill a person when there is a better way to bring order, then your action becomes less lawful and shifts towards neutral. Paladins have sworn a difficult oath to uphold higher standards than the rest of us. I'm not a huge fan of having a paladin fall, but I like them (at the least in character) to believe that they could. If a paladin is acting in ways which aren't very lawful or very good, I'd give them a few nudges and reminders to try and set them back on track. P.S. As for good being stupid, pragmatism is a luxury of the neutral character. Good characters often realise that they are forced into tight binds by their moral code, yet pay that price to do the right thing. Besides, if you've defeated them once you can probably manage it again, and if you take prisoners a lot you quickly learn what precautions to make.
Clawhound 04-12-07, 01:44 PM	I'll use the following example of power-gaming verses middle-of-the-road gaming. You get a bunch of people together to shoot hoops. Everyone is having fun. One day, a different guy comes in to play, and he counts points. He's also a very good basketball player. Half the players can't keep up with him. This new guy then starts pointing out the guys who can't keep up, and questions if they should be allowed to play. He explains that this is how his old groups played. In the end, the old group kicks HIM out, the best player, and all he can figure is that they were jealous of him. The point here is HOW you experience the game that you are playing. Some folks play basketball just to play and hang. Some play competitively. There is nothing wrong with either playstyle, but you do need to be mindful of those differing playstyles. Where styles conflict, its up to your to exercise self-restraint. RPGs are BOTH mechanical games (with rules) and social games (interaction of the players). Being good with one part of the game (the rules) does not mean that you are good at another part of the game (interaction). Some groups prefer good rules jockeys, other prefer good interactors. Both playstyles are fun, you just have to be willing to have fun with both playstyles.
Daergal_the_Black 04-12-07, 01:52 PM	What I am saying is that everything about DnD supports the fact that you need the mechanical side of the game in order to play it. You need the "metagame" to play the game. Without the "metagame", there is no game. Thus, the metagame is the game. This is something that the primadonnas cannot seem to accept, and I think that we should stop skipping around the subject and get right to it: The primadonnas are dead wrong in insisting that roleplaying with a total lack metagaming is the "right" way to play the game. If they are playing DnD without the metagame, they are not playing DnD. They are playing "Your daily dose of fantasy story writing." I don't necessarily disagree with you (though I do not think that pacifism and non-violence are "an excuse for cowardice" even when I disagree with it--see Gandhi or MLK), but this comes pretty close to saying "One should try to metagame as much as possible, because that's what the game is all about." There is inappropriate metagaming, it's just that there is a lot of "gray area" in addition to the clearly delineated black and white ones. The fact that the lines are so vague leads different people to drawing the lines in different places. In the end I think the DM needs to work with his players to find the right line for that group (rather than simply asserting his own opinions as controlling, by fiat). In some games, the consensus might be that players must offer "RP justifications" for feat and class selections (though I'd not play in that game), in other games, it might well be assumed that characters know the rules, including monster stats and weaknesses, as well as the players themselves (more my speed).
Tyraxus 04-12-07, 03:06 PM	... You get a bunch of people together to shoot hoops. Everyone is having fun. One day, a different guy comes in to play, and he counts points. He's also a very good basketball player. Half the players can't keep up with him. This new guy then starts pointing out the guys who can't keep up, and questions if they should be allowed to play. ... Um, what do keeping points and questioning if others should be allowed to play have to do with powergaming? Keeping points implies trying to "win" D&D through something like a kill count rather than finishing the story, and powergaming has nothing at all to do with asking why people should play (that's just bad playing behaviour). So a closer analogy would be a new guy moves into town, sees you shooting hoops, and asks if he can play with you. Once you say yes and you start playing, you realize that he's pretty good, and when you ask him he admits he was the starting point guard on his high school team the year they won state, or he played on Florida's men's team last year before he hurt his knee or something, so he's really good, while you guys just get together and play around for a couple of hours every Saturday.
Cael 04-12-07, 03:48 PM	I don't necessarily disagree with you (though I do not think that pacifism and non-violence are "an excuse for cowardice" even when I disagree with it--see Gandhi or MLK), but this comes pretty close to saying "One should try to metagame as much as possible, because that's what the game is all about." There is inappropriate metagaming, it's just that there is a lot of "gray area" in addition to the clearly delineated black and white ones. The fact that the lines are so vague leads different people to drawing the lines in different places. In the end I think the DM needs to work with his players to find the right line for that group (rather than simply asserting his own opinions as controlling, by fiat). In some games, the consensus might be that players must offer "RP justifications" for feat and class selections (though I'd not play in that game), in other games, it might well be assumed that characters know the rules, including monster stats and weaknesses, as well as the players themselves (more my speed). *beep* Wrong! I merely said that relegating "metagaming" to a mindless swearword, that is, to put it as one of the ultimate sins of the game, and to go as far as to say that the number mean nothing, is the wrong stance to take. Yet it is one that is frequently taken by the primadonnas. Remember that to say that the numbers and the "metagame" matters does not mean I am saying that it should be used 24/7. However, as a DM, I do allow a lot of lee way in that the characters would know the more "common" monster stats (which is a different type of "metagame" to choosing your PC's stats) without having to roll a Knowledge skill check (it is more difficult to know the stats of a Troll than many of the Outsiders and Abberations out there under the present system, which I think is a bit stupid). What I am saying is that if the primadonnas refuse to acknowledge the fact that the numbers on your character sheet matters very much in game terms, then they are not playing DnD, but are having an improvisation session at the local drama club. In that case, they have no say in this matter at all and should not even be here trying to shove their narrow brand of snobbery down our throats, as this is a board dedicated to DnD, not "The Drew Carrey Show".
Cael 04-12-07, 03:51 PM	Um, what do keeping points and questioning if others should be allowed to play have to do with powergaming? Keeping points implies trying to "win" D&D through something like a kill count rather than finishing the story, and powergaming has nothing at all to do with asking why people should play (that's just bad playing behaviour). So a closer analogy would be a new guy moves into town, sees you shooting hoops, and asks if he can play with you. Once you say yes and you start playing, you realize that he's pretty good, and when you ask him he admits he was the starting point guard on his high school team the year they won state, or he played on Florida's men's team last year before he hurt his knee or something, so he's really good, while you guys just get together and play around for a couple of hours every Saturday. Once you realise this, you scream bloody murder and abuse the poor sod and generally make his life miserable until he goes away and leave you to your amatuerish game, instead of having him teach you the finer points of the game. Fixed.
Draco_Whitewind 04-12-07, 04:07 PM	It looks like the OP is just stuck in a damn annoying powergamer's predicament, where either they don't want him in the game based on personal experience, or that they don't want "his brand" of character that can do both, that somehow having weaknesses and thinking more on their level (which might not even be good!) Is going to somehow make him into a better roleplayer, in which he seems to be better at. I may end up caught in this very soon, of all things.
Cardinal Teplin 04-12-07, 07:22 PM	What this means is that if the mores of your society interfere with your collection of loot, the system punishes you regardless of what the assumptions of your gaming group are. Only if you regard less power as 'punishment'. If you aren't playing the game in an attempt to gain more power for your character, then less loot isn't particularly a problem. The DM is explicitly encouraged to balance out the wealth of characters over time in any case, so the difference is, according to the RAW, largely illusory. I must say that any _systematic_ attempt to reward roleplaying is usually counterproductive, since characterisation is usually subjective in any case. You might want to 'reward' someone who improves the group's experience by giving his character more power, but I'm not sure the two really have anything to do with eachother. If he has both powergaming as well as roleplaying tendancies, he might well appreciate it I suppose. The main point is simply to tell people when they do something that is fun for other people. So they can, if they also enjoyed it, do it again. I don't understand all these basketball references. Are people assuming that powergamers are somehow 'better' at playing? Why is a professional player any more likely to be a powergamer than a drama queen? In all seriousness, making the outsider somehow 'better' than the group he is joining is kinda assuming what you want to prove. On an unrelated point, it would be nice if more people were replying to points made on the list, rather than making up the positions they would _like_ to be opposing, and replying to those instead...
Dawnshadow 04-12-07, 08:18 PM	Roleplaying vs powergaming.. Should my melee grunt take power attack, or should he take alertness ('cause he's been standing watch every night for weeks)? (ignoring the fact that he could just buy the ranger a ring of sustenance, and never have to take watch again...) Or, you know.. maybe that character I've wanted to play for a while, the farmer who eventually became a jaded, traumatized human soldier (rank and file fighter in the army of Princess Ivanova) who has finally been allowed to muster out with his deadly phobia of undead, from that time his was squad being eaten by ghouls and he had to beat one off his leg with a broken halberd? Hmm.. I kinda like that one, it'd be a neat change from the elven bard who opposes the monarchy constantly. He wasn't a bad soldier -- he survived, after all, so he probably should be good at fighting... Next stage: optimizing a 3rd level fighter so that it's reasonable for this grizzled veteran to have survived a civil war against the necromancer-Prince while fighting on the front lines. Because it kindof spoils suspension of disbelief if the fighter has Skill Focus: Profession (Farming), Self-Sufficient (Because his farm was 20 miles from town), Negotiater (When he did take the trip to town to sell his produce), and only his two fighter bonus feats aimed at making him a decent soldier. If that. The first one could be weapon focus: light crossbow, because he was watching over the crops. On a rank and file, front of the force soldier. Optimising the character would make him better. More believable. More playable. He'd actually be a grizzled veteran-- maybe he'd have track, because he hunted as a kid, and took the scout training, but found he wasn't up to snuff (like the rangers). He might have iron will, because he was stubborn and just didn't quit, even when the mages started throwing some pretty vicious stuff around. Or maybe lightning reflexes instead, to give him a reason to have survived the odd lightning bolt (and some more scars, to add to the grizzled look). Powergaming doesn't have to interfere with the character concept. It can, of course. So can the fact that you're rolling a d20. So can the other people in the group. It just happens that powergamers tend to get lumped into the category of being "bad" for roleplay.
Maekrix_Waere 04-12-07, 11:34 PM	Incorrect. Hasty, misapplied half-measuers violence only begets more violence. Properly thought-out, directly applied, and full-followed through violence doesn't beget more violence because at that point, the other guys are dead. The Romans understood this quite well, and they lasted over a thousand years (until infighting rotted the Empire from within and allowed external pressures to crack the hardened extreiour like a ripe mellon). Is that good or evil? NEITHER! Violence is an act, while goodness and evilness are judges of MOTIVATIONS. If I shoot a guy dead in the street so I can take his wallet, that's going to be an evil act. If I shoot that same guy dead in the street because he's drawn a gun on a little old lady and demanding her purse, that's a definite good act. Actions do not determine what is good and evil (even the Judeo-Christian God ordered the extermination of the inhabitants of Canaan down to the last man, woman, child, and animal), but motivations do. ACTIONS are judged on the lawful/chaotic scale. For example, Jack Bauer from 24. I would place him at CG, because he's willing to do whatever it takes to stop the bad guys and save the nation. Noble goals, but he'll break every law in the book to do it if he has to. WOOT!:ayyyy!: Nothing says incoming empires like organized and well planned voilence.
Merryadocc 04-13-07, 01:50 AM	For the record, the guys character died two encounters after that, while trying to cut down a hill giant in close combat. How was that any fun? I HAVE BECOME DEATH, DESTROYER OF WORLDS! ;)
Daergal_the_Black 04-13-07, 04:51 AM	I don't understand all these basketball references. Are people assuming that powergamers are somehow 'better' at playing? Yes. Yes we are. The game started as a wargame, and killing the enemy has always been its main focus. Powergamers are better at that. Drama Queens suck at it. Even aside from killing, the rules are replete with mechanics for virtually everything, even social interaction. Powergamers who focus on any particular aspect of the rules will by definition do that better than the Queens. We are better at overcoming the obstacles the DM places in our way and the game is, objectively speaking, more about the obstacles than it is about play acting. (Just take a look at the "Example of Play" they give on page 8 of the DMG...there are no long Shakespearean soliloquies to be found, but there is a lot of dice rolling. Drama Queens I know would consider that a poor example of "role playing.") Drama Queens need to go find a community theater company and stop inflicting their style of play on those of us who are good at the game.
Leo 04-13-07, 06:33 AM	Hello? It's called the biggest ROLEPLAYING game in the world, not rollplaying. Killing stuff is secondary. Creating the character of your dreams it's what it's all about. Of course, some people want power, power, POWER, what can you say? The sorceror on my party spends something like 10% of his treasure in the finest food and clothes he can get at each town, and he claims he does it because it's what his character would do(arrogant, self absorbed, only truly cares about himself), and honestly we find that great roleplaying, and nobody complains that the gold would be better spent in supplies or potions or something actually usefull. The fighter with 8 int, in the other hand, put all his skill ranks in profession:brewmaster, so he can always have his own booze even if we are in the middle of nowhere, wich fits pretty well with his character concept of a drunken CN warrior that loves to hit first and ask questions later( very cliche, I know, but doesn't get old). And are those little things that really make the game fun to play for us. Hacking and slashing is fun also, but then being able to say your character takes the enemy bodies and does his best to transfrom it into bear, or asking the Dm what delicacies are available in town are as fun as well.
daggeroflath 04-13-07, 06:46 AM	Fixed. I don't 100% agree... but man was that hilarious. Very nicely put.
Daergal_the_Black 04-13-07, 07:14 AM	The sorceror on my party spends something like 10% of his treasure in the finest food and clothes he can get at each town, and he claims he does it because it's what his character would do(arrogant, self absorbed, only truly cares about himself), and honestly we find that great roleplaying, and nobody complains that the gold would be better spent in supplies or potions or something actually usefull. The fighter with 8 int, in the other hand, put all his skill ranks in profession:brewmaster, so he can always have his own booze even if we are in the middle of nowhere, wich fits pretty well with his character concept of a drunken CN warrior that loves to hit first and ask questions later( very cliche, I know, but doesn't get old). Skill points are not especially valuable, so the fighter not wasting them isn't too bad. As for the sorcerer...if he's spending 10% of his wealth on "flavor items," then he's playing a dangerous game. If you put him up against level appropriate encounters, it will eventually kill him (assuming you are not gimping the encounters to adjust for his gimping of his own character). Look, fighters in this game do not specialize in the light mace for a reason. Purposefully gimping your character mechanically as part of roleplaying is the sign of a lack of imagination. There are countless ways to play "arrogant and self-interested" without throwing away cash. He could buy "the finest jewelry, armor and clothing" (which just happen to be gaudy looking--but not any more expensive, it's just flavor text--versions of a twilight mithral chain shirt, mithral buckler, ring of protection, cloak of charisma, amulets of natural armor, vest of resistance, etc.). Tada. There's his concept, but without shooting him in the foot.
Sareld 04-13-07, 07:19 AM	Hello? It's called the biggest ROLEPLAYING game in the world, not rollplaying. Killing stuff is secondary. Creating the character of your dreams it's what it's all about. Of course, some people want power, power, POWER, what can you say? The sorceror on my party spends something like 10% of his treasure in the finest food and clothes he can get at each town, and he claims he does it because it's what his character would do(arrogant, self absorbed, only truly cares about himself), and honestly we find that great roleplaying, and nobody complains that the gold would be better spent in supplies or potions or something actually usefull. The fighter with 8 int, in the other hand, put all his skill ranks in profession:brewmaster, so he can always have his own booze even if we are in the middle of nowhere, wich fits pretty well with his character concept of a drunken CN warrior that loves to hit first and ask questions later( very cliche, I know, but doesn't get old). And are those little things that really make the game fun to play for us. Hacking and slashing is fun also, but then being able to say your character takes the enemy bodies and does his best to transfrom it into bear, or asking the Dm what delicacies are available in town are as fun as well. So, character concepts are only fun if they are hampering the characters efficiency somehow? Why is that? Imagine this; Xana* the rogue is bent on becoming the greatest thief in history and, trains hard every day to learn the skilles and abilities needed for just that. In the beginning of her career, she manages to steal a spellbook during a B&E mission, and while appraising it she feels somehow fascinated by it, and ultimately decides to keep it and learn magic to help her in her ultimate goal. How do I best represent Xana in a mechanical sense? By making her a rogue2/wizard4/unseen seer4/arcane trickster10, which is pretty darn powerful, or a rogue20 who keeps buying those SLA feats from complete arcane, a build that is utterly underpowered? Was it be poor "roleplaying" to actually have Xana make the choices that made her the greatest thief ever, or should I have gimped her because... well... I dont even see the reason to use the gimped build. Help? And why is a CN fighter a well rollplayed character, because he drags a mobile brewery around? If he really is an alcoholic, I would think that roleplaying the characters desperate need for booze when he cant have any would be funnier than just going "lol! I am brewing teh booze in teh plate mail!".. that just dosent seem very deep to me. * Xana is the character that fially ****** my group off, when they realized that I would get a wizard CL of 17, while not really sacrificing any rogueishness at all.
Leilond 04-13-07, 07:24 AM	We are discussing about "what is funny and what isn't funny"... but the fun is and always will be a relative concept You think that "that thing" is funny, but I can think that the same thing is totally awfull How can we find a common place? There are players that like a lot the "stay in the city and act" part of the game... I'm one of that players. But there are people that like the "go in the dungeons and solve riddles" There are people that like "go in the dungeons and slay monsters" There are people that like "political and investigation plots" None of those people are right or wrong. They simply have different ideas on what is more funny. There's nothing wrong to be a "powergamer". This game isn't about "playing in this or that way". This game is all about "having fun". The players and the DM sit around a table and talk about 1) What each players expect from the game 2) What the DM expects form the game 3) How the players would like to play 4) How the DM would like to play 5) How the adventures should be. How much investigation? How much monster slaying? How much "fluffy" acting? How much "buy and selling"? ... and so on If all the players and the DM find a way to play and have ALL fun, the way isn't important. A campaing with 5 powergamers and a "powerDM" can be really funny... if you know what you're going to do
northern_bear 04-13-07, 09:49 AM	Purposefully gimping your character mechanically as part of roleplaying is the sign of a lack of imagination. So any fighter who ever uses a weapon other than the standard fighter weapons (great sword, great axe, long sword, batle axe, war hammer, etc) lacks imagination? I want to play a primitive neanderthal warrior type. He learned to fight in the jungle with spears and clubs. Now he has come to the big city to learn the ways of civilisation. But he has weapon focus in club, and he walks around in leather armour. Oh, well then, clearly I lack imagination. I should have the character wear full plate armour and fight with a great sword, because that will make him a more effective combatant? And that is somehow better role playing?
Leilond 04-13-07, 10:32 AM	So any fighter who ever uses a weapon other than the standard fighter weapons (great sword, great axe, long sword, batle axe, war hammer, etc) lacks imagination? I want to play a primitive neanderthal warrior type. He learned to fight in the jungle with spears and clubs. Now he has come to the big city to learn the ways of civilisation. But he has weapon focus in club, and he walks around in leather armour. Oh, well then, clearly I lack imagination. I should have the character wear full plate armour and fight with a great sword, because that will make him a more effective combatant? And that is somehow better role playing? Pheraps not "better" but neither "worse" You can play a fighter that don't learn from civilization how to fight more effective with "new weapons" or you can play a fighter that do it Nor the first are better than the second nor the second is better than the first. They two fighters simply have two different personality... the first strongly attached to his past and his old big club, the second is a fighter that is affascinated by those hard shining material (steel) and recocnize that he can use it to break the old woodden club of their enemies Being a powergamer don't make you a better role player, but it does't make you a worse one It is, and remain, a matter of "playing style of the group". There isn't a "better way", there is a way that fit one group of "players + DM" and a way that fit another group... and thera are billions "middle ways" that use various degree of both
kelvinaw273 04-13-07, 10:43 AM	That is their choice and yours. The game, however, rewards specialisation. Massively. That depends on how you play. Using imagination and tactics rewards flexibility. If the players and DM all like the linear game approach where there is only ever one way to do things, then yes, the specialists rule. I'm not one hundred percent sure I know what you mean by "personality first". Personality, to my mind, is almost wholly unconnected to ability (at least in D&D). "I want to play a violent thug" could lead you towards playing a fighter, a barbarian, a rogue, or a wizard (who uses his powers in a violent and thuggish manner). At some point you have to sit down and think about the following things: what you want your character to be capable of, and how you can achieve that in the system. Come now, what class may vary but consider skill-sets - a character that intimidates people will have some skill ranks in intimidation; if you start your personality as 'an angry young man raised on the streets of the city hating all authority' you aren't going to be a Druid. Personality does effect game mechanics and vice verse. It does so indirectly, but if you can't see that, you are not roleplaying. Most roleplayers I have met or heard described anywhere seem to build the mechanics of what their character will be good at first, adding character details to it and finally top it off with a personality that fits. The reason for that is that when you are talking about roleplaying with somebody you always talk mechanics first. When somebody says "tell me about your character" you will, nine times out of ten, start off by saying "well he's a half-elf Bard..." You give people the details that they are most interested in, naturally. The mechanics influence the character, of course. When I join an existing game I usually ask: What does the party need? I then look for a personality that will generate an inclination for that skill-set. People frequently go to their GM and say "Hi, I'm thinking of playing a Hexblade, will that fit with the rest of the party" they very rarely feel the need to say "Hi, I'm thinking of playing a character with a profound longing for the simpler days of his youth, will that fit with the rest of the party." Very true, because for survival reasons the skill-set is more important to the rest of the party and the DM than the personality. Your personality, the person who you are, is most important to you - the most important thing to you. But it isn't what you write the majority of your CV on when applying for a job - instead you list your skills, qualifications and past experience. D&D isn't like Unknown Armies or Pendragon. Your character's personality is not reflected anywhere in their game mechanical capabilities, so why should it matter whether you put personality first or second? You still ultimately design your character based on what you want them to be good at. Yes, it is. It is not directly inferred by such, but it is influenced by such. It's not what you do with it, it's what you *can* do with it compared to what you would be capable of doing with something else. Yes, a creative player can escape from prison using only their Knowledge: Recipes for Cabbage Soup skill, but they could escape a damned sight easier if they'd just had a few ranks of Open Lock. Very true. But if you were raised in Cabbage Land and expect to only ever be a law abiding citizen, which skill do you have? I don't dispute which is more useful to an adventurer, but not all adventurers started their lives expecting to be adventurers, and not all of those trained for it obsessively. Well, not if you expect to have more than cookie-cutter characters, anyway. I'm all with "extreme imbalance is bad" but the point is that "extreme imbalance" is not necessarily the result of dysfunctional play by any party. Sometimes it just winds up that way. Not all imbalance is the result of powergaming, not all powergaming results in imbalance. This is true. When played well by the players, the differing abilities of the characters becomes irrelevant. Unfortunately, we are not all perfect. This is the age old "what do prestige classes represent" issue. In my personal opinion, since "Class" in D&D is transparently a metagame concept which provides characters with a vaguely themed progression of abilities, I don't see why people should have to "justify" multiclassing or prestige classes any more than they have to justify, say, taking another level of Wizard without spending five years in dedicated study of the arcane secrets. In many ways I agree. However, some classes, while they do not require intensive study to level up into, they do require some study to gain in the first place. I am happy to let players draw this retroactively into their back-story, that isn't an issue. But if it takes a quest, a blood oath and a sacrifice to join the Society of the Jade Serpent for the Jade Ophidian PrC, you can bet they don't let in just anyone seeking to expand on a few skills - they expect dedication and commitment, failure to produce can have ... consequences ...:devil: Again you're confusing personality with ability. Just because a character is only good at one thing does not in any way imply that they have a one dimensional personality. A player should not have to waste points on useless skills or nonsensical class-dips just to prove that his character is "three dimensonal". As I have demonstrated, ability and personality interact. They do not hinge on each other, but they interact. And again,we come to 'useless' skills and dips. There is no such thing as a useless skill, and why would characters make useless dips? Your character is three dimensional by how you play them, yes, but you can't have that if you don't support it with the skills that reflect it. If you want your character to be a skilled warrior, but raised in the wild, you should take your first level as ranger, not fighter. You can go fighter afterwards, it won't hurt, but ranger gives you the backdrop of skills and abilities that your character should have.
daggeroflath 04-13-07, 10:52 AM	Honestly, I'd rather a player announce "My character cooks an amazing cabbage soup, just like they make in his homeland." than waste any skill points on a skill for doing such. Your character can be the best stamp collector in the world for all I care, but if that's for roleplaying purposes then don't let it affect your character's mechanical attributes (unless you're a rogue, then you'll need skills like cabbage cooking and stamp collecting to sink all your left over skill points into ;)) And I certainly won't make cooking cabbage soup a cross-class skill. Your character sheet is there for saying how good you are at combat and dice rolling. While I want your character to have an interesting backstory that you can roleplay with, don't let it get in the way of being a functional character. If it's for roleplaying (only!) you can have it for free.
Leilond 04-13-07, 10:52 AM	If you want your character to be a skilled warrior, but raised in the wild, you should take your first level as ranger, not fighter. You can go fighter afterwards, it won't hurt, but ranger gives you the backdrop of skills and abilities that your character should have. This is perfectly reasonable, but not necessary the only way to think it I can have a different idea on it... thinking to my "fighter" like a bear... no "stealth", no "search", ear or spot... nothing like a ranger... simply a big brute killings things or die... luckly he survived and becomed a fighter You can find it "not nice", but it is a matter of opinion... there's not a right way to create "a fighter of the wild", there is only a way that is preferred by some players and another way preferred by others
WayneTheGame 04-13-07, 11:22 AM	I see this thread is treading a dark path.. the path of "If you don't do THIS, then you're gimping your character/are a drama queen/don't belong in the game/etc." This is bull, plain and simple. It is, quite simply, a design flaw that to be effective mechanically with a combat character I have to take a greatsword (using that as an example here due to its frequency of use, please don't argue semantics as that's not the point), and that I am punished if my character concept doesn't use a greatsword but uses a morningstar instead, or a trident, or a myriad of other items that aren't as mechanically effective. There is a difference between sacrificing a bit of effectiveness for flavor and outright gimping a character. People need to realize this before they try to argue one over the other. Example of Sacrifice: My character concept is a character who uses a "triple-bladed spear" (as a Trident) with deadly efficiency and is pretty lightly armored. Let's say I use the Swordsage as the basis for this to offset the "lightly armored" part. Am I not as effective as your standard greatsword wielding, full-plate wearing melee combatant? Probably. Is the character completely worthless? Not at all. Example of Gimping: I'm going to make a blind swordsman with one arm and put all his skill points in some useless skill. This sort of character is pretty much useless. It might have a ton of flavor, but he can't DO anything. This would make a better NPC to meet than a character to play. Pretty much you must realize the difference.. otherwise taking anything other than the weapons/armor combos that offer you the most damage is "gimping" your character, and that's pure bullcrap because the game then becomes a glorified videogame where everyone plays the same "hero" and can't change it at all. That's not the point of the game at all. And, for what it's worth, I agree that if a skill is purely a background skill, don't bother wasting points on it. Just say you can do it and be done with it. If it doesn't have a really tangible effect on the game, why bother with actual mechanics for it? If my character knows how to cook unique dishes from his hometown, should I really bother to roll to see if he gets it "Just right" or if it's lacking? My general rule is: Don't bother with mechanics if it doesn't have a real effect. I feel the same way about requiring, say, climbing checks as the party scales the cliff to get to the dungeon; if it's only going to bog down the game to make everyone make 10 Climb checks, just hand-wave the damn thing.
Daergal_the_Black 04-13-07, 11:43 AM	So any fighter who ever uses a weapon other than the standard fighter weapons (great sword, great axe, long sword, batle axe, war hammer, etc) lacks imagination? I want to play a primitive neanderthal warrior type. He learned to fight in the jungle with spears and clubs. Now he has come to the big city to learn the ways of civilisation. But he has weapon focus in club, and he walks around in leather armour. Oh, well then, clearly I lack imagination. I should have the character wear full plate armour and fight with a great sword, because that will make him a more effective combatant? And that is somehow better role playing? First, you should never waste a feat on something that gimps your character just because you like the flavor unless you really just don't need any more feats. That character shouldn't have weapon focus (club) in the first place (unless you know you'll have a "Weapon of Legacy"-style club or, at least, a Greatclub), unless you like being cannon fodder, or if your DM promises to coddle you by never sending you against CR-appropriate combat encounters. The character concept you've set forth can be accomplished without that feat. It seems to me that the primitive Neanderthals had stone axes, making the Greataxe a very appropriate in-character choice for him once he hits the big city and sees them in all their steel glory). In addition, there are the "primitive" exotic weapons: the sugliin (two-handed, 2d8 damage, x2 crit) and the Tiger Skull Club (one-handed, 1d8 damage, x4 crit) with which Neanderthals have a racial bonus (from the "Primitive Weapon Mastery" racial ability), both from Frostburn. The only real quibble with the build is the light armor. Assuming the character comes to the city though, there's no reason for him to stick with that. (It's questionable how the primitive Neanderthal learned to wear heavy armors in the first place; but that's part of the general trope of what fighters are. Fighters are highly skilled warriors that rely on weapons specifically built for war and armors of comparably advanced design, together with a bevy of combat techniques (feats).) To me, both barbarian and ranger seem to fit the skeletal character concept of "primitive jungle warrior" better than fighter does. A lightly armored fighter is certainly not impossible, though, it just requires a good dex and possibly you'd be well served to focus on being mobile in combat, with spring attack--more of a guerrilla warrior than a tank. Throwing barbarian into the build would give you more tanking options as well as additional mobility. Second, how is a Neanderthal who's a jungle fighter especially clever? Sorry, but I have to dispute the premise of your question a bit. You picked a race, a class, a type of terrain and some substandard equipment...wow, what a deep character concept! I can't really see why you would put forth that character build and then insist on the stated weapon and armor choices, as what you have there is just not that compelling. The choice of "club", as noted, is simply a questionable choice for any Neanderthal, as there are race appropriate weapons that are superior and neither "I use a club" nor "I wear only light armor" is not much of a concept. Third, all that being said, I will concede that I misspoke. I should have said "Usually" a player who gimps himself in the name of a character concept lacks imagination. I should not have stated it as an absolute truth. I'm sure some Drama Queen has a 500-page treatise on the personality of Joe Smith, 14th-level commoner, or some similar build that only crazies would want to play. With builds that are more in the mainstream, a huge variety of character concepts can be executed without any gimping whatsoever. You could search and search and find one or two that *do* require gimping to achieve, but until you have played all the interesting, but ungimped, characters that are possible why would you want to play one of the rare ones that does require handicapping? That some people seek out self-handicaps is a sign of those people being pretentious enough to want to suck mechanically (and to derive joy from their in-game suffering). Those are the people who, when they see they've been dealt a royal flush, show everyone their hand and either discard or fold--because that's more unusual and unexpected. A lot of people get off on being victims, especially Drama Queens (and their characters actually do become 'victims' in-game, because they are not prepared to handle the challenges the rules assume they should be able to defeat).
weepingminotaur 04-13-07, 11:49 AM	I think what people are overlooking is the fact that powergaming is a highly relational term that only acquires valence according to the group's playing style AND the DM's campaign style. If your DM only runs mechanic-heavy hack-and-slash campaigns in which tactical combat with miniatures rules all, then any character who isn't completely optimized for combat will suffer. If your DM likes to run detailed, imaginative adventures with fleshed-out NPCs, tons of local flavour, and almost no emphasis on fighting, your standard cardboard cutout, super-optimized Fighter is going to look and feel pretty useless compared to characters with richly detailed backgrounds and personalities. The way I see it, while the players as a group are always in 'dialogue' with the DM about specific things they'd like to see changed, the flavour of a given campaign is usually going to be the average of what all parties involved can live with, on the one hand, and enjoy playing, on the other. So powergaming only becomes a concern, in fact, only gains intelligibility as a concept, if the overall gaming style of the table differs markedly from any single person within the group. To put it another way, we wouldn't be having this conversation if the thread-starter's fellow players all played like him, now would we? :) So while I myself would agree that sareld isn't a powergamer by any means, just a smart player who knows how to get the most out of his character's skills and abilities, in the end, it doesn't matter, because as long as his group thinks otherwise, the problem will persist, unfortunately. I'd almost say the thread-starter is better off finding another group of players than sticking with these people.
Einvaldurinn_mikli 04-13-07, 11:50 AM	I should have the character wear full plate armour and fight with a great sword, because that will make him a more effective combatant? And that is somehow better role playing? Well, unless your warrior is retarded, then yes. Why on earth would he cling to his inferior armor when he can have something that is far more likely to save his life? (This assumes he gets into fights regularly.)Club and Spear though, he'd likely keep.
Einvaldurinn_mikli 04-13-07, 11:52 AM	I think what people are overlooking is the fact that powergaming is a highly relational term that only acquires valence according to the group's playing style AND the DM's campaign style. If your DM only runs mechanic-heavy hack-and-slash campaigns in which tactical combat with miniatures rules all, then any character who isn't completely optimized for combat will suffer. If your DM likes to run detailed, imaginative adventures with fleshed-out NPCs, tons of local flavour, and almost no emphasis on fighting, your standard cardboard cutout, super-optimized Fighter is going to look and feel pretty useless compared to characters with richly detailed backgrounds and personalities. Who's to say that the fighter doesn't have a rich and detailed character background? Nothing prevents his character from being deep and complex.
Daergal_the_Black 04-13-07, 12:02 PM	I think what people are overlooking is the fact that powergaming is a highly relational term that only acquires valence according to the group's playing style AND the DM's campaign style. If your DM only runs mechanic-heavy hack-and-slash campaigns in which tactical combat with miniatures rules all, then any character who isn't completely optimized for combat will suffer. If your DM likes to run detailed, imaginative adventures with fleshed-out NPCs, tons of local flavour, and almost no emphasis on fighting, your standard cardboard cutout, super-optimized Fighter is going to look and feel pretty useless compared to characters with richly detailed backgrounds and personalities. There are two problems here. First, powergaming doesn't only imply combat. In most games, combat is a major facet of the game, and so optimization tends to focus on it. Optimizers are just as able to switch gears and focus on social skills, making their characters the ones that every detailed NPC really admires, rather than the character with a detailed back story but only mediocre modifiers to his social skills, because they failed to optimize them. In other cases, powergamers with optimize yet other skills or abilities, whatever is needed to make their character competent in the campaign. The only time powergamers can't adapt their techniques, is when the DM chucks the otherwise ubiquitous mechanics out the window in favor of some free form, non-mechanical, "storyteller"-like game. Second, you've just run afould of the Stormwind Fallacy. You assume that the super-optimized fighter will be a "cardboard cutout" without a "richly detailed background and personality." In my experience, the optimizers spend just as much time lovingly crafting their character's back stories as they do figuring out the build. In the end, our characters are just as interesting as the drama queens', but they're also better mechanically.
northern_bear 04-13-07, 12:13 PM	It seems to me that the primitive Neanderthals had stone axes, making the Greataxe a very appropriate in-character choice for him once he hits the big city and sees them in all their steel glory). In addition, there are the "primitive" exotic weapons: the sugliin (two-handed, 2d8 damage, x2 crit) and the Tiger Skull Club (one-handed, 1d8 damage, x4 crit) with which Neanderthals have a racial bonus (from the "Primitive Weapon Mastery" racial ability), both from Frostburn. The only real quibble with the build is the light armor. Assuming the character comes to the city though, there's no reason for him to stick with that. (It's questionable how the primitive Neanderthal learned to wear heavy armors in the first place; but that's part of the general trope of what fighters are. Fighters are highly skilled warriors that rely on weapons specifically built for war and armors of comparably advanced design, together with a bevy of combat techniques (feats).) To me, both barbarian and ranger seem to fit the skeletal character concept of "primitive jungle warrior" better than fighter does. A lightly armored fighter is certainly not impossible, though, it just requires a good dex and possibly you'd be well served to focus on being mobile in combat, with spring attack--more of a guerrilla warrior than a tank. Throwing barbarian into the build would give you more tanking options as well as additional mobility. This is missing my point. I agree that it is entirely possible to make a neanderthal type character that kicks butt. You can give him feats, class levels, and equipment that are totally effective, while maintaining his neanderthal identify. What I object to is. . . Fred: "I have this idea in my head for a really cool character who fights with a spear. So I'm going to give him abilities related to spears, and I will buy him a magic spear." Bob: Spears suck as weapons, therefore you are an idiot for gimping your character. If you were a good player (role player) you could come up with an idea for a character that was cool and tough. Ya, spears may suck, but don't go accusing people of being an idiot for creating a character that matches the concept they have for what they want to play. That's the way some people like to play. Its their character, let them play what they want.
daggeroflath 04-13-07, 12:20 PM	That some people seek out self-handicaps is a sign of those people being pretentious enough to want to suck mechanically (and to derive joy from their in-game suffering). Those are the people who, when they see they've been dealt a royal flush, show everyone their hand and either discard or fold--because that's more unusual and unexpected. A lot of people get off on being victims, especially Drama Queens (and their characters actually do become 'victims' in-game, because they are not prepared to handle the challenges the rules assume they should be able to defeat). Actually I usually give my characters a weakness because A) The other people in my group are worse at optimising, and it wouldn't be much fun playing a character who was better than everyone else in the group. B) It gives me a challenge, one that I should note that I usually manage to overcome. C) Experimenting with sub-optimal builds teaches me new building techniques and combinations that I wouldn't have thought of otherwise. People can enjoy a handicap without being masochistic drama queens. And yes, I'll admit it, I'm a powergaming rules-lawyer and damn proud of it.
Daergal_the_Black 04-13-07, 12:30 PM	This is missing my point. I agree that it is entirely possible to make a neanderthal type character that kicks butt. You can give him feats, class levels, and equipment that are totally effective, while maintaining his neanderthal identify. What I object to is. . . Fred: "I have this idea in my head for a really cool character who fights with a spear. So I'm going to give him abilities related to spears, and I will buy him a magic spear." Bob: Spears suck as weapons, therefore you are an idiot for gimping your character. If you were a good player (role player) you could come up with an idea for a character that was cool and tough. Ya, spears may suck, but don't go accusing people of being an idiot for creating a character that matches the concept they have for what they want to play. That's the way some people like to play. Its their character, let them play what they want. As I said, I misspoke. You *can* make a detailed character that sucks in imaginative ways, if that is your goal. You can also pay the IRS five times as much money as you owe them, or not accept your refund. *Why* would that ever be your goal, though? If you want to make "Character Concept X" and when you're done with it, it sucks mechanically, my point was that with a little imagination you can almost always improve it mechanically until it kicks ass. If a player builds that character that he is really interested in playing, that character sucks mechanically, and the player can't figure out how to fix the character without damaging the underlying concept, that suggests that either (1) the player lacks imagination enough to see the improvements or (2) (to fix my prior misstatement) he has stumbled upon one of the incredibly rare and unusual enticing character concepts that cannot be made mechanically effective within the rules. (And, again, unless that player has played every other interesting and effective character concept that can conceivably exist, why would be dip into the barrel of interesting but ineffective ones? Masochism?)
kelvinaw273 04-13-07, 12:53 PM	You don't see the point of optimising is when it starts. Well that's as logical as saying that because I am not attracted to the same gender as myself, I must be biased against those that are. It is as illogical as linking the optimizing and role-playing axes to say that those who prefer not to power game themselves are biased against it as a concept. I make clear that my opinion in the matter is personal, and not objective. If I stated it as objective then I could be accused of bias, but I make clear it is a subjective opinion. To prefer something is SUBJECTIVE, to express bias against something is to declare the opinion as OBJECTIVE. No, you weren't, and I never said you did. Also, 1.3? Is that a joke? Yes. Although I admit not a very good one. But you didn't. You explained why you didn't like Powergaming/Xtreme optimising/Min-Maxing. In that explanation, you included three points which, though perhaps not meant to be, were attacks against our gaming style. They were points #1, 2, and 4. Putting those points in was pretty much saying, "I don't like Powergaming because it limits roleplaying, makes your character inflexible, and disrespects prestige classes." Saying that is an attack, and we are allowed to defend. Re-read my post. I clearly state that for me powergaming limits role-playing - I do NOT make a net statement to this effect, I make a personal one. Likewise I find such characters inflexible, and I feel that 'dipping' to obtain such builds disrespects - or undermines the reasons for having - prestige classes. These are all personal statements of how I find the game. At no point do I make net statements that effect others - I do not say powergaming limits roleplaying, I say I find it limiting. I do not state that inflexible characters are bad, or that powergaming always results in such - I say that I find over-optimized characters inflexible. Honestly, I'd rather a player announce "My character cooks an amazing cabbage soup, just like they make in his homeland." than waste any skill points on a skill for doing such. Your character can be the best stamp collector in the world for all I care, but if that's for roleplaying purposes then don't let it affect your character's mechanical attributes (unless you're a rogue, then you'll need skills like cabbage cooking and stamp collecting to sink all your left over skill points into ;)) Unfortunately, the system is against you here. If you don't have skill-ranks in something, you are not good at doing it. I can see where you are headed with this, but you never know when cabbage soup cooking is going to be important. If your game just focuses around combat, though, it's fine. And I certainly won't make cooking cabbage soup a cross-class skill. Well fortunately, you can classify it as a craft or profession, which are almost always class skills. Your character sheet is there for saying how good you are at combat and dice rolling. While I want your character to have an interesting backstory that you can roleplay with, don't let it get in the way of being a functional character. If it's for roleplaying (only!) you can have it for free. I'm sorry, where does this get stated in the rules? You character sheet reflects the game-mechanical aspects of your character. All of them, not just the ones that involve killing thing, getting the Xp and taking their stuff. I can see where you are coming from, but I think you are missing a huge slice of the point of the game, myself. A friend of mine had a good answer, though - he gave every character an extra couple of skill points, to be spent on pure flavour skills. The condition of said skill was that it represented pure past experience, although they were useful on rare occasions - like the instance when the character that had craft (sushi chef) had to gut an arboleth to get at something it had swallowed without damaging the delicate item ... Well, unless your warrior is retarded, then yes. Why on earth would he cling to his inferior armor when he can have something that is far more likely to save his life? (This assumes he gets into fights regularly.)Club and Spear though, he'd likely keep. Because he prefers to remain mobile, and use his superior dexterity to gain initiative and protect himself? Perhaps he could develop some weapon feats with his preferred weapon that make it more effective. Second, you've just run afould of the Stormwind Fallacy. You assume that the super-optimized fighter will be a "cardboard cutout" without a "richly detailed background and personality." In my experience, the optimizers spend just as much time lovingly crafting their character's back stories as they do figuring out the build. In the end, our characters are just as interesting as the drama queens', but they're also better mechanically. Yes, but what you appear to be describing are the same character again and again with different accents. How do you represent the fact that your two plate-armoured great-sword-wielding fighters are actually from radically different backgrounds and have radically different personalities if they have the same feats, skills, equipment etc.? In what way are you showing any respect for their backstory if you then ignore it in your build? And if you don't respect your character's own backstory, no-one else is going to give it any attention either. The 'drama queens' as you call them (and the way you use the term you seem to mean 'anyone who places personality above build strength when making metagame decisions') at least come up with something everyone is going to remember as different. The drama-queen who comes up with a trident-using fisherman who prefers light armour because he might drown in anything heavier, followed by a rapier-using swashbuckler has at least shown some imagination in where he is coming from and doesn't just stamp out characters from a cookie-cutter every game. His personality is reflected not just in the accent he has and the story he tells in the tavern, but in the way he fights, the tactics he uses and the way he dresses. Sure, your homogenous tanks might beat him in a straight fight, but outside of the slaughterhouse his player is probably having much more fun, and his character will be in the hall of fame long after yours are forgotten.
WayneTheGame 04-13-07, 01:25 PM	That's exacty the problem. People tend to cry "Stormwind Fallacy" to anything that says a powergamer's build is "bland", but the fact is that its TRUE. If the *only* optimal way to make a "good" fighter is to use a greatsword and full plate and Feats X, Y and Z, they ARE all cookie-cutter, carbon copies of each other, because doing anything otherwise makes one an "idiot drama queen". The background doesn't matter in this case because its extraneous information that has no relevance because the build is mechnically the exact same as every other powergamer.
daggeroflath 04-13-07, 01:30 PM	Unfortunately, the system is against you here. If you don't have skill-ranks in something, you are not good at doing it. I can see where you are headed with this, but you never know when cabbage soup cooking is going to be important. I can see why you'd think that, but the system is actually on my side. (I know, I was surprised too) Refer to PHB 3.5 sidebar: Character Skills, page 62 where it says, "You're always welcome to assume that your character is familiar with - even good at as far as everyday skills go - many skills beyond that which you gain ranks in." If your game just focuses around combat, though, it's fine. The dice rolling does, the roleplaying doesn't. Your character sheet reflects the game-mechanical aspects of your character. All of them, not just the ones that involve killing thing, getting the Xp and taking their stuff. Not to be rude here to a game that I love, but D&D doesn't have mechanical aspects that don't involve killing things, getting their XP and taking their stuff. Fortunately all those other things don't require mechanical aspects, so we're okay. I can see where you are coming from, but I think you are missing a huge slice of the point of the game, myself. What am I missing? (I'm seriously interested and concede that it's entirely possible). A friend of mine had a good answer, though - he gave every character an extra couple of skill points, to be spent on pure flavour skills. Ironically enough what I suggested was actually in accordance with the rules, whereas that is a house rule ;) But seriously, that's a good idea. I've heard of other people's games where they do similar things, however... What's the point of chucking numbers on it, if it's a purely flavour-based skill?
kelvinaw273 04-13-07, 02:27 PM	What I am saying is that everything about DnD supports the fact that you need the mechanical side of the game in order to play it. You need the "metagame" to play the game. Without the "metagame", there is no game. Thus, the metagame is the game. This is something that the primadonnas cannot seem to accept, and I think that we should stop skipping around the subject and get right to it: The primadonnas are dead wrong in insisting that roleplaying with a total lack metagaming is the "right" way to play the game. If they are playing DnD without the metagame, they are not playing DnD. They are playing "Your daily dose of fantasy story writing." And if you only play the metagame, you may as well go play on your computer or playstation. Dungeons and Dragons is a role-playing game, and a social game. The metagame exists because the game as a whole needs checks and balances and a structure. Consider it this way: the metagame exists in the same way as the steel frame of a modern skyscraper exists - it provides the strength and durability to make the building stand. Without the steel superstructure you can't build your building - but without the walls, floors, stairs, lifts, internal furnishings, windows, roof etc. you don't have a building either, just a steel frame. Now different styles of game exist in the same way that different styles of architecture and interior design exist. If you want a super-strong building with armoured walls and passive defences, you can do that. If you want a palace, you can do that too. Some people would rather live in one, some in the other. Both have valid reasons, but it isn't a good idea for them to try to come along and redesign each other's home ....
kelvinaw273 04-13-07, 02:28 PM	What's the point of chucking numbers on it, if it's a purely flavour-based skill? Because the game mechanics favour it, and you never know ... that was always the fun - once in a blue moon, the skill would be useful. Cooking isn't a brilliant skill - until you have to escort an arrogant aristocrat from A to B and during the journey get him friendly.
daggeroflath 04-13-07, 02:47 PM	Because the game mechanics favour it, Didn't we already discuss this... and you never know ... that was always the fun - once in a blue moon, the skill would be useful. Cooking isn't a brilliant skill - until you have to escort an arrogant aristocrat from A to B and during the journey get him friendly. Technically that's what the Diplomacy skill is for, you'd be going outside the rules to use a cooking skill to do the same thing. If you're willing to go outside the rules for this piece of social interaction, why do you need to create a skill for it? Instead of wasting time inventing cooking and cleaning skills for characters to chuck extra skill points into, why not just have the character use the frantic effort they make cooking and cleaning for the noble as the basis of a diplomacy role.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 04-13-07, 02:57 PM	"The game requires the metagame, thus the game is the meta game." My car requires it's steering wheel, thus my is it's steering wheel. or The game requires dice, there for the game is dice. The game is not the meta game becuase it is needed for play. It just means that the metagame is one aspect of the game. In this case everything in the metagame hangs on its task resolution system. Basically the d20 check to determine an out comes, and the apropriate modifiers that go with that. Need to determine if you hit the orc? Roll a D20. Resist the spell? D20. Climb the wall? Again D20. But that does not mean that the game is nothing more the a series of checks, and counter checks. For instance there are no rules, or checks to determine if my character perfers meed to ale. Or where he can from, or anything like that. All the metagame can give you is how your character physical acts, excerts force, on the physical world. Instead of thinking of the metagame as the ultimate force that determines everything. Think of it more as the rules of physics that governern the material world the characters are playing. Simmilair to real life. the laws of physics determine how far you can throw a baseball. How much force you have to excert, and in what ways, to climb a wall, the reaction time you need to pull off a driving manuever, etc, etc. They do not however determine if you find pizzia enjoyable, or if you like Kool-aid. Futher more they do not determine your personality, which in the large part determines the choices that you make everyday.
Greg K 04-13-07, 03:13 PM	Maybe, your character is one of many people that want a specific item and the person with the item is looking for new dishes to present at a party he is hosting. Therefore, he decides to hold a cooking contest with the item as the prize. Maybe the party needs to get into a formal ball. The two characters with the highest diplomacy present themselves as out of town nobles and host a little dinner of their own with the ball's host as a guest. The person with the cooking skill creates the meal. If the food is good, the two "nobles" not only gain a favorable diplomacy bonus with the host and the invitiations (for themselves), but the host is so impressed with the dish, he or she asks to borrow the "chef" to cook the meal. Thus, the "chef" and his "helpers" (i.e., the other party members) get into into the ball as well.
daggeroflath 04-13-07, 03:22 PM	Maybe, your character is one of many people that want a specific item and the person with the item is looking for new dishes to present at a party he is hosting. Therefore, he decides to hold a cooking contest with the item as the prize. As much fun as an iron chef duel for an awesome item could be, how much more can you do with this idea by having some ranks in the cooking skill then you could without it? Player: My wisdom + cooking + 1d20 came to a total of 26 Player's Cleric Friend: Don't forget I blessed you. Player: Oh yeah, 27. DM: Well the other chef only got 22, congratulations you win and you get the item. ... hardly adding much to the game here. Maybe the party needs to get into a formal ball. The two characters with the highest diplomacy present themselves as out of town nobles and host a little dinner of their own with the ball's host as a guest. The person with the cooking skill creates the meal. If the food is good, the two "nobles" not only gain a favorable diplomacy bonus with the host and the invitiations (for themselves), but the host is so impressed with the dish, he or she asks to borrow the "chef" to cook the meal. Thus, the "chef" and his "helpers" (i.e., the other party members) get into into the ball as well. While yes, a successful cooking roll might certainly provide a circumstance bonus to a diplomacy roll, A) Does this really need a skill? B) If it does then this isn't a useless skill that only adds flavour, it's a useful skill that plays a role in the mechanics of the game (so add it to the skill list). C) If it doesn't then clearly it isn't needed so why have it. In short the idea of giving stats to useless skills is logically incongrous with itself.
Comus 04-13-07, 03:34 PM	That's exacty the problem. People tend to cry "Stormwind Fallacy" to anything that says a powergamer's build is "bland", but the fact is that its TRUE. If the *only* optimal way to make a "good" fighter is to use a greatsword and full plate and Feats X, Y and Z, they ARE all cookie-cutter, carbon copies of each other, because doing anything otherwise makes one an "idiot drama queen". The background doesn't matter in this case because its extraneous information that has no relevance because the build is mechnically the exact same as every other powergamer. I have to disagree. Lets take two characters who are mechanically identical - first-level human fighters with greatswords, power attack, cleave, and weapon focus (greatsword). The first is a rude, heavily-drinking man who always speaks his mind and takes a trophy from everyone he's defeated in battle. He's got the guantlet of a town guard from twenty miles away, a few wolf teeth, and a broken holy symbol from some evil god - and he's looking to add to the collection. The second is a quiet man who believes in personal control and wouldn't drink anything stronger than tea. He has his own personal sense of honor and offers a prayer to the fallen after every battle, though he isn't interested in religion in an organized sense. Now, these are two very different characters to roleplay, even with the same character sheet. No matter how 'bland' the build seems, you can go a lot of different ways with the character. They don't have to be cookie-cutter characters in personality, too. A lot depends on how you flavor abilities - is Power Attack swinging for the bleachers, or is it a carefully aimed strike at an enemy's vitals?
daggeroflath 04-13-07, 03:44 PM	I have to disagree. Lets take two characters who are mechanically identical - first-level human fighters with greatswords, power attack, cleave, and weapon focus (greatsword). Well for a start fighters are trained warriors, often by an army. Many armies train their fighters in exactly the same skills as one another, usually because history has proven them to be the most effective combination. If greatswords, power attacks, cleave and weapon focus are very effective in battle you can bet that the royal military academy of cormyr will train in these skills. So it's not actually bad roleplaying either.
Gemstone 04-13-07, 04:24 PM	Torak, the Neanderthal Schaman: Class: Fighter 4/Cleric 8 Weapon: Large Club (2d6, 19-20/x2) Armor: Massive Mammoth Hide (+8 AC, -6 ACP, Max Dex +1, spd 20 ft., 50 lb) Feats: Weapon Focus (Large Club), Weapon Specialization (Large Club), +4 other So... what do we have here? It's a neanderthal shaman who wields a massive Large Club and covers himself in Mammoth Hide. Flavor, HELL YES, mechanics? Yes to that too. Anyone recognizing that? Well It's a greatsword and a full plate with different flavor. The game isn't set in stone. You can alter it as you wish with your DM's permission. Now, it's fun to play a weak character, but it can also be fun to play a strong character. Clearly, your oppinions differ on this... so basicly, you can agree that you disagree
On_the_wings_of_TPK 04-13-07, 04:42 PM	As much fun as an iron chef duel for an awesome item could be, how much more can you do with this idea by having some ranks in the cooking skill then you could without it? Player: My wisdom + cooking + 1d20 came to a total of 26 Player's Cleric Friend: Don't forget I blessed you. Player: Oh yeah, 27. DM: Well the other chef only got 22, congratulations you win and you get the item. ... hardly adding much to the game here. On that same note the fight with the BBEG could be discribe as so: Fighter: my base attack bonus is +5, +1 form the bless, +6 from stregnth, -5 for power attack. I roled a 15 so thats 22. DM the evil orc war lords AC is 18 so you hit. Fighter: I deal 25 points of damage. DM: He roles a 16, his total attack bonus is +8 so that is a 24. Fighter: that hits me. DM: ok that will be 30 points of damage. Wizards player: I cast scorching ray. My ranged touch attack is a 15. DM: You meet or exceed his touch AC. Wizard: I deal 12 points of damage. Cleric: I cast cure moderate wounds on the fighter/barbarian. He heals 17 points of dmage. Fighter: I attack again with my great sowrd. As well i will power attack for 5. My total is 19. I deal 30 points of damage this time. DM: The orc war lords hit point have now been reduced to 0 or less. He is defeated. You all gain 1000xp, and find 1,500gp in gold, and art objects. he has a +1 great sword, a +2 chainshirt, and a peral of power 2. Not too much excitement there. Just as you can't have DnD, as we know it, without the metagamerules, it isn't all that much fun with out the flavour either.
Daergal_the_Black 04-13-07, 04:44 PM	Yes, but what you appear to be describing are the same character again and again with different accents. How do you represent the fact that your two plate-armoured great-sword-wielding fighters are actually from radically different backgrounds and have radically different personalities if they have the same feats, skills, equipment etc.? There are major differences between these two fighters, despite their having the same feats and equipment: (1) He's a fighter with a greatsword, who was recently released from military service when he, under orders, led his unit into what became a slaughter. He was the only survivor on his side. Having always measured his life in terms of his professional (military) accomplishments, he descended into a long, alcohol fueled depression. Six months later, a scandal within the ranks revealed that a particular officer--an aasimar with a pronounced scar running from his right ear down across his throat--had set up your character's unit, but he went AWOL and fled the service before he could be taken into custody. The military offered the fighter his rank and position again, but he refused the offer. He tried to hunt down the criminal responsible for the deaths of his men, but after four years of nothing else he been unable to find him. Now he's taken it upon himself to travel systematically and widely hoping that by the grace of the gods he might catch word of the scarred aasimar and see that justice is served. His life has always been about duty, and his current duty is to his former unit, but he's reached a dead end. He's starting to doubt whether he will find the aasimar, but knows that giving in to despair would be a betrayal of the duty he owes his unit. (2) He's a fighter with a greatsword, who's life has always been dedicated to finding, taking and giving as much pleasure as he can. Wine, women, combat, magic, views of the countryside, views of the big cities, he takes delight in everything around him and is rarely, if ever, bored (so long as he can keep the sights around him changing). Born the only child of a moderately wealthy merchant family, his parents indulged him in every way possible as a child, including allowing him to train as a warrior (despite his father's obvious pain that his son would not take over the family business). He still tends to be very surprised by those who attempt to deny him his fun and by those who feel the need to take life 'too seriously.' His love of combat has caused him to pick fights in almost every city he's ever visited, though to him it's all in fun. When he starts it, he always tries to leave people breathing after these encounters. The result of this is that he has left a long trail of dour-faced adversaries in bars and fighting arenas all over the country, men who'd probably not react positively should he and they cross paths again. These are very thin sketches that would need to be expanded upon for actual play (assuming I were to ever use either), but they are two very different characters, either of which could be interesting despite having no mechanical differences between them. (You might select their skills a bit differently to reflect their different personalities, but as I said above skill points are cheap and "flavor" only takes a few.)
Daydreamer 04-13-07, 05:02 PM	First, you should never waste a feat on something that gimps your character just because you like the flavor . i dont like this, and this i what i was defending the 'roleplayers' from the 'powergamers' in the first place. let me maket it simple daergal. THERE IS NO RIGHT OR WRONG WAY TO PLAY D&D. Ive been playing for nearly 15 years and i can tell you straight up that i PREFER playing weaker characters to stronger ones, as such i almost always make my pcs weaker by making non optimal choices. this makes the game MORE FUN FOR ME. YOu do it your way, ill do it mine. Saying should implies ppl are somehow obligated to play D&D a certain way. thats just not true, play it how you want, but dont tell me how i should play.
daggeroflath 04-13-07, 05:12 PM	On that same note the fight with the BBEG could be discribe as so: No, you miss my meaning. In combat you have attack rolls, AC, spells, feats, damage, etc. Lots of systems interlocking to create interest from a sheer mechanical overview. In cooking, you have opposed skill rolls. Possibly the most boring mechanic in existance. You could certainly make cooking far more interesting, but I question whether having a skill with which to make opposed rolls would make such a thing any better.
Daergal_the_Black 04-13-07, 05:15 PM	i dont like this, and this i what i was defending the 'roleplayers' from the 'powergamers' in the first place. let me maket it simple daergal. THERE IS NO RIGHT OR WRONG WAY TO PLAY D&D. Ive been playing for nearly 15 years and i can tell you straight up that i PREFER playing weaker characters to stronger ones, as such i almost always make my pcs weaker by making non optimal choices. this makes the game MORE FUN FOR ME. YOu do it your way, ill do it mine. Saying should implies ppl are somehow obligated to play D&D a certain way. thats just not true, play it how you want, but dont tell me how i should play. Fine, but when I come to dominate the game and your character is relegated to comic relief, don't start pretending that your weakling is somehow the superior character.
daggeroflath 04-13-07, 05:18 PM	Fine, but when I come to dominate the game and your character is relegated to comic relief, don't start pretending that your weakling is somehow the superior character. Just so you know, this is how characters get sneak attacked in their sleep ;)
Comus 04-13-07, 05:28 PM	THERE IS NO RIGHT OR WRONG WAY TO PLAY D&D. Absolutely. Ive been playing for nearly 15 years and i can tell you straight up that i PREFER playing weaker characters to stronger ones, as such i almost always make my pcs weaker by making non optimal choices. this makes the game MORE FUN FOR ME. YOu do it your way, ill do it mine. Saying should implies ppl are somehow obligated to play D&D a certain way. thats just not true, play it how you want, but dont tell me how i should play. Why do you prefer playing weaker characters? Why do you have more fun choosing mechanics that are less optimal? I'm curious to know why you would choose a weaker mechanic over a stronger one when both carry the concept of the character.
daggeroflath 04-13-07, 05:38 PM	Why do you prefer playing weaker characters? Why do you have more fun choosing mechanics that are less optimal? I'm curious to know why you would choose a weaker mechanic over a stronger one when both carry the concept of the character. My answers to that question are on the previous page if you didn't spot them. I'm curious myself as to Daydreamer's reasons, whether they're similar to mine or completely different.
weepingminotaur 04-13-07, 05:57 PM	There are two problems here. First, powergaming doesn't only imply combat. In most games, combat is a major facet of the game, and so optimization tends to focus on it. Optimizers are just as able to switch gears and focus on social skills, making their characters the ones that every detailed NPC really admires, rather than the character with a detailed back story but only mediocre modifiers to his social skills, because they failed to optimize them. In other cases, powergamers with optimize yet other skills or abilities, whatever is needed to make their character competent in the campaign. The only time powergamers can't adapt their techniques, is when the DM chucks the otherwise ubiquitous mechanics out the window in favor of some free form, non-mechanical, "storyteller"-like game. Second, you've just run afould of the Stormwind Fallacy. You assume that the super-optimized fighter will be a "cardboard cutout" without a "richly detailed background and personality." In my experience, the optimizers spend just as much time lovingly crafting their character's back stories as they do figuring out the build. In the end, our characters are just as interesting as the drama queens', but they're also better mechanically. I'm not assuming a thing. I'm certainly aware that there are lots of players who are perfectly capable of creating a super-optimized fighter with a richly detailed character background. I indicate binaries merely to make the issue clear, when the camps are clearly divided. You say optimizers spend just as much time on their characters as non-optimizers do (and I can see perfectly well where you stand, given the derision implicit in your term 'drama queen'). Fair enough. I'd even put myself in this group: I like to optimize, but I enjoy developing character background too. However, I have run across many optimizers who didn't give a damn about character backgrounds so long as their fighters dealt the maximum amount of damage. It all comes down to the group preference, which is why I suggested that the thread-starter join another group. You won't get anywhere trying to force your other people to play a style with which they're not comfortable.
Daydreamer 04-13-07, 05:59 PM	Fine, but when I come to dominate the game and your character is relegated to comic relief, don't start pretending that your weakling is somehow the superior character. dood you just dont get it. there is no suchthing as a superior character, the better character is the one who you have more fun with. Besides, with all due respect, you wouldn't be welcome at our gaming table. NOne of us power game-ever. and if a player does join us and power games either us or the dm will ask them politely not to do that or leave.
Comus 04-13-07, 06:19 PM	My answers to that question are on the previous page if you didn't spot them. I'm curious myself as to Daydreamer's reasons, whether they're similar to mine or completely different. These reasons? A) The other people in my group are worse at optimising, and it wouldn't be much fun playing a character who was better than everyone else in the group. B) It gives me a challenge, one that I should note that I usually manage to overcome. C) Experimenting with sub-optimal builds teaches me new building techniques and combinations that I wouldn't have thought of otherwise. My question is this - do you play a sub-optimal build, or build from a sub-optimal concept? For instance, I'm going to be playing a Kobold melee fighter in my g/f's game (whenever she geta around to starting it). That's a decidedly sub-optimal concept. To make it more viable, I'm playing a ToB class (Crusader, specifically). Not as good as a human would be, but it fits the idea I had for an unlikely hero.
kelvinaw273 04-14-07, 04:59 AM	I have to disagree. Lets take two characters who are mechanically identical - first-level human fighters with greatswords, power attack, cleave, and weapon focus (greatsword). The first is a rude, heavily-drinking man who always speaks his mind and takes a trophy from everyone he's defeated in battle. He's got the guantlet of a town guard from twenty miles away, a few wolf teeth, and a broken holy symbol from some evil god - and he's looking to add to the collection. The second is a quiet man who believes in personal control and wouldn't drink anything stronger than tea. He has his own personal sense of honor and offers a prayer to the fallen after every battle, though he isn't interested in religion in an organized sense. Now, these are two very different characters to roleplay, even with the same character sheet. No matter how 'bland' the build seems, you can go a lot of different ways with the character. They don't have to be cookie-cutter characters in personality, too. A lot depends on how you flavor abilities - is Power Attack swinging for the bleachers, or is it a carefully aimed strike at an enemy's vitals? Now, what about their skills? I agree flavour is very important, but if the two characters are mechanically identical, there is less flavour difference between them. Power attack, by definition, is not a strike for the vitals - that's Improved Critical. Now here is how I would suggest varying these two characters according to personality rather than just keeping them the same, from the bottom up: Skills: These are the easiest things to differentiate mechanically for character. #1 is a heavy drinking brute, and his skills are oriented entirely toward doing what he enjoys - he may well have ranks in Intimidate and Gather Information (gossip while drinking) for example. #2 is a thoughtful man, who would consider a battle avoided a battle won, so he may have ranks in Diplomacy and Knowledge (religion). Or perhaps he is career minded and has ranks in Ride (after all, cavalry get paid more). Feats: It's harder to differentiate feats and retain an optimal build, but not impossible if you really want to mark them apart. #1 is where it is at - big sword, big hit, hard take-down with: Weapon Focus (greatsword) Power Attack Cleave #2 could have had the same training, it's true, but the character you describe might be better represented with: Weapon Focus (longsword) {so he can use a shield for a better AC} Improved Critical {he goes for the vitals, he doesn't just hammer away} Expertise {he's a competent, cautious man, not a smasher} Now these differences do NOT make one of them particularly better than the other. #1 has more hit hard and take-down power, #2 has a better AC and is a better defensive fighter. If they fight, either one only has to get lucky once for the other to be in serious trouble, against other opponents #2 has perhaps better staying power, #1 dishes more damage. #1 is likely to wade in without regard to the room full of goblins. He may chop up a lot of them, but if they swarm him they may get lucky. #2 is likely to wedge himself in the doorway where they can only come at him one or two at a time, and fight defensively. He'll be almost unhitable to them, and should cut them down slowly. Classes: If you truly want 'different' characters while retaining the fighter theme, you can change their class. Lastly, #1 might be better represented by a Barbarian, and #2 by a Knight. That's just how I would differently represent those two fighter's personalities by making differences in their abilities and combat styles. I don't think I've nerfed either one, just made them different. I am not saying that making them different classes is what you should be doing, just showing at each level of the build where I would make changes to differentiate them. How far you go is up to you. There are major differences between these two fighters, despite their having the same feats and equipment: (1) <snip> (2) <snip> These are very thin sketches that would need to be expanded upon for actual play (assuming I were to ever use either), but they are two very different characters, either of which could be interesting despite having no mechanical differences between them. (You might select their skills a bit differently to reflect their different personalities, but as I said above skill points are cheap and "flavor" only takes a few.) Exactly the point I was making, and exactly what I was being put down for - putting points in "useless" skills. The characters I was criticizing are those who are exactly identical in the game mechanics. See above to see how I would differentiate two such fighters.
Clawhound 04-14-07, 08:14 AM	What causes trouble for me as a DM is any gamer in a any game who can't adjust his playstyle to match the group. He/she doesn't have to totally change his style, he just has to recognize where this particular game sits, pull back on the disfavored part of the game, and put more emphasis on the more favored part of the game. If I join a game, they will tell me how they play, and I will respect that. This is an astonishingly effective strategy. I have been welcomed back to every playgroup I've ever gamed with. I find that gamers who are unwilling to change any aspect of their playstyle tend to be bad influences at the table. This leaves the playgroup increasingly unhappy and makes the game un-fun. I don't care what playstyle it is (whether its a powergamer at a casual game, a casual player in a power game, or just an out-of-control nutbar), mismatched playstyles cause issues. For a game to work, it must be fun for everyone. If your having fun means that everyone else doesn't have fun, the results are usually the DM taking you aside and giving you a choice: change or walk. That's just the way that human dynamics works. At that point, you have a choice. As it is your choice, you are guaranteed to make the right one. If you can change your playstyle, you will, and if you can't change your playstyle, you will go.
daggeroflath 04-14-07, 08:16 AM	These reasons? Those are the ones, yep. Just ignore the slightly angry tone to them, I was responding to someone's annoying assumptions. My question is this - do you play a sub-optimal build, or build from a sub-optimal concept? For instance, I'm going to be playing a Kobold melee fighter in my g/f's game (whenever she geta around to starting it). That's a decidedly sub-optimal concept. To make it more viable, I'm playing a ToB class (Crusader, specifically). Not as good as a human would be, but it fits the idea I had for an unlikely hero. A little of both. For example one of my recent characters was built around being (or trying to be) a master swordsman, using the sorcerer class. In doing so, I had a lot of fun (despite getting knocked unconscious a lot until I bought a vest of false life) but also got to play with some unconventional spells and feats for a sorcerer. Although it's certainly not the most conventional build for a swordsman or a sorcerer, I tried to make him as effective as possible. Dipped into cleric (actually for storyline reasons but it really helped with the build, proficiency with all armour and weapons saved me some strife). Got his hands on a sword of spell-storing. Learned spells like greater blink, true-strike, tiramel's energy spheres. He became quite combat effective.
kelvinaw273 04-14-07, 08:20 AM	Why do you prefer playing weaker characters? Why do you have more fun choosing mechanics that are less optimal? I'm curious to know why you would choose a weaker mechanic over a stronger one when both carry the concept of the character. I know the question was not directed at me, but I'll explain why I don't prefer to play hugely optimised characters (moderately optimised is OK, and as more than one poster has pointed out, I do optimise well for flexibility rather than specialization). Quite simply, if everyone has the same style of play it makes no difference to your character's survival odds if they are hugely optimised or not; the DM should be tailoring encounters regardless; IMHO optimising only increases your odds of survival if you do it better than the rest of the party, and that is a power-imbalance. If I therefore would prefer to make RP choices for my class, skills and feats, and so do my fellow players, I can, and I'll enjoy it more because while I accept the needs for the metagame and use it, I enjoy the RP aspect more than trying to be a rules-accountant. That is why I prefer 'weaker' characters.
Clawhound 04-14-07, 08:40 AM	Why do you prefer playing weaker characters? Why do you have more fun choosing mechanics that are less optimal? I'm curious to know why you would choose a weaker mechanic over a stronger one when both carry the concept of the character. I'll jump in on this and take this as an honest question. All that I can say here, and you just have to believe me, is that I've played dozens of characters over the years, and characters with limitations are often the most fun. Yeah, you heard right. Fun. You see, I WANT challenges. I want to create characters that force me to do things differently. I want to discover different ways to play the game. I want limits to struggle against. That's fun for me. Weaker isn't a bad thing. "Weaker" is another word for "tradeoff". In other words, I'm sacrificing one thing to get another. In a way, it's still optimizing, but I am not optimizing for mechanical effectiveness, I am optimizing a concept, a character portrayal, a genre portrayal, or a playgroup dynamic. In other words, "optimal" is not limited to mechanical optimizing, it is mechanical vs. portrayal vs. group dynamic vs. fun for you.
WayneTheGame 04-14-07, 09:58 AM	I'd like to add one more addition to this "debate": While I do tend to make powerful (not totally optimized, I am willing to sacrifice some power for flavor) characters, IMO it's flat-out wrong (yes, there's that dreaded word) to undermind teamwork. The game is built on teamwork and working together to accomplish something, not an appendage-wagging contest to see whose character is the most likely to survive the Dungeon of Death by himself with nobody else. D&D games should be more like Jason and the Argonauts than Hercules (i.e. a group attempting to do something instead of one "superman" doing it all). Remember, although this point is slightly less relevant: The game's base assumption on how you create characters (i.e. 25 PB/Elite Array) is designed so you cannot effectively dual-role without not being great at your primary one. At first I thought this approach was garbage, but the more I think of it I see why they did it: To encourage people to work together. You SHOULD NOT be able to operate on your own in this game, you should NEED to have your companions who can do things you cannot. And those two characters are still pretty much cookie-cutter. I'm sorry, but while I agree that you can make "optimal" characters with different backgrounds, you can only do it so long before A) It gets boring (Ho hum. Another fighter with a greatsword and full plate), and B) Everyone else at the table gets bored because mechanically they're roughly the same. When ALL your characters have different backgrounds but mechanically use the "magic combination", how is it any different than the old-school thing of just erasing the character's name and writing in a new one, or appending II/III/IV/etc. to it? I don't know about you, but I enjoy trying new characters from time to time. I would be insanely bored if all of them sounded different but operated the same, and that's exactly what the two example greatsword wielding, full plate wearing characters do; look different on paper, but play roughly the same.
Witch 04-14-07, 10:04 AM	I'm going to say a very minor amount on this issue: Stats are there to represent flavor. If your character is a weakling, then you create stats that reflect a weakling. If your character is a talented swordsman, you create stats that reflect a talented swordsman. That means that roleplaying can include powergaming, given the appropriate character, while it could also not include powergaming at all, with another character.
daggeroflath 04-14-07, 10:10 AM	Yes Wayne, Teamwork is essential. If you're not interested in being a part of a team then find a solo game or buy a choose your own adventure book.
Comus 04-14-07, 12:06 PM	Although it's certainly not the most conventional build for a swordsman or a sorcerer, I tried to make him as effective as possible. [...] He became quite combat effective. I know the question was not directed at me, but I'll explain why I don't prefer to play hugely optimised characters (moderately optimised is OK, and as more than one poster has pointed out, I do optimise well for flexibility rather than specialization). Weaker isn't a bad thing. "Weaker" is another word for "tradeoff". In other words, I'm sacrificing one thing to get another. In a way, it's still optimizing, but I am not optimizing for mechanical effectiveness, I am optimizing a concept, a character portrayal, a genre portrayal, or a playgroup dynamic. In other words, "optimal" is not limited to mechanical optimizing, it is mechanical vs. portrayal vs. group dynamic vs. fun for you. The thing is, I'm not really seeing anyone actually playing a weaker character over a stronger one - you're choosing a weaker concept. There's a big difference. See, as has been pointed out time and time again any time an Optimization argument starts, unless you're playing Pun-Pun, you're already not powergaming as much as possible. Anything else, no matter how you build it, is sacrificing power for concept. When I see someone saying they intentionally pick a weaker character, I think of someone having a choice between... well, let's choose two fictional feats: one gives a +2 to a skill; the other gives +3 to the skill (like, say, Skill Focus). One is obviously worse. I see the weaker character as the one that picks the +2 because the feat has a better name, and that's what I think of when I hear someone say they prefer playing weaker characters.
daggeroflath 04-14-07, 12:10 PM	Anything else, no matter how you build it, is sacrificing power for concept. I'm not a saint, if I'm giving up my power I want to at least get something in exchange. Concept is a nice trade off.
kelvinaw273 04-14-07, 02:23 PM	The thing is, I'm not really seeing anyone actually playing a weaker character over a stronger one - you're choosing a weaker concept. There's a big difference. See, as has been pointed out time and time again any time an Optimization argument starts, unless you're playing Pun-Pun, you're already not powergaming as much as possible. Anything else, no matter how you build it, is sacrificing power for concept. When I see someone saying they intentionally pick a weaker character, I think of someone having a choice between... well, let's choose two fictional feats: one gives a +2 to a skill; the other gives +3 to the skill (like, say, Skill Focus). One is obviously worse. I see the weaker character as the one that picks the +2 because the feat has a better name, and that's what I think of when I hear someone say they prefer playing weaker characters. In what way is the concept 'weaker' when we are optimizing for the concept and not for power? I don't see it as that choice - I see it more like taking a choice between +3 on one skill and +2 on two skills. One is better if you need to specialize, the other is better if you want to be good at several things. There really aren't any options like the ones you describe, unless different source books have been compiled with different material that has not been properly cross-checked. Then, it's more likely the player chose what they were familiar with and didn't know about the other option - like picking Monk Training (ECS) to cross between Paladin and Monk freely when you could have chosen Ascetic Knight (CAdv), because you only access to the ECS. Or to put it another way, I chose the Feat Shifter Instincts for a character recently. It gives a bonus to several skills for my character and a +2 bonus to initiative. I could have taken Improved Initiative for a better initiative score, or skill focus for any of the skills - either would have done better at that thing they improved. But I took Shifter Instincts because (a) it suits my character concept better and (b) it gave me a good boost to everything, whereas I would otherwise have to choose one over the other. In what way did I choose a 'weaker' option? No, I chose a less specialized option.
Comus 04-14-07, 02:44 PM	In what way is the concept 'weaker' when we are optimizing for the concept and not for power? I don't see it as that choice - I see it more like taking a choice between +3 on one skill and +2 on two skills. One is better if you need to specialize, the other is better if you want to be good at several things. There really aren't any options like the ones you describe, unless different source books have been compiled with different material that has not been properly cross-checked. Then, it's more likely the player chose what they were familiar with and didn't know about the other option - like picking Monk Training (ECS) to cross between Paladin and Monk freely when you could have chosen Ascetic Knight (CAdv), because you only access to the ECS. *sigh* No, see, you're arguing something that I didn't say. A kobold fighter is a mechanically weaker concept than a human fighter, for example. It is not a worse concept, but speaking from a mechanics standpoint, it is weaker. And then you go into versitility again... oy. This, again, isn't what I am arguing. A feat that does a number of small things can be as good - or even better than - one that has a single effect. I am saying that the only time I think you can have a weaker character is when you have several options, one or more strictly better than the others (and all fitting the concept equally well), and you choose one of the worse ones for the specific reason of making the character weaker.
daggeroflath 04-14-07, 02:45 PM	*sigh* No, see, you're arguing something that I didn't say. Honestly, I'm a little confused myself about what you're saying. Sorry, I just don't get your point.
Comus 04-14-07, 02:55 PM	Honestly, I'm a little confused myself about what you're saying. Sorry, I just don't get your point. Okay. I'll try and explain it again. Weak Concept - A Concept for a character which is weaker than is optimal. Examples would be building a lance-charging, mount-using wizard, a half-orc bard, a fighter heavily specialized in using daggers, and so forth. All of these are choices which are done because there is a type of character a person wants to play. Weak Character - A weak character comes about when a person knows about multiple options they could choose to create their concept, and deliberately chooses one which they know is worse than others - not because it better fits the concept, but because they did not want to play a strong character. Is that better?
daggeroflath 04-14-07, 03:21 PM	Is that better? Yep, but I can't imagine for the life of me someone choosing the weaker character. Actually that's not true, I've deliberately chosen weaker things for a concept before, but only because the strongest ones seemed like their application was abusing a loophole rather than being a legitimate combination.
Clawhound 04-14-07, 09:35 PM	Okay. I'll try and explain it again. Weak Concept - A Concept for a character which is weaker than is optimal. Examples would be building a lance-charging, mount-using wizard, a half-orc bard, a fighter heavily specialized in using daggers, and so forth. All of these are choices which are done because there is a type of character a person wants to play. Weak Character - A weak character comes about when a person knows about multiple options they could choose to create their concept, and deliberately chooses one which they know is worse than others - not because it better fits the concept, but because they did not want to play a strong character. Is that better? You are in an either/or frame of mind. That's called a false dichotomy. In this case, I pose that there are three types of characters: weaker, average, and stronger. Weaker characters cause play issues. Average characters fulfill their job. Stronger characters cause play issues. What's average? That depends on your game. That's the trick. These ideas of weaker and stronger depend on the game that you are playing. I can have a rocking fun game with newbies making bad character decisions, but since they are all average with respect to each other, the game works. The issue is not strong characters or weak characters, but characters that are significantly stronger or weaker than the other characters in the game. As an experience player in a game of newbies, I would not play an optimal character. It WOULD be weaker, but weaker in such a way that my character was in line with the rest of the party. I would not show them up, but I would also pull my weight. That's the sweet spot. My character would be average for the game being played. If I were playing with power-game oriented players, they would expect my character to tow a hard line, and so I would have to pick a concept that can pull hard from the get go. My character would be in-line with those character, which is to say, average for the party. In another example, a game is very social in nature. Would a combat optimized character work in this game? Of course not. You automatically know that this is sub-optimal. You would be taking social skills to be effective!!! What a twist! So knowing WHAT your game is about determines the mechanical choices that you make about your character.
Daydreamer 04-14-07, 09:38 PM	this goes at a point i was making clawhound. there is no inherent advantage to being stronger/weaker. there is only a question of the flavour and type of game you want to run.
Maekrix_Waere 04-14-07, 11:34 PM	In another example, a game is very social in nature. Would a combat optimized character work in this game? Of course not. You automatically know that this is sub-optimal. You would be taking social skills to be effective!!! What a twist! So knowing WHAT your game is about determines the mechanical choices that you make about your character. ...What? Perhaps it is just me, but could you make what you are trying to say a bit clearer?
Comus 04-15-07, 01:47 AM	...What? Perhaps it is just me, but could you make what you are trying to say a bit clearer? He's trying to say that the definition of what a powerful character is depends on the game. For example, while a Druid is usually a very strong character, they are not so great in a pure-urban game. Fighters may rock people's socks at dealing damage, but in a courtly 'game of kings' type setting, their lack of social skills means they'll fall behind. But Clawhound, I'm not posing a false dichtomy - when building a character, you have to make decisions on what that build is going to be. The fact that there is a continuum of choices, not merely two for each option, doesn't matter. One option on that continuum of choices that equally fit a character concept (and note that there are almost always options that do not fit the character concept but are stronger) is the strongest option that you know of. This is choice A. All other options are weaker than choice A, by definition. Now, choice A fits the character concept just as well as all the other options. Why not choose A over B (the second best) or C (the third)? This is the part I don't understand well. I can understand choosing a concept where choice A is not all that great, like my above 'weaker concept' examples, but not choosing B or C. I'm probably being hard to understand. It's late at night. If I have time, and have confused everyone, I'll try reexplaining tomorrow. I apologize.
Maekrix_Waere 04-15-07, 01:53 AM	He's trying to say that the definition of what a powerful character is depends on the game. For example, while a Druid is usually a very strong character, they are not so great in a pure-urban game. Fighters may rock people's socks at dealing damage, but in a courtly 'game of kings' type setting, their lack of social skills means they'll fall behind. That's what I though he was saying...but it's always best to make sure... Also, about the Druid. I would like to direct you to Hero Craftsman #8 - The Urban Hero. Someone entered a druid in there, and it convinced me that druids are a viable choice in an Urban Setting.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 04-15-07, 03:28 AM	I'm not a saint, if I'm giving up my power I want to at least get something in exchange. Concept is a nice trade off. See though that is the entire point of not playing pun-pun. If all you wanted was power, then the only character you would play would be pun-pun, becuase that is the most powerful character. Another way of putting it would be to point out that there are other optimized concepts then the druid. Asuming a sane DM, does not allow pun-pun in the game, the druid would be the next best choice for most of the games out there*. But poeple do not always play druids. even in games werethey would normally be most effective. That is becuase they want to play a different concept, and at the same time be effective. For example: Sappose I wanted to play a monk/paladin concept. A holy warrior who fights for truth, honour, justice, and what is right. A warroir defouted to opposing evil, and sticking up for the little guy. Jacky Chan in Rumble in the Bronks. I could take monk training from the ECS. Or I could take ascetic knight from the CAV. Assuming both books are avaible there would be no reason flavour or other wise to take monk training from ECS. In what way is the concept 'weaker' when we are optimizing for the concept and not for power? I don't see it as that choice - I see it more like taking a choice between +3 on one skill and +2 on two skills. One is better if you need to specialize, the other is better if you want to be good at several things. There really aren't any options like the ones you describe, unless different source books have been compiled with different material that has not been properly cross-checked. Then, it's more likely the player chose what they were familiar with and didn't know about the other option - like picking Monk Training (ECS) to cross between Paladin and Monk freely when you could have chosen Ascetic Knight (CAdv), because you only access to the ECS. He isn't taking about feats that give lots of little bonuses vrs feats that give one big bonus. Negotiator gives +2 to diplomancy and bluff I believe. Negotiator effects multiple skills, so in this case would technically be better then skill focus, assuming the goal was a higher diplomancy, and bluff. However if the goal were only a high bluff, then skill focus would be better. When we say weaker concept we mean something that is mechaincally disadvantaged, but we want to play it regardless. such as a sorcerer orc, or finnesse fighter. Now however there are things we can do comsate for the inherent weakness in our concepts, while still staying in the flavour of them. Take for example the sorcerer orc. It has -2 to its primary spell casting state, and is a sorcerer. (Wizards being the stronger arcane caster.) But we can over come that a couple of ways. First put our highest stae in Cha so as to still be able to cast spells. Second we choose a casting style that boths fits with the orc style, and does not allow saves. Something like maybe combat buffs, and/or summons. If our stats generation method is high enough maybe dip a level or two of monk and go into enlightened fist. (This build would suver from MAD syndorm like no-ones business. Requiring high cha, dex, and moderate str con, and wis.) Another good example of this would the feat weapon finnesse. Mechanically speaking it easier to put everything into strength and con, and power attack for the win. However every now and again someone may want to play Zoro. Now we get the concpet of a weak character. This someone who intentially makes choices that are sub-optimal for no other reasons then they are sub-optimal. Take the orc sorcerer. Instead of putting their highest state in cha, they put their lowest, or second lowest. Next they go straight sorcerer, and take purely skill orientated feats. Now their left with a commonewr with a few bonuses to some skills, and maybe 1-2 level spells if they are lucky. I fail to sea how that fits any concept that would be anything but disruptive. Or trying to play a low stregnth, high dex melee fighter, and not taking weapon finnesse. or the best example would be having both the ECS, and CAV avaible. Playing a monk/paladin and choosing monk training over ascetic night. There really isn't a reason for it. * Granted the druid lags behind in amore socially or urban orientated games. In which case skills orientated characterw ould be the surperoir choice.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 04-15-07, 03:40 AM	No, you miss my meaning. My point is still the same though. Just as you can boil down a cook off to one opposed check. You can boil down a combat encounter to a series of dia rolls. With out the flavour they are both just as boring. My point is that you can not have D&D with both mechnics and flavour. To say that one is superoir to the other is like saying breathing is superoir to eating. You need both to live.
daggeroflath 04-15-07, 06:48 AM	My point is still the same though. Just as you can boil down a cook off to one opposed check. You can boil down a combat encounter to a series of dia rolls. With out the flavour they are both just as boring. No, you still don't understand what I'm saying. Ignore the lack of flavour I put in, that was because I was ignoring everything except for mechanics. I'm trying to say that an opposed skill check mechanic is boring and that there's little advantage to trying to include a new one. You can have as much flavour as you like in a cook off and it would be a wonderful scene. I don't think you get any extra benefit by including a single boring extra mechanic in amongst the flavour. You can make the winner of the contest the person who comes up with the best idea for a meal, rather than whoever has more luck flipping a polyhedron (since we can assume in most such contests, the serious contestants have near identical skill ratings). Oh... for the record using the word flavour talking about a cook off isn't intended as a pun, now, before and in the future. My point is that you can not have D&D with both mechnics and flavour. To say that one is superoir to the other is like saying breathing is superoir to eating. You need both to live. No, I absolutely agree. However not every situation needs a mechanic, (though pretty much every situation needs at least a little flavour). I don't think that cooking is ever a situation that needs a mechanic. Most flavour-based scenes don't require any mechanics. So why try building a character for one... just let mechanics focus on the mechanical aspects of the character.
Clawhound 04-15-07, 08:42 AM	He's trying to say that the definition of what a powerful character is depends on the game. For example, while a Druid is usually a very strong character, they are not so great in a pure-urban game. Fighters may rock people's socks at dealing damage, but in a courtly 'game of kings' type setting, their lack of social skills means they'll fall behind. But Clawhound, I'm not posing a false dichtomy - when building a character, you have to make decisions on what that build is going to be. The fact that there is a continuum of choices, not merely two for each option, doesn't matter. One option on that continuum of choices that equally fit a character concept (and note that there are almost always options that do not fit the character concept but are stronger) is the strongest option that you know of. This is choice A. All other options are weaker than choice A, by definition. Now, choice A fits the character concept just as well as all the other options. Why not choose A over B (the second best) or C (the third)? This is the part I don't understand well. I can understand choosing a concept where choice A is not all that great, like my above 'weaker concept' examples, but not choosing B or C. I'm probably being hard to understand. It's late at night. If I have time, and have confused everyone, I'll try reexplaining tomorrow. I apologize. The false dichotomy is that you have a strong choice, and all other choices are weaker. Let's change words. Rather than use strong or weak, let's use the words appropriate and inappropriate. First, we have players that refuse to make appropriate characters. They make inappropriate characters. These players tend to have issues. Even totally green players want to make appropriate choices, and try given their limited ability. These inappropriate players aren't reasonable, so let's not even talk about them. That brings us up to reasonable players who have varying levels of ignorance and expertise. Ignorant players will choose inappropriately at times. That's part of learning. It happens. Expert players are much better at choosing appropriately, but as the CO boards demonstrate, there's always room for improvement. These are reasonable players and the type of people that we want to talk about. So for this discussion, we are really talking about the range of appropriate choices within the player's limited knowledge. By definition, an appropriate choice is appropriate. It may be a +2 or +3, but both still ADD to the character's overall ability. Now, back to stronger and weaker. A +3 is a stronger choice than a +2, but +2 is not a weak choice. It is only a weaker choice in comparison to the +3. Now, I see if the +3 impacts anything else in my build. It may. That +3 may require another feat that knocks out an entire feat choice. That +3 may knock out my choice of prestige classes. That +3 may come with a downside that I know that the DM will throw at me. In general, once you are up to appropriate choices, these choices usually have tradeoffs beyond their mechanical effect.
kelvinaw273 04-15-07, 09:17 AM	Take for example the sorcerer orc. It has -2 to its primary spell casting state, and is a sorcerer. (Wizards being the stronger arcane caster.) But we can over come that a couple of ways. First put our highest stae in Cha so as to still be able to cast spells. Second we choose a casting style that boths fits with the orc style, and does not allow saves. Something like maybe combat buffs, and/or summons. If our stats generation method is high enough maybe dip a level or two of monk and go into enlightened fist. (This build would suver from MAD syndorm like no-ones business. Requiring high cha, dex, and moderate str con, and wis.) Another good example of this would the feat weapon finnesse. Mechanically speaking it easier to put everything into strength and con, and power attack for the win. However every now and again someone may want to play Zoro. Now we get the concpet of a weak character. This someone who intentially makes choices that are sub-optimal for no other reasons then they are sub-optimal. Take the orc sorcerer. Instead of putting their highest state in cha, they put their lowest, or second lowest. Next they go straight sorcerer, and take purely skill orientated feats. Now their left with a commonewr with a few bonuses to some skills, and maybe 1-2 level spells if they are lucky. I fail to sea how that fits any concept that would be anything but disruptive. Or trying to play a low stregnth, high dex melee fighter, and not taking weapon finnesse. or the best example would be having both the ECS, and CAV avaible. Playing a monk/paladin and choosing monk training over ascetic night. There really isn't a reason for it. (above edited for size) Ok, now I understand where you are coming from. I agree, it is dumb to take one feat when another does the same job better. In fact, using just ECS as character would have to take both Monk Training and Knight Training to make a Monk/Paladin that could flit between the two, while Ascetic Knight would do the job of both, and then some. This is as much an issue with games design as play, because the issues really shouldn't be cropping up. Given that they do, though, yes it's crazy. In fact the only reason for doing this so far as I can see is to bring down the power-level of the character for some reason. The Zoro concept is doable, using the Swashbuckler and Duelist classes, maybe some levels of rogue and some judicious feats, but it's much harder to do than the power-attacking barbarian with a greatsword style, no mistake. The half-orc sorcerer is doable as well, but needs to be juggled right. In actual fact I'll cry guilty to doing something similar with a Shifter Spirit-Shaman, as one of their casting stats is Charisma (Wisdom decides spell level limit and bonus spells, Charisma is for difficulty modifier) which a shifter receives a penalty to. On the other hand, with a 16 wisdom and a 14 charisma I can hold my own. It's a sub-optimal choice, but I liked the flavour and I'm making the most of what I can do with it now. Why? Because it is a challenge. I could have made a shifter druid much more easily, and more powerful; or I could have made a human Cleric just as easily and gone CoDzilla. To me that wasn't the point. A shaman was the head-space of a divine caster that I could get into, so that's what I went for. Nothing so sad as a priest you just can't believe in ...
Cardinal Teplin 04-15-07, 11:09 AM	No, I absolutely agree. However not every situation needs a mechanic, (though pretty much every situation needs at least a little flavour). I don't think that cooking is ever a situation that needs a mechanic. Most flavour-based scenes don't require any mechanics. So why try building a character for one... just let mechanics focus on the mechanical aspects of the character. Ah, because mechanics have an effect on the character beyond the merely mechanical. They are also descriptive. Let's take an example - the 'flavour cook-off', which somehow pits the PC against the king's chef. Who is going to win? Without any skills points put into it, does the GM really have any reason to let the PC win? Depending on the situation or the story, the PC might win, but in general, it's likely that, against someone who cooks for a living, he's going to lose. Note we're not talking a single opposed roll, just a quick sizing up of the two characters. A detailed character background about growing up in a kitchen might gain you some sympathy, but your character is an adventurer, not a cook, as claerly demonstrated by his stats. Now let's look at a character who has put, say, two ranks into cook, against that same king's chef. Suddenly, this guy is a contender. A background including cookery is not just a passing whim. We're not talking about someone who thinks that their character must be good at cooking, because they're a generally cool guy and good at everything. The player has thought about what his character can and can't do and what things he's particularly good at, and has chosen cookery as one of those things. He's only got two ranks, so he's not a closet masterchef, but there's definitely a possible win here. Character build choices are not just mechanical, and don't just have mechancial outcomes. 'Negotiator' is not just a way to get +2 to diplomacy, it's a way to show that the character is, in some way, a 'Negotiator'. Build choices aren't just a way of interacting with the mechanics, but also with the GM, and even the rest of the players.
daggeroflath 04-15-07, 11:26 AM	You have a very interesting take on things Cardinal and to a certain extent you have me convinced. However, including "pointless" skills, gives players the difficult choice between playing an effective character or a character with a lot of flavour. Allowing only skills which are combat/adventuring based and then letting people give their characters whatever quirks/flavour they desire means everyone can play an effective character and have a lot of flavour. Win/Win.
WayneTheGame 04-15-07, 11:38 AM	Once again I think the best idea would be to fix the mechanic to have Action/Background skills like Shadowrun has (or had, as I haven't played the 4th edition of that game), with seperate skill point pools for each. Action skills are the ones that are combat/adventuring based, and Background skills are pretty much anything the player wants that relates to his character (there's no list for them. So you could have like Fine Elven Wine, or Beer Brewing, or Thieves Guild Haunts, or anything else that fits your background). Thus, the chef character can put ranks into Cooking as a background skill, not "waste" his action skill points, and still be a contender for the Iron Chef match against the king's top chef. It would also allow for a lot more customization of characters, but alas I don't think it would ever happen :(
daggeroflath 04-15-07, 11:51 AM	Once again I think the best idea would be to fix the mechanic I was more defending the existing mechanic (D&D skills really are all "action" skills). And I object on philosophical grounds for having mechanical systems for purely flavour fluff.
kelvinaw273 04-15-07, 12:09 PM	I was more defending the existing mechanic (D&D skills really are all "action" skills). And I object on philosophical grounds for having mechanical systems for purely flavour fluff. And where does Action stop and Flavour begin? Character 1: My background is that I grew up in the kitchens of the manor house, and so my background skills are in Craft (Cooking) and Profession (Housekeeping). Character 2: Hmm, well, my background is as the son of a blacksmith, so my background skills are in Craft (Arms & Armour). Character 3: Woot! My character grew up on the streets as a pickpocket, so I get background skills in Sleight-of-hand, Open Locks, Hide, Sneak and Bluff! I'm sure you can see the problem here .... Flavour is never useless. Sometimes it isn't as usefull, but that's a different distinction. The fact that you address it as 'fluff' shows how much store you place by it. Like tailoring power levels, a good DM places events in the path of the characters (or fills out details the characters explore) that allow them to explore these avenues. The sub-plots may have no relation to the overall plot, but if they enhance the fun of the game they are worth doing.
Comus 04-15-07, 12:14 PM	So for this discussion, we are really talking about the range of appropriate choices within the player's limited knowledge. By definition, an appropriate choice is appropriate. It may be a +2 or +3, but both still ADD to the character's overall ability. This is true - there are, to my knowledge, few ways to actively make your character worse as he goes up in level. There are, however, a lot of ways to make him below (or above) the expected character strength (as represented by enemies of the appropriate CR). Now, back to stronger and weaker. A +3 is a stronger choice than a +2, but +2 is not a weak choice. It is only a weaker choice in comparison to the +3. Now, I see if the +3 impacts anything else in my build. It may. That +3 may require another feat that knocks out an entire feat choice. That +3 may knock out my choice of prestige classes. That +3 may come with a downside that I know that the DM will throw at me. In general, once you are up to appropriate choices, these choices usually have tradeoffs beyond their mechanical effect. See, but now you're attaching penalties to taking the +3. You still don't quite see what I'm trying to say, I think. Of all the mechanical choices you could pick to represent your character's abilities, one is the best. It might be the best because it has the right flavor attached already, because you like the mechanic it uses better, because it lets you get into a prestige class you want, or because it simply offers the largest bang for your buck. This is Choice A. All other options are worse than Choice A by definition. Choice A is the option that you, the player building the character, know is best - even if its by a small margin or purely due to personal preference. If you pick Choice A, then you are not building a weak character. You are building the best character that your concept and knowledge of the rules will allow. Note that Choice A is not just about the largest bonus to X. It is the best choice overall, with everything considered. Maybe you want to take that +2 instead, because it'll let you get into a prestige class later. Great! But now that you've established that the +2 has added value because of the prestige class, it is valued more than the bonus by itself. Is that yet clearer, or am I just getting more and more obtuse as I attempt to explain how I think?
daggeroflath 04-15-07, 12:29 PM	And where does Action stop and Flavour begin? When you stop rolling dice. Character 1: My background is that I grew up in the kitchens of the manor house, and so my background skills are in Craft (Cooking) and Profession (Housekeeping). Character 2: Hmm, well, my background is as the son of a blacksmith, so my background skills are in Craft (Arms & Armour). Character 3: Woot! My character grew up on the streets as a pickpocket, so I get background skills in Sleight-of-hand, Open Locks, Hide, Sneak and Bluff! Every skill that you listed there is from the PHB, since I was defending that system as exemplifying what I was describing they're all clearly "action" skills and thus not free. I'm sure you can see the problem here .... Nope. Flavour is never useless. No it's not. Flavour is wonderful... but it doesn't come from the rules. It comes from the imagination. The fact that you address it as 'fluff' shows how much store you place by it. No, someone just used that term earlier in the thread. I was sticking to one set of descriptors to avoid confusion. But I can see how that may have inadvertantly caused confusion instead. If I didn't place store in 'fluff' I'd play Hero's Quest. Instead I'm roleplaying. Like tailoring power levels, a good DM places events in the path of the characters (or fills out details the characters explore) that allow them to explore these avenues. The sub-plots may have no relation to the overall plot, but if they enhance the fun of the game they are worth doing. Worth doing, does not equate worth rolling dice for. If my peasant-raised fighter sweeps up around the house we're staying at, while the arrogant nobleman mage sticks his (dusty) feet up on the table and swigs brandy, that's flavour... I don't want to roll my "sweep floor" skill, while the mage rolls his "hold liquor" skill in order to roleplay through that scene though. I'm much happier if I say "yeah, my character's used to cleaning up so I'm going to get the place nice and tidy." ... Crunch affects everyone, it's statistical, it's numerical and it's important to determine, so you roll dice. Fluff affects your own conception of your character. It's not nice to mess with a PCs sense of self-identity by having the character fail to live up to their background, by making them do skill checks that they could fail. Let me play my character's personality without random chance intervening.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 04-15-07, 02:12 PM	Flavour is never useless. Sometimes it isn't as usefull, but that's a different distinction. The fact that you address it as 'fluff' shows how much store you place by it. Like tailoring power levels, a good DM places events in the path of the characters (or fills out details the characters explore) that allow them to explore these avenues. The sub-plots may have no relation to the overall plot, but if they enhance the fun of the game they are worth doing. This is entirely up to the DMing style. In the type of game i run you would be absolutley correct in assuming that your skills would come into play. Assuming I know you have them. For example if you had max ranks in craft cooking I would find a way to make that the solution to a problem, further more i would do it often. However if the wrold is a status quo world then whats in the campaign worl is already there long before you make your character. Same is true for the encounters in any given area. In this case what you have build in terms of a character may, or may not be adiquiet to answaer the challenges. If it is great you'lkl do well. If it is not then you'll die. When you stop rolling dice. Not nessesarily. Take for example the barbarians rage ability. mechanically it makes you stronger, and tougher. Flavourfully you'll flying into a bezerker rage. here the fluff happens as your rolling the dice. The same would be true for just about everytime you roll. Either your: "I attack the goblin. My attack role is a 12. My strength modifier is +4, and my base attack bonus is +1. For a total attack check result of 18." ------or------- "I swing my sword at the goblin trying to kill me! *roll dice* 18, does that hit the bugger?" Every skill that you listed there is from the PHB, since I was defending that system as exemplifying what I was describing they're all clearly "action" skills and thus not free. thats the problem with D&Ds task resolution system. Everything you do is technically an action of some kind. If i write into my background that I'm a silvered tonged smooth talker. Then i should represent that physically with either a highish (at a positive modifier) and/or ranks in bluff/diplomancy. The DM could grant me negotiator as a bonus feet, but that technically is not in the RAW. Simmiliarily if I write into my background that I was once a professional chef, I should represent that with ranks in profession chef. I am not obligated to continue putting ranks in there as I am no longer pursueing that career. However if professional chef is in my concept, then ranks in the skill profession chef would be a better fit then ranks in spot. Even though spot is the mechanically strong choice, it is not however the more flavourful choice. No it's not. Flavour is wonderful... but it doesn't come from the rules. It comes from the imagination. No arguement here. I would add that the rules come from it. Sappose that i wanted a character who could channel the power of his ansestors for improved martial ability. but doing so left him more vulnerable to physical attack. Yet better able to resist mental attacks. Now i don't know of a channel ansestor ability that fits that discription. (Although sure there is something close in a splat book somewere) I could however reflavour the ability rage. I'm not changing anything mechanically about it. Instead of going into a bezerker rage, I'm calling on the power of my ansestors to aid me in combat. No, someone just used that term earlier in the thread. I was sticking to one set of descriptors to avoid confusion. But I can see how that may have inadvertantly caused confusion instead. Fluff is not a derogitory term in anyway. Crunch represent the numbers. While fluff represents the flavour. For example smite: crunch = cha bonus to attack, pally level to damage. Fluff = calling on devine power to smite your enemies. Worth doing, does not equate worth rolling dice for. If my peasant-raised fighter sweeps up around the house we're staying at, while the arrogant nobleman mage sticks his (dusty) feet up on the table and swigs brandy, that's flavour... I don't want to roll my "sweep floor" skill, while the mage rolls his "hold liquor" skill in order to roleplay through that scene though. I'm much happier if I say "yeah, my character's used to cleaning up so I'm going to get the place nice and tidy." That all depends on the level of abstraction you want. I had a player get really ****** off at me becuase I made her make her profession sailour checks to controll a ship during a sea battle. She felt that becuase she was a professional sea capatin she should be able to just make the ship go were she wants it to go, regardless of conditions. Sometimes its ok to say, yaa you just do something. other times you need to make a check for it. this will all depend on the situation, the DM, and the group. Crunch affects everyone, it's statistical, it's numerical and it's important to determine, so you roll dice. Fluff is the same way. Ahain we will use a diplomancy roll. crunch. Dip check verse attitude of the NPC, vrs DC to improve. fluff: Smoth taking the bartender into letting stay at the inn for free. or conning the castle guard into letting you in the castle. Talking your way out of spending the night in prison. Both situation will effect the game. Crunch is just the numbers behind the task resolution. Fluff is what is going on. Fluff affects your own conception of your character. It's not nice to mess with a PCs sense of self-identity by having the character fail to live up to their background, by making them do skill checks that they could fail. Let me play my character's personality without random chance intervening. Sometimes we fail at doing things we're good at. If there is a chance to fail the check result, and your in a situation were you can't simplely take 10 or 20 then it is apropriate to have you role the check. The cook off is a good example. If you are in an iron chef compoition against the kings chef, and there is a prize on the line then you should make that check. regardless of what your backstory says. You may fail it, and that would suck, but hey if your really the master chef you are pretending to be then the mechanics will be there for you. In the from of ranks in the skill. It would kinda be like me saying that becuase I wrote into my backstory that i am a professional westler. that is party of my personality. There for I shouldn't have to make opposed grapple checks.
kelvinaw273 04-15-07, 02:22 PM	No it's not. Flavour is wonderful... but it doesn't come from the rules. It comes from the imagination. But it should be reflected in the mechanics of the build. I maintain, if you can put skill-points into it, it isn't useless. Skills like Craft and Profession are there for these reasons, and there are times when flavour skills that are quantifiable can come to the crunch time and be worth rolling for. Crunch affects everyone, it's statistical, it's numerical and it's important to determine, so you roll dice. Fluff affects your own conception of your character. It's not nice to mess with a PCs sense of self-identity by having the character fail to live up to their background, by making them do skill checks that they could fail. Let me play my character's personality without random chance intervening. But it can also be nice to find that your character's background has suddenly become relevant to everyone, that you are the one guy who, by some quirk of fate, can save the day. If you don't want to blow things with the dice roll, let me point out that with skills you can 'take ten' and 'take twenty'. Sweeping the floor isn't worthy of a die roll in any system (well, not unless the floor is trapped or something, or your trying to use a broom of flying while singing a song that contains the activation command word, but I digress), but your wizard who is a connoisseur of brandy may get a check to notice he has been sold slightly inferior stuff, or that the taste isn't quite what it should be. Bottom line for me, a few skill points are not a high price to pay for some characterization. If your DM is worth his salt he place challenges that apply to your character just as he'll tailor foes to suit your power level.
Comus 04-15-07, 02:34 PM	But it should be reflected in the mechanics of the build. I maintain, if you can put skill-points into it, it isn't useless. Skills like Craft and Profession are there for these reasons, and there are times when flavour skills that are quantifiable can come to the crunch time and be worth rolling for. Agreed. If the system allows you to put skill points into it, then there is a place for it in the game. For instance, Forgery - almost a useless skill in many games, yet in the last game I was in, I used some forged papers to have a small cadre of my enemies arrested and hanged. It was a lot easier than confronting them fairly. Decypher Script is pretty useless in a lot of games, too, but if you're investigating ruins and there's a mysteriously glowing door with runes carved into the wall next to it... well, you'll either be glad you spent the points or cursing that you didn't. Bottom line for me, a few skill points are not a high price to pay for some characterization. If your DM is worth his salt he place challenges that apply to your character just as he'll tailor foes to suit your power level. Skill points are cheap. Unless you need every point you get to qualify for prestige classes, you can probably afford to toss a few at an odd skill or two. Even as someone who tends to powergame a lot, I spend skill points pretty freely - my rogue/beguiler has a few ranks in Preform (dance) and Preform (oratory), for example.
daggeroflath 04-15-07, 02:40 PM	Not nessesarily. Take for example the barbarians rage ability. mechanically it makes you stronger, and tougher. Flavourfully you'll flying into a bezerker rage. here the fluff happens as your rolling the dice. The same would be true for just about everytime you roll. I was trying to be glib damnit. However if professional chef is in my concept, then ranks in the skill profession chef would be a better fit then ranks in spot. Even though spot is the mechanically strong choice, it is not however the more flavourful choice. The difference between Profession: cook, and being able to cook is that profession: cook allows you to make money by performing that action. Fluff-wise it describes a knowledge of the professional culture, applying for jobs in the field, understanding the clientele of particular establishments and many other things than raw talent at cooking. According to the RAW your character can be talented at many mundane things (such as cooking a meal for your friends over the campfire) without ever spending a single skill point. Proffession as a skill is merely a license to channel time into gp in a flavourful way. No arguement here. I would add that the rules come from it. Absolutely agreed. That all depends on the level of abstraction you want. I had a player get really ****** off at me becuase I made her make her profession sailour checks to controll a ship during a sea battle. She felt that becuase she was a professional sea capatin she should be able to just make the ship go were she wants it to go, regardless of conditions. Technically, that's not a function of the profession: sailor skill. I'm just saying as RAW goes... that the level of abstraction is actually quite firmly established. I happen to agree with the level that they have, I think it's perfect for the "traditional D&D game" and you can adjust it to suit your own individual campaign. The cook off is a good example. If you are in an iron chef compoition against the kings chef, and there is a prize on the line then you should make that check. D&D doesn't include cookoffs in its mechanics, this isn't to say that you can't find room for one in your game, but if you're expecting them to play a large role then it is certainly not a passive background skill. In 99.99% of games, where there will never ever be an iron chef challenge, it's sufficient for a person to just write into their background that they're a good cook. (not a professional one because that would require the proffession skill). There for I shouldn't have to make opposed grapple checks. No, you're right, I'd let you take 10 :P (Kidding by the way, I know how mechanically effective letting someone take ten in combat can be)
Cael 04-15-07, 04:25 PM	The false dichotomy is that you have a strong choice, and all other choices are weaker. Let's change words. Rather than use strong or weak, let's use the words appropriate and inappropriate. First, we have players that refuse to make appropriate characters. They make inappropriate characters. These players tend to have issues. Even totally green players want to make appropriate choices, and try given their limited ability. These inappropriate players aren't reasonable, so let's not even talk about them. That brings us up to reasonable players who have varying levels of ignorance and expertise. Ignorant players will choose inappropriately at times. That's part of learning. It happens. Expert players are much better at choosing appropriately, but as the CO boards demonstrate, there's always room for improvement. These are reasonable players and the type of people that we want to talk about. So for this discussion, we are really talking about the range of appropriate choices within the player's limited knowledge. By definition, an appropriate choice is appropriate. It may be a +2 or +3, but both still ADD to the character's overall ability. Now, back to stronger and weaker. A +3 is a stronger choice than a +2, but +2 is not a weak choice. It is only a weaker choice in comparison to the +3. Now, I see if the +3 impacts anything else in my build. It may. That +3 may require another feat that knocks out an entire feat choice. That +3 may knock out my choice of prestige classes. That +3 may come with a downside that I know that the DM will throw at me. In general, once you are up to appropriate choices, these choices usually have tradeoffs beyond their mechanical effect. There are two things here to be addressed. The first is the use of appropriate and inappropriate. The fact is that the primadonna drama queens always bring forward inappropriate characters, and then moan about how everyone else are powergamers that are destroying their fun (see any number of threads in this and the DM board). They never think about how it is they who are destroying everyone *elses'* fun. Why? Because they are the roleplayers, and everyone else are powergamers. This has happened right here in this thread, as my Half-Orc Wizard "test" has shown. Now, I have two thoughts about this: 1) Compare the two instances of inappropriate in a fair and equitable manner, or you really have no leg to stand on because you are trying to compare the Pacific Ocean with the USS Enterprise and claim that one is better than the other. 2) If you *chose* to play a weakling Half-Orc Commoner with Skill Focus: Underwater Basketweaving, then don't make a fuss when everyone else regard you as the local speedbump and comic relief. It is your choice, so live with it. What I can't stand are the drama queens that deliberately make useless characters and then start whinging about how everybody is overpowered and aren't roleplaying. As if their uber fugly overweight stupid, naive, one-legged, blind, deaf, no-armed Half-Orc commoner with broken teeth and BO (i.e., all stats below 5) can be considered roleplaying and not slapstick sitcom. The second thing is the assumption that you are giving something up for a bonus. This is generally not the case, especially when you are talking about PrCs, which are based on base stats, not total bonuses.
Cardinal Teplin 04-15-07, 07:23 PM	However, including "pointless" skills, gives players the difficult choice between playing an effective character or a character with a lot of flavour. Absolutely. Which means you need to very carefully balance how much your character is sticking to their history and justifiable experiences, and how much you are simply trying to construct competant adventurers. It doesn't matter where you draw the line, so long as the group draws it in more or less the same place. Allowing only skills which are combat/adventuring based and then letting people give their characters whatever quirks/flavour they desire means everyone can play an effective character and have a lot of flavour. Win/Win. Not exactly, since your flavour will be purely that, and will have no mechanical effect on the game. You can describe your character as a good cook, but he won't have the ranks to back it up if the distinction actually comes to mean something. But in essence you get the same amount of win/win wherever you draw the line, just so long as everyone is drawing in more or less the same place. If you don't then you get some characters who have more invested in their background and tend to be less effective mechanically, others who have ignored their background and gone for the best possible in terms of power. Cue arguments between powergamers and drama queens. It's not the whole story by any means, but it's going to happen whenever you get people who havn't played together before. If you are the new guy, as the OP was, you may even get blamed for getting it 'wrong'. You get similar arguements over how many supplement books to use. Some groups limit them, so that not everyone has to be familiar with every book or feel that they are at some kind of disadvantage, while other people have invested vast amounts of time and money in various supplements, and want to be able to use that. It doesn't matter where you draw the line, but it does need to be drawn, or you'll end up with arguments. (Eg when I turn up to your vanilla fantasy game with gunpowder weapons, or with a divine bloodline from the Birthright setting, or as a kobold mpropounding a build that gives me ultimate power so long as you don't question the somewhat shaky assumptions that go into it.)
Daydreamer 04-15-07, 08:31 PM	You have a very interesting take on things Cardinal and to a certain extent you have me convinced. However, including "pointless" skills, gives players the difficult choice between playing an effective character or a character with a lot of flavour. Allowing only skills which are combat/adventuring based and then letting people give their characters whatever quirks/flavour they desire means everyone can play an effective character and have a lot of flavour. Win/Win. I dont view it like this, granted this is your take on things and that is fine, but 'effective' in our gaming world would be more the so called 'fluff skills' than the combat ones. So your already showing a play style by characterizing them like that. Granted im doing the opposite. We dont disregard fluff skills because they 'interfere' with a character concept, rather they represent it. For example, as someone observed:'if my background is a cook-therefore im good at cooking, thats my characters flavour dont leave it up to dice...then why not: IN my background i was a soldier, im really good at combat, don't make me roll to hit, dont let chance interfere my character.' Rather such a pc would 'invest' in combat skills to represent this, well if i was a cook, id invest in cooking to represent this. So its the same thing in my eyes, but play with whatever conventions you wish. But we play with the roleplaying mechanic not only in effect, but we primarly invest skill points to these tasks as they come up more often than combat based scenarios. As such, relative to the style of game we play they are 'the effective' skills. To comus: your 'test' with the half orc was an example of one particular way of playing, others have been suggested not least by me. YOu keep insisting that all 'we' do is whine about roleplayers having their fun ruined, while powergamers arent mentioned as having their fun ruined. 'We' have already said- in fact explicitately expressed-that yes, sometimes powergamers have there fun ruined. My 'rejection' of your half orc situatoin, was to show you another way of doing things, not to show ur way as invalid. Im not asking you to play the way i play, im trying to get you to see how i view situations differently bc of how i view the game differently. No way is invalid.
Daydreamer 04-15-07, 09:37 PM	Strawman argument (and it was me, not Comus, by the way). I give a scenario and you jump right in with "but it is OK because the Half-Orc is with a bunch of primadonnas". Given the test, it was a ludicruous thing for you to come up out of the blue with your alternative "scenario" (a "scenario", by the way, which you did not mention as such until I revealed that you failed the test), and the tone of your post did not include the possibility of an alternative scenario. In fact, the tone was as a refutation of my little test. Thus, stop trying to make yourself look less of a fool by trying to change what you did. You are most definitely not fooling me. I see right through your back-pedalling and rear-end covering. actually what i said was that while your correct that optimizing a 'not mecanically advantageous concept' like the half orc wizards makes him balanced with regular characters, its also true that not optimizing a half orc character makes him equal with non optimized off beat choices like a halfing fighter. It was too show that even in these circumstances optimization isnt necessary-ofc one can do so.
Cael 04-15-07, 11:13 PM	actually what i said was that while your correct that optimizing a 'not mecanically advantageous concept' like the half orc wizards makes him balanced with regular characters, its also true that not optimizing a half orc character makes him equal with non optimized off beat choices like a halfing fighter. It was too show that even in these circumstances optimization isnt necessary-ofc one can do so. The main thrust of your post was on the fact that the Half-Orc Wizard need not optimise due to the fact that he will be travelling with a Halfling Fighter, et al., and the DM will be pulling punches because it is a group of primadonnas. All I can say to that is "be glad that I am not your DM, because I don't care what your character's gimp factor is, I give a minimum of equal CR, if not CR+1, for every encounter you will face." If it ends up in TPK because of primadonna tendencies, and/or one guy keeps getting sent to the boneyard because of the same, tough. If you can't even follow book recommendations, then you deserve to be a speedbump on that Kobold Wizard's race to level 5 (or is it 3 these days?).
Clawhound 04-15-07, 11:24 PM	There are two things here to be addressed. The first is the use of appropriate and inappropriate. The fact is that the primadonna drama queens always bring forward inappropriate characters, and then moan about how everyone else are powergamers that are destroying their fun (see any number of threads in this and the DM board). They never think about how it is they who are destroying everyone *elses'* fun. Why? Because they are the roleplayers, and everyone else are powergamers. This has happened right here in this thread, as my Half-Orc Wizard "test" has shown. Now, I have two thoughts about this: 1) Compare the two instances of inappropriate in a fair and equitable manner, or you really have no leg to stand on because you are trying to compare the Pacific Ocean with the USS Enterprise and claim that one is better than the other. 2) If you *chose* to play a weakling Half-Orc Commoner with Skill Focus: Underwater Basketweaving, then don't make a fuss when everyone else regard you as the local speedbump and comic relief. It is your choice, so live with it. What I can't stand are the drama queens that deliberately make useless characters and then start whinging about how everybody is overpowered and aren't roleplaying. As if their uber fugly overweight stupid, naive, one-legged, blind, deaf, no-armed Half-Orc commoner with broken teeth and BO (i.e., all stats below 5) can be considered roleplaying and not slapstick sitcom. The second thing is the assumption that you are giving something up for a bonus. This is generally not the case, especially when you are talking about PrCs, which are based on base stats, not total bonuses. Let me quote myself: "First, we have players that refuse to make appropriate characters. They make inappropriate characters. These players tend to have issues... These inappropriate players aren't reasonable, so let's not even talk about them." I choose to not talk about such players because those players aren't worth my time. Now, back to the rest of your response: Let me be more blunt: being asked to leave a game that you want to play in is the penultimate in sub-optimal play. If my choices are to power-down my play, or leave the game, then the optimal character is a less powerful character QED. Rules of Optimizing: 1. In order to be effective, you must first be IN THE GAME. 2. In order to remain effective, you must remain IN THE GAME. 3. When you are not in a game, you are 100% INEFFECTIVE. That's it. That is what I think that you are missing.
Greg K 04-15-07, 11:24 PM	All I can say to that is "be glad that I am not your DM, because I don't care what your character's gimp factor is, I give a minimum of equal CR, if not CR+1, for every encounter you will face." . I am glad you are not my DM. Go back to the DMG and reread the section on CR until you actually grasp the concept of how CR is meant to work.
Daydreamer 04-15-07, 11:41 PM	Its obvious comus that we wouldnt have a good time playing with each other. I don't think youd like my dming either. So yes i am glad your not my dm, and i am glad i have one who sees the game the same way i do and that we have fun. I hope you have fun playing the way you like. Though, if you always dm above the cr its obvious your pcs 'have' to play within the framework you choose just to survive, so i do hope your playing with people who agree with you ;)
Gemstone 04-16-07, 01:47 AM	Though, if you always dm above the cr its obvious your pcs 'have' to play within the framework you choose just to survive, so i do hope your playing with people who agree with you ;) Could also be the other way around. His players are so powerful that he has to increase the challenges just to pose a threat to them. This happened to me in one game, which IMO, was completly riduculus.
kelvinaw273 04-16-07, 03:09 AM	The first is the use of appropriate and inappropriate. The fact is that the primadonna drama queens always bring forward inappropriate characters, and then moan about how everyone else are powergamers that are destroying their fun (see any number of threads in this and the DM board). They never think about how it is they who are destroying everyone *elses'* fun. Why? Because they are the roleplayers, and everyone else are powergamers. This has happened right here in this thread, as my Half-Orc Wizard "test" has shown. Where, exactly, are these threads? I have seen a number of threads on the lines of "my optimized character outshone the rest of the group and they accused me of powergaming", and "I have a reputation of a powergamer because I make characters that are cool and violent and always do things their way" but these aren't examples of primadonnas and drama queens causing a problem - the new player in the group is not adapting his play style to that used by the group and disrupting their game, and in extreme cases acting like a bully and an asshat by trying to force everyone to play his or her way. Now I am not saying that a 'drama queen' can't disrupt a game, because they can, but they tend to be easier to deal with because their characters quickly die off in power-oriented games and they lose interest and leave, so we just don't hear about them on the boards so much. All I can say to that is "be glad that I am not your DM, because I don't care what your character's gimp factor is, I give a minimum of equal CR, if not CR+1, for every encounter you will face." If it ends up in TPK because of primadonna tendencies, and/or one guy keeps getting sent to the boneyard because of the same, tough. If you can't even follow book recommendations, then you deserve to be a speedbump on that Kobold Wizard's race to level 5 (or is it 3 these days?). Different styles, different games. Personally I choose to actually read the sections on CR in the DMG, and treat D&D as role-playing game and not a tactical war-game, but if you and your group are having fun, good for you.
Clawhound 04-16-07, 07:32 AM	This is what I meant by "appropriate". In a CR+1 style game, you get different appropriate characters and playstyles than a game with 8xCR-6 to 1xCR (which is the default CR range). Likewise, groups have playstyles. They favor different elements of the game in different ways. I posit that optimizing is making the best character that you can within the rules. Optimal is not an ivory tower exercise in character design. (Many in the CO boards admit that their character are ivory tower constructs, and they would never play such a character in an actual game.) When the DM poses new rules, these rules change what makes a "best" character. If a DM places a limit on optimization, then there is a limit, and optimizing past the limit is sub-optimal. Likewise, if the DM raises the challenge level, underoptimizing is suboptimal. House rules and group playstyle are rules just as much as the rules in the book. If you do not account for those rules, you can not make an optimal character for that game.
Comus 04-16-07, 12:13 PM	Its obvious comus that we wouldnt have a good time playing with each other. I don't think youd like my dming either. So yes i am glad your not my dm, and i am glad i have one who sees the game the same way i do and that we have fun. I hope you have fun playing the way you like. Though, if you always dm above the cr its obvious your pcs 'have' to play within the framework you choose just to survive, so i do hope your playing with people who agree with you ;) Why the heck do you keep attributing other people's statements to me?
daggeroflath 04-16-07, 12:58 PM	Not exactly, since your flavour will be purely that, and will have no mechanical effect on the game. If it has a mechanical effect on the game, then clearly it's not just flavour. You can describe your character as a good cook, but he won't have the ranks to back it up if the distinction actually comes to mean something. Do you think this is likely? If cooking is a vital skill to adventurers in your world, then it deserves a skill attached to it and you should create one. But in essence you get the same amount of win/win wherever you draw the line, just so long as everyone is drawing in more or less the same place. I draw the lines at the RAW. It tends to be a pretty good spot to get the players compomising on. If you don't then you get some characters who have more invested in their background and tend to be less effective mechanically, others who have ignored their background and gone for the best possible in terms of power. Though I'd certainly agree that it's possible for a character's background to get in the way of mechanical effectiveness, it's not required and definitely not unavoidable. You really can have your cake (background) and eat it too (mechanical effectiveness) without missing out on either side of things. You get similar arguements over how many supplement books to use. One really awesome idea I've seen, is that the core rulebooks are included by default, then each person at the table (including the DM) can chose an extra book that they want to include. The campaign is then built from the info in those books only. Can't remember where I saw it though.
daggeroflath 04-16-07, 01:08 PM	I dont view it like this, granted this is your take on things and that is fine Oh naturally, but this discussion isn't going very far if we just say "Yeah, we're both right" and leave it at that. (Though for the record I think that we are... I'm just a little more right :P) but 'effective' in our gaming world would be more the so called 'fluff skills' than the combat ones. So your already showing a play style by characterizing them like that. Granted im doing the opposite. I think that there may be some confusion here, maybe something I said gave the wrong impression... however there are no fluff skills in D&D. So I'm not sure what I'm showing by "characterizing" skills as fluff skills, since IMO there are none. (You might have been confused by a brief aside I had with someone about shadowrun, or far more likely, I said something stupid.) IN my background i was a soldier, im really good at combat, don't make me roll to hit, dont let chance interfere my character.' Because D&D has a BAB and doesn't have a cooking skill, so you'd be breaking the rules. (House rules not withstanding). As such, relative to the style of game we play they are 'the effective' skills. What skills are you talking about?
Daydreamer 04-16-07, 03:30 PM	Why the heck do you keep attributing other people's statements to me? lol bc i was really tired and at work, so i didnt double check, my apologies. to:daggerofflath WE do use some houserules for 'fluff' skills. Also, i was tired at the time and got the impression you might have intended to include a broader range of skills in your analysis. Including perhaps some of the skills actually found in the PHB. If that is not the case, then i dont really have much of an issue with your piont. only to say that whatever the dm rules needs a roll ends up by default having a mechanical effect on the game. the only question being whether one wishs to include such rolls, or not.
Daydreamer 04-16-07, 04:04 PM	sounds a bit like dm vs pc, or dm railroading to me, however: Play as you wish, but the dm is effecitevely 'always pulling her punch' against the pcs, you want your pcs to be 'stronger'. The truth is that our pcs are 'stronger' relative to most of the npcs and the world does view us as heros not zeros, its only bc we are that strong relative to the world. I do feel my pc is a hero in the world and way we play. What dms need to realize is that when you make the world stronger, that the pcs become zeros-its not something inherent in how strong the pcs are. At any rate, in a way your right its this 'primadona's' fault the group nearly died, because he is playing in a game that isnt running the way he plays. He is, it sounds like, the out of place one. I wouldn thave his problem though, when i saw the type of game you want to run, id politely excuse myself from the table. Which would probably be better for both u and me.
Cael 04-16-07, 04:12 PM	Where, exactly, are these threads? I have seen a number of threads on the lines of "my optimized character outshone the rest of the group and they accused me of powergaming", and "I have a reputation of a powergamer because I make characters that are cool and violent and always do things their way" but these aren't examples of primadonnas and drama queens causing a problem - the new player in the group is not adapting his play style to that used by the group and disrupting their game, and in extreme cases acting like a bully and an asshat by trying to force everyone to play his or her way. Now I am not saying that a 'drama queen' can't disrupt a game, because they can, but they tend to be easier to deal with because their characters quickly die off in power-oriented games and they lose interest and leave, so we just don't hear about them on the boards so much. Different styles, different games. Personally I choose to actually read the sections on CR in the DMG, and treat D&D as role-playing game and not a tactical war-game, but if you and your group are having fun, good for you. The Half-Orc Wizard? It is *in* this thread. Go back a few pages or 10. The problem I have with drama queens is not that they disrupt the game. As you said, they tend to become dead pretty fast. The problem I have with them is their martyr syndrome. Like certain real world sects, they are fine when they tell people what to do, but when they run afoul of things, they start whinging up a storm. Then they escalate it to the media (i.e., here in these boards) and they start throwing around terms like "munchkins", "powergamers", etc. They never accept that they are he problem by insisting on bringing their primadonna characters to a table. They never accept that if they make choices, they must accept the consequences. They never believe that the word "responsibility" should be in their vocabulary. That, ultimately, is my problem with them. Roleplaying is a shield behind which people with inferiority complexes hide. You are commiting the Stormwind Fallacy. There is nothing wrong with playing heroes and roleplaying, as they are two different things. You make and plan your character away from the table. You roleplay *at* the table. Those that say they are linked in anyway have no leg to stand on other than their own speculations, which, by the way, are not facts. I can equally be a good mathematician and a good actor/storyteller (in fact, I know I am, as I have written and published several short stories, the first of which was at age 10, and I represented my old high school in the National Maths Champs). And I certainly don't believe that I am that unusual a specimen where the human race is concerned. There isn't a link between the two that affects the other in any way. In fact, I believe that several good actors have good degrees. Danica McKellar, for example, has a mathematical theory named after her. Rowan Atkinson is an Engineering graduate. Jodie Foster has a degree from a prestigious university (Harvard? I forgot). Yet the notion that there is a link between good mathematics and good acting skills is perpetuated on this board, and the proponents of this illogical theory somehow managed to make it seem so reasonable that they have suckered people into believing them. It is like watching the greenies spout their "environmental" message all over again...
Leo 04-16-07, 04:23 PM	It should work both ways. A player who plays a weak character in relation to the party can't really complain when he's slaughtered in battle. However, the group shouldn't also complain if the player makes a weak character but doesn't complain when it gets defeated in battle and takes everything in a good mood. Some people just don't have fun trying to make a effecient build and are perfectly happy going around shooting trying to hack stuff and roleplaying as good as they can, bothering only about class choices when they level up. And honestly, it's almost impossible to make a completely useless character. Even a commoner can go around shooting crossbows, droping caltrops, throwing alchemist's fire, taking the wounded out of the way, etc, etc. You can't really enforce someone to optimize. What are you going to do? Kill his character whenever he makes a suboptimal choice?:P
Cael 04-16-07, 04:37 PM	It should work both ways. A player who plays a weak character in relation to the party can't really complain when he's slaughtered in battle. However, the group shouldn't also complain if the player makes a weak character but doesn't complain when it gets defeated in battle and takes everything in a good mood. Some people just don't have fun trying to make a effecient build and are perfectly happy going around shooting trying to hack stuff and roleplaying as good as they can, bothering only about class choices when they level up. And honestly, it's almost impossible to make a completely useless character. Even a commoner can go around shooting crossbows, droping caltrops, throwing alchemist's fire, taking the wounded out of the way, etc, etc. You can't really enforce someone to optimize. What are you going to do? Kill his character whenever he makes a suboptimal choice?:P Enforce the "lose 1 level when you die" rule everytime he dies. Which should soon reduce him to below effective levels.
Clawhound 04-16-07, 04:51 PM	The problem I have with drama queens is not that they disrupt the game. In fact, that is exactly what you say they do by not contributing. Players who don't take direction from the DM and their tablemates are problem players. The problem is their self-centered inflexibility, be it towards overpowered or underpowered characters.
Cael 04-16-07, 04:53 PM	In fact, that is exactly what you say they do by not contributing. Players who don't take direction from the DM and their tablemates are problem players. The problem is their self-centered inflexibility, be it towards overpowered or underpowered characters. Yes, that is a problem, but that is not the problem I have with them :) Two different things, as I have no problems having a weak guy at the table, so long as he doesn't whine about being weak and how everyone else are cheesy munchkins.
Daydreamer 04-16-07, 04:56 PM	i dont have to whine about 'being weak' because i play with ppl who also play the game the way i do, so im on par. its a non factor.
weepingminotaur 04-16-07, 04:57 PM	Wow, guys. The entire D&D game can reasonably be quantified as a set of rules for roleplaying that you should adhere to only if it makes sense for the DM, the players, and the overall group style. It's not the Bible. It's not written in stone. That's why game modifications exist, that's why variant rules and expanded sourcebooks exist, that's why the whole D&D canon is peppered with disclaimer statements that constantly urge you to check the tastes and playing style of your group against the RAW and come up with a successful amalgamation of both. I'm baffled by members who, not satisfied with playing their game the way they want it, have to posit the existence of some baseline objective standard of gaming that so-called 'drama queens' are failing to meet, just so they can say, "You play your way. BUT MY WAY IS THE BEST!!! AND YOU ARE INFERIOR!!!" That's pretty adolescent behaviour. Then again, maybe some of you are adolescents. If so, I can see and understand where the rigidity, dogmatism, insecurity, and veiled personal attacks come from. If you're older, though, I'm amazed that your life experience hasn't taught you to ease off on the moral rectitude, especially in a game like D&D, which, for the rest of us, is just a fun hobby.
Daydreamer 04-16-07, 05:04 PM	thanks weeping, thats exactly what im trying to say.
Cael 04-16-07, 06:17 PM	Wow, guys. The entire D&D game can reasonably be quantified as a set of rules for roleplaying that you should adhere to only if it makes sense for the DM, the players, and the overall group style. It's not the Bible. It's not written in stone. That's why game modifications exist, that's why variant rules and expanded sourcebooks exist, that's why the whole D&D canon is peppered with disclaimer statements that constantly urge you to check the tastes and playing style of your group against the RAW and come up with a successful amalgamation of both. I'm baffled by members who, not satisfied with playing their game the way they want it, have to posit the existence of some baseline objective standard of gaming that so-called 'drama queens' are failing to meet, just so they can say, "You play your way. BUT MY WAY IS THE BEST!!! AND YOU ARE INFERIOR!!!" That's pretty adolescent behaviour. Then again, maybe some of you are adolescents. If so, I can see and understand where the rigidity, dogmatism, insecurity, and veiled personal attacks come from. If you're older, though, I'm amazed that your life experience hasn't taught you to ease off on the moral rectitude, especially in a game like D&D, which, for the rest of us, is just a fun hobby. And the drama queens are not doing exactly that when they come here and moan about the "powergamers"? Please. The optimisers are giving the prima donnas exactly a taste of their own medication. But it is, of course, totally understandable that you think that it is OK for the drama queens to do so, but not the optimisers. After all, the optimisers are not playing the game correctly, are they? :rolleyes:
Cardinal Teplin 04-16-07, 06:37 PM	Though I'd certainly agree that it's possible for a character's background to get in the way of mechanical effectiveness, it's not required and definitely not unavoidable. You really can have your cake (background) and eat it too (mechanical effectiveness) without missing out on either side of things. Depends on the game you play, surely? In some games, where the focus is very much on the minor details that make a character feel more three-dimensional, you may end up missing out if your attributes don't reflect that level of detail, or if you limit yourself to details that also make good combat builds. I'm sure you could play the game in a way that would make it irrelevent, but that is not necessarily a style everyone enjoys. I don't believe that you can argue that there is no possible game where it would make a difference. (I don't think you are arguing this, but included for completeness). As previously mentioned, there is very little problem in practice so long as every has similar preconceptions about how to play the game. The problems come in when styles of play clash.
Cardinal Teplin 04-16-07, 07:01 PM	And the drama queens are not doing exactly that when they come here and moan about the "powergamers"? Please. The optimisers are giving the prima donnas exactly a taste of their own medication. But it is, of course, totally understandable that you think that it is OK for the drama queens to do so, but not the optimisers. After all, the optimisers are not playing the game correctly, are they? If you are talking about people arguing with you during your own game, perhaps you aren't being very clear in advance about the kind of game you are running? It doesn't sound like a style of game I would particularly enjoy, but then I only have your description of it. For any given style of game, there are going to be people who's initial approach is likely to clash. If you are running a game that drama queens won't enjoy, it seems more sensible to warn them in advance, rather than just have their characters die because they don't fulfill your expectations. Have you tried varying the style of game you run, or do you really only want to play the game in one particular way? Have you tried asking them to vary their style of play?
Cael 04-16-07, 07:03 PM	Depends on the game you play, surely? In some games, where the focus is very much on the minor details that make a character feel more three-dimensional, you may end up missing out if your attributes don't reflect that level of detail, or if you limit yourself to details that also make good combat builds. I'm sure you could play the game in a way that would make it irrelevent, but that is not necessarily a style everyone enjoys. I don't believe that you can argue that there is no possible game where it would make a difference. (I don't think you are arguing this, but included for completeness). As previously mentioned, there is very little problem in practice so long as every has similar preconceptions about how to play the game. The problems come in when styles of play clash. But surely you have to create a character to fit the stats you have rolled up? I mean if you roll up a guy with a Wis of 18 (let's just use the organic way of rolling for argument's sake), you can't make him into the village idiot, can you? Your minor details will have to reflect this, and this, I believe, is where the "create a background/character then roll towards it" crowd fails. They assume that the dice will obey their every whim.
Daydreamer 04-16-07, 07:05 PM	some groups, ie mine, use point buy cael.
Cael 04-16-07, 08:35 PM	If you are talking about people arguing with you during your own game, perhaps you aren't being very clear in advance about the kind of game you are running? It doesn't sound like a style of game I would particularly enjoy, but then I only have your description of it. For any given style of game, there are going to be people who's initial approach is likely to clash. If you are running a game that drama queens won't enjoy, it seems more sensible to warn them in advance, rather than just have their characters die because they don't fulfill your expectations. Have you tried varying the style of game you run, or do you really only want to play the game in one particular way? Have you tried asking them to vary their style of play? I gave like, what? A 1 short paragraph description here? I generally give a 8-20 page Campaign Settings document, plus a couple of pages of a broad outline I would prefer people to be (i.e., no Paladins in a Jame Bond style covert ops campaign, etc.) and what their attitudes would be like (e.g., no Evil characters, or no crazy bad-tempered berzerker Dwarf in a campaign where you are tied to a nation's diplomatic corps, etc.). How much clearer do you want me to be? Make the character for you? Also, as I have said, drama queens would have no issues with my campaigns, nor do I have an issue with them. It is when they start whinging about how they are hard done by, then we got issues.
Cael 04-16-07, 08:36 PM	some groups, ie mine, use point buy cael. And you are moaning about how powergamers make cookie-cutter characters? :rolleyes:
WayneTheGame 04-16-07, 09:05 PM	Wow.. this thread degenerated into a flamewar. Yeah. Hopefully it'll be put out of its misery soon. Oh yeah: In before teh l0ck!! :D
Daydreamer 04-16-07, 09:05 PM	i didnt say they do make cookie cutter characters...and point buy doesnt lead to cookie cutter-it can do whatever you want with it. It doesnt force variation, but it allows for it.
UndefinedDemonicEntity 04-16-07, 09:36 PM	N bfr lck! I did it extra fast by losing the vowels!
Maekrix_Waere 04-16-07, 11:13 PM	Just saying, you couldn't pay me to make stats using point buy . I trust my stats to lady luck. She has served me extraordinarily well in the past.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 04-16-07, 11:40 PM	And you are moaning about how powergamers make cookie-cutter characters? :rolleyes: Piont buy doesn't generate cookie cutter characters. Think about If I want to make a barbarian then I will put my highest atribute into my strength. Wheather i'm rolling or not. Here lets look at it like so using the dice bag found in the SRD I rolled: 12, 16, 12, 12, 16, 10. Used 4d6 drop the lowest. For a barbarian i would arrange like so: Str 16, DEx 12, Con 16, Int 10, Wis 12, Cha 12. If i were making the same character with 32 point buy my states would look like so: Str 16, Dex 14, Con 16, int 8, Wis 14, and Cha 8. Strength and con are still my highest atributes, followed by dex and wisdom. that would not change no matter what the methood used to generate the abilities. The only thing that will is the actual numbers in then. All point buy allows is more even stats amoungst the PCs, and better customability.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 04-16-07, 11:42 PM	Just saying, you couldn't pay me to make stats using point buy . I trust my stats to lady luck. She has served me extraordinarily well in the past. But that is a personal perfence and has nothing to do with the roleplaying, or powering merits of the chcarter to whom your states belong.
Maekrix_Waere 04-16-07, 11:59 PM	But that is a personal perfence and has nothing to do with the roleplaying, or powering merits of the chcarter to whom your states belong. Indeed. But seeing as how stat generation preferances were brought up, just though I might as well state my preferance, as, sadly, this appears to de the direction this thread has been (quite quickly, as of the last 4 pages) degenerating into. Actually, this thread appears to have devolved into a duel between two sides of level 5 fighters in Full Plate with Tower Shields who are constantly using Combat Expertise to increase their AC while continuously attempting to hit the others. Neither side is doing any damage to the other side, but they still keep on going. (There is the odd Natural 20, or two, but thats the way the game works.)
Maekrix_Waere 04-17-07, 12:01 AM	Just out of curiosity...OP, are you still reading this thread?
daggeroflath 04-17-07, 03:46 AM	Wow I love posts like this one... "You guys are immature, dogmatic, rigid, insecure adolescents because you're arguing about whose opinion on the right way to play is correct and make insulting personal attacks against eachother. Oh and my opinion of the right way to play is there is none and it's just a fun game that you modify." Hypocrisy, fun for the whole family. You're judging others and strongly positing your theory on gaming... whilst criticising judging others and strongly positing theories on gaming.
daggeroflath 04-17-07, 03:49 AM	I trust my stats to lady luck. She has served me extraordinarily well in the past. I have the most amazing luck at many things in the real world. However, the moment I touch dice, I don't need to know what kind of dice it is since I won't be seeing it off the '1' face. It's like the universe knows somehow that I studied statistics and wants to make me pay for it.
Gemstone 04-17-07, 04:56 AM	I have the most amazing luck at many things in the real world. However, the moment I touch dice, I don't need to know what kind of dice it is since I won't be seeing it off the '1' face. It's like the universe knows somehow that I studied statistics and wants to make me pay for it. Hey, all roleplayers (powergamers and drama queens) have experience that tells us that statisics lie ;)
Clawhound 04-17-07, 08:39 AM	Yes, that is a problem, but that is not the problem I have with them :) Two different things, as I have no problems having a weak guy at the table, so long as he doesn't whine about being weak and how everyone else are cheesy munchkins. Whiners are problem players. Yes, we agree on that.
weepingminotaur 04-17-07, 10:16 AM	I love posts like this one... "You guys are immature, dogmatic, rigid, insecure adolescents because you're arguing about whose opinion on the right way to play is correct and make insulting personal attacks against eachother. Oh and my opinion of the right way to play is there is none and it's just a fun game that you modify." Hypocrisy, fun for the whole family. You're judging others and strongly positing your theory on gaming... whilst criticising judging others and strongly positing theories on gaming. Not at all. If you like to play the game a certain way, good for you. If you object to playing with 'powergamers' or 'drama queens', good for you. Stick to your style and enjoy the game for what you see it to be. But for heaven's sake, why waste time deriding other people? Why does someone else have to be wrong for you to be right? Certain members treat the rules like they're etched in stone, but there are any number of places in those same rules where it explicitly tells you to modify the rules if you think the end result will be more fun for your group. Whether you do it or not is up to you (personally, I like to stick with the rules unless something is clearly broken or unsuitable to our playing style). But insisting that not rigidly adhering to the rules indicates you're a weak player or a D&D heretic is simply not borne out by what the rules themselves say on the issue. That's all I was really talking about. I mean, yikes, I probably fall more into the optimization camp, but if you likes you the drama, go crazy. I wouldn't play that type of D&D game, but I'm not going to sit here and sneer at your choices just because they aren't my cup of tea.
Cardinal Teplin 04-17-07, 10:58 AM	I gave like, what? A 1 short paragraph description here? I generally give a 8-20 page Campaign Settings document, plus <snip> How much clearer do you want me to be? Make the character for you? Also, as I have said, drama queens would have no issues with my campaigns, nor do I have an issue with them. It is when they start whinging about how they are hard done by, then we got issues. Well, if you run into a lot of whiners, and other people don't, then we don't have a lot of choices about why this might be. Either they are whining about something that doesn't occur in other people's games, or you have unusually whiney players that other people don't. I suspect that, unlike some other games, you have a very unbending approach to character survival, in which characters that don't meet a particular standard are killed off by the combat encounters you regularly throw at players. (You mentioned something about CR or CR+1 as standard?). This approach may well be something that your 'whiney' players aren't used to. Many games will scale the threat level to the capabilities of the characters, and it seems pretty clear you aren't wanting to do this. It's a question of making sure people understand the style of the game, Which is fair enough, of course, but if people are whining after they die because of it, it seems obvious that they didn't realise quite what you meant before then. Either way, if drama queens don't have a problem with your game, and powergamers don't have a problem with your game, then I'm not sure how the whining people are relevent? You do get these problems with expectation however. I avoid it for most of my games by getting the group together first and designing the game around what the group wants to do, but on the occasions where I don't, there can be problems. "So.. how do we get out of here!" "Says here the prince knows the secret exit" "Um.. he's dead." "...and the castellain." "dead too." "The merchant might know." "Isn't that the one we met on the stairs? The one who had that 'nasty fall'?" "...Um maybe the guardian of the vault?" "We fireballed the vault. Twice. After flooding it with all that oil from the stores?" "Oh, well then apparently the jester of the court knows a clue that will lead..." "Isn't that the guy will all the bells..." "Yeah." "..that we nailed to the floor." "Yeah." "Well if we've killed all the NPCs, then how... " "Ah! We'll find it. We just have to search everywhere!" (4 days of searching later) "Um.. I guess I could learn speak with dead?" The moral of the story being, just becuase you tell the PCs the mission involves finding someone and getting a secret off them, doesn't mean your players won't fall back into their old habit of killing everything that moves, just because they can. And it's really hard to overestimate how much variation there is out there in playing styles. I had one adventuring group, whom I dubbed "adventuring party plc", who started each adventure with a round of research, finance and logistics. "If we're adventurers, clearly we need venture captial, right?" I've seen formal contracts between adventurers before, but shareholder certification, board meetings, junk bond capital financing, title searches, and sub-contracting dungeon delving were all new to me. They _really_ enjoyed it. "So, how much is a lich worth on the open market?" Different groups have very very different styles of play, and enjoy different things. Adventuring party plc were orders of magnitude more effective in monster removal than the cheesiest powergamers I've ever met, but you wouldn't want one of them in your game without some kind of promise that he wouldn't try and incorperate the the rest of the team as a limited-purpose partnership, or indulge in commodity speculation.
daggeroflath 04-17-07, 12:03 PM	why waste time deriding other people? Why indeed?
kelvinaw273 04-17-07, 05:15 PM	The Half-Orc Wizard? It is *in* this thread. Go back a few pages or 10. It was a Half-Orc sorcerer, actually, and was presented as an example. The problem I have with drama queens is not that they disrupt the game. As you said, they tend to become dead pretty fast. The problem I have with them is their martyr syndrome. Like certain real world sects, they are fine when they tell people what to do, but when they run afoul of things, they start whinging up a storm. Then they escalate it to the media (i.e., here in these boards) and they start throwing around terms like "munchkins", "powergamers", etc. They never accept that they are he problem by insisting on bringing their primadonna characters to a table. They never accept that if they make choices, they must accept the consequences. They never believe that the word "responsibility" should be in their vocabulary. That, ultimately, is my problem with them. You mean they act like the powergamer who drops into a game where the players prefer flavor-builds, orders everybody around, and PKs anyone who disagrees with him. Clearly you have had experiences with RPers that mirror my experiences with power gamers. However, the problem that we both have is not the fault of their style of play but the fact that its proponent was a jerk. Roleplaying is a shield behind which people with inferiority complexes hide. I could say the same about Powergaming, and it would be as true. You are commiting the Stormwind Fallacy. No, I'm not. I have at no time said that good role-playing and optimization are mutually incompatible. All I have stated is that just because I can do both does not mean that I enjoy it. I prefer to build at least partially for flavor rather than power, and so does the group I play with. I have explained several times why I feel that the entire group building purely for power is in my mind pointless, so there is no reason we shouldn't play the way we enjoy. There is nothing wrong with playing heroes and roleplaying, as they are two different things. Wrong. Utterly, completely wrong. "Hero" is a person who is prepared to lay it on the line regardless of the consequence, stick to their principals and risk all for them, sacrifice themselves if they must for those they care about. As such, it is something that can ONLY be role-played. There is nothing Heroic about getting into a fight you know you can win; a 5th level fighter facing up to a 1HD orc is not a hero. A 1st level Commoner doing the same IS a hero. He's probably dead, but he is showing Heroism. If your powerful builds are always trashing the opposition, then they aren't heroes - they are powerful people, but not heroic. You make and plan your character away from the table. You roleplay *at* the table. Those that say they are linked in anyway have no leg to stand on other than their own speculations, which, by the way, are not facts. I can equally be a good mathematician and a good actor/storyteller (in fact, I know I am, as I have written and published several short stories, the first of which was at age 10, and I represented my old high school in the National Maths Champs). And I certainly don't believe that I am that unusual a specimen where the human race is concerned. You role-play at the table, but what do you role-play? A piece of paper? No, you role-play a character. A character has personality, a personality you developed when you started writing the character sheet. If you are just 'building' the character before hand, all you have are stats. I prefer to create the personality first, then build the character's stats around the person I now have in my head, around the things that they have done and the background they have come from. When I go to the table the person I am role-playing is already reflected in the character sheet in my hand. Why has this approach not got a leg to stand on? I am not saying it is the way everyone SHOULD be doing it, but it's the way I do. It works for me. You write as if I am committing some cardinal sin by stating this. I am not saying your way is wrong. I am not saying you cannot role-play because you optimize. I am saying that I prefer not to play that way, and explain to you why I don't, as you seem to regard anyone who does not share your opinions as biased, inferior and stupid. There isn't a link between the two that affects the other in any way. In fact, I believe that several good actors have good degrees. Danica McKellar, for example, has a mathematical theory named after her. Rowan Atkinson is an Engineering graduate. Jodie Foster has a degree from a prestigious university (Harvard? I forgot). Yet the notion that there is a link between good mathematics and good acting skills is perpetuated on this board, and the proponents of this illogical theory somehow managed to make it seem so reasonable that they have suckered people into believing them. Rowan Atkinson may have an engineering degree, but he does not earn a living by engineering, he earns it by acting, presumably because he prefers it. In the same way, I can powergame if I want to, but I prefer to role-play and build for flavor, because I enjoy myself more that way.
kelvinaw273 04-17-07, 05:28 PM	And you are moaning about how powergamers make cookie-cutter characters? :rolleyes: Yes, because they clearly lack imagination if they can't see that point buy != cookie-cutter character. If it does it is because you are always focusing on the 'optimal build' rather than the personality behind the character sheet. Role-players like me prefer point buy because it frees us from the vagaries of the dice to make the character that we envisage, be it flavor or power we build for. I can take two characters and build them at least moderately effectively for the same role in the party but do so with very different stats and builds using point buy - it all comes down to concept, that thing I dream up before pen ever touches paper.
daggeroflath 04-18-07, 12:37 AM	They are not debunked, they are argued. Some very good arguments both ways, by a lot of people worth listening to on both sides. Agreed. I'm far from being sold from either side's arguments. Still, they're saying some interesting things, I just wish they could turn down the volume a little.... And that brings us to debating powergaming. I've been as guilty as anyone else, but let's not get too carried away here.
Leilond 04-18-07, 07:06 AM	Well... I try to say something "in topic" In my campaigns "powergaming" is strongly asked In my campaigns "roleplaying" is required In my campaigns the players "powerplay" a lot, some players more than others. In my campaigns the players "roleplay" a very lot, because 50% of experience come from role-play There isn't any "power vs role" issue There is a "jerk vs players" issue. If you're a jerk, you're a jerk. You can ruin a game for all with a perfectly role-played weak character, or with a super-powerbuild
weepingminotaur 04-18-07, 01:12 PM	There isn't any "power vs role" issue There is a "jerk vs players" issue. If you're a jerk, you're a jerk. You can ruin a game for all with a perfectly role-played weak character, or with a super-powerbuild I think this is the best thing I've read in this thread so far. Jerks come in all shapes and sizes. Some like to optimize, some don't, and some prefer a hybrid of the two. But a jerk is still a jerk regardless of whether he's immersing himself in the richly detailed character of Jardeb, Magus of Ankarob or poring over sourcebooks looking for the perfectly optimized combination of feats, skills, and items.
Daydreamer 04-18-07, 01:16 PM	I think this is the best thing I've read in this thread so far. Jerks come in all shapes and sizes. Some like to optimize, some don't, and some prefer a hybrid of the two. But a jerk is still a jerk regardless of whether he's immersing himself in the richly detailed character of Jardeb, Magus of Ankarob or poring over sourcebooks looking for the perfectly optimized combination of feats, skills, and items. definately true, but sometimes two different ppl, neither of whom are jerks, like such different things from the game, they would not have fun playing together.
Comus 04-18-07, 02:36 PM	definately true, but sometimes two different ppl, neither of whom are jerks, like such different things from the game, they would not have fun playing together. Depends on the DM. Everyone has different things they want from a game, and a good DM will make sure everyone gets at least some of the pie. Obviously, that doesn't take unreasonable demands into account - there has to be at least some compromise from everyone. If someone just wants to have constant combat and doesn't want to deal with NPCs, or refuses to leave the royal palace to help his friends on their dungeon crawl because he wants to roleplay chatting with the princess all night, then it comes under the 'jerks' bit if the others aren't on the same page.
Tyraxus 04-18-07, 02:45 PM	Oh, and in the interests of getting the thread broadly back to a topical discussion, how many people here think that Mr Stormwind is actually right? I don't see any reason why playing a concept and powergaming can't be negatively correlated, given the right circumstances... I would like to voice my support for Tempest. As I've continuously said, it's nothing more than a restatement of a textbook logical fallacy, which is the false dichotomy logical fallacy. You say there's no reason to think they can't be negatively correlated, which is something entirely different than what the fallacy states. The fallacy states that there is nothing inherent in either roleplaying or powergaming which would affect the other; that is, by itself powergaming does not affect roleplaying nor will roleplaying affect powergaming. There may be outside factors that limit one or the other. In a low point-buy game, you can roleplay Thorvek Oakenshield, Fist of Galadrien, Blademaster of Eir and Grandmaster of the Order of Blue Wizards quite well, but you're most likely not going to be able to be both a blademaster and a master wizard; it's not that the roleplaying gets in your way, but that your low point-buy doesn't allow the stats necessary to make it happen. Likewise, I can build a character that solos Balors at level eight, but can't roleplay his phobia and hatred of undead and necromances that stems from watching his mother eaten alive by ghouls as he hid in the compartment under the stairs because the module we're playing is combat-intensive. So yes, roleplaying and powergaming may be negatively correlated due to external factors, but it's the external factors that are limiting, not the powergaming or roleplaying. Also, I'd like to remind you that the Stormwind Fallacy deals with causation; as anyone who ever had any kind of statistics education knows, correlation does not equate to causation.
Daydreamer 04-18-07, 04:55 PM	the stormwind fallacy is accurate as a matter of logic. However, it is missapplied liberally where it should not be, it only deals with a very specific claim, and outside of that it has no authority.
kelvinaw273 04-18-07, 09:30 PM	Actually, I was referring to: <environmental issue sniped> I won't even go there, that debate is far off topic and will grow far more heated if we pursue it here. Back to the topic: If you can't see that the number of possible combinations in a 25pt buy for a character to remain moderately effective in any way is much less than a 4d6-L roll for stats, then I am afraid that there is no point talking to you. If you think that you creating a character with numbers that you dictate instead of numbers that are "assigned" to you makes you a better roleplayer than someone who has to work around the stats that he rolled, then you need another lesson in "How to Commit the Stormwind Fallacy in Style". Well for a kick off, I thought you were a mathematician, and yet every statistical analysis I have seen presented on these pages equates 4d6-drop-the-lowest to around a 29-30 point buy, so please get your facts straight. Did I say it made me a better role-player? Show me. Quote me - go back and READ what I have written and quote where I said it made me a an objectively better role-player, I dare you. Then go write your essay on "How to see the Stormwind Fallacy where it wasn't". I HAVE stated that I find powergaming restrictive on MY role-playing, and given my reasons why. I have gone out of my way to reiterate that I do not assume the same is true of everyone else. It is my experience, period. I find it very easy to make new and different effective characters with point buy - once I have the character concept. Point-buy characters only look the same when you mindlessly repeat the 'optimal' builds that squeeze every last iota of min/max from the system. You can easily build a half-dozen different 'moderately optimized' builds from a basic 25 point-buy for a given class, all with different concepts, if you are prepared to sacrifice a feat of a few skill points for 'flavour'. If you play for pure power I can see why you would find point buy restrictive and leading to cookie-cutter characters, but that isn't my problem. You prefer dice rolling, that's your prerogative. I will reiterate for the umpteenth time: I am describing how I play the game. I am describing how I make my characters. I am describing how I derive enjoyment from it. I am explaining why I cannot be bothered with power gaming, not because I am a stupid, inferior and whiny individual as has been frequently and insultingly insinuated, but because I enjoy building characters and playing them for flavour, not just power and effective build alone. I have not said that your style is wrong, bad, or that you cannot role-play - these are things you have tried to put in the mouth of every person who has said: "actually I don't enjoy power gaming." I have reiterated constantly that these matters are merely differences in style, I am not attempting to dictate anything to anyone. In return you have repeatedly invoked the "Stormwind Fallacy" which isn't even relevant to the discussion. As I understand it the question I am attempting to enlighten you on is not "Can powergamers role-play?" but "why doesn't everyone power game?" My Answer: "Some of us find the mechanics of power gaming restrict our role-play (we know not everyone does), and so prefer to build our characters for flavour over power to better enjoy the game." The issue of the OP was (if I may generalise): "In a group with one play-style, if you join and upset the equilibrium of the group by endorsing a very different play-style, what should you do?" To which the answer is: "Compromise with the group and adapt your play-style to something that does not spoil their game, and if you cannot enjoy the game playing this way, find another group." Now before you go off on one, actually read what I have written before accusing me of being biased against power-gamers and violating the Stormwind Fallacy yet again.
ReaderOfPosts 04-19-07, 12:55 AM	My Answer: "Some of us find the mechanics of power gaming restrict our role-play (we know not everyone does), and so prefer to build our characters for flavour over power to better enjoy the game." There is the slightest smidgen of truth in this: taken to the extreme you have to play a kobold to get ultimate power. The thing is, the array of optimized rules that WOTC has given us gives a lot of versatility, and very few interesting ideas can't be realized in an optimized character (the original poster gave a good example: the gish necromancer with focused specialist would be the same character concept except more effective from a mechanical and tactical perspective). Where I find the disagreement stems from is 1) Taking the fluff of classes and prestige classes literally instead of taking the capabilities of your character and flushing them out. One of my favorite characters was an aasimar rogue/marshall/nightsong infiltrator. He was a charismatic team-player who preffered the use of stealth to solve problems: he was not a member of the nightsong guild, lent his expertise rather than leading, and was not a rogue of any sort (surpassing the paladin in his drive for compassion and justice). A lot of players would consider that build a munchkin abomination. 2) Those who include mechanics in their character concept. If you are devoted to play a barbarian cleric, someone who suggests just roleplaying the hot temper, distain for civilization, and gung-ho attitude often gets yelled at for munchkinizing. A lot of skill builds can be made through use of able learner and a dip in a class- but sometimes not getting those rogue levels will upset a player. Being stubborn about mechanics is in no way good roleplaying. 3)I find that when I optimize a character concept, I pick up bagage that I can then include making a more interesting character. (So this prestige class also gives me a bardic knowledge equivalent... if I pick up some ranks in perform (storytelling) crossclass then that really helps flush out my character's motivations to adventure.) I've seen (on these boards and other places) players refuse to accept a prestige class based on the baggage you pick up (well I like the idea of a tactical commander, and it gives everything I want, but I don't like that I get skill focus (history) for free...). A simple manipulation of background (serving under general Lu Xin, Mun detested the general's insistence that he needed to learn the military history reporting the sucesses and failures of the strategy. He learned reluctantly, but he did learn... 4) The stigma of being a munchkin. In our group, players turned away from using a player for advice when he got branded as a munchkin. They had no problem before, but heaven forbid they be caught playing a munchkin character. This I think is really the biggest problem.
daggeroflath 04-19-07, 01:17 AM	definately true, but sometimes two different ppl, neither of whom are jerks, like such different things from the game, they would not have fun playing together. True, very true. For example, one of my players loves the games I run and loves the games his other DM runs. Having heard all the players and the other DM discuss that game though, I know that I would hate playing in it. I strongly suspect that he would hate playing in mine. Yet, we both clearly run games that people enjoy, in some cases the same people enjoy both our games.
Pandaemoni 04-19-07, 01:32 AM	Oh, and in the interests of getting the thread broadly back to a topical discussion, how many people here think that Mr Stormwind is actually right? I don't see any reason why playing a concept and powergaming can't be negatively correlated, given the right circumstances... That's the problem with the "Stormwind fallacy", it doesn't say anything about mere correlation. All it says is that powergaming and role playing are functionally independent things, and a single player can be good or bad at both. As such, finding a player who is a good powergamer does not ipso facto prove that he is a poor role player. People sometimes extend the fallacy (beyond its logical limits) to mean: "Powergaming and role playing ability are in no way correlated," but that is a statement that requires empirical study to prove it correct or incorrect (and some people on the boards do report such correlations, while others deny them.) Here on the boards, all we ever see is dueling opinions on that issue, with both sides (at most) using only anecdotal evidence to support their positions. Personally—to stray into that same, dangerous, anecdotal territory—what I find in the way of correlation is not so much that powergamers tend to be bad role players inherently, but that powergamers tend to limit their selection of characters to those who themselves are primarily interested in accumulating power. Within that limited range of personalities, they tend to be about as good at role playing as anyone else, but you see less dramatic variation between their characters from campaign to campaign because of the self-imposed limitation. In my current group, that limitation also interferes with the player's ability to play "good" characters (and occasionally "lawful" ones), because they often have to invent what (to me) seem to be rather implausible rationales to justify their characters' actions. (All their characters should really be of the "I do whatever I need to do to get me more power" alignment—sometimes that might be saving the damsel and returning her safely to a grateful town, sometimes it might mean letting her die so you can take her stuff.) I think their inability to play truly noble characters is more on the heads of those particular players, rather than being generally applicable to the masses of powergamers generally, but it would be easy for me to infer some relationship between them.
Leilond 04-19-07, 03:28 AM	That's the problem with the "Stormwind fallacy", it doesn't say anything about mere correlation. All it says is that powergaming and role playing are functionally independent things, and a single player can be good or bad at both. As such, finding a player who is a good powergamer does not ipso facto prove that he is a poor role player. People sometimes extend the fallacy (beyond its logical limits) to mean: "Powergaming and role playing ability are in no way correlated," but that is a statement that requires empirical study to prove it correct or incorrect (and some people on the boards do report such correlations, while others deny them.) Here on the boards, all we ever see is dueling opinions on that issue, with both sides (at most) using only anecdotal evidence to support their positions. Personally—to stray into that same, dangerous, anecdotal territory—what I find in the way of correlation is not so much that powergamers tend to be bad role players inherently, but that powergamers tend to limit their selection of characters to those who themselves are primarily interested in accumulating power. Within that limited range of personalities, they tend to be about as good at role playing as anyone else, but you see less dramatic variation between their characters from campaign to campaign because of the self-imposed limitation. In my current group, that limitation also interferes with the player's ability to play "good" characters (and occasionally "lawful" ones), because they often have to invent what (to me) seem to be rather implausible rationales to justify their characters' actions. (All their characters should really be of the "I do whatever I need to do to get me more power" alignment—sometimes that might be saving the damsel and returning her safely to a grateful town, sometimes it might mean letting her die so you can take her stuff.) I think their inability to play truly noble characters is more on the heads of those particular players, rather than being generally applicable to the masses of powergamers generally, but it would be easy for me to infer some relationship between them. I cannot negate that this is your experience Using your words: you're using only anecdotal evidence to support your positions - The fact that there isn't any proof that powergamer are usually worst role-player - The fact that in my experience, powergamers can be the better roleplayers in the table Means one of this things 1) In my last 5 years of playing I was very lucky 2) I'm a very good DM 3) Powergamers are more concentrated on the game and result to be more effective and centered on the game I don't know the correct answer. But until someone can proof in some way (I don't know how) that powergamers are worse role-player I will continue to think that people simply blame because "they're not good as them in optimizing character" or "they're not good as them in role-playing very well an optimized character"
Pandaemoni 04-19-07, 08:07 AM	But until someone can proof in some way (I don't know how) that powergamers are worse role-player I will continue to think that people simply blame because "they're not good as them in optimizing character" or "they're not good as them in role-playing very well an optimized character" The truth is, as with many things, there is too much passion on this issue for any "proof". Even if a statistically inclined sociologist actually took a a decade to do the study, found conclusively that there is a correlation (positive or negative) or no correlation whatsoever, and set forth his findings in a compelling, easy-to-read paper online, people who disagree with his conclusions would simply pronounce him to be "wrong." Passionate belief does not yield to mere "facts." It's true of this debate, it's true of the evolution debate, its true of those who declare man-made global warming "debunked." "Everyone is entitled to his own facts," might as well be the motto of the new century.
Clawhound 04-19-07, 01:50 PM	(This is admittedly simplified. Got it? Good.) Although these skills are logically unrelated, they are related as preferences. For all the players that I have ever known, each players has a clear preference for the type of game that they prefer. Some prefer rules. Some prefer play acting. Note that preference does not mean skill. I've known players who loved the play-acting and who were bad at it, and players who liked rules but somehow only knew the ones that helped them. In general, players prefer a playstyle. As that is their most practiced playstyle, they tend to get better at that playstyle. This is why preference and skill are usually (but not always) linked. The problem occurs when players define another preference as antithetical to their play style. In those cases, you get impractical players who completely disregard the practical game at hand, or you get players who reject the dramatic game at hand in favor some rules-based goal. "Optimizer" does not automatically qualify as a problematic playstyle. It is only problematic when the optimizing becomes the only criteria in character design. Likewise, dramatic play does not automatically count as a problematic playstyle. It is only a problem when the sole criteria in character design.
kelvinaw273 04-19-07, 10:05 PM	Really? How did you come up with the whole "the large majority of..." stance, besides some armchair greenie pulling it out of their rear? Even experienced meteorologists have said that glabal warming causing El Ninos and the like is bunk. That would be the ones that "the world IS getting warmer but we cannot attribute any particular weather event to that trend, merely the frequency with which they are likely to occur in the future." This does not debunk global warming by any stretch of the imagination, and if you actually understood what you were talking about you would know that the weather is a chaotic system within which events transpire with greater or lesser frequency depending upon the ambient conditions as a whole. Just like you can't say that smoking is what caused a particular person to get lung cancer, you can't attribute a particular event to global warming. Just like we know that smoking increases the likelihood of contracting lung cancer, so we know that Global Warming is here. The FACT of the matter is that the vast majority of environmental scientists from across many disciplines from physics to archeology are agreed that (1) the climate is warming, and (2) human activity in deforestation and burning fossil fuels is at the very least a significant contributing factor. The only ones who dispute this are the ones who get their funding from the oil industry, and they certainly have a vested interest. If you exclude them and those employed by the environmental lobby and just take the government-funded reports, the results are pretty much the same, and they are as I have listed. A theory is debunked if there is evidence to the contrary. An exception to the rule does not prove it. It debunks it. Wrong. A theory is a hypothesis that is supported by the weight of existing evidence. There may be evidence to the contrary, but that does not make the theory wrong, merely incomplete. For example, General Relativity breaks down at the microscopic scale, where Quantum Mechanics takes over. Both Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity are incomplete theories, but we use them both because within their scope they work very well indeed. The theory of climate change is supported by all of the evidence so far gathered - some of the evidence has been disputed, but further, more accurate tests always come out to support the theory. Just because the theory does not tell us which storms and events are as a result of climate change and which ones would have happened anyway doesn't make it wrong, because that lies beyond the scope of the theory. A theory is only wrong if it is unsupported by evidence, and there is evidence to the contrary, and you can provide a different theory that explains it all better. The counter argument that there is no climate change has already died. The one that climate change is not due to human activity is in its death throws, relying on evidence already debunked but widely publicized by those with a vested interest in the status quo. Pre-industrial atmosphere levels of carbon dioxide has boosted from 280 parts per million (ppm) to 340 ppm in the current decade, and none of the other sources of atmospheric carbon dioxide have increased their output in that period by any significant amount. As the people claiming that such a thing occurs, the burden of proof is on those that claim that it is true. Much like how the prima donnas claim that there is a correlation between optimising and roleplaying. The burden of proof is on them. Saying, "if A happens, then that will cause B, which logically extends to C, which triggers D and thus we have proven that A is always D" is not proof. It is not even correlation half the time, let alone causation. Back on track at last. I have never stated a correlation between optimization and role-playing in anything outside my own experience. As someone has already said, "the plural of anecdote is not data." Think on that one and then think on what both greenies and the drama queens are saying. Totally different situations, The greens are quite right, those that prefer role-play choices to optimized ones can only speak for themselves and not everyone. Thus, until it is *proven*, neither greenie nor prima donnas have a leg to stand on, whether scientifically nor in the debating sense. Incorrect on both counts. The 'greenies' have a very good body of supporting scientific evidence, even if some people prefer not to look at it. The players that prefer to play for flavour rather than power have every right to offer their opinions to the debate, as it is a debate that revolves around a social situation in which personal enjoyment of a game is the goal. As such, unlike the debate on Global Warming, where objective data can be offered (and subjective humans can cover their ears and shut their eyes and shout "Tra-la-la-la-la" so that they don't hear it) the debate on the correlation between powergaming and roleplaying is entirely subjective and depends upon the experiences of those that play the game. In the former, science rules. In the latter, it's all down to opinion - and mine is as good as yours.
Clawhound 04-19-07, 10:44 PM	A theory is debunked if there is evidence to the contrary. An exception to the rule does not prove it. It debunks it. Let's test this on Newtonian Physics: Einstein demonstrated the wrongness of Newtonian Physics with his Theory of Relativity. Therefore, Newtonian Physics is bunk. That logic is incorrect. Newtonian Physics may have been superseded, but it still works. It is an excellent theory for describing our everyday world because it is mostly correct. All modern bridges and skyscrapers are designed using Newtonian physics. That is very good for "bunk". Therefore, your theory is bunk, as I have demonstrated an exception to your theory. "Bunk" is a blatantly bad or false theory, usually based on incorrect evidence or no evidence at all. "Debunking" is the act of explaining why this theory is blatantly false or bad, and filling in the correct facts. Legitimate theories work as ReaderOfPosts described.
northern_bear 04-20-07, 07:09 AM	. . . . Why can I not find several posts? Kelvinaw, I notice in your post that you are quoting Cael, who seems to be responding to something I wrote. But I am no longer able to find my original post, nor can I find the post from Cael that you are quoting. What's the deal? Did someone erase those posts, or do my search skills just suck?
Cardinal Teplin 04-22-07, 05:04 PM	Moderating stepped in to erase some posts when people starting arguing about eachother, rather than the topic. Accusations of bias, prejudice, etc. up to and including comparisons to Hitler. The usual kind of thing. All posts containing or quoting such were deleted, so the record is now a little incomplete.
northern_bear 04-23-07, 04:45 AM	Moderating stepped in to erase some posts when people starting arguing about eachother, rather than the topic. Accusations of bias, prejudice, etc. up to and including comparisons to Hitler. The usual kind of thing. All posts containing or quoting such were deleted, so the record is now a little incomplete. My posts contained no such elements. They did not directly attack or insult any person, nor did they involve any religious or political statements. My post that was deleted included a dictionary definition of a scientific term, and a statement about the quantity of scientific research on a particular topic. None of that was controversial. Heck, I didn't even consider it to be debatable, until someone tried.
kelvinaw273 04-24-07, 11:23 AM	My posts contained no such elements. They did not directly attack or insult any person, nor did they involve any religious or political statements. My post that was deleted included a dictionary definition of a scientific term, and a statement about the quantity of scientific research on a particular topic. None of that was controversial. Heck, I didn't even consider it to be debatable, until someone tried. Well the environment is a contentious issue, and people get heated about it. It isn't really controversial, in the same way that evolution isn't controversial - the evidence is all there, it's all clear, but some people would like it to be controversial, and try to obfuscate the issues as much as possible, and create a 'controversy' where there is none. This with money and vested interests jump on the bandwagon, and presto, heated debate. It used to go on with tobacco and cancer, and eventually the evidence overwhelmed the legal rearguard action. The same tactics are being used against the environmental lobby, which has even better scientific evidence to back it ...
Leo 04-24-07, 03:16 PM	Can't we just get back on topic? I play D&D for reliefing of the real world after all
Etarnon 04-25-07, 05:05 AM	That argument doesnt fly. Power gaming does not help you 'not die' as the npcs should be of appropriate challenge to the pcs. This is like saying that being lower level sucks bc higher level pcs are less likely to die. They are just as likely (though granted high level npcs can raise themselves :P). Ive been in power gaming groups/non power gaming groups. There is NO, survival edge if the dm is doing what he is supposed to be doing. Exactly. Optimization should lead to equally optimized challenges. Thus powergaming, and optimization mean nothing in the end, as to Mechanical advantage, over the NPCs of the DM. Unless I am way off the mark, this is what optimizer's seek: Advantage within the game, which when properly run, doesn't matter. So why do it? I never "Got" that.
Gemstone 04-25-07, 06:47 AM	Exactly. Optimization should lead to equally optimized challenges. Thus powergaming, and optimization mean nothing in the end, as to Mechanical advantage, over the NPCs of the DM. Unless I am way off the mark, this is what optimizer's seek: Advantage within the game, which when properly run, doesn't matter. So why do it? I never "Got" that. Well... partially true. My games would be a power gamers wet-dream and a rule lawyers worst nightmare, since I'm pretty easy on many rules and I'm not a good powergamer myself. So in my game, powergamers would have an advantage if I allowed it :) Woho! This was my 2000th post :D
Dire_Kitten 04-25-07, 09:08 AM	Exactly. Optimization should lead to equally optimized challenges. Thus powergaming, and optimization mean nothing in the end, as to Mechanical advantage, over the NPCs of the DM. Unless I am way off the mark, this is what optimizer's seek: Advantage within the game, which when properly run, doesn't matter. So why do it? I never "Got" that. I completely agree with that, though I have one player (himself pretty dedicated to maxing out his character's power), who hates that. He believes that I shouldn't optimize encounters unless I also increase their treasure and the XP for the encounter. In his view, the treasure and XP tables are for unoptimized "baseline" monsters and NPCs.
Comus 04-25-07, 09:26 AM	I completely agree with that, though I have one player (himself pretty dedicated to maxing out his character's power), who hates that. He believes that I shouldn't optimize encounters unless I also increase their treasure and the XP for the encounter. In his view, the treasure and XP tables are for unoptimized "baseline" monsters and NPCs. They are for unoptimized, 15-point buy monsters and elite array NPCs, using their races standard tactics. If a monster is increased in power, such as by switching the standard array for the elite array, the monster's CR goes up - increasing the XP and treasure from the encounter.
northern_bear 04-25-07, 09:26 AM	Originally Posted by Daydreamer That argument doesnt fly. Power gaming does not help you 'not die' as the npcs should be of appropriate challenge to the pcs. This is like saying that being lower level sucks bc higher level pcs are less likely to die. They are just as likely (though granted high level npcs can raise themselves ). Ive been in power gaming groups/non power gaming groups. There is NO, survival edge if the dm is doing what he is supposed to be doing. Exactly. Optimization should lead to equally optimized challenges. Thus powergaming, and optimization mean nothing in the end, as to Mechanical advantage, over the NPCs of the DM. Unless I am way off the mark, this is what optimizer's seek: Advantage within the game, which when properly run, doesn't matter. So why do it? I never "Got" that. If all of the characters in the game are optimized, no problem. The DM just scales the encounter. The problem is when one or more PC is highly optimized, and the others aren't. In this case, the optimized PC is less likely to die than the other PCs, and he will be more effective in combat (or in whatever situation it is that he was optimized for). Sure, the DM can work around it. The PCs are attacked by a group of 5 orcs, and a troll. The troll grabs the optimized PC and then drags him over the edge of a cliff. The troll and the optimized PC then duke it out at the bottom of a ravine, while the less optimized PCs are left up above to deal with the 5 orcs. This type of tactic may work for "challenging" all members of the party. But it is a fairly inelegant approach. And the other players are going to quickly see right through it if this sort of thing happens all the time.
Dire_Kitten 04-25-07, 10:14 AM	They are for unoptimized, 15-point buy monsters and elite array NPCs, using their races standard tactics. If a monster is increased in power, such as by switching the standard array for the elite array, the monster's CR goes up - increasing the XP and treasure from the encounter. I do increase the CR if I increase the point buy. I do not increase the CR is I give the NPC fighter Power Attack and Cleave rather than Athletic and Toughness. Similarly if the NPC rogue has max ranks in Tumble and Bluff, and few or none in Open Locks and Jump, you don't get more treasure, even though that makes him harder to fight. I optimize my NPCs roughly to the same extent I think the PCs are optimized.
kelvinaw273 04-25-07, 12:07 PM	Exactly. Optimization should lead to equally optimized challenges. Thus powergaming, and optimization mean nothing in the end, as to Mechanical advantage, over the NPCs of the DM. Unless I am way off the mark, this is what optimizer's seek: Advantage within the game, which when properly run, doesn't matter. So why do it? I never "Got" that. Nor me. The only time there becomes a point in optimizing to increase survivability is when you are in a group that doesn't optimize, which is the problem situation everyone seems to want to avoid. It's also the answer to the question of "Why don't you optimize?"
Comus 04-25-07, 12:34 PM	Nor me. The only time there becomes a point in optimizing to increase survivability is when you are in a group that doesn't optimize, which is the problem situation everyone seems to want to avoid. It's also the answer to the question of "Why don't you optimize?" I'd say one has to take the average party strength (that is, ability to overcome challenges of CR X) into account, too. We can argue about houserules and what the DM will actually throw at players all we want, but at some point we should recognize that characters need to be strong enough to have reasonably survived their backstories (though admittedly I have seen some pretty crazy backstories that no one could have survived - those tend to come from people who wanted a real badass, but started at level 1 - Ima discount edge cases like that for the moment). I agree totally that the DM needs to take the party strength and composition into account when designing encounters, note. I just want to argue from the RAW, which in my mind includes the CR system.
Tyraxus 04-25-07, 05:05 PM	Nor me. The only time there becomes a point in optimizing to increase survivability is when you are in a group that doesn't optimize, which is the problem situation everyone seems to want to avoid. It's also the answer to the question of "Why don't you optimize?" The thing is, not everyone that optimizes is in it for survivability. I'd play optomized characters even if the opponants were optimized twice as much. Why? For one, I play for the thrill and heroics just as much as for the social aspect. I enjoy playing someone who can rip busses apart with his bare hands, or single-handedly kill a platoon of orcs in six seconds, or tell the laws of physics to sit down and shut up. It is far more fun, to me, to play someone who is badass than it is to play someone who couldn't lift a shortsword or cast magic missile to save his life, and has to be protected far more than he does the protecting. I guess I'm more of an Aragorn or Legolas than Frodo or Sam. Second, I enjoy challenges and thinking my way around them (that's why all my characters have an INT of at least 14, not because it allows more feats or skills, though skills are nice, but because if he's got an INT of 13, 14, or better, then I know that he could have thought of any plan I could have, and probably quite a few more); if being more powerful means the DM can throw bigger, badder, and nastier challenges and tricks at me, then where do I sign? You may enjoy lower-powered games, or the unlikely hero mantle. I, however, prefer the role of the guy that is strong, smart, or sneaky enough (to use the three basic archetypes) to influence the entire world through what he does in six seconds. So don't you dare try to say there's no reason to powergame or optimize because there's no difference to survivability due to a DM scaling everything; there is, if for no other reason than it feels far more heroic to survive a rampaging horde of Ogres than it does to survive a kobold skirmishing party or pack of wolves.
Cael 04-25-07, 08:04 PM	The thing is, not everyone that optimizes is in it for survivability. I'd play optomized characters even if the opponants were optimized twice as much. Why? For one, I play for the thrill and heroics just as much as for the social aspect. I enjoy playing someone who can rip busses apart with his bare hands, or single-handedly kill a platoon of orcs in six seconds, or tell the laws of physics to sit down and shut up. It is far more fun, to me, to play someone who is badass than it is to play someone who couldn't lift a shortsword or cast magic missile to save his life, and has to be protected far more than he does the protecting. I guess I'm more of an Aragorn or Legolas than Frodo or Sam. Second, I enjoy challenges and thinking my way around them (that's why all my characters have an INT of at least 14, not because it allows more feats or skills, though skills are nice, but because if he's got an INT of 13, 14, or better, then I know that he could have thought of any plan I could have, and probably quite a few more); if being more powerful means the DM can throw bigger, badder, and nastier challenges and tricks at me, then where do I sign? You may enjoy lower-powered games, or the unlikely hero mantle. I, however, prefer the role of the guy that is strong, smart, or sneaky enough (to use the three basic archetypes) to influence the entire world through what he does in six seconds. So don't you dare try to say there's no reason to powergame or optimize because there's no difference to survivability due to a DM scaling everything; there is, if for no other reason than it feels far more heroic to survive a rampaging horde of Ogres than it does to survive a kobold skirmishing party or pack of wolves. *applause* Dude, you said exactly what I have in mind whenever I see those primadonnas trying to force people to all become drama queens by joining the local amatuer Shakespeare theatre club. DnD, for me, is *fantasy*. To me, fantasy is not being a lame, wingless duck sitting in a cauldron over a fire. It is being someone like Conan, Aragorn, etc. People don't write about Chrytus the Lame-as Beggar. They write about Belgarion, the scullery boy that is the King of Riva.
Mock26 04-25-07, 08:19 PM	Are you a bad person? Possibly. If so, though, it is because of who you are, not because of how you play D&D. Since I don't know you I won't presume to pass judgement and will give you the benefit of doubt that you are in fact NOT a bad person. As for being a powergamer? Well, I'll be brutally honest and say that you would not be welcome in my group of players. But, that is not a reflection on whether or not powergaming is bad or good. No one in my group simply enjoys playing the role of pwergamer and we have had a couple of powergamers play a couple of times and they completely threw off the balance of the game for everyone else. In other words, powergaming is not the style of myself or my group, and our refusal to play with powergamers is merely a reflection of our preferred style of playing and is not a reflection on whether or not powergaming is bad or good or even that our style of play is better than powergaming, because it isn't. Powergaming is just different, that's all. Ergo, you, as a powergamer, are merely different. Not worse and not better, just different. So, if you enjoy powergaming, then all the more power to you, and if you can find a group where you fit in perfectly, then that is even better! Take care and have a great day.... ciao, john.
weepingminotaur 04-25-07, 10:54 PM	DnD, for me, is *fantasy*. To me, fantasy is not being a lame, wingless duck sitting in a cauldron over a fire. It is being someone like Conan, Aragorn, etc. People don't write about Chrytus the Lame-as Beggar. They write about Belgarion, the scullery boy that is the King of Riva. And for someone else, fantasy could be about being Frodo, Sam, etc. Sam is the scullery boy but without any of the godly powers. He's just an ordinary hobbit who probably maxed out in Profession: Gardener. Please don't try to make your own tastes stand in for some objective standard of fantasy character archetypes.
Tyraxus 04-25-07, 11:26 PM	And for someone else, fantasy could be about being Frodo, Sam, etc. Sam is the scullery boy but without any of the godly powers. He's just an ordinary hobbit who probably maxed out in Profession: Gardener. Please don't try to make your own tastes stand in for some objective standard of fantasy character archetypes. Samwise Gamgee is anything but an average hobbit (he's the hero of the damn story, I don't care what anybody says; Frodo was weak, and Sam saved the world); the average hobbits were the ones that stayed in the Shire and let Saruman take over. Sam may have started with a level or three in commoner, but remember he took up Sting against Shelob and kicked the spider's ass, a heroic deed worthy of any fighter. Sam was also very wise, and was one of only three Ring-Bearers who had the strength to give up the One Ring. No, Sam was most definitely not just an ordinary hobbit. And if Samwise is your best example of a RP character, try again. Each of the Hobbits (Sam, Frodo, Merry, and Pippin) started with levels of commoner (or maybe Frodo had levels of aristocrat, but you get the idea), but they grew into their roles, and Sam actually became the most powerful of any of them, out of a simple need to survive Mordor.
WolfHati 04-25-07, 11:39 PM	The thing is, not everyone that optimizes is in it for survivability. I'd play optomized characters even if the opponants were optimized twice as much. Why? For one, I play for the thrill and heroics just as much as for the social aspect. I enjoy playing someone who can rip busses apart with his bare hands, or single-handedly kill a platoon of orcs in six seconds, or tell the laws of physics to sit down and shut up. It is far more fun, to me, to play someone who is badass than it is to play someone who couldn't lift a shortsword or cast magic missile to save his life, and has to be protected far more than he does the protecting. I guess I'm more of an Aragorn or Legolas than Frodo or Sam. Second, I enjoy challenges and thinking my way around them (that's why all my characters have an INT of at least 14, not because it allows more feats or skills, though skills are nice, but because if he's got an INT of 13, 14, or better, then I know that he could have thought of any plan I could have, and probably quite a few more); if being more powerful means the DM can throw bigger, badder, and nastier challenges and tricks at me, then where do I sign? You may enjoy lower-powered games, or the unlikely hero mantle. I, however, prefer the role of the guy that is strong, smart, or sneaky enough (to use the three basic archetypes) to influence the entire world through what he does in six seconds. So don't you dare try to say there's no reason to powergame or optimize because there's no difference to survivability due to a DM scaling everything; there is, if for no other reason than it feels far more heroic to survive a rampaging horde of Ogres than it does to survive a kobold skirmishing party or pack of wolves. Now I wouldn't call that power gaming, since you are using the optimization to make the role you want to play, and not the other way around.
Daydreamer 04-25-07, 11:56 PM	nobodys asking you to play any different Cael, and i don't think your asking us to play different. So get over it.
TikiMan 04-26-07, 12:14 AM	Well, I'll be brutally honest and say that you would not be welcome in my group of players. Do you people honestly consider this a mature, acceptable stance to take when someone who likes the D&D rules wants to get in on your game? Is civil discussion introducing the new player to your game style really to much to ask for? I can understand not wanting someone to powergame. I've been in groups that were very RP-centric and had no problem getting along. In one group I made a halfing psychic warrior who used claws of the beast. Outside of combat I was a cute, slightly crazy little bugger who was possessive of any female with a charisma above 14 (also gems). In combat I was a frenzy of slashing doom...and dealt a wopping 1d4+2 damage per attack (2 attacks btw). The only thing 'optimised' about the character was his durability, which only enhanced the RP because I actually could be tossed across a room without being damaged. I can totally understand asking someone to powergame less and RP more. I can even agree with giving someone a fair shake and then deciding you don't want to game with them. But to simply turn someone away because they get a kick out of playing with the rules is pure jerk. At least give them a chance to try for crying out loud.
Mock26 04-26-07, 12:36 AM	Do you people honestly consider this a mature, acceptable stance to take when someone who likes the D&D rules wants to get in on your game? Is civil discussion introducing the new player to your game style really to much to ask for? I can understand not wanting someone to powergame. I've been in groups that were very RP-centric and had no problem getting along. In one group I made a halfing psychic warrior who used claws of the beast. Outside of combat I was a cute, slightly crazy little bugger who was possessive of any female with a charisma above 14 (also gems). In combat I was a frenzy of slashing doom...and dealt a wopping 1d4+2 damage per attack (2 attacks btw). The only thing 'optimised' about the character was his durability, which only enhanced the RP because I actually could be tossed across a room without being damaged. I can totally understand asking someone to powergame less and RP more. I can even agree with giving someone a fair shake and then deciding you don't want to game with them. But to simply turn someone away because they get a kick out of playing with the rules is pure jerk. At least give them a chance to try for crying out loud. For starters, potential new players are interviewed in different stages to join my group. The first is an exchange of e-mails to get to know the person. During the exchange of e-mails I ask about gaming history, favorite gaming system(s), games played, games actively played, gaming style, their favorite hobbies, interest in sports, family, political viewpoint, and just about anything else I can think of. Then, if they "sound" like a decent person I meet them for lunch. This lunch always involves me and at least two other members of the group. Lunch is on me and we just chat about anything, including D&D. If, after that, I and my fellow gamers who met him like him we invite him (or her) to join the group. If we don't like him (which has happened a couple of times), I send them a polite e-mail letting them know that they didn't really fit in with the style of play we were looking for (even if we didn't invite them to join because they gave us the creeps, which happened once). I am always upfront with people during the e-mail process as to the style of gaming that my group enjoys and plays and that members of the group have to approve new members. I have learned after nearly 30 years of gaming that it is much better to waste less than an hour's time writing and reading e-mails and about an hour's worth of time having lunch with someone and weeding out a potential player who wouldn't fit in than to have them play a single 6-hour session that could end up being a bad experience for all involved. Second, I also enjoy playing with the D&D rules. It doesn't make me a better player/DM than a powergamer, nor does it make me a worse player/DM. To me there is a HUGE difference between powergaming and optimizing the character. Everyone in my group also agrees with my viewpoint on this, so there is no big deal. And, frankly, it is a mature and responsible stance for my group to take. All of us have full time jobs, have lives outside of D&D, and cherish our free time greatly. Therefore, as I said above, a bit of time spent exchaning e-mails and having lunch with someone is a far better alternative than having a potential game-ruining/marring/whatever player join us for a 6+ hour session. I don't want to spend a single gaming session with people who won't fit in. My group is only able to play every other week, so it is important that we get the most out of our sessions. 5+ years with this current group has taught me and the entire group that powergamers do not fit in well with this group. As I said, we do not look down upon people who powergame nor do we codemn powergaming. There is nothing wrong with powergaming. It simply is not a style that any of us enjoy and it is a style that does not fit in well with the group. What's wrong with ensuring that the group has players who fit in well with everyone else and with the style of gaming we play? Lastly, your halfing character is an example of an optimized character. That is fine. There are some optimized characters in my group. Your halfling character is not powergamed character. There is a world of difference between powergaming and optimizing. And, the original poster freely admitted to being a powergamer, and I responded accordingly.
Archangel62 04-26-07, 01:01 AM	Samwise Gamgee is anything but an average hobbit (he's the hero of the damn story, I don't care what anybody says; Frodo was weak, and Sam saved the world); the average hobbits were the ones that stayed in the Shire and let Saruman take over. Sam may have started with a level or three in commoner, but remember he took up Sting against Shelob and kicked the spider's ass, a heroic deed worthy of any fighter. Sam was also very wise, and was one of only three Ring-Bearers who had the strength to give up the One Ring. No, Sam was most definitely not just an ordinary hobbit. And if Samwise is your best example of a RP character, try again. Each of the Hobbits (Sam, Frodo, Merry, and Pippin) started with levels of commoner (or maybe Frodo had levels of aristocrat, but you get the idea), but they grew into their roles, and Sam actually became the most powerful of any of them, out of a simple need to survive Mordor. Sam however was also hateful towards Gollum. And remember he did have his own little delusion of Grandeur when he held the ring "I am Samwise the Strong!" Frodo had also been carrying the ring longer and had actually used it more than once, I don't remember Sam using its powers. Sam did an act of heroism, but he also had the template "Plot centric character"
Archangel62 04-26-07, 01:02 AM	Lastly, your halfing character is an example of an optimized character. That is fine. There are some optimized characters in my group. Your halfling character is not powergamed character. There is a world of difference between powergaming and optimizing. And, the original poster freely admitted to being a powergamer, and I responded accordingly. Actually he was called a powergamer by his group. If you actually read the post he built characters logically, the group tends to do very weak characters and faces near constant TPKs. If I call you an orange rabbit I certainly hope that you don't begin hopping around and having an odd craving for carrots.
Daydreamer 04-26-07, 01:06 AM	anyone is welcome at our table if they agree to play via the rules and customs of our table.
weepingminotaur 04-26-07, 01:24 AM	Now, how is what I said any different from what you primadonna drama queens have been vituperously attacking the optimisers with since the beginning of this thread? Other than the fact that it is now being used against you? Hmm? I have to laugh at this. You refer to one group as 'optimisers' and another group as 'primadonna drama queens.' Not hard to figure out which group you support, but can you at least try to be civil? Why is anyone who isn't as interested in optimising automatically a 'primadonna drama queen'? You seem to have an enormous chip on your shoulder based on some apparently horrible experience with players who were more interested in roleplaying than stat-juggling. Honestly, get over it. The people here on this forum are not the people who scarred you for life. And for the record, I'm probably closer to being an optimiser than anything else, so your little insults are wasted on me.
Archangel62 04-26-07, 01:41 AM	I have to laugh at this. You refer to one group as 'optimisers' and another group as 'primadonna drama queens.' Not hard to figure out which group you support, but can you at least try to be civil? Why is anyone who isn't as interested in optimising automatically a 'primadonna drama queen'? You seem to have an enormous chip on your shoulder based on some apparently horrible experience with players who were more interested in roleplaying than stat-juggling. Honestly, get over it. The people here on this forum are not the people who scarred you for life. And for the record, I'm probably closer to being an optimiser than anything else, so your little insults are wasted on me. Call it the result of years of repressed vitriol finally bubbling up under constant screams of "munchkin" when characters aren't being killed by strong winds or are outperforming their heavily gimped characters. Or from those of us who are sick of players who will use a poorly built character as a way to keep the spotlight constantly on them, just a little comment.
Mock26 04-26-07, 01:43 AM	Actually he was called a powergamer by his group. If you actually read the post he built characters logically, the group tends to do very weak characters and faces near constant TPKs. If I call you an orange rabbit I certainly hope that you don't begin hopping around and having an odd craving for carrots. Just because others called him a powergamer doesn't mean I have to, does it? I should hope not. The OP said he was a powergamer, and as I said, I responded accordingly. Look at the title of this thread. It says, "I am a powergamer."
TikiMan 04-26-07, 01:56 AM	For starters, potential new players are interviewed in different stages to join my group. But that's not what you just said in your previous post. Without asking him any questions you instantly jumped to 'you would not be welcome at my gaming table'. And, the original poster freely admitted to being a powergamer, and I responded accordingly. There are many different definitions for 'powergamer'. Many people think of the terms 'optimizer' and 'powergamer' as totally interchangeable. If, as Archangel62 pointed out, you had taken the time to look at his posts you would have found that he doesn't go for cheesy combos, does a fair amount of role playing, and stated he would be happy making a non-powergamed character. To me, this indicates that his (rude) group labels him as a powergamer, but by most people's standards he's more of an optimizer. And you did not respond 'accordingly'. Not by the rules of civil conduct, and not by your own statement of how you recruit new players. Saying 'your powergaming would not be welcomed at our table', is acceptable. Saying 'you could play with us, but don't powergame' is even better. Saying 'because you are a powergamer you would not be welcomed at our table' is not. You're not even giving him the chance to adapt to your playstyle. Is everyone who calls themself a powergamer irredeemable or can they be asked to not powergame (which the OP has already said he would be happy to do)? If they can, that wasn't it jumping the gun a bit to declare him unwelcome at your table?
kelvinaw273 04-26-07, 03:58 AM	The thing is, not everyone that optimizes is in it for survivability. I'd play optomized characters even if the opponants were optimized twice as much. Why? For one, I play for the thrill and heroics just as much as for the social aspect. I enjoy playing someone who can rip busses apart with his bare hands, or single-handedly kill a platoon of orcs in six seconds, or tell the laws of physics to sit down and shut up. It is far more fun, to me, to play someone who is badass than it is to play someone who couldn't lift a shortsword or cast magic missile to save his life, and has to be protected far more than he does the protecting. I guess I'm more of an Aragorn or Legolas than Frodo or Sam. Second, I enjoy challenges and thinking my way around them (that's why all my characters have an INT of at least 14, not because it allows more feats or skills, though skills are nice, but because if he's got an INT of 13, 14, or better, then I know that he could have thought of any plan I could have, and probably quite a few more); if being more powerful means the DM can throw bigger, badder, and nastier challenges and tricks at me, then where do I sign? You may enjoy lower-powered games, or the unlikely hero mantle. I, however, prefer the role of the guy that is strong, smart, or sneaky enough (to use the three basic archetypes) to influence the entire world through what he does in six seconds. So don't you dare try to say there's no reason to powergame or optimize because there's no difference to survivability due to a DM scaling everything; there is, if for no other reason than it feels far more heroic to survive a rampaging horde of Ogres than it does to survive a kobold skirmishing party or pack of wolves. I think it's down to your concept of hero. To you, a hero is an invincible guy who leap castles in a single bound and decimate the opposition. To me a hero is the guy who stands up against the odds, when he isn't invincible and he is vulnerable and flawed. The guy who's invincible isn't brave, because he knows he cannot be hurt. The guy who lays it on the line anyway is the real hero in my book. Now, how is what I said any different from what you primadonna drama queens have been vituperously attacking the optimisers with since the beginning of this thread? Other than the fact that it is now being used against you? Hmm? Other people play in different styles to you, and have every right to say they enjoy it, and that isn't an attack, but continuously deriding people is. Get over it. Call it the result of years of repressed vitriol finally bubbling up under constant screams of "munchkin" when characters aren't being killed by strong winds or are outperforming their heavily gimped characters. Or from those of us who are sick of players who will use a poorly built character as a way to keep the spotlight constantly on them, just a little comment. I've met these, I sympathise. I have also met powergamers whose sole goal was bullying the rest of the party. Do you sympathise? There are bad players on both sides of the divide, slanging matches do not help.
Leilond 04-26-07, 04:05 AM	I've met these, I sympathise. I have also met powergamers whose sole goal was bullying the rest of the party. Do you sympathise? There are bad players on both sides of the divide, slanging matches do not help. They're not "powergamer" they're "jerk powergamer"... I encountered "jerk roleplayer" too... bards deisgne very weak (nothing wrong with it) but with tons of Diplomacy skill points, diplomacy feats, charisma items, that manipulate the session bringing it to neverending "diplomacy" encounter... very well role played but without thinking that "the other player want to go on!" So, it isn't a matter of "power gamers" vs "role players" but it is a matter of "jerk players" vs "cooperative players" I never had problems with players because everytime someone seems to "ruin" the fun of other I talk to the player, explaining the meaning of "playing togheter to have fu all togheter" and player stop to "ruin" the fun... or leave, usually the "intelligent players" (no matter if powerplayers or no) understand and "tune down" their "jerking" And most of all... if a DM isn't able to design adventure to make every character have his moment of glory, it is a DM that only need to DM for a bit more, and learn "how to"
Mock26 04-26-07, 03:49 PM	But that's not what you just said in your previous post. Without asking him any questions you instantly jumped to 'you would not be welcome at my gaming table'. Because when I meet a potential new player I don't know what their gaming style is. In this case he freely admitted to being a power gamer, and since my group already knows that power gamers don't fit in, it's an open and shut case.
TikiMan 04-26-07, 04:00 PM	Because when I meet a potential new player I don't know what their gaming style is. In this case he freely admitted to being a power gamer, and since my group already knows that power gamers don't fit in, it's an open and shut case. So if a powergamer walked up to you and said 'I'd like to game with you guys. I'm a powergamer, but I know you don't like powergaming, so I won't do it' you wouldn't even give him a chance to play? I'm a powergamer (and an RPer, but lets not get into that). I know that it ruins the fun for many people though, so I tuck it away and play stuff that's just defensively optimized in ways that won't overshadow other people. You said my character was optimized and that's just fine. So which is it? Am I welcomed at your table because I can optimize responsibly or am I instantly rejected because I'm a powergamer?
Cael 04-26-07, 04:01 PM	I have to laugh at this. You refer to one group as 'optimisers' and another group as 'primadonna drama queens.' Not hard to figure out which group you support, but can you at least try to be civil? Why is anyone who isn't as interested in optimising automatically a 'primadonna drama queen'? You seem to have an enormous chip on your shoulder based on some apparently horrible experience with players who were more interested in roleplaying than stat-juggling. Honestly, get over it. The people here on this forum are not the people who scarred you for life. And for the record, I'm probably closer to being an optimiser than anything else, so your little insults are wasted on me. Well, somebody is trying to be a martyr... Tell you what, get over your martyr syndrome. The primadonna drama queens have been calling optimisers cheesy munchkins for so long that it is now the accepted board standard. The WizOs actually punish anyone taking a different stance. So tell you what? When all the primadonnas stop trying to tell the optimisers what is the only and sole way of playing DnD because it is just the uber-l337 thing to do, when all the drama queens stop calling the optimisers munchkins, then you may have a case. Until then, you have no case to stand on to tell others to stop calling your faction by any labels because *your faction* are the ones that started the mess by calling others labels to begin with. Oh, and by the way: Optimser - Someone that makes the best character he can (whether for combat, magic, cohort, diplomacy, whatever) within the bounds of the rules and the parameters of the campaign (which can be Core only for all they care). Powergamer - Someone that wants a +5 vorpal greatsword of uber-doom at level 1. Munchkin - Cheater. That is why I use the term "optimiser". Not because I sympathise or support them (which I do), but because it is the accurate term to call the faction I was and still am referring to. You, of course, can spin my usage of the word "optimiser" any way you want, but that would be your interpretation of it, not mine. And compared to me, your opinion of course would mean less where the interpretation is concerned. After all, I am the one that said it, not you, and whatever else the drama queens say they are, they are not mind readers. Their characters may be, but they themselves are not.
TikiMan 04-26-07, 04:25 PM	So tell you what? When all the primadonnas stop trying to tell the optimisers what is the only and sole way of playing DnD because it is just the uber-l337 thing to do, when all the drama queens stop calling the optimisers munchkins, then you may have a case. Until then, you have no case to stand on to tell others to stop calling your faction by any labels because *your faction* are the ones that started the mess by calling others labels to begin with. Actually, there's a case to be made in the name of civil discourse and, you know, not being a jerk. Not to mention actually trying to resolve the issues instead of just throwing names back and forth. On behalf of optimizers everywhere, stop defending us. You generally do more harm then help, and your posts incite flames which lead us nowhere. This situation is reminding me of an episode of South Park (http://www.tv.com/south-park/chef-goes-nanners/episode/2471/recap.html)...
Daydreamer 04-26-07, 04:32 PM	Cael your definately not making a good case for youreself man. All your doing is adding to the fire you think you should be putting out. My xp with powergamers is that generally i assume they would not enjoy playing in my game, now i have 3 fellow pcs and a dm so we arent looking for anyone no matter what type of player at the moment. BUT i still think a power gamer, not just for our sake, but his own would be better off finding his own game somewhere else.
Mock26 04-26-07, 07:12 PM	So if a powergamer walked up to you and said 'I'd like to game with you guys. I'm a powergamer, but I know you don't like powergaming, so I won't do it' you wouldn't even give him a chance to play? I'm a powergamer (and an RPer, but lets not get into that). I know that it ruins the fun for many people though, so I tuck it away and play stuff that's just defensively optimized in ways that won't overshadow other people. You said my character was optimized and that's just fine. So which is it? Am I welcomed at your table because I can optimize responsibly or am I instantly rejected because I'm a powergamer? You know, anyone could come with an example where anyone else would go against something he said. So, to humor your little argument, yes, I would give that powergamer a chance to play in my game if he said he wouldn't do it. Then again, given the right circustances and an example outrageous enough, I'd admit to the willingness to kill a tiny baby, as would nearly everyone else in the world. But, if someone came up and said, "I'm a powergamer and I'm proud of that fact. Can I join your group?" Based on those two sentences, my answer would be, "No." You see the problem here? Sometimes in life we have to generalize. There is no way around it. If we don't then I would have to type out a million or more case examples of when I would or would not let a powergamer join my group. In the most simplistic of terms, though, I would not let a powergamer join my group (and the word "I" is taken to mean me and my entire group of players). But, as with everything in the world, there are exceptions to this "rule." And, based on the fact that you seem to put more emphasis on being an optimizer, I'd potentially let you join my group. Then again, you might just be annoying, or my brother, or "He-who-shall-not-be-named-and-was-kicked-out-of-my-group-from-15-years-ago, or a drug addict, or a drunk, or a complete and total jag-off, or a jerk, or smelly, or smarmy, or conceited, or obnoxious, or self-righteous, or simply be creepy, or some other reason on why you wouldn't be allowed to join my group. And, just to let you know, I'm not implying that you are any of the above! As I said in an above post, there are other reasons for not letting people join my group. Heck, my group once turned someone away for wearing camo-pants and shirt, combat boots, booney hat, and wearing a dozen or so concealed knifes to the initial lunch meeting. Bear in mind, I live in Chicago! When asked about the camo, he said he was just being cautious in case he got an emergency mobilization call from his militia group! And, he then started pulling out all his knives and putting them on the table. One of the waitresses apparently called the cops, who then showed up and questioned all four of us (me, two members of my group, and psycho boy!). Fortunately, he freely admitted to having only just met us, and he was taken away in handcuffs. I'm glad that I never gave him my address or phone number!
graddlin 04-26-07, 09:19 PM	Well, somebody is trying to be a martyr... Tell you what, get over your martyr syndrome. The primadonna drama queens have been calling optimisers cheesy munchkins for so long that it is now the accepted board standard. The WizOs actually punish anyone taking a different stance. So tell you what? When all the primadonnas stop trying to tell the optimisers what is the only and sole way of playing DnD because it is just the uber-l337 thing to do, when all the drama queens stop calling the optimisers munchkins, then you may have a case. Until then, you have no case to stand on to tell others to stop calling your faction by any labels because *your faction* are the ones that started the mess by calling others labels to begin with. Oh, and by the way: Optimser - Someone that makes the best character he can (whether for combat, magic, cohort, diplomacy, whatever) within the bounds of the rules and the parameters of the campaign (which can be Core only for all they care). Powergamer - Someone that wants a +5 vorpal greatsword of uber-doom at level 1. Munchkin - Cheater. That is why I use the term "optimiser". Not because I sympathise or support them (which I do), but because it is the accurate term to call the faction I was and still am referring to. You, of course, can spin my usage of the word "optimiser" any way you want, but that would be your interpretation of it, not mine. And compared to me, your opinion of course would mean less where the interpretation is concerned. After all, I am the one that said it, not you, and whatever else the drama queens say they are, they are not mind readers. Their characters may be, but they themselves are not. Where do you get the term "Drama Queen", friend? Moreover, what is this apparent love you have of using it? You got no other words in your vocab? Quite frankly, you are begining to sound like a broken, insulting record. Granted, I am not arguing for or against your view, however, if you want to make a point you need to do it with civility. People just might take you more seriously if you engage them in a cordial fashion instead of slinging mud. Take care, friend.
Mock26 04-26-07, 10:10 PM	My experiences on these boards over the past 4 years is that when it comes to powergamers and drama queens, the powergamers tend to have the attitude that one's level of enjoyment is directly related to how much damage you deal (the more damage the more fun), and the drama queens tend to have the attitude that fun does not have to be directly related to damage (though drama queens will often freely admit that this is in fact a possibility, just not the only possibility). Yes, there are exceptions to the rule, but I still stand by my observations. And, No, this is not a criticism of powergaming, drama queening, powergamers, or dramaqueens. It is just an opinion and an observation. And, I have never seen a pro-drama queen/anti-powergamer bias amongst the moderators. Heck, I've read threads by mods expressing their love of powergaming!
Tyraxus 04-26-07, 10:58 PM	I think it's down to your concept of hero. To you, a hero is an invincible guy who leap castles in a single bound and decimate the opposition. To me a hero is the guy who stands up against the odds, when he isn't invincible and he is vulnerable and flawed. The guy who's invincible isn't brave, because he knows he cannot be hurt. The guy who lays it on the line anyway is the real hero in my book. Invincible? Hell no. Sometimes "iddqd" is fun (bonus if you get the reference), but if there's no risk of failure, there's no challenge, and no fun for me. I may want to play Superman, but only if Lex Luthor has a metric ton of Kryptonite bullets, and has Lois held hostage to boot. I thought I made that very clear when I said I'd play one even if the enemies were optomized TWICE as much as my own character. My version of a hero is someone who puts it on the line against incredible odds, odds that your average person would be insane to go up against. Your typical D&D commoner wouldn't think twice about going up against the Vampire terrorizing the countryside, he'd run or hide; my version of a hero fights a battle with the thing worthy of legend, spits in its eye before running it through with an oaken stake, cutting off its head, and stuffing its mouth with garlic (the true way to kill a vampire, according to legend, requires all of these, not just one), and then storms the gates of Hell itself to kill the demon responsible for the blasphemy. I dunno, maybe it's because I read too much mythology as a kid, but I expect a hero to be a Jason or Heracles or Achiles, not Dak the Potter.
TikiMan 04-26-07, 11:38 PM	Sometimes in life we have to generalize. I guess I just can't get over the fact that, because I like to powergame (I enjoy doing damage) I am lumped into the same cagetory as a jerk, people who are obnoxious, who smell, or who are crazies carrying concealed knives. The fact that you find the situation of 'ask someone not to powergame' as contrived as 'kill a baby' is pretty boggling too. Can you understand how disturbing these facts are to someone who is a powergamer? and the drama queens tend to have the attitude that damage does not have to be directly related to damage (though drama queens will often freely admit that this is in fact a possibility, just not the only possibility). Did you mean 'fun does not have to be directly related to damage'? And what would you call someone who says that fun is directly related to NOT doing damage. I always thought that's what drama-queen referred to, and was wondering why you were applying a specifically derogatory term to people who didn't think fun had to be directly related to damage, but could be. Though, if you did mean damage both times I'm just not sure what you meant.
Mock26 04-27-07, 12:14 AM	I guess I just can't get over the fact that, because I like to powergame (I enjoy doing damage) I am lumped into the same cagetory as a jerk, people who are obnoxious, who smell, or who are crazies carrying concealed knives. The fact that you find the situation of 'ask someone not to powergame' as contrived as 'kill a baby' is pretty boggling too. Can you understand how disturbing these facts are to someone who is a powergamer? If you read the above post you would have read, And, just to let you know, I'm not implying that you are any of the above! I was making the point that there could be other reason as to why someone would not be invited to join my D&D group. Powergaming is NOT the only reason why someone would not get invited to join my group. Did you even read about the psycho guy in camo with knives? In one of his e-mails he said that loved getting into character when he played and he preferred physically weak characters. He did not come across as a powergamer. He was not invited to join because he was a freak! And, you completely and totally missed the point about killing a baby. Nowhere did I even come close to implying that baby killing was related to powergaming. Did you bother to read my entire post? (And, since you missed such an obvious point, I have wonder if you speak english as a second language or if you're like 11 or 12 years old.) The point I was making, a point which I clearly stated in my above post, was that anyone can create an example that would make someone contradict a previous statement. For example: "I would never play with a powergamer." "What if he agreed to not powergame?" "Well, then I would play with him." or "I would never wear fur." "What if you were stranded in the wilderness and had to kill a bear for the meat and winter was fast approaching and you had nothing warm to wear? Would you use his fur to make a coat?" "Yes. I would." of "I would never kill someone." "What if you had to kill a baby in order to save the entire world?" "Well, then I guess the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one." Do you get the point now? My point had nothing to do with powergaming. It had to do with people coming up with examples, sometimes farfetched and extreme, simply to try and make someone contradict a previous statement. Did you mean 'fun does not have to be directly related to damage'? And what would you call someone who says that fun is directly related to NOT doing damage. I always thought that's what drama-queen referred to, and was wondering why you were applying a specifically derogatory term to people who didn't think fun had to be directly related to damage, but could be. Though, if you did mean damage both times I'm just not sure what you meant. Yep, I meant fun. Drama Queen can mean many diffferent levels of roleplaying, be it those who simply favor roleplaying a bit more than combat, to those who prefer no combat at all. Many words have more than one meaning.
Cold Napalm 04-27-07, 12:29 AM	Yep, I meant fun. Drama Queen can mean many diffferent levels of roleplaying, be it those who simply favor roleplaying a bit more than combat, to those who prefer no combat at all. Many words have more than one meaning. Umm no drama queen means the latter And worse it's not that they prefer no combat at all...they love combat where they can "role play" their awesomeness at how useless they are in combat. Just like munchkin means oh look I do 3000 damage this round. Those who prefer role playing over combat are called players. That is what the average role players do. Those who prefer the combat aspect are the power gamers. The drama queens and munchkins are the extreme of those two and I personally don't play with either of the latter but will gladly play with the former. Oh conversely if you think drama queens run the gambit then so do power gamers (from they prefer combat slightly more then role play aspect to bah pun pun is a wuss compared to me). and to say that that you will never play with anyone who is slightly more intested in combat then NPC interactions seems rather...well DUMB don't you think?
Archangel62 04-27-07, 01:45 AM	Ok, I have had it with the idea that optimizers make the game bad because the DM has to adapt. News flash, the DM also needs to adapt if the group is too weak or too one sided. The DM can make the game neutral but without some interventions it can get problematic regardless. Let me explain something, one of my worst and most problematic players as an RP enthusiast who complained about optimization. He made a character that was fairly weak and poorly designed, it was a great way to keep attention on him because out of combat he jumped into the spotlight and pretty much talked over anyone else and demanded that his backstory get included heavily into the plot that I had. Also, he justified being rude to the others in game and refusing to help them pay for the ressurection of a comrade because "That's how my character is." Add in that in combat he wasn't very well built so the group had to spend extra time and take more damage defending him again putting him on center stage. When he saw what some of them could do and were able to accomplish through cunning, tactics, or a good build he comaplained that they were powergaming munchkins and that they needed to learn that it wasn't about modifiers. To top it off times where he did succeed (enemy fumbles or incredible luck on his part) he crowed about it for hours, and then when he died because he charged a group of three ogres in formation, all of whom were reported as radiating strong magical energy that the artificer couldn't identify easily, he then screamed at me for making the encounter too difficult and pandering to the "power gaming munchkin hacknslashers" I told him to get his things and leave because he wasn't welcome at my table with that attitude or behavior. Now many of you RP enthusiasts will argue that this is a problem with the player, not the style. EXACTLY! This is the same thing that the optimizer crowd tries to remind you guys of when you complain about a munchkin who ruined a game. Also, to those who complain that a DM shouldn't have to alter encounters because of a strong character, many of you argue that they should for a weaker one. They might also have to alter it if a group is heavily one sided or anything else. My proble, is that so many of you advocate a double standard and it's frankly more likely to turn the game into something resembling this (http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/hb.html), which frankly would be unplayable.
Dire_Kitten 04-27-07, 01:54 AM	running it through with an oaken stake, cutting off its head, and stuffing its mouth with garlic (the true way to kill a vampire, according to legend, requires all of these, not just one) Dracula was killed with a bowie knife by a few experts (Van Helsing, Harker and Seward), an aristocrat (Holmwood), and one guy who was maybe a warrior (Quincey Morris), but maybe a commoner. I enjoy games where everyone is a superhero from the comic books or mythology, but I also enjoy playing other types of heroes sometimes, especially when they grow into superheroes, as all D&D characters do. (As an aside, "vampire" lore is so diverse from tradition to tradition, that I don't think there is any one "true" version of it.)
Cold Napalm 04-27-07, 02:07 AM	But how will the drama queens play any game if there aren't double standards to keep them alive in any system?!? I mean really, don't you know that the game is all about me? It doesn't matter what the DM wants or the other players want as long as I get to do what I want all the time...you know :rolleyes: . This is why the world is such a s*** hole right now. And they have the adaucity to complain about people who actually like to use their brain instead of just going me me me. I remeber hearing a speach from a democratic party rally where the lady said such things like well any educated and professional people can clearly see that people like howard stern promote sexism and should be banned from speaking on the radio. I'm sorry...what?!? Stern is offensive to many true, but when did it become uneducated and unprofessional to you know believe in the first admendment? The world must never listen to Stern because I find him offensive is how people think these days (and they usually get their way too). Drama queens work like this. So really are you really surprised?
Archangel62 04-27-07, 02:41 AM	But how will the drama queens play any game if there aren't double standards to keep them alive in any system?!? I mean really, don't you know that the game is all about me? It doesn't matter what the DM wants or the other players want as long as I get to do what I want all the time...you know :rolleyes: . This is why the world is such a s*** hole right now. And they have the adaucity to complain about people who actually like to use their brain instead of just going me me me. I remeber hearing a speach from a democratic party rally where the lady said such things like well any educated and professional people can clearly see that people like howard stern promote sexism and should be banned from speaking on the radio. I'm sorry...what?!? Stern is offensive to many true, but when did it become uneducated and unprofessional to you know believe in the first admendment? The world must never listen to Stern because I find him offensive is how people think these days (and they usually get their way too). Drama queens work like this. So really are you really surprised? Not really, and that makes me sad.
WolfHati 04-27-07, 03:48 AM	Just because Howard Stern has the right to be an idiot on the air, it doesn't mean that he's any brighter than someone who leads a moral crusade to say that he shouldn't. I think there's kind of an analogy here...
Archangel62 04-27-07, 04:04 AM	Just because Howard Stern has the right to be an idiot on the air, it doesn't mean that he's any brighter than someone who leads a moral crusade to say that he shouldn't. I think there's kind of an analogy here... That wasn't his point, he's just saying that while he may disagree with what someone says they still have a right to say it.
TwistedPuppy 04-27-07, 01:40 PM	But how will the drama queens play any game if there aren't double standards to keep them alive in any system?!? I mean really, don't you know that the game is all about me? It doesn't matter what the DM wants or the other players want as long as I get to do what I want all the time...you know :rolleyes: . IIRC, the OP was in the situation you describe above - although I think he was just better at the mechanics of making a character than the others in his group. Which shouldn't have been a problem IMO, but they seemed to think it was. Apparently he came to some compromise with the rest of his group, which is great. This is why the world is such a s*** hole right now. And they have the adaucity to complain about people who actually like to use their brain instead of just going me me me. I remeber hearing a speach from a democratic party rally where the lady said such things like well any educated and professional people can clearly see that people like howard stern promote sexism and should be banned from speaking on the radio. I'm sorry...what?!? Stern is offensive to many true, but when did it become uneducated and unprofessional to you know believe in the first admendment? Nor are democrats the only guilty parties when it comes to trashing the First Ammendment on the altar of political expediency. For example the well-known conservative pundit and author who said on national television that you aren't allowed to criticize the President. Beg pardon? Unless the USA suddenly became Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia, you sure as hell can. The world must never listen to Stern because I find him offensive is how people think these days (and they usually get their way too). So was Don Imus, after his faux pas he was initially suspended for two weeks with pay (which every American should strive for - being paid not to come to work). Only after his sponsors started pulling out was Imus fired. So whether he was wrong or his apology was sincere was immaterial; the fact is that money talks. You can vote as easily with your bank card as at a ballot box. Again, Stern is responsible to his sponsors. I imagine if enough people sent emails to the Big Honkin' Corporation That Sponsors Howard Stern threatening to stop buying their products, he'd be off the air. (To me, Stern is a lot more entertaining than Don Imus ever was.) Otherwise, if you don't like it: DON'T LISTEN TO IT. My radio has a thing called a tuner on it - if I don't like who is talking or the music that is playing, I change the station. As for D&D, not everyone plays the same style. If you don't like the style of the group you are in, no need to get personal. "Sorry, but this just isn't the kind of game I was looking for" isn't slander or condemnation. Roleplaying and making a good character - optimised, if you will - are not mutually exclusive. One does not need a weak character to roleplay. Nor does wanting to roleplay an interesting character make the player a primadonna. One of the few things that Cael has said on this thread that I agree with is what he calls an optimizer - making an effective character within the rules of the game. No one should be penalized for making an effective character. I do, however, caution players in my games about optimizing to the point where the character is a one-trick pony. To me, powergaming is when someone is, like Cold Napalm said, only concerned about himself, and is somehow trying to "win" the game by having the best gear, killing the most enemies, etc. Someone who hasn't grasped that it is a team game. Most of these "powergamers" I have met have actually been pretty poor at optimizing their character and need very specific items to make up for the deficiencies. (Not really a problem until they start complaining that the item they needed wasn't in the last loot you found, or that the mage doesn't have the craft feat to make him what he needs, etc.) Munchkin = cheater is about as good a definition as any. Given that players I'd call munchkins usually had their character based on a (deliberate) misinterpretation of a rule or rules.
TikiMan 04-27-07, 06:43 PM	If you read the above post you would have read, And, just to let you know, I'm not implying that you are any of the above! I was making the point that there could be other reason as to why someone would not be invited to join my D&D group. Powergaming is NOT the only reason why someone would not get invited to join my group. And I understood that point completely. When giving reasons synonymous to powergaming for not playing with someone, your first examples are; jerk-off, smelly, conceited, and 'crazy guy with knives'. Enjoying damage dealing, just like being a 'knife freak' or intentionally ruining your game session, is a justifiable reason to not let someone play at your table. This doesn't mean that powergamers are freaks or do ruin your game, but they are in the same category. Several of us understand this, and think you're crazy, perhaps even conceited, for having such a huge chip on your shoulder against those of us who like to be combat effective in the games we play. Did you even read about the psycho guy in camo with knives? Given that I put 'crazies carrying concealed knives' in my post, I'm not sure why you even have to ask this question. Do you honestly think I would just randomly make that comment, or did you skip over that part of my post? Oh, and for the record, I actually have a (half)brother who's a lot like this guy. He's spent about 1/3 of his life in 'correctional institutions', starting at the age of 14. He's proud of the fact that he has fathered children in multiple states, proud that he got kicked out of the French Foreign Legion for breaking some guys arm in a bar fight, and proud of the fact that he's a fascist. I on the other hand have 2 speeding tickets to my name. You've put me in the cliché situation of being the good guy who is told he's no better then the bad guy. The fact that I like rolling 6d6 and tactical thought is enough to liken me to people who commit crimes for the fun of it. You're not saying that I'd commit crimes, but I am in the same category. And, you completely and totally missed the point about killing a baby. Nowhere did I even come close to implying that baby killing was related to powergaming. Did you bother to read my entire post? (And, since you missed such an obvious point, I have wonder if you speak english as a second language or if you're like 11 or 12 years old.) The point I was making, a point which I clearly stated in my above post, was that anyone can create an example that would make someone contradict a previous statement. Actually, I'm an education major. I'm in training for a job where I grade what people have written. All of my teachers and peers say I'm pretty good at it too. One important thing that I have learned is that what you meant to say and what you actually said are often a bit different. How is 'I suppose you could get me to agree to anything', followed directly by 'I suppose you could get me to allow a powergamer into the group' followed directly by 'I suppose I could also be convinced to kill a baby' NOT going to imply that there is a connection between powergaming and killing babies? Your point very clearly was 'I could be convinced to do a lot of things, including play with a powergamer or kill a baby'. It may not have been what you meant to say, but if you look at your post it is what you actually said. My point had nothing to do with powergaming. So, if your point had nothing to do with powergaming, then why was powergaming used as an example of your point and why was your point applied to the situation of gaming with a powergamer? No, wait, let me get a bag of popcorn before you answer that one. :P It had to do with people coming up with examples, sometimes farfetched and extreme, simply to try and make someone contradict a previous statement. My point had nothing to do with coming up with far fetched and extreme examples. It had everything to do with pointing out the situation you are currently in. You said 'he called himself a powergamer' and then myself and others pointed out 'but he said he was OK with not powergaming, and actually sounds more like an optimizer'. This isn't an example situation, it's reality, and you're talking about it in the same breath you talk about killing babies. Have you even read the OP's posts? I suggest you look them up, and you really don't need to go any further then the first three pages. Yep, I meant fun. You mean the 11 year old who speaks English as a second language understood what you meant to say despite the typo? Must have rolled a 20 or something. :bored: Drama Queen can mean many diffferent levels of roleplaying, be it those who simply favor roleplaying a bit more than combat, to those who prefer no combat at all. Um, no, it pretty much refers to 'basket weaving reluctant heroes' only; players who consider optimized characters anathema to D&D. That's why it's considered derogatory and specifically why Cael brought it up so much. It has many different meanings, but 'reasonable person' is not one of them. Dictionary (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/drama%20queen) definitions (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/drama+queen). Many words have more than one meaning. Can powergaming? I'm still trying to get over the fact that you'll allow someone to game with you if they don't powergame, but they have to somehow know to tell you that. Asking them to is simply too much to be bothered with. And just to let you know, openly insulting someone in a post where you're trying to say you weren't insulting them is...contradictory to say the least.
graddlin 04-28-07, 12:08 AM	Ok, I have had it with the idea that optimizers make the game bad because the DM has to adapt. News flash, the DM also needs to adapt if the group is too weak or too one sided. The DM can make the game neutral but without some interventions it can get problematic regardless. Let me explain something, one of my worst and most problematic players as an RP enthusiast who complained about optimization. He made a character that was fairly weak and poorly designed, it was a great way to keep attention on him because out of combat he jumped into the spotlight and pretty much talked over anyone else and demanded that his backstory get included heavily into the plot that I had. Also, he justified being rude to the others in game and refusing to help them pay for the ressurection of a comrade because "That's how my character is." Add in that in combat he wasn't very well built so the group had to spend extra time and take more damage defending him again putting him on center stage. When he saw what some of them could do and were able to accomplish through cunning, tactics, or a good build he comaplained that they were powergaming munchkins and that they needed to learn that it wasn't about modifiers. To top it off times where he did succeed (enemy fumbles or incredible luck on his part) he crowed about it for hours, and then when he died because he charged a group of three ogres in formation, all of whom were reported as radiating strong magical energy that the artificer couldn't identify easily, he then screamed at me for making the encounter too difficult and pandering to the "power gaming munchkin hacknslashers" I told him to get his things and leave because he wasn't welcome at my table with that attitude or behavior. Now many of you RP enthusiasts will argue that this is a problem with the player, not the style. EXACTLY! This is the same thing that the optimizer crowd tries to remind you guys of when you complain about a munchkin who ruined a game. Also, to those who complain that a DM shouldn't have to alter encounters because of a strong character, many of you argue that they should for a weaker one. They might also have to alter it if a group is heavily one sided or anything else. My proble, is that so many of you advocate a double standard and it's frankly more likely to turn the game into something resembling this (http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/hb.html), which frankly would be unplayable. You make a good point here, friend. I believe what you say is wisdom. It is a matter of the players, not the style. I love the RP aspect of the game, but I need strong characters that can take on the challenges that I throw at them. Unfortunately, this argument, which I take neither side on, will go nowhere. With people throwing insults back and forth in favor of civil conversation, this topic will remain a hard topic to negotiate. Take care, friend.
Pandaemoni 04-28-07, 01:30 PM	Um, no, it pretty much refers to 'basket weaving reluctant heroes' only; players who consider optimized characters anathema to D&D. That's why it's considered derogatory and specifically why Cael brought it up so much. It has many different meanings, but 'reasonable person' is not one of them. Dictionary (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/drama%20queen) definitions (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/drama+queen). Can powergaming? I'm still trying to get over the fact that you'll allow someone to game with you if they don't powergame, but they have to somehow know to tell you that. Asking them to is simply too much to be bothered with. Powergaming in fact does have many definitions. Half the arguments in these sorts of threads arise because people are using the terms in differing ways without ever bothering to define their personal meaning. Some people use "powergaming" and "optimizing" as synonyms. Some use "powergamer" and "munchkin" as synonyms. Others have different definitions for each. In a PM to me, someone (who shall remain nameless unless they tell me otherwise) pointed out that no one in this or any other thread is using "drama queen" in anything approaching its dictionary definition. That term is basically left to the individual poster to define but seems to mean something like "a roleplayer who is willing to mechanically weaken his character in some way as a means of helping him roleplay some aspect or quirk of that character." It's not at all clear that "drama queens" overreact to minor difficulties (which is the core of the dictionary definition). I suspect the point of the slur, implicitly, is to stress the two words separately as "drama" and "queen", i.e. to suggest that it is a person who emphasizes "dramatic" character development over mechanical advantage and who is therefore a homosexual or effeminate in some way. In other words, it's a queer who prefers dramatic gameplay over successful mechanics. That makes me wonder if the people emphasizing the term may not be very young, or insecure in their sexuality.
Tyraxus 04-28-07, 05:50 PM	Powergaming in fact does have many definitions. Half the arguments in these sorts of threads arise because people are using the terms in differing ways without ever bothering to define their personal meaning. Some people use "powergaming" and "optimizing" as synonyms. Some use "powergamer" and "munchkin" as synonyms. Others have different definitions for each. In a PM to me, someone (who shall remain nameless unless they tell me otherwise) pointed out that no one in this or any other thread is using "drama queen" in anything approaching its dictionary definition. That term is basically left to the individual poster to define but seems to mean something like "a roleplayer who is willing to mechanically weaken his character in some way as a means of helping him roleplay some aspect or quirk of that character." It's not at all clear that "drama queens" overreact to minor difficulties (which is the core of the dictionary definition). I suspect the point of the slur, implicitly, is to stress the two words separately as "drama" and "queen", i.e. to suggest that it is a person who emphasizes "dramatic" character development over mechanical advantage and who is therefore a homosexual or effeminate in some way. In other words, it's a queer who prefers dramatic gameplay over successful mechanics. That makes me wonder if the people emphasizing the term may not be very young, or insecure in their sexuality. You've got to be kidding. A "drama queen" is someone who relishes drama (and not necessarily just the acting kind, but often the "interpersonal drama" kind as well), and will create it if none is available. The term may indeed historically be related to homosexual thespians (having worked with quite a few, I can easily see how such a term could come about) but just like the word "gay" has changed in meaning, so has the term "drama queen" changed if that was indeed its origin. As far as your "dictionary definitions," I'd like to see them, as 1)neither google searches nor wikipedia offer a definition for the term "drama queen", and 2)it has historically been a slang-related idiom anyway. Wait, I just checked Wiktionary, and it does have a definition of "drama queen." Drama Queen, noun - an exaggeratedly dramatic person (not always a woman) So, you and your unnamed source are quite demonstratably wrong, as the phrase "drama queen" has been used in this thread and others completely correctly according to the idiomatic definition. And you can call me insecure all you want, I don't care. I calls 'em like I sees 'em. Awaiting my Official Warning for flaming, harassment, or whatever.
Pandaemoni 04-28-07, 06:24 PM	Ph34r my G00gl3 ski11z, as I found several definitions before writing my post, no problem. (Search for "'drama queen' definition") Definitions: -Someone who is melodramatic -somebody who likes to make a drama out of a situation by acting in an emotional way -a person given to often excessively emotional performances or reactions -any person who overreacts to a minor problem or situation (from Dictionary.com) It seems to me to be about emotion and overreaction, as I have always understood the term. Even wikitionary's definition "exaggeratedly dramatic" seems to mean "overdramatic" which Dictionary.com defines as "more dramatic than the situation calls for; acting hysterically or outrageously dramatic." Hence "drama queen" is *not* referring to drama as in "the theater" or a "propensity towards acting out works of fiction in character" but drama as in "events in real life having the emotional effect characteristic of a play."
Tyraxus 04-28-07, 06:37 PM	Thanks for the definitions (I guess the search string "define:" doesn't work as well as I thought). They reinforce my point: that the term "drama queen" is being used correctly in this and other threads, because the powergamer stereotype is "If I dip in Class A for 3 levels, then Class B for 2, and then PrC C for 2, D for 6, E for 1, and F for 2, and G for 4, I can get x more damage per round," while the RPer stereotype is "Woe betide, for I haveth not the ability to swing with more strength yet less accuracy, for the children of mine country are taught that waste is a sin. Therefore I cannot overcome yon beast's leather-like hide and bony ridges with mine martial prowess, nor can I offer skill matching or exceeding that of others with a more martial inclination; yet I must demand to be included in thine excursion to the depths of the Abyss, for I am a child touched by destiny and the Oracle spake that the entire world doth revolve around me." If people want to start throwing around stereotypes, don't be surprised if some get thrown back.
Pandaemoni 04-28-07, 07:02 PM	Thanks for the definitions (I guess the search string "define:" doesn't work as well as I thought). They reinforce my point: that the term "drama queen" is being used correctly in this and other threads, because the powergamer stereotype is "If I dip in Class A for 3 levels, then Class B for 2, and then PrC C for 2, D for 6, E for 1, and F for 2, and G for 4, I can get x more damage per round," while the RPer stereotype is "Woe betide, for I haveth not the ability to swing with more strength yet less accuracy, for the children of mine country are taught that waste is a sin. Therefore I cannot overcome yon beast's leather-like hide and bony ridges with mine martial prowess, nor can I offer skill matching or exceeding that of others with a more martial inclination; yet I must demand to be included in thine excursion to the depths of the Abyss, for I am a child touched by destiny and the Oracle spake that the entire world doth revolve around me." If people want to start throwing around stereotypes, don't be surprised if some get thrown back. But that doesn't suggest "behaving emotionally," but acting in a faux Shakespearian manner. A "drama queen" is not someone who simply overacts while portraying a character, it's someone who injects undue, over-the-top emotion into everyday, real life events—someone who makes everyday events seem as if they are as emotionally charged as elements from a melodrama. "Role players" (or whatever we want to call them) may or may not be melodramatic that that sense, even the ones who disdain "powergaming" and intentionally handicap their characters ("My rogue's a tortured artistic genius, so I'm going to take the feats Artist (PGtF), Skill Focus (painting) and Skill Focus (sculpting) as his 1st, 3rd and 6th level feats"). In this thread the word "drama" is in fact referencing the portrayal of character (whether it is portrayed in emotional tones or not). The dictionary term "drama queen" is not referring to acting out works of fiction, but uses "drama" in a metaphorical, rather than literal sense. I do accept, as you intimate, that the term may be used here to suggest a player who wants the whole game to revolve around his or her character. That said, most "role players" (or whatever) can both hate powergamers *and* recognize that everyone's character deserves a chance to shine. I can accept that we disagree on this, but I do not see that this thread uses the term "drama queen" to mean "a melodramatic person" and that's the basic definition of "drama queen" as I read the definitions. I also do suspect that those using the term most often are those who enjoy portraying their perceived opponents as "queens."
Tyraxus 04-28-07, 07:15 PM	I can accept that we disagree on this, but I do not see that this thread uses the term "drama queen" to mean "a melodramatic person" and that's the basic definition of "drama queen" as I read the definitions. I also do believe that those using the term most often are those who enjoy portraying their perceived opponents as "queens." Except that the overly-Shakespearean players tend towards the melodrama as well, and there's a good reason. I'm an amateur actor; the troupe I'm in puts on two shows per year (well, actually one compliation of short skits and one longer play-like performance). The two hardest things for me to learn were to 1)project my voice so I could be heard, and 2)exaggerate my emotions and facial expressions so they could be seen. When someone is in to putting Shakespearean verbiage into an RP situation (or even RPing in general, though not as much), it's quite easy to lapse into a stage persona, which would be fine for a stage, but winds up coming across as overacting when dealing with a small, close group. This makes others who aren't as interested in rehashing MacBeth upset because he's overacting or "being cheesy," and the guy doing it doesn't realize he's being melodramatic or overacting, so he thinks the others are overreacting to his RPing. This leads to conflict in the group, because neither side is willing to see things from the other side POV, or even sit down to discuss it ("Hey, it's awesome you're getting in to it, but could you dial it back a bit?" or "Cool, your guy can solo the Tarrasque in three rounds, but could you make the effort to get a little more into character?"). Meanwhile, addressing what you actually said (sorry, I tend to ramble), I picked a bad example, but that's because I knew where I was going and didn't finish the explanation. I hope it makes more sense now.
Mock26 04-29-07, 07:02 PM	Oh, and for the record, I actually have a (half)brother who's a lot like this guy. He's spent about 1/3 of his life in 'correctional institutions', starting at the age of 14. He's proud of the fact that he has fathered children in multiple states, proud that he got kicked out of the French Foreign Legion for breaking some guys arm in a bar fight, and proud of the fact that he's a fascist. I on the other hand have 2 speeding tickets to my name. You've put me in the cliché situation of being the good guy who is told he's no better then the bad guy. The fact that I like rolling 6d6 and tactical thought is enough to liken me to people who commit crimes for the fun of it. You're not saying that I'd commit crimes, but I am in the same category. OK, you caught me. You seem to know more about what I meant in my posts than I do. I think that ALL powergamers are smelly, unwashed, uncivilized, pshycotic, drug-using, obnoxious, jerk-off, alchoholic baby killers. THAT is why I don't let powergamers into my group, because I don't want social deviants in my apartment because if they don't kill me they'll probably steal my possessions to fund their drug habit. You're not saying that I'd commit crimes, but I am in the same category.And that group would be, "People not welcome in my group." Nothing more, and nothing less. You are the one implying some link that isn't there. You are the one reading hidden meanings into my words, hidden meanings that aren't there. Once more, and I'll try not to use big words: There are a lot of reasons why I would not let someone join my D&D group, and they are NOT all related. Powergamers do not fit well in my group. Durg-users do not fit well in my group. Smelly people do not fit in my group. People who do not speak a single word of English do not fit well in my group. People who live in Europe do not fit well in my group. People under 21 do not fit well in my group. Dead people do not fit well in my group. Devoutly religious people who think reading Harry Potter books is akin to worshipping the devil do not fit well in my group. People who have no interest in playing D&D do not fit well in my group. My ex-girlfriend does not fit well in my group. My parents do not fit well in my group. Obnoxious people do not fit in my group*. Just because someone fits into one of those categories does not necessarily mean that they fit into any other category. You're creation of mythical links is just in your head. If I said that I don't like certain foods, such as liver, fermented herring, and tofu, would you imply that I don't like fermented herring or tofu because it tastes like liver? No. You wouldn't. Yet, you seem to be making a similar connection when it comes to the type of people who I would not inivite to join my group. * And nowhere does this imply that I think people who live in Europe do not speak English, nor that no one in Europe is over the age of 21, nor that I think Europeans are my devoutly religious, drug-using, dead parents! I wanted to clarify that in case someone might think that.
TikiMan 04-29-07, 09:03 PM	OK, you caught me. You seem to know more about what I meant in my posts than I do. One important thing that I have learned is that what you meant to say and what you actually said are often a bit different. You are the one reading hidden meanings into my words, hidden meanings that aren't there. Hidden meanings?:uh-huh: When giving examples of things other then powergaming that would prevent someone from getting an invite you rambled off a derogatory list of things ranging from smelly to crazy. When asked if you would allow a powergamer to play with you if he says he won't powergame you agree, but only on the basis that you would also agree to killing a baby. After declaring the OP unfit for gaming with, a couple of people point out that he's more of an optimizer and would be willing to play a non-powergamed character. You persist in your 'nope, he said the P word, so he's out' stance despite agreeing that you don't mind optimizers. And lets not forget the ridiculous situation where you allow powergamers to play, but only if they read your mind before hand and know to prostrate themselves in forgiveness for their enjoyment of dealing damage. If they're just honest or exuberant about their love for the dice its into the garbage with them. But hey, for you, that's not a problem. You've got a whole line of people wanting to get in on your game. If your first list had been as random as the last one, it would have made sense. If you had given the example of 'running through town naked' instead of 'kill a baby', it would have made sense. But your posts show blatant bias against powergamers. I'm not saying you have that bias yourself (despite thinking it very loudly), but I can say that your posts reek of it. And guess what, I'm not the only one who's seeing this! Forget what you meant to say. Go back and re-read what you posted. Can you honestly not see how offensive your posts look? In a PM to me, someone (who shall remain nameless unless they tell me otherwise) pointed out that no one in this or any other thread is using "drama queen" in anything approaching its dictionary definition. I think my definition has something to do with the dictionary definition. A RPer is someone who likes to role-play, and this says pretty much nothing about their like or dislike for roll-play. A Drama Queen is someone who likes to role-play, but when confronted with a roll-player they overreact and throw a hissy fit because everyone knows you have to sacrifice all of your character's flavor for power if you're a roll-player. They'd probably throw more hissy fits if you wanted to play a Psion or monk because 'those weren't in LotR'. The definition is intentionally derogatory because it is meant as an insulting term. The opposite of a Drama Queen is a Munchkin (two types of people practically nobody likes playing with). The opposite of a RPer is a Powergamer.
Mock26 04-29-07, 09:55 PM	It matters not the examples used. Be they Good or Bad or Neutral, the exact same point was being made. It's not my fault if someone misinterprets them and jumps to wildly inaccurate and fanciful conclusions. Just to clarify: When I refer to the words Good or Bad or Neutral I am not referring to the quality of the example, but rather the situation being used in an example. For instance, an example involving a puppy in a field of flowers would be a good situation. On the other hand, an example involving a 50-car pile-up with 100 dead people would be a bad situation.
Cardinal Teplin 04-30-07, 07:46 PM	I'm not clear how this discussion of Mock26's posts are in any way relevent to thread. Could I ask that people who want to discuss the phraseology of a particular poster, or their motives, post how this relates to main thread before they do so? This is not the place to pursue individual disputes. In general I'm wondering if people are missing a trick here. Obviously certain people aren't likely to play well together. Styles will clash and people may be unable or unwilling to compromise of the style of game they are used to playing. Simillarly posting styles differ greatly also. I've certainly read posts that I find it hard and painful to agree with, irrespective of the opinion mooted, simply because of logical or argumentative style that is used to propose the point. I'm wondering if the same effect isn't at play here. The problem is not that your power-hacked/angst-ridden character is two dimensional or boring, but rather that people have radically different styles for expressing that character Some may find it impossible to do so without seeing their characteristation impact on the portrayal of the other characters, and get called drama queens, and others can't do so without embedding the competance of their character into the reality of game system as a systematic numerical superiority over an assumed mean (without their character being unusually powerful in terms of game mechanics). In other words, the problem isn't the characters that people chose to play, but rather the way in which they chose to play them.
TwistedPuppy 04-30-07, 10:56 PM	Just what was this thread about? Been so long since anyone posted on the subject I'm having trouble remembering :confused: Oh, yeah.. is being a powergamer being a bad person? No, it isn't. If powergaming is the only way you like to play, or more important the only way you WILL play, then you are probably limiting yourself as to the types of games you're going to be in. Just as anyone who favors characters that are poor mechanically but heavily "flavored" is going to limit themselves. I'd think most average players have little trouble adjusting to either. There's no reason a "roleplayer" can't play just as well with a character that is sound in terms of game mechanics. Nor is there any reason an "optimiser" can't do a fantastic job of roleplaying a character. Me, I like a combination of optimizing and roleplaying. Optimisers and roleplayers can exist and have fun at the same table. I've seen it, and the campaign lasted over 3 years until we decided the ELH blew chunks. If you want some fluff, like maybe you are gifted in the preparation of roadkill stew, great, put it in your background. I don't see any real need for you to waste your skill points on profession: cooking to be able to turn that dead opossum into a dish fit for a king - or at least a starving adventurer. Nor am I going to let you dig through every d20 book ever printed to find the perfect feats that stack and make your character a near deity at level 12. But as previously mentioned, thats why the DM gets to decide what books are allowed, and what the character creation guidelines are: within those rules, have at it. The DM shouldn't try to punish, nor should the rest of the group criticize, any character made within those limits. It is the player's character. The DM and the other players are free to advise and recommend, but it is not their character. As a DM, punishing someone either in game or out of game because they didn't play a character the way you wanted them to is being no less of a jerk than someone who intentionally screws with your game.
WizO_Cat 04-30-07, 11:06 PM	Ok, let's knock off the personal comments. It's considered Baiting which is against the Code of Conduct. Unless you really love Official Warns, I highly suggest that you refrain from such activities. That goes to those on both sides of the argument. Fair warning.
TikiMan 04-30-07, 11:39 PM	Going to quote the nicer parts of your post that got cut for personal comments. Was working on it while the cut happened. Hope this is OK. Example 1: "I don't game with powergamers, smelly people, obnoxious people, or drug addicts." Example 2: "I don't game with powergamers, people who don't speak English, hippies, or drug addicts." Why would someone assume in the first example that I equate powergamers with being smelly drug addicts but NOT make the assumption with the second example that I equate powergamers with being non-English speaking, hippie drug addicts? This doesn't mean that powergamers are freaks or do ruin your game, but they are in the same category. My point has never been that you think powergamers are smelly or anything. My point has been that you proport the term powergamer to be derogatory because everything you associated it with has been derogatory. There is a difference between a bad example and an example that uses a bad situation. Ah, my bad then. I saw 'bad example' and though, well, 'bad example' instead of 'bad situation'. But why was your first list of examples full of nothing but derogatory statements? PS, bad examples and derogatory examples are two different things. 'Doesn't speak English' is a bad situation, but most wouldn't consider it derogatory. Once more, I said that based on the original posters blatant and obvious statement of "I am a powergamer," a statement that is also part of this thread's title, I would not let him join my group. You yourself have stated that words have different meanings. When we point out that powergamer has different meanings, that his group labeled him as a powergamer, and he seems to actually be an optimizer, you stubbornly refuse to change your initial judgment for no other reason that seeing him use the P word. You're not banning him for being a powergamer, you're banning him for using the word powergamer without first apologizing for it. Based on the original poster's admittance that he is a powergamer I would not invite him to join my group. To use the lingo; his original testimony was found inadmissible because it was garnered under duress. His group labeled him as a powergamer and he didn't know any better. If you had read 5 posts in the first 3 pages of the thread you too could have made an informed post, but instead you see the word 'powergamer' and assume he means the exact same thing you do. I know where your point is coming from. You are claiming that the original poster is more of an optimizer. Oh for the love of... That's not my point; that's supporting evidence for the fact that your continued 'banning' of the OP is silly. My point is that your entire post is derogatory to powergamers. Not that you consider them smelly drug addicts, but that you use the term powergamer in a derogatory fashion. Where's the problem? The problem I have with you banning him stems from the fact that you say you have a nice long interview process for judging new gamers, but you seem to think judging someone based on a single post is fine. When other people take the time to talk with him it turns out he's more of an optimizer. The fact that you couldn't read a wopping 5 posts in the first 3 pages of this thread I can accept, but you refuse to even listen to people who have read his posts. The problem is your obstinate refusal to accept any new information and your entrenchment of the banning response. It is wildly inaccurate to make the assumption that I think powergamers are smelly and obnoxious and drug users and jerks and alcoholics and such. It is not wildly inaccurate to interpret my posts as insulting. I've been assuming the latter the whole time. My point was that you lumped powergamers in with that crowd, not that you called powergamers smelly. I made that specific distinction in the post where I talked about my brother. I'm not clear how this discussion of Mock26's posts are in any way relevent to thread. I'm trying to figure out why he considers it a mature, acceptable response to ban people who like to powergame. His primary reason seems to be that he doesn't really need any new players. In other words, the problem isn't the characters that people chose to play, but rather the way in which they chose to play them. It seems that Mock26 isn't actually interested in how you play the character. He's only worried about if you use the word powergamer to describe yourself.
weepingminotaur 05-01-07, 12:32 AM	I consider myself someone who leans more towards optimizing but who always wants to keep the roleplaying element alive and well. I optimize the hell out of a build, but then I try to create a character that makes sense for the build, that feels believable and playable, and that I adhere to in-session. If my character were nothing but a pile of stats, I would be dissatisfied.
Mock26 05-02-07, 06:33 PM	My point has never been that you think powergamers are smelly or anything. My point has been that you proport the term powergamer to be derogatory because everything you associated it with has been derogatory. Thor's Blessed Hammer, man, I do not proport the term powergamer to be derogatory. Nowhere have I said that. And, any implication of the same has been in the minds of individuals and was not intended or implied by me. My point has always been that I do not play with powergamers (meaning those who would insist on playing a powergamer character in my campaign), as well as other types of people. Yes, some of the reasons applied to some of these people might be derogatory, but if they are then that only means that that particular reason is derogatory. It does not affect whether or not any other reasons are derogatory. You have been taking your interpretation of what I wrote and have been trying to force it upon me as the reason(s) behind my post(s), despite my repeated assertions to the contrary. I really wish you would stop trying to find hidden meanings behind my posts, especially when I have explicitly stated that there have been no hidden meanings. I do not think the term powergamer nor those to whom the term applies to be derogatory in any way, shape, or form. As I stated in my first post in this thread, and as I now restate yet again, powergamers (meaning those who would insist on playing a powergamer character in my campaign) are not welcome in my group for the simple reason that powergaming does not fit in with the style of play that my group prefers to play. I have nothing against powergaming or powergamers. I think it is great that some people relish the roll of the powergamer and truly enjoy it. As I have stated repeatedly throughout these forums, I don't think it matters what style or version or how you play D&D. All that matters is that you enjoy D&D when you play it. However, this is a two-way street and means that those who you play with also need to enjoy the game. Since the style of play in my group is one not conducive to powergaming, those in my group would not have a good time playing with a powergamer (meaning those who would insist on playing a powergamer character in my campaign). So, we don't play with powergamers (meaning those who would insist on playing a powergamer character in my campaign) in my group. Again, I do not have any negative opinions on powergaming or powergamers except on how it affects my group.
TikiMan 05-03-07, 03:20 AM	I do not proport the term powergamer to be derogatory. When giving examples of things other then powergaming that would prevent someone from getting an invite you rambled off a derogatory list of things ranging from smelly to crazy. When asked if you would allow a powergamer to play with you if he says he won't powergame you agree, but only on the basis that you would also agree to killing a baby. Or, in your own words: It is not wildly inaccurate to interpret my posts as insulting. My point has always been that I do not play with powergamers (meaning those who would insist on playing a powergamer character in my campaign) But you had a different definition for powergamer just a little while ago... How can your point remain the same if the definition of the key word of your point changes? Or is this more of that 'my point has nothing to do with powergaming' stuff... And the OP clearly has no interest in insisting he play a powergamed character. Is he still banned for simply using the term powergamer to describe himself? The reason I keep bringing this up is because it lays bare the fact that you're saying one thing, but doing another. You have been taking your interpretation of what I wrote and have been trying to force it upon me as the reason(s) behind my post(s), despite my repeated assertions to the contrary. One important thing that I have learned is that what you meant to say and what you actually said are often a bit different. And again: It is not wildly inaccurate to interpret my posts as insulting. You're starting to go in circles. I'm not talking about your personal feelings, I'm talking about what you have written on these boards. I do not think the term powergamer nor those to whom the term applies to be derogatory in any way, shape, or form. Generally, those who 'insist' on playing a certain style, instead of trying to work with the group, are 'unreasonable' players. 'Unreasonable' is seen as derogatory. Note that I had no problems with your other definition for powergamer. I understand that you don't intend to say insulting things about powergamers but, even when you're really trying not to, you do a very good job of it.
kelvinaw273 05-03-07, 08:11 AM	Tell you what, get over your martyr syndrome. The primadonna drama queens have been calling optimisers cheesy munchkins for so long that it is now the accepted board standard. The WizOs actually punish anyone taking a different stance. Then why have they not banned you yet? As you have not been, I feel your statement to be incorrect and possibly a result of your own bias. So tell you what? When all the primadonnas stop trying to tell the optimisers what is the only and sole way of playing DnD because it is just the uber-l337 thing to do, when all the drama queens stop calling the optimisers munchkins, then you may have a case. Until then, you have no case to stand on to tell others to stop calling your faction by any labels because *your faction* are the ones that started the mess by calling others labels to begin with. Actually the pro-role-player faction on this thread has yet to spawn any such stance – in fact a lot of people on both sides, myself included, have gone out of their way to stress that there is no correct way to play. Mind you, I'm talking to somebody who regards a person explaining a differing point of view to your own as "attacking" them ... so let me underline one of the principals of that great icon of modern western civilized democracy, Free Speech: Just because somebody disagrees with your point of view does not mean they are your enemy, nor is it justifiable to treat them as such.. As for who actually started the mud-slinging outside of this thread, I have no idea, nor in fact do I care: as far as I am concerned that’s not a good enough excuse to drop to their level. I think I have found some good common ground with a lot of posters here from both camps, and I'd happily try gaming with the vast majority of them. Such as: Invincible? Hell no. Sometimes "iddqd" is fun (bonus if you get the reference), but if there's no risk of failure, there's no challenge, and no fun for me. I may want to play Superman, but only if Lex Luthor has a metric ton of Kryptonite bullets, and has Lois held hostage to boot. I thought I made that very clear when I said I'd play one even if the enemies were optomized TWICE as much as my own character. My version of a hero is someone who puts it on the line against incredible odds, odds that your average person would be insane to go up against. Your typical D&D commoner wouldn't think twice about going up against the Vampire terrorizing the countryside, he'd run or hide; my version of a hero fights a battle with the thing worthy of legend, spits in its eye before running it through with an oaken stake, cutting off its head, and stuffing its mouth with garlic (the true way to kill a vampire, according to legend, requires all of these, not just one), and then storms the gates of Hell itself to kill the demon responsible for the blasphemy. I dunno, maybe it's because I read too much mythology as a kid, but I expect a hero to be a Jason or Heracles or Achiles, not Dak the Potter. Oh, I cut my teeth on the classics too! So we both agree the hero is someone who puts it all on the line against the odds ... it's just you'd prefer to be Achilles saving the world, while I'd rather be Dak the Potter saving his daughter. I can (and do) play super-powered games, and they are fun, but I also find low-power games fun and challenging. I guess in high powered games I find there's a limit on how many times you can believably save the world - but that's another issue entirely. Perhaps the nice thing about D&D is that no matter what your play-style, Dak can become Achilles if he's in the game long enough.
Clawhound 05-03-07, 09:28 AM	Playing styles do not fit into an either/or selection. There's far more to gaming than optimizers and drama queens. If we want to summarize primary play styles, we could get: - Optimizer - Drama Queen - Beer Guzzler - Miniature Maniac - Wannabe Game Designer - Rules Lawyer - Comedian The optimizer wants to make the best character. The drama queen has the forty page backtory. The Beer Guzzler gamer just shows up, hangs-out, and kills critters. The Miniature Maniac is the guy who has every miniature that you need, already painted, just give him a hour to find it. The Wannabe Game Designer is the guy who is always rewriting his class and testing out rules. The Rules Lawyer is all about knowing the rules. The comedian is the guy who will do anything wacky, because he really doesn't care about serious stuff. THAT is more like a typical gaming group. That isn't even all the playstyles that I see. Any of those playstyles can be accommodated, and any of them can cause issues.
Cardinal Teplin 05-03-07, 09:33 AM	I'm trying to figure out why he considers it a mature, acceptable response to ban people who like to powergame. His primary reason seems to be that he doesn't really need any new players. It's entirely acceptable not to play with people if you feel the styles will clash. I generally give people the benefit of the doubt and assume that they will adapt their style towards mine, just as I adapt towards them, and we'll end up with something that everyone enjoyts. Sometimes this works, sometime it really doesn't. I've played with people I would not want to play with again unless they agreed to alter their playing style. It's a small step from there to saying that people who profess certain playing styles probably won't work with you/your group. It's a judgement call, it's potentially an inaccurate judgement call, but people have to make such calls, unless they have infinite time, patience and resources. It seems that Mock26 isn't actually interested in how you play the character. He's only worried about if you use the word powergamer to describe yourself. It might seem that way, but if you ask him, I suspect he'll disagree. The impression I'm getting from your posts is that you feel that this guy's 'real' opinions are somehow different from what he's saying they are, and you want to catch him out or force some kind of admission in some way. If the moderators get the same idea, your posts will be deleted for baiting, so please, if you're trying to make a general point, make the general point? F'rinstance, there is clearly a difference of opinion on whether someone should be rejected from a group on the basis of the label they apply to themselves, or more specifically, if they call themselves a powergamer. What basis do you think is a good reason to reject someone? Would people here reject someone from a joining a group on the basis of calling themselves a powergamer? Would people here reject someone from joining a group on the basis of calling themselves a drama queen? Would people here reject someone from joining a group on the basis of real-world political/religious views? (if you know you're all going to eventually hate eachother socially, is there much point in trying to game?) Are there people here who would NEVER reject someone from joining a game, but would accept all comers until you've seen them play. (in which case, how the heck do you keep your group down to a reasonable size, and how much of your time do you spend trying out people you don't feel will ever fit in?) Does your present group contain people with radically different playing styles? Do you hear about styles of play you never see in practice? (Finnish full-immersion roleplaying, anyone? In considering whether a powergamer (or drama queen) is a good person or not, we've pretty much concentrated on powergaming/dramaqueening, but I'm not convinced that defining a good/bad person for a group isn't real source of disagreement here. How do we define the point at which someone else's style of play starts spoiling the game for us?
Tyraxus 05-03-07, 11:04 AM	Oh, I cut my teeth on the classics too! So we both agree the hero is someone who puts it all on the line against the odds ... it's just you'd prefer to be Achilles saving the world, while I'd rather be Dak the Potter saving his daughter. I can (and do) play super-powered games, and they are fun, but I also find low-power games fun and challenging. I guess in high powered games I find there's a limit on how many times you can believably save the world - but that's another issue entirely. Perhaps the nice thing about D&D is that no matter what your play-style, Dak can become Achilles if he's in the game long enough. True enough. I don't know if there's a limit on how many times you can believably save the world, since in high-powered game, there's ALWAYS another high-powered spellcaster or something ready to destroy it. It's just up to the DM to make each adventure different (good example: I'm currently reading the Dresden Files series of books, and Harry has saved the world at least six times in six books... but each time it was a different plot and a great story). And yeah, the "Dak becomes Achilles" thing is one of the big draws to D&D for me. No matter how you start, you can eventually challenge the evil god and save the people. As an aside, I'm almost upset nobody's gotten my bonus yet (the "iddqd" reference). I know I'm not that old.
Comus 05-03-07, 12:01 PM	As an aside, I'm almost upset nobody's gotten my bonus yet (the "iddqd" reference). I know I'm not that old. We are all far too young to recognize Doom's God-Mode, you old cheat. :P
TikiMan 05-03-07, 06:37 PM	I generally give people the benefit of the doubt and assume that they will adapt their style towards mine, just as I adapt towards them, and we'll end up with something that everyone enjoyts. Sometimes this works, sometime it really doesn't. Giving people a chance to adapt their style to yours is the reasonable thing to do, and it's what Mock26 says he does. But then he turns around and bans the OP, not based on the type of gamer the OP seems to be, but simply for using the word powergamer to describe himself. This discontinuity is part of my problem with his posts, and a big part of my 'you mean one thing but are saying another' stance. If he truly believes in giving people a fair shake then why did he ban the OP, and why does he cling to that banning so fiercely. See post #734 for the answer. It's a small step from there to saying that people who profess certain playing styles probably won't work with you/your group. It's a judgement call, it's potentially an inaccurate judgement call, but people have to make such calls, unless they have infinite time, patience and resources. I think it's a large step to go from 'I enjoy doing damage' to 'I refuse to adapt to your game'. It's not 'potentially' inaccurate, it IS inaccurate, and talking with the person for ten minutes (or reading a few of their posts) can easily show you the difference between the two. Saying 'from what you've told me I don't think you'll fit in our games' is peachy, but saying 'you used the P word when talking about yourself, go away' is ridiculous. It might seem that way, but if you ask him, I suspect he'll disagree. Oh, I have no doubt that he would verbally disagree with me. But his actions would agree with me. Archangel62 and myself both pointed to the fact that the OP isn't a powergamer in the 'I must do damage to have fun' definition, and was probably using the word his group labeled him with. The topic of 'powergamer means different things to different people' was brought up, but Mock26 continued to ban him simply for using the word. The impression I'm getting from your posts is that you feel that this guy's 'real' opinions are somehow different from what he's saying they are, and you want to catch him out or force some kind of admission in some way. If the moderators get the same idea, your posts will be deleted for baiting, so please, if you're trying to make a general point, make the general point? I have clearly stated a couple of times that I think what Mock26 meant to say and what he actually said are two very different things. I'm saying nothing about what he actually thinks (though yeah, I'm thinking it kinda loudly). The moderators saw fit to delete several posts already, but I have yet to receive even a PM about my conduct. The general point I'm trying to make is that his posts (intentionally or not) are insulting to powergamers and it would be quite easy for a self proclaimed powergamer to take offense at what he says. About the only thing I'd like him to admit is the fact that his continued banning of the OP is ludicrous. So far he has officially opposed the idea of even remotely accepting either of those points, despite the fact that some of his side comments agree with me. F'rinstance, there is clearly a difference of opinion on whether someone should be rejected from a group on the basis of the label they apply to themselves, or more specifically, if they call themselves a powergamer. What basis do you think is a good reason to reject someone? I think the only 'good' reason to reject someone is if they refuse to adapt their playstyle to that of the table, specifically if they refuse to adapt for the fun of the game. I regularly game with several different groups, and in all of them there are widly disparate gaming styles. But because everyone is out to make sure everyone is having fun, it never becomes a problem. In fact I find it quite beneficial because the players rarely try to hog the same spotlight. The only problem players reported in these groups were people who tried to make the game all about their style and expected everyone else to follow suit and play the game their way.
Cardinal Teplin 05-03-07, 08:16 PM	I think the only 'good' reason to reject someone is if they refuse to adapt their playstyle to that of the table, Trouble with that is, you won't find that out until they start playing. I was specifically asking about criteria for joining a group. Once they're playing, they've already joined. Or are you suggesting some kind of probationary status, whereby someone plays but isn't really 'part of the group'? I don't like that kind of division myself... The point is, you often find a situation where you've basically got an empty chair, and either someone is approaching you or you have to approach someone. Who are you going to ask, who aren't you going to ask, who is going to get turned down flat? I like to try people out, but if they don't work out, I'm effectively stuck with them. Other people, who feel they aren't made of time, may want to try and guess beforehand who is likely to work out and who isn't, and that means making a judgement call _before_ they play the game. If someone was a self-proclaimed powergamer, I'd be more reluctant to include them in a game full of people who really got into the roleplaying side of things, because of potential style clash. Sure it might work out, but I'd consider it less likely than a person who didn't identify themselves with a particular style of game we weren't planning to cater to. Similarly there are plenty of people who describe themselves as drama-queens (or more specfically, angst-bunnies in the local parlance), whom I havn't encouraged to join my local living greyhawk group, because the emphasis is on powergaming, and I don't feel they would enjoy it, or that the rest of the table would enjoy them. I suspect many of them would probably fit in fine in practice, but I'd have to go through a few disasters to find out which ones. ...specifically if they refuse to adapt for the fun of the game. I regularly game with several different groups, and in all of them there are widly disparate gaming styles. But because everyone is out to make sure everyone is having fun, it never becomes a problem. In fact I find it quite beneficial because the players rarely try to hog the same spotlight. The only problem players reported in these groups were people who tried to make the game all about their style and expected everyone else to follow suit and play the game their way. That's a nice way to play a game, and it can work fine. But it's only one particular style, and it has its drawbacks. The game won't develop a strong signature style in relation to those parts of it that are most important to the players - the game ends up being identified by compromise and those style elements that are not controvertial. A dedicated powergamer might find that the challenge isn't quite there, a dedicated drama queen might feel the lack of mutual support in their efforts at character portrayal. It's possible that this isn't a problem for you because all your players are fine playing a game that isn't slanted in a particular direction - which isn't really a situation where powergamers and drama queens tend to come into conflict in the first place. Or you have carefully selected people without strong views on the subject. You previous mentioned that people who insisted on playing in a certain style were unreasonable, so possibly you've already excluded or made unwelcome all those with views too strong for your tastes? Or maybe you have the start of a solution here. I personally feel that the key to making opposing view cooperate is alternation rather than compromise, so by taking turns 'in the spotlight' you may be halfway to a solution here. I'd like to try running a group of half extreme powergamers and half extreme dramaqueens through a game which alternated between catering absolutely for powergamers and catering uncompromisingly for drama queens. Sadly, most people game for fun, not to indulge my social experiments, and don't want the stress or practical fall out from such an approach. Ah well. :plotting:
Zaleth 05-16-07, 03:42 PM	You are not a bad person at all and if your whole group power levels then your DM should be up to the challenge with what ever your group does. A good DM can over come anything a player can throw at them. I personally hate Power Leveling and strive for RP. In my sessions we do not use xp at all I will tell them when they lvl up and there are times that some lvl faster than others because of the good rp. No class/feat/spell lvl ect is barred from use either because I know that to do so limits the imagination of my players and stunts the game. But then again we play on a created world the players shape with no end to the story. I do not use modules.