Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Xanthia 01-13-05, 12:40 AM	My DM has had a serious problem with my gaming techniques for a while now, and I wanted to know if I really have a problem, or if this is all in his head. A while ago, I typed a thread about a certain character in particular. Please ignore that one, for I realised that I was powergaming. I have a question about powergaming in general. The defenition of powergaming I have often seen is this,"A powergamed character is one that is made to excel at something". That makes sense to me, because I choose the skills, feats, and classes that would benefit my character the most within his profession. For example, if I have a Barbarian, I would rather take Skills and Feats like Intimidate or Extra Rage rather than Profession:Florist or Skill Focus:Cooking. This is because I would rather my Barbarian be better in combat than a flower arranging cook (I normally have my Wizards or Rouges take ranks in Cooking or Calligraphy becacuse it adds flavor and I have skill points to spare). I also tend to choose weapons that would benefit my chracter the most. For the barbarian example above, I would rather have a Greataxe than a toothpick. For a Rouge, I would coose Rapier (if medium sized), or something like a Punch Dagger (for easy concealment). My Clerics normally have the weapon of their Diety, for obvious reasons (it fits the character's personality more, and combat, if I'm playing a Cleric, isn't that important to me). There's nothing wrong with these choices, is there? I tend to see powergaming as having a different meaning. I think that powergaming is doing something (or making a choice in character creation or leveling) that would benefit the character better than a different choice. Does this make sense to everyone? My DM always says that I powergame. When I roll a set of stats that look like: 17, 15, 14, 12, 11, 10, I tend to put the stats in different places, depending on the character. If I created a Rouge, he or she would most likely have the 17 to INT or DEX. My Fighter would probably put the 17 to STR or CON (or DEX, if he's a finesse type). Is THIS powergaming? If I'm a Wizard, I spend my skill points on something I know I'll need, as well as something that goes with the character. I'd spend them of Concentration, Spellcraft, and Knowledge:Arcana before I spend them on Craft:Pots and Pans. Is THIS powergaming? Somehow, I'm always to blame because I'm usually the strongest, most well-rounded character in the party. Maybe it's because the other party members are Sorcereress/Dragon Disciples and Druids with a 12 WIS. Yet, somehow, whenever I make a choice for my character, its powergaming. What I'm saying is, ANY choice that benefits your character is powergaming. Everyone powergames, in a way. Did your fighter take a longsword? Well, a longsword is obviously better than that short sword, you MUST be powergaming. Did you ever play a Druid who, when choosing animal companions, take a Wolf instead of a Snail? Once again, powergaming. Barbarian who takes Power Attack instead of Skill Focus:Alchemy is powergamed, just like the Wizard who puts his highest stat to INT instead of STR. Does everybody see where I'm coming from? I've talked to everyone in my group (and every gamer outside my group) about this, and nobody understands what I'm talking about. Maybe you people might. Please, share your thoughts on this.
Maniacal_Cackle 01-13-05, 12:45 AM	If you consider powergaming to be making any choice that is mechanically "stronger" than another choice, then yes, everyone power games. However, I believe one of the more accepted views of powergaming is making a choice that is more powerful than a choice that would have fit your concept better, such as failing to give your character ranks in Proffesion: cook when they love to cook.
Draco Strang 01-13-05, 01:50 AM	Powergaming is more of a "min/max" approached by players who want to "win" D&D. They forget that the game can never be "won". For example, if you've dipped 2 levels into the fighter class for your rogue/bard/ranger/monk for more than say, two characters, then you are probably a powergamer, as it gives you a bump in hit die, proficiency with all martial weapons, ability to wear heavier armor, and those two handy feats. If every single monk or rogue you've played has a level of wiz/sorcerer for the shield and mage armor spells, then you are probably a powergamer. If every fighter you've ever played uses a greatsword or greataxe, then yes...powergaming all the way. If your stats always resemble 18 18 17 16 15 14, then you are probably a powergamer (or really really lucky with the dice). People tend to forget that DnD is about characters with personality, and using critical thinking skills. What's the point of always having a 1st level mage with 20 Int, or using gish builds for every single character to max him for every situation? It really does take some of the challenge out of the game, and cheapens it. Not to mention, how many characters are gonna have the opportunity to serve in the army, study at a wizard college, join a thieves guild, spend time at a monastary, pledge their lives to a church, lose their primal self in the wild, enter bloodlusts, and have dragon blood all at the same time? It makes for a pretty shoddy character background. That's my interpretation of powergaming.
Ze_Mighty_Vegetable 01-13-05, 02:03 AM	Yes, everybody powergame to an extent. In my opinion, true powergaming consist of: 1): Making the PC specialize enough in an area in order to be the best mechanicaly (statisticaly). Of course, there are exceptions to tihs, and they are many. But still, making the best tank can't be considered one of them. The wizard who utterly nuke everything in site neither. 2): Ask yourself. If you fought your PC with a random PC, would you rate him as a challenge rating equal to his level? If not, powergaming is at play. 3):If your PC is significantly more powerfull than fellow PCs from your party (those of the same level, or better yet, higher level), you powergame. Somehow, I'm always to blame because I'm usually the strongest, most well-rounded character in the party. If you're usually the most powerfull, there must be a reason. Are you faulting he other players for not powergaming? If so, you subscribe to an hypocritical powergamer philosophy: A player who don't milk the rules for all he can add to his PC has only himself to blame for being weaker. sorry, but that's not how it works. I want to have fun, not play a mathematical ******* contest. By itself, powergaming is not wrong. What IS wrong is when not everybody powergame to the same extent. A lone powergamer in a party is a pain in the ass. NOBODY likes having a "big brother" who outshines everybody everytimes. More than that, in order to give a challenge to the powerfreak, the DM as to throw threats that are utterly deadly for the non-powergaming PCs. This is bad. Or if it's gotten so bad that the DM's threats are ridiculously easy to overcome for PC A while being impossibly deadly to PC B. The point is, powergaming, as with everything, is wrong when pushed too far.
Fuzzus 01-13-05, 02:10 AM	Well, as you stated it, Xanthia, everyone is a powergamer. But I agree with you; everyone wants their character to excel in a role. Why all this fuss over powergaming? The issues that people have with powergaming is that it is set directly against the concept of roleplaying, and that they'd rather have a "real" character than one who is "manufactured" in such a way as to maximize their strengths and minimize their weaknesses. In moderation and within reason, powergaming is not a problem. The real issues come when it is taken to the level of abuse, when powergaming begins to warp character, world, and rules. There are a few things that, in my mind, are distinctly characteristic of abusive powergaming: 1) Class-dipping. I understand that you (and a general you, not specifically addressed towards Xanthia) want to make your character as strong as possible, but a character with levels 3 base classes and 4 prestige classes by level 15 is atrocious, and I'd never allow it in my game. Unless -- and this is important -- they could genuinely and in a convincing way fit it into their character's storyline. My classic example is a friend of mine who plans out all his characters to level 20 and gets excited about how much damage his sneak attack will do or the benefits he'll get from all the passive abilities his class-dipping has earned him. But when I ask him where his character's from, I'm more likely to get an answer like "the Optimization boards" than "Whitevale Village." Perhaps it's possible that someone in one of my games will have a ton of classes, but they'd better have quite a backstory to justify it...and the backstory should not be formulated solely to allow the character to take the classes. 2) Hyperfocus. When someone hyperfocuses on a single ability, skill, spell, or attack to the point of ridiculousness, it's a clear powergaming strategy. If we're trying to keep our characters real people and not just numbers off a sheet, it's highly unlikely that anyone in life is driven towards perfection of a single maneuver. Rather, they are buffeted by their life experiences, and all of their experiences should be reflected in the character. For instance, if you're a diplomacy-specialist bard who's spent the past two months in the Mountains of Solitude, perhaps you should devote your next level's skill points to things like Climb and Jump instead of Diplomacy (seeing as how you'd be exercising and learning physical skills rather than social over the course of your past level). I approve of the technique of having players choose skills they've been using -- or at least related skills -- during leveling up, but I'm rather lax about enforcing it. 3) "Red flag" combos. There are combinations of spells, items, abilities, and other game elements out there that we know tend to be on the broken side, spiked chain/trip being one of the more cited examples. If you're trying to build your character entirely around a lock or alpha strike combo, you might be abusively powergaming. There are levels of difference between "effective," "good," and "unfair;" I heartily recommend that all GMs learn to recognize potential problems and try to nip them in the bud. Pay special attention to any LA races! 4) Rules bending/breaking. If you try to tweak, twist, ignore, exaggerate, or otherwise mess with the rules to make your character stronger, you're probably guilty of abusive powergaming. It's amazing what some players will do to eke out that extra +2 to damage or a couple of extra dice on a fireball. In any event, bending the rules is simply cheating, which goes beyond powergaming as a sin. If I catch one of my players repeatedly and -- very important -- knowingly breaking the rules, they're gone. It's one thing to skip a line or two of text and get excited about how powerful your new ability is; it's another thing entirely to read and purposefully ignore those two lines. These are just a few ways to tell if you're being an abusive powergamer. The trouble with the abusive powergamers is that they tend to come across as attention-stealing, power-obsessed characters who make the game less fun for people who don't know as much about character builds and exploits as they do. It makes you feel pretty silly when your longsword/shield paladin sits and watches as the spiked chain fighter continually trips the enemy, rendering them utterly ineffective in combat. At that point, all the paladin player feels like is supplemental damage. A few final thoughts. First, I believe that "roleplayer" and "powergamer" are not mutually exclusive. Everyone powergames to some extent -- in the sense that Xanthia defined it -- except for those deliberately trying to cripple their character in effectiveness to prove they're not a powergamer. This approach is silly; D&D is, in part, a game of math and numbers. When I step onto the battlefield, into the forest, or across the court's dance floor, I want to know that my character -- or at least one of our party -- is a seasoned warrior, woodsman, or diplomat. Effectiveness is not contrary to roleplaying; if you want to play a farmer character, well...perhaps you should be playing a different game. There's fun to be had both on your character's sheet and in your character's skin, and there's as much joy seeing the numbers add up neat and high as there is in smooth-talking the stingy shopkeeper or roleplaying the climactic confrontation with your father's murderer. Ultimately, the purpose of the game is the enjoyment of the players. The best DMs know this, and it's why we spend frazzled hours straining our brains for every last drop of creativity. But if you design a character solely to steal the show or render monsters, NPCs, or -- shame on you -- other players completely ineffectual in comparison to your shining brilliance, shame on you. Abusive powergaming is fun so long as it stays purely theoretical, e.g., "look how much damage I can get my cavalier to do!" But once your perfect killing machine steps into a concrete (well, alternate, I guess) reality, you begin to drain the enjoyment of the game from everyone else. To cap it all off: have fun yourself and don't take the fun away from others. As long as you live by these cardinal rules, you'll likely never be regarded as an abusive powergamer.
Fuzzus 01-13-05, 02:15 AM	If every fighter you've ever played uses a greatsword or greataxe, then yes...powergaming all the way. Dead on with everything else, Draco, but I have to take some exception to this. Preferred weapons are fine, and I believe the greatsword and greataxe are pretty well-balanced: you sacrifice the defensive potential of a shield for extra damage. They are doubtlessly powerful weapons, but I don't think they're broken. However, if you were to say mercurial greatsword or fullblade every time...I believe that those weapons stretch the power boundaries, making the damage output worth far more than the AC bonus a shield provides. Just a couple copper from a poor peasant. :)
was_fired 01-13-05, 02:16 AM	Powergaming is playing for power. The example of taking two levels as a fighter was given. Another would be a fighter taking a single level in barbarian for rage, a ranger taking one level in monk so they can used their unarmed strike damage in conjunction with two weapon fighting (unarmed strike, not flurry of blows). Power gaming is sacrificing character logic for mechanical advantage. Min/Maxing is attempting to minimize your weaknesses and maximize your strengths. This is what most people try to do. This is a fighter picking up a cloak of resistance and grabbing iron will and any other will boost feat they can get. This is a high level cleric grabbing +1 heavy fortification adamantium fullplate and casting magic vestments on it. Min/Maxing is the act of working within a certain set of bounds in order to milk your character for all it is worth. Power gaming is expanding these bounds to remove character logic. Most players min/max, but not everyone powergames.
Nuntius128 01-13-05, 02:19 AM	I powergamed my Dwarven Defender, if this is the case. At level 12, I can get his AC up to around 48 in a single round. But, alternatively, all he is really good at is defending. If you don't have a Brilliant Energy weapon, or about any spell, then he's powergamed. He's not really very fast either, and not exactly the type to give chase, so you could outrun him. I poured all of his gold, feats, even skills into his defending.
Findarato 01-13-05, 03:08 AM	My friends and I recently began a 9th level campaign. I am a halfling druid, the other members of my party are a halfling rogue/wizard, a dwarven ranger/fighter, an elven ranger, and a human monk. One adventure in particular made me question whether I powergamed my character too much. My character's history was such that he was always picked on for being small, especially in the formative years and the beginning of the adventuring with the current group. I developed my character as a summoner(spell focus: con, augment summoning, skill focus: con, natural spell). He liked summoning because he could get revenge on the people that picked on the little guy. fyi, my animal companion is a rhino. Anywoo, our adventure took us chasing an aquatic elven bard, first through a city and then underwater. When the bard found out from idle gossip on a night he was performing at the bar we'd scoped out that we were looking to question him, he used a spell to increase his speed, I presume it was expedious retreat, but could be wrong. Anyhow, we had been able to see him take off, so I wildshaped into an eagle and was able to keep up with him and follow him to the body of water where he would try to make an escape. I was then able to land and wild shape again to a shark and keep up with him underwater. Our group was sorely unprepared for an underwater adventure, although as a druid I was able to quickly adapt. My wildshaping ability, coupled with the ability to cast spells wildshaped enabled me to summon aquatic beings to help us in battle. The other characters felt pretty useless, as the combat machine was slowed down by underwater combat. Though I used my abilities to give everyone water breathing. I have seen druids used as examples of powergamed class choices in other threads and wonder if I now fall into that category because it seems as though my character was the only character really able to be effective in the adventure or if I just had a well developed character that was able to adapt quickly. I had no intentions of powergaming, I just liked the idea of being a summoner, and a druid outfitted the way mine was seemed a perfect fit for it. But everyone else seemed to not have very much fun in the underwater adventure, though I enjoyed the challenge of making it work for my character. Thanks for any input I get. Trying not to run everyone else's fun Thoward Waveharp Halfling Druid
Draco Strang 01-13-05, 03:12 AM	Dead on with everything else, Draco, but I have to take some exception to this. Preferred weapons are fine, and I believe the greatsword and greataxe are pretty well-balanced: you sacrifice the defensive potential of a shield for extra damage. They are doubtlessly powerful weapons, but I don't think they're broken. However, if you were to say mercurial greatsword or fullblade every time...I believe that those weapons stretch the power boundaries, making the damage output worth far more than the AC bonus a shield provides. :) Well Fuzzus, you prove a very valid point. Yea, they're balanced in that they're two handed and you sacrifice a shield. However, lots of novice powergamers just want "the really big stick" so to speak, and go for it time and time again. It just gets frustrating to see someone stuck in a rut like that, taking the greataxe for the 5th character in a row. That's what I'm getting at. Picking a giant weapon solely for it's damage is powergaming, albeit poor powergaming.
striderII 01-13-05, 09:29 AM	The defenition of powergaming I have often seen is this,"A powergamed character is one that is made to excel at something". Personally, I don't subscribe to this definition of "powergaming". I mean, everyone is good at *something*, right? Even those who excel at certain things are not necessarily powergamed. For me, it comes down to the "why" question. Why are your points like that? When I have players making characters for any system I run, be it D&D, World of Darkness, Palladium, whatever...I'm constantly asking "how does this fit your concept?" I have been in hour-long conversations with players trying to work out how something will or will not work with their character (and, just as importantly, how it will work with the rest of the group, and the chronicle). Sometimes compromises were made, other times, I was either swayed by the player's explanation, or turned it down entirely. So it's all about the approach you take to character creation. If you think of a concept, something like "My character grew up in a frontier town in the northern part of the kingdom. Game was scarce, as the climate was unforgiving, but the character became quite adept at tracking what little game there was and either snaring it or hunting it. However, due to all the time it took him to find food to survive, his social skills are quite lacking, as is his hygiene". A concept like that could easily work as a ranger or barbarian, with a high Dex and Con, low Cha or Wis, skill with a bow, Wilderness Lore, Track as a feat, that sort of thing. Now, this comes with a caveat. I have seen players who find something in a book, say "I want this!" and then work backwards to create a clever backstory and concept to "justify" whatever it is they want. This, I feel, is much more like powergaming than what Xanthia is describing. Also, those players who look at the numbers to the *exclusion* of all else are also guilty of powergaming, in my book. A good way to tell is to ask them about their character. If the first words out of their mouth are "oh, yeah, my wizard is capable of casting a Maximized, Empowered, Still, Silent, blah, blah, blah whatever" then you're probably dealing with a powergamer. So it's all about the approach, and the intent. strider
CzarGarrett 01-13-05, 09:41 AM	I look at powergaming consists of the type of players who's characters are very often a fighter/rogue/ranger/sorcerer/arcane trickerster/wallaby with a spiked chain that has a ruby that explodes for 4d6 fire damage each hit. Basically, more than 2 base classes (unless very good reason in rp-ing) and 1 PrC (unless really good reason in rp-ing) to be powergaming. You don't need more than that for a good character.
meave 01-13-05, 10:14 AM	hy i have a complete party of powergamers, which can be quite anoying, but because the party all powergame the game possible to ballence, because the partymembers are still equaly strong. except for one thing CR a chalanging monster for those 3 players is even though they are with only 3 a CR+3-5 above there LVL. which leaves me with only one problem them getting xp and treasure very fast. so i've bend the rules to fit this party and they are considederd being 4 persons in 3 body's which keeps most things quite ballenced especialy because there wealth is used up by story related goals so that there overal wealth does'nt go out of proprotions but one thing i know for sure next time i'm being more carefull in letting powergaming even be possible in my campaing because it takes up quite some extra time during play if i need to role 20 random targets 2 times a round or need a calculator for my fighters damage output per blow instead of per full attack
Krelios 01-13-05, 10:36 AM	However, I believe one of the more accepted views of powergaming is making a choice that is more powerful than a choice that would have fit your concept better, such as failing to give your character ranks in Proffesion: cook when they love to cook.I'm with you 100% on this one. The difference between "Powergaming" and simply being really good at what you do is the reasons why you do it. If you look at the numbers on the sheet and think, gee, if I take X or Y PrC then I can kill more things more quickly. You're probably powergaming. If, on the other hand, you are a fighter who was formerly a royal bodyguard and now an exile, tracking down the man who killed the princess and cost you your career, the Bloodhood PrC might be great for you--even if it doesn't make you kill things quicker. 1) Class-dipping. I understand that you (and a general you, not specifically addressed towards Xanthia) want to make your character as strong as possible, but a character with levels 3 base classes and 4 prestige classes by level 15 is atrocious, and I'd never allow it in my game. Unless -- and this is important -- they could genuinely and in a convincing way fit it into their character's storyline. My classic example is a friend of mine who plans out all his characters to level 20 and gets excited about how much damage his sneak attack will do or the benefits he'll get from all the passive abilities his class-dipping has earned him. But when I ask him where his character's from, I'm more likely to get an answer like "the Optimization boards" than "Whitevale Village." Perhaps it's possible that someone in one of my games will have a ton of classes, but they'd better have quite a backstory to justify it...and the backstory should not be formulated solely to allow the character to take the classes.I agree with everything but the part I bolded. If a "powergamer" is going to spend enough time thinking about the roleplaying aspects of his character to provide me a convincing backstory to allow it, then great, he's probably had to put more time and thought into that character than some of the non-powergamers. 4) Rules bending/breaking. If you try to tweak, twist, ignore, exaggerate, or otherwise mess with the rules to make your character stronger, you're probably guilty of abusive powergaming. It's amazing what some players will do to eke out that extra +2 to damage or a couple of extra dice on a fireball. In any event, bending the rules is simply cheating, which goes beyond powergaming as a sin. If I catch one of my players repeatedly and -- very important -- knowingly breaking the rules, they're gone. It's one thing to skip a line or two of text and get excited about how powerful your new ability is; it's another thing entirely to read and purposefully ignore those two lines.No arguments here. Once someone crosses the line between Powergaming and outright cheating, they're no longer a part of the game and it's time to part ways. Thankfully, I have been blessed with great players for most of my games and I base a lot of that on experience. More importantly though is the fact that we all want to have a good time and see how the story unfolds more than we want to kill things from A to Z in the Monster Manual.
Moon-Lancer 01-13-05, 10:45 AM	Findarato, i would say your not a powergamer. It says so in the players guild that druids enjoy a much higher versatility then other characters. I would say I’m a min maxer but not a powergamer (what ever is the extreme I am not). I would never create a character that i myself would never be. example, I don’t think i would ever play giants ogres, or whatnot. I knew a fellow who was obsessive over baleen whales, arguable the best powergameing race in ss. I asked him, Baleen Whale? common that’s so stupid. I was perplexed as to why he wanted to roll play a baleen whale. Hover he wanted to role play a baleen whale. he did it merely to be Powerful. Pure abilities and damage output. Not a really good character. To top it off it had a feral template to it. A baleen whale with a ton of fur all over its body, In my opinion is beyond stupid. I tried asking him how the character would look, and not be a monstrosity, he didn’t have any comment. He eventually found out that its not how big your guns are, its how you use it. I tend to call the baleen whale setup “Stupidly Powerfull” A stupid character with nothing to offer but power This may seem limiting but if I could not live in my characters shoes so to speak, I will never play them. I think this prevents me from ever being a True powergamer because it limits my medium in witch to exploit. I would never take a human race just for the extra feat, or class with major damage potential if it didn’t fit the feel I was going for. However this doesn’t keep me from making weak characters, Its just harder to make a strong character when you don’t compromise your characters principles. The way i see it i min max only enough to keep my character alive. If I put all this work into the characters story and his ego and development, I don’t want to part with that character very soon. Its like a insurance policy. If you put work into your characters power or whatnot, they are less likely to die. I don’t know about you but I don’t like spending hours on character development only to have them die in a silly way that could have been prevented. So far i have played Elf Rogue swashbuckling dervish Elf druid Anthropremorphic winged Tiger with Custom class dealing with forests. Sometimes i will just be looking through books and something will cetch my eye, and i shale exclaim "WOW THATS TOTALLY AWSOME" The problem I have trying to min max is i find a powerful combination, but its not the flavor I want so I have to either scrap the idea, or some how convince the dm to allow me to break the rules in the sprit of role playing. Example for the dervish. When they wield a scimitar its a light weapon, well i didn’t want a character with 2 scimitars, I wanted a character with a shortswordish weapon, so me and the dm made a deal were we created a weapon that had the same stats but acted totally different in description cases. In addition I wanted to utilize the two weapon fighting with this new scimitar but I didn’t want to wield 2 of them because i thought it was silly, so we found a solution to that... man I’m picky with my characters. any way you can add power to your character and still adhere to the original concept as long as you don’t settle for a character that goes agents what you truly wanted but disregard for power. That’s when the character goes down hill.
Bane 01-13-05, 11:20 AM	I have a 5th level Half-orc Transmuter. His strength is higher than his Int (after racial bonuses/penalties). He wields a club, and has successfully soloed an ogre in melee. He's probably going to go Acolyte of the Skin to help his stats and HP, but the game reason is because the town he comes from is inherently evil, the town leaders are the ones that made deals with fiends for power, and if there's one thing he wants, it's to shatter the town's hierarchy and rebuild it with himself at the head. I think that he's not powergaming, because he's not optimizing himself for combat by taking levels of spellsword or eldritch knight. He's not even going straight transmuter to use Time Stop in conjunction with Transmute Rock to Lava under his opponents.
Shai 01-13-05, 11:45 AM	I get so excited about D&D that I often do just miss a couple of lines, or I mis-read a line. If I am caught in the wrong, I will stand up and say, "Sure! That's better!" than what I had previously thought. I don't bend rules on purpose. I would never do that. If I fumble, I fumble. If my target is beyond my range, I take the necessary penalties. If I crit, I crit. The list goes on. There are those players out there who will immediately pick up the die after they roll, to conceal the fact that it wasn't what they wanted it to be. They will fudge numbers, bend rules, and generally lie, cheat and steal to make sure that their character is "better" that everyone else's. What powergamers tend to forget (as Draco mentioned) is that there isn't a "point" to D&D. You don't "win," and a group of roleplayers don't tend to "look up to" powergamers. With a good group of players, everyone is in it together, whether they fail their fortitude save, forget to check a door for traps, or miss their diplomacy roll. What powergamers tend to do (in my opinion) is make the game less fun and less interesting. They want to be "the best" not only in the realm of their character, but in the realm of everyone else playing. They want to have "the best" rolls, "the best" Armor Class, "the best" attacks, "the best" weapons, etc etc. I play in another game with a person playing a Force-Sensitive character who never takes off Vitality when using Force skills. He proclaims his 40+ success rolls valiantly to the table. He is taking Jedi levels without having gone through the trials. He bends the rules to make sure that he succeeds in anything he does. And other players have had to call him out on his botched rolls and non-crits that he claims he had. This is a powergamer. Just because my Druid has 17 STR, 16 DEX, and 20 WIS does not make me a powergamer, those are just good dice rolls. Buffing before combat does not make me a powergamer, but if I were (once I learned my AC target in order to hit) fudge the numbers to get that +2 or +4, that is powergaming.
Nani? 01-13-05, 12:06 PM	Nothing is wrong with min/max as long as it is not the only consideration. Example: I was bringing a new charcter into a wilderness heavy campgien, where we were living among Elven desert nomads. I planned to build a character going into dervish PrC. My builds were (using UA) either Wilderness Rogue 2, Ranger 2, Fighter 2 w/Desert Elf race or W. Rogue 3, Ranger 2, Fighter 1 w/(slightly modified)half elf race. As far as I was concerned these were logical builds that fit the atmosphere of the campiagn. I considered the the slightly inferior half elf race because it would have a built in reason for traveling with the other PC's. To me these were logical builds, powerful (espeicaly 2 weapon fighting, backstab, lots of skills) that fit the campiagn setting. I went online online asking for advice on this character and I was basically told I was crazy not to take swashbuckler 3, fighter 2, Dervish 1 never mind that all my skills were cross class. Never mind this was a person that supposedly grew up in the desert. I was told straight out spend two points cross class on Survival to make me an "expert" on skills she had to count on for life or death survival, also I was told not to "waste" points on knowledge, nature. Needless to say I did not take their advice and I still have one of the more powerful fighters in the group. To me that is the difference between cheap cheesy powergaming Cr*p and reasonable min/maxing within a context. All the Best, Nani?
CuttinCurt 01-13-05, 12:57 PM	What? Powergaming? Ok, I am guilty on occasion. I have picked prestige classes that give me the most versatility using something I am good at. Like the arcane devotee when I am going meta-magic mage. Now, I admit that this wizard started as a bard of Sune Firehair and bacame a wizard and changed alignments from neutral to lawful. She is based in Cormy in the Forgotten realms, and is a citizen of cormyr. Going arcane devotee was well within the way I played my character before I ever considered a prestige class, but that one benifited me since I had the enlarge feat. Now, since I had also taken widen as a feat, I saw the possibility of what the War Wizard prestige class offered. OFcourse, I can not be one unless I was tested and brought in to the fold by a senior war wizard. Well that happened. So now I am prestige classing war wizard of cormyr. That has benifited me too as I can now use the widen feat on spells without preparing them in advance like arcane devotee did my enlarge spell. Having been a bard for two levels before, my charisma was high, a 16 to begin with, so I can use these special abilities 4 times per day on enlarg and widen feats. I dont have to prepare them in advance anymore if I dont want to. However, this really is powergaming to most everyone. So I admit it. My 2/7/3/3 Bard/Wizard/Arcane Devotee/WarWizard is a nasty lady mage that is fantastic with spell selection and versatility in combat. So I power game, but the game I was in and the circumstances around our group allowed me to pick those prestige classes and it fit my character. So does that mean I am not a power gamer? hmmmmm.
Nuntius128 01-13-05, 01:12 PM	Powergaming is reallya difficult subject. Dice rolls can be something that can tell who is or isn't a powergamer, but I use Irony Games' Dice Server, and the last roll I got for stats looked like this: 14, 15, 15, 16, 16, 18. It didn't come out in that order, that's just how I wrote it. And excelling in one thing isn't powergaming, but excelling in everything is. Example, a Paragon Trumpet Archon. Yes I made this character, and yes, I powergamed him. :D Never gonna be used, but he's still cool. Most smart DMs, like mine, can get around a character excelling in one way. Like my Dwarven Defender I talked about. 12th level party, 6 characters. I think we had 2 Fighters(one was me), a Rogue, a Sorceror, and an Apostle of Peace. My AC can get up to almost 50 in a single round, and just for the sake of challenging us, we were put against a room full of Ogres. Ogres would never have been able to hit me, so he also put in a spellcaster, knowing very well that against Touch spells, I'm toast. I accepted that that was an enormous weakness, and there wasn't much I could do about that, so I'd say that isn't powergaming at all. Neither is the Halfling Druid. Druids are just cool like that.
Ze_Mighty_Vegetable 01-13-05, 01:19 PM	This doesn't exactly fit in this thread, but since almost any discussion about powergaming deal with level-diping and multiple prcs, here's my 2 cents. If you take more than one prc BEFORE FINISHING the first, you probably powergame. Those who do it "for role-playing reasons" should try to think of a better excuse. Almost ANY concept can be done. I you are a rogue 4/fighter 2/invisible blade 2/assassin2/master thrower 3, you can JUSTIFY (as in trying to justify your mechanical choice with a story instead of the other way around) it as wanting a kind of Artemis entreri assassin. would it have been impossible to do with just a fighter/assassin or a basic combination? I mean, if you want to play a powermad sorcerer who think he's the best at what he does and stuff, you could do it with a basic wizard. Of course, it would be weaker than a wizard/archmage/red wizard powerhouse, but the SAME CONCEPT WAS USED. Remember, you don't NEED multiple Prcs to play a strange concept. But you do nned them to powergame.
Xanthia 01-13-05, 01:45 PM	Wow, thanks everyone. I had a lot of fun (in an enlightening way) reading your posts. I'm glad that I didn't get totally flamed in this thread, and that everyone gave me a nice elabboration of their opinions. The point is, powergaming, as with everything, is wrong when pushed too far. How far is too far? Can you really draw a line?
Draco Strang 01-13-05, 01:53 PM	Wow, thanks everyone. I had a lot of fun (in an enlightening way) reading your posts. I'm glad that I didn't get totally flamed in this thread, and that everyone gave me a nice elabboration of their opinions. Oh, don't worry. We could tell you have fire resistance 20 on today anyway.
Count Arioch the 28th 01-13-05, 01:53 PM	The line is easy to draw. If one person is outshining the rest of the party, and the other party members are getting furstrated, then that's too much. For example, I could make a cleric archer that outdamages the fighter, outnukes the wizard, and even finds traps better than a rogue, but that doesn't mean I will. That makes the game less fun for everyone. However, if the aprty members were a wizard 12/hulking hurler 8, a multiclass nightmare that had a total caster level well over a hundred, and a bard with diplomacy tricked out to the point where he could fast talk Erythnul to put on a tutu and go to an animal rights protest if he rolled higher than a 3, then I'm going to go all out too.
Ze_Mighty_Vegetable 01-13-05, 02:33 PM	How far is too far? Can you really draw a line? It's rather easy. If it annoys your fellow player, if it annoys the DM or (in extreme cases, if you annoy yourself. (I once played a half-giant barbarian 13/hulking hurler 3/warhulk 4 who shot a chunk of wall +4 returning fire sonic knockback (a god-damned meteor) for about 7D6 + around 40 (not including power attack) named Mahamotti Pandmûr (pan de mur is chunck of wall in french) and became disgusted by his sheer brutal power pretty quickly). As a general rule, if you feel the need to justify the power of your PC, he's usually overpowered.
Thoronmir 01-13-05, 02:41 PM	As a general rule, I’d define “powergaming” as anytime a player’s first consideration is the character’s game mechanics rather than the character’s concept. You’re powergaming if you’re more concerned with the character’s abilities than you are with the character’s personality. But once you conceive a complete, three-dimensional character, it’s not powergaming to try to make him good at what he does. It’s very hard for someone to powergame in our campaigns. Our DMs require that a player submit a character concept (devoid of any game mechanics information) before the DM authorizes the player to begin building the PC. We use only Core material for races, classes, skills, and feats. All aspects of a PC’s build are subject to DM approval. DMs can (and will) veto anything that doesn’t fit in with the character’s concept. Players may not freely take on new classes as they progress in level. All such decisions are made in consultation with the DM and must have a sound roleplaying basis. Adding a new class means significant downtime in the game (as much as year to learn Wizardry), so class-hopping is not rampant in our game. Players may select one PrC (absent a strong roleplaying reason to take more than one). The list of approved PrCs is announced at the start of the campaign. We don’t care if a player plans out his classes, skills, and feats in order to qualify for a particular PrC, but we always roleplay induction into a PrC. Character concept is core to every facet of PC builds and progression in our campaigns. We prefer playing a group of characters rather than a collection of modifiers.
Thorak 01-13-05, 02:43 PM	How far is too far? Can you really draw a line? This applies to absolutely every moral/ethical judgement. "It is right to imprison people to ensure the safety of others, as long as it doesn't go too far." Obviously, "too far" is where people are locked up just because they have the potential of hurting others. But the line gets fuzzy further back. Or "It is right to choose to kill some to save more, as long as it doesn't go too far." I'm not claiming this is obviously true, because we could derail the thread and debate it. But I think we can agree that killing half the population to prevent the problems of overpopulation would be wrong, just as refusing the kill a single person to save the entire race would be wrong. There's got to be a line in there, somewhere, right? Fact is, there aren't lines in these kinds of things. We can tell when it goes too far, or not far enough. Those are easy. But you can't give me a specific number which, if the number of people to be killed to save 5000 is below, it's OK, while if it's over, it's not. To pick a number out of nowhere; you can't say it's justifiable to kill 14 people to save 5000, but not justifiable to kill 15. There is not, and will never be, a defining line for these kinds of questions. If you disagree, pick a topic and get two others to discuss it with you. Two people might agree, but I'll eat my hat if three people can agree on something like this, assuming of course one of them doesn't cave because they're tired of arguing.
Shai 01-13-05, 02:49 PM	Also, the line can be drawn if you find yourself always trying to "out-perform" other party members. If someone has a great Gather Information check, and you (as a player) start talking about how you "Would have done the same thing but you didn't see the point," or some such thing, then you've crossed the line. D&D is, after all, a game with no winning and no losing. No one is better than anyone else, there is no I in team, but there's plenty of good meat.
Kulthos 01-13-05, 03:38 PM	Powergaming can be annoying, but so can people who make up gimpy builds for "roleplaying" purposes. They drag down the party while acting holier-than-thou just because you can do damage. I also have to point out that very little is more powerful than a straight wizard, druid, or cleric at higher levels, so let the melee people powergame all they want. It will put off their obselecense for a couple of levels. Who cares if you are wielding a greatsword and a monk unarmed attack with two-weapon fighting when the wizard disintigrates the monster before you get to it, or the Druid drops one pile of angry animals per round into the encounter?
Prachett 01-13-05, 04:03 PM	To state the obvious, its easier to spot a powergamer when the players are starting out at higher levels, because all their powergamed munchined choices are readily apparent. It's hard (but not impossible) to powergame at level 1. But, if you then have a fairly conscientious DM who controls items and PRCs and forces players to justify their choices, its harder still for people to powergame after level 1. I don't necessarily like starting every campaign at level 1, but when I start campaigns at say level 10, I try to create and outfit my character as if he had started at level 1 and had taken skills and feats to survive at lower levels. Powergamers generally skip that part when making their 2/3/4/1 Ranger/Fighter/Wizard/Mystic Pizza/Whatever. They also usually bend the rules by taking feats that would not have been available to them if they had progressed normally, although at first glance, the feats check out okay because the number of feats is correct. If you are asking yourself if you're a powergamer, there must be a reason why. Somebody is not happy. Is it because the rest of your players and DM are mentally challenged and you are playing normal, or is it you?
Maerdash 01-13-05, 04:34 PM	ok powergaminh imo is when you work within the bounds of the rules to make your character as effective for as many situations as you can imagine, a munchkin is someone who uses broken third party publications to build a "great" character, now ill admit to being a powergamer, but i also know that not everyone powergames, some people build character for the roleplaying aspect I know this for a fact because im constantly having to protect the gnomish alchemist/cook in my current game, its no big deal though we both play valid characters well within the rules and fulfill seperate role in the group, when we need to bluff someone or use diplomacy or cook a great meal the gnome gets to shine. However when the rogue ticks off the king it becomes mine and the other power gamer/ munchkin( 2 base classes and 2 prc's at 9th level :D ) to clear a path to the nearest exit and hold that exit long enough for the group to flee..........then we pray that we can get away (i got captured and killed last week seems 20 human gaurds CAN wrestle an ogre into submission... after they lose a few :D ) Anyway I say power gamers and strict roleplayers UNITE use your unique skills to make a party where eveyone is a benefit and can enjoy the game. Just dont play a powered character and then gripe about everyone else being wimpy....thats being a jerk. One last thing just because your the baddest mama in your group doesnt make you a powergamer maybe you just make a good well rounded character and everyone else in your group is inexperienced/unimaginative
Crossover-Chronicler 01-13-05, 04:37 PM	It's rather easy. If it annoys your fellow player, if it annoys the DM or (in extreme cases, if you annoy yourself.This line breaks down readily. I have an extremely competent player. You might call him a powergamer; if two otherwise equal options presented themselves, he'd choose the one that granted greater power. That being said, he's also a good roleplayer. He just tends to create characters who (within their invariably Good alignments) wouldn't say no to some extra power. He annoys the other players. He once created an intentionally underpowered character designed entirely to fill support roles within the party ("healer," et al) and was still accused of powergaming. I was once accused of powergaming in 2e for playing a pacifist kit and attempting to destroy an assassin's dagger I found, and then ditching it on an abandoned haunted island when that failed. My point is that other players - and even DMs - aren't necessarily rational. And once they cease to be rational, your duty to forego ignoring them ceases as well. As a DM, I don't even listen to complaints about powergaming any more, because more than half the time they make no sense.
Thoronmir 01-13-05, 04:58 PM	I don't necessarily like starting every campaign at level 1, but when I start campaigns at say level 10, I try to create and outfit my character as if he had started at level 1 and had taken skills and feats to survive at lower levels. Powergamers generally skip that part when making their 2/3/4/1 Ranger/Fighter/Wizard/Mystic Pizza/Whatever. They also usually bend the rules by taking feats that would not have been available to them if they had progressed normally, although at first glance, the feats check out okay because the number of feats is correct.About the highest level we’ve ever started a campaign is level 5. Even so, we refer to “PC builds” because that’s exactly how we do it. We use a form I devised to track the construction of a PC from level 1 to level “whatever” (we call that form a Worksheet). It makes it easy for the DM to audit a build and make sure that the PC was “legitimate” at each level of progression since the DM can immediately what the PC gained with each level. When I DM, I use Worksheets for creating NPCs. I don’t want my level 12 NPC to have been “powergamed” any more than the PCs have been.
Ze_Mighty_Vegetable 01-13-05, 05:02 PM	Powergaming can be annoying, but so can people who make up gimpy builds for "roleplaying" purposes. They drag down the party while acting holier-than-thou just because you can do damage. Amen to that. Purposedly making a PC as weak as you can doesn't make you a better role-player. But even more annoying is a powergamer who cricticise everybody else for being powergamers while refusing to acknowledge themselves as powergamers. Amazingly, these über-twinks fails to see the parralel between your über-damage dealing barbarian of death and their tac-nuke wielding wizard. Their power is always "justified" (god, I hate that word) by their ancestry, equipment or class. Of course, I've got an AC of 300. my parents were elder gods. That goes with the concept. I'm not powergaming. You, on the other hand, are a munchkin because you do 150 damages by round. I met a powerplayer in a game where everybody munched out (out of necessity). We played the tomb of horrors (in wich anybody who even remotly underpowered (meaning that no DM would gasp by looking at your plusses) dies constantly (even munchs died with incredible frequency (2 per game, on average). His character was a necromancer lvl 13 who controled 40 HD of undead (he had 5 or 6 über undeads). I was a level 12 fighter (combat-monster) wielding a fullsword +1 of wrathfull healing. the necro got his soul emprisonned in a crystal, so his out of control undeads attacked us. They mad short work of the warlock (the only other PC) and came very close to kill me (I wouldn't have survived another round.). If the PC had been there to boost his undeads or throw spells at me, I'd have died. Yet, this guy saw me as a munchkin (wich I was), but didn't see himself as one. No matter that his character could take on the whole party and destroy us easily, his argument was that: of course, if I have my undeads, I'm powerfull. But if I don't, I'm nothing. worst kind of excuse.
Ze_Mighty_Vegetable 01-13-05, 05:24 PM	I was once accused of powergaming in 2e for playing a pacifist kit and attempting to destroy an assassin's dagger I found, and then ditching it on an abandoned haunted island when that failed. My point is that other players - and even DMs - aren't necessarily rational. And once they cease to be rational, your duty to forego ignoring them ceases as well. 100% right. You must use common sense. If somebody's annoyed for no good reasons, well, tough luck for him. Let him cry all he want. It's also true that those who develop a reputation for powergaming are often viewed as guilty no matter what. THEY have to prove their not powergaming, even if they play an epic commoner (yeah, but you can plow 200 acres in a single round!). This is crying wolf. But, let's be honest. most of those who suffer from a munchkin's reputation have it for a reason. Also, I think the other's opinion are worth more than your own when deciding if you're powergaming (if they are rational). The reason is simple, nobody thinks they abuse the rules THAT much. It's easy to justify something you did. It's easy to convince yourself you're not a munch. The ONLY person who's always right on powergaming calls is the DM. If he says: that PC's too powerfull for my game, it IS too powerfull for his game. Period. After all, he's the one who's gonna have to deal with the PC. Of course, he should say so BEFORE you bring the PC into play. But as I said before, taking advantage of your DM's lack of knowledge about the benefits of an obscure rule-combo and subsequently blaming him IS utterly lame.
Cardinal Teplin 01-13-05, 05:28 PM	Not everyone powergames. I've played with plenty who don't. Not even to the tiny extent that's been described here. It is pretty much de rigeur for Ad&D though, and the system kinda breaks down if you don't powergame. It's very easy to design characters that are largely useless in a fight - a halfling fighter with a negative strength modifier and whirlwind attack for example - and an entire party of such won't be able to handle anything of their own CR, meaning they won't get much xp, meaning that they will stay at their starting level for quite some time, throwing the entire gold/xp/advancement system out of whack. The game simply doesn't function as written unless characters are optimised, at least a little bit. That said, AD&D positively encourages abusive character development. The more powerful your character is at each level, the more difficult fights you can survive, and the faster you get gold and xp. The same is not (generally) true of character development, backstory, personal interaction, inter-party plot, or meaningful engagement with the background.
Kulthos 01-13-05, 10:25 PM	The other problem is that D&D is a class/level based system, so if you want to make up a character that isn't from Tolkien, Conan, or the old Kung Fu TV show, you have to mix and match a lot. If you want to make a mongol barbarian warrior who knows a little martial arts, has the horse and bow feats, you have to do some alignment bending and level dipping. That said, the powergamers I fear aren't the Ranger/barbarian/monk/PrC types, but the halfling wizards.
Kadasbrass 01-14-05, 01:31 AM	I had a DM say once "We can't accuse Kadabrass of being an powergamer since he likes playing kobolds." I define a power gamer as someone that has to engineer every character to make it as powerful as possible, by planning its entire life from level 1 to 20 and beyond, to the smallest possible detail, all just to make the 'most powerful' character. Does everyone power game a little? Yep, but sometimes it seems more subtle and hidden. Everyone has a point where they want to be 'All powerful.' However ultimately as Aristotle said so long ago, 'power reveals character.' And once you have the 'power' you desired one of two things happen, either you have gained wisdom and understand whats important, and that being the point of the game is to have fun, or you reveal your true character of seeking power for the stake of power, hence the power gamer. With all this said, there is nothing wrong with planning a character ahead of time, everyone does it, but the line is drawn when you turn it into a type of science to examine which combinations are more powerful. Example we have an person in our group who has 'studied' the figther to the point it has become a science (We call him a Figtheralagist), and when he has to make a new character they are almost always a human figther that goes right for the greatsword (though recantly he has decided to play a two bladed sword figther). He just doesn't know how to play any other class in the game and thats including PrC's since his characters all pure figther. Is this powergaming? Yes and No. It all depends on intention. He has tried to play other classes but its hopeless he just doesn't play them right because either he just doesn't know how, or doesn't try, or because he doesn't want to. Wither or not you are powergaming comes down to this: What is your intention? Also no one should claim your powergaming one a single choice, such as picking a single feat or spell. However is your entire character designed for power? There is a difference between having a little power for when you need it and having some fun along in the design. Everyone wants strong points, you don't want to have to design a new character every week because you die everytime you run into the dragon cave.
robertliguori 01-14-05, 10:59 AM	However, if the aprty members were a wizard 12/hulking hurler 8, a multiclass nightmare that had a total caster level well over a hundred, and a bard with diplomacy tricked out to the point where he could fast talk Erythnul to put on a tutu and go to an animal rights protest if he rolled higher than a 3, then I'm going to go all out too. Hmm. How do you do that? The Nightmare's CL isn't tied to it's HD;it stays at 20 for it's SUs. :)
Ze_Mighty_Vegetable 01-14-05, 01:14 PM	Everybody got a strong opinion on powergaming. for some of us, too much powergaming is a bad thing. for others, powergaming is a god-given right (wich they defend rather passionatly) who ranks as high as role-playing in importance in RPGs. They say that nobody got the right to tell them how to play, that they don,t create problems... I wonder, if role-playing and powergaming are as important, as worthy of a good player, and if we agree that the excess of something IS bad, I truly wonder... why is it that we don't see threads about the ravage and play balance issue of excessive role-playing? I personnaly NEVER met someone accuse of being an abject ROLE-PLAYER (as in, he was TOO GOOD at it, and did it TOO much). NEVER have I seen a DM refuse a PC who got too much role-play potential. NEVER have I heard a player say: I don't want to play with him, he's too good a role-player. Let's face it, between a choice of extremes, most (all?) DM are gonna want the excessive role-player, not the excessive powergamer. VERY IMPORTANT NOTE: I'm NOT saying a munchkin CAN't be a good role-player. This is NOT the issue. but somehow, I think most of the response I get won't grasp this point...
Kulthos 01-14-05, 04:48 PM	why is it that we don't see threads about the ravage and play balance issue of excessive role-playing? I personnaly NEVER met someone accuse of being an abject ROLE-PLAYER (as in, he was TOO GOOD at it, and did it TOO much). NEVER have I seen a DM refuse a PC who got too much role-play potential. NEVER have I heard a player say: I don't want to play with him, he's too good a role-player. I have had groups break up over people who "Role played" too much. Check out the 1001 worst players thread for some examples. As a DM I would prefer a person who takes powergaming too far to a person who takes roleplaying too far. I can tweak things to slow down the powergamer, I can't make the roleplayer shut up, though. When someone shows up with fifteen pages of backstory for their first level character, I feel like running for the hills. When said first level char dies from doing something dumb on the first adventure, the guy came to the next game with more pages for the person's sister, who was equally annoying and useless.
Lana "Silvertongue" 01-14-05, 07:55 PM	One, you need to consider DMs. If the only way your going to survive is by powergaming, then yes, powergaming is a permissible thing. If the entire point of the game is beating battle after battle after battle, you better be up to snuff. My definition of a powergamer is someone who cannot adapt their character concept to the realities of the world/game. I really really cannot stand those people who plan every feat and skill point of their characters from level 1 to 20 and work exobiantly hard to justify taking them even if there was no good reason to do so. This is especially true for people taking Prestige classes, or doing prestige 'builds'. Its fine if we start gameplay off at level 7, where you can built it in as part of the history, but please don't tell me that you want your rogue to be just as good in melee as he is in ranged throwing daggers just as a backup plan. Unless he has been caught in melee more often than normal at that level 10 of Master Thrower, don't try to justify taking invisible blade immediatly after. Thoronmir: Your DM must have more time than mine because if your willing to spend time that you could be playing valadating everything with him in regards of character concept, your much bigger people than we are. I would almost say your railroaded in your characters life to a degree by your DM, making it too easy for him to plan around everything the characters have acomplished. This is if he is a malicious DM... you might be lucky and not have one. Your group must also be very patient if it Roleplays every indocrination to a PrC, I just don't know if I would have the same patience. Luck and Location; some gamers have to remember that they are specialists. I frequently have this problem with my rogue. If it doesn't have a discernable anatomy or wasn't a construct, I was normally outdone. Your more inclined to realize your weaknesses if your party members allow you to honestly take spotlight when you reach your specialty. General rule of thumb, if you total the damage you do during one gameplaying session [or campaign] and it doubles the two weakest party members damage dealt combined... you might be a power gamer. There are exceptions to that rule, rogue and bard vs. cleric in a undead demolitions campaign. But then those who have shone should expect to give something back in regards to wealth or downtime to produce something or the DM provide them with Roleplaying options while the other person take the back seat. That is my :twocents:
Razoreface 01-14-05, 09:29 PM	When someone shows up with fifteen pages of backstory for their first level character, I feel like running for the hills. When said first level char dies from doing something dumb on the first adventure, the guy came to the next game with more pages for the person's sister, who was equally annoying and useless. Ditto.. I've gamed with people who "roleplayed" way too much. Some simply would chatter constantly in character, for no particular reason, or were prone to incredibly verbose and well thought speeches from their 8 Int Barbarian, show up with pages of history that seemed remarkably similar to ones they had before, and hey this is my cousin. I actually had a power-gamer (really more of a munchkin minmaxer, who refused to allow the DM to use errata'd fullblade stats) pull that. In case I die, this is my TWIN SISTER. She has the same class, spells, and used the identical stat roll, which was an incredibly good roll so I used it again.
75RD Drum Clip 01-14-05, 09:45 PM	Powergaming is like being very successful at something in real life, some people will always whine about how you're using advantages, that others don't or can't use. I ignore all charges of powergaming or min maxing as whining by crybabies who should MYOC instead micro-managing others.
Ze_Mighty_Vegetable 01-15-05, 12:45 AM	haven't tought of it this way. guesss there can be such a thing as too much role-playing. Never happened to me, though. I'd kinda like to see that. As far as the background thing goes, I've had to deal with this as a DM once. It was in a Vampire game (dark age). This guy gave me a 20 pages (counted. 20) background. I was both intimidated (I'd have to read it) and overjoyed by his forethought. It all ended as I finaly got around to read it. This was a poorly written, over-adjectived (is it a word?) piece of pure propanganda for his PC. The guy was actually named in 4 diffrent prophecies, had befriended a pack of Garou (by saving their asses more than a few times), CREATED an Hermetic house (mage) and was an all-around hero. I almost died laughing. I passed really close to die of disbelief at the last page. He saved a real gem for the end: he was actually an antedilluvian (the first created, of course) who was punished by Caine for wanting to redeem the Cainite race in the eyes of God. The curse made him forget (obligatory, über-cliché flashbacks) his true nature as well as lowering his effective generation to 13.
striderII 01-15-05, 10:30 AM	haven't tought of it this way. guesss there can be such a thing as too much role-playing. Never happened to me, though. I'd kinda like to see that. As far as the background thing goes, I've had to deal with this as a DM once. It was in a Vampire game (dark age). This guy gave me a 20 pages (counted. 20) background. I was both intimidated (I'd have to read it) and overjoyed by his forethought. It all ended as I finaly got around to read it. This was a poorly written, over-adjectived (is it a word?) piece of pure propanganda for his PC. The guy was actually named in 4 diffrent prophecies, had befriended a pack of Garou (by saving their asses more than a few times), CREATED an Hermetic house (mage) and was an all-around hero. I almost died laughing. I passed really close to die of disbelief at the last page. He saved a real gem for the end: he was actually an antedilluvian (the first created, of course) who was punished by Caine for wanting to redeem the Cainite race in the eyes of God. The curse made him forget (obligatory, über-cliché flashbacks) his true nature as well as lowering his effective generation to 13. Wow, man.....just, wow. You did smack that player violently about the head and shoulders with a stick, correct? Although, admittedly, I feel the damage to his brain had already been done. Very sad. That is a perfect example (as well as some of those others) of *poor* roleplayers. I suppose I'm just lucky to have found some good roleplayers (the bad players that I've encountered have been powergaming, gunbunny twinks, or just flat out morons). However, I've had more than a few players give me very long character bios that are well written, and not crap. Then again, I require such things in the LARPs that I run...not so much in tabletop. strider
Ze_Mighty_Vegetable 01-16-05, 01:38 AM	Wow, man.....just, wow. You did smack that player violently about the head and shoulders with a stick, correct? Although, admittedly, I feel the damage to his brain had already been done. Very sad. Nope. Frankly, the fun I had to read the World's crappiest backgroundTM pending WAS worth some mercy. Even if it was utterly ridiculous, he obviously put a lot of thoughts (oxigen-deprived ramblings) into his character. Since I want to encourage the trend in my players (the part about thinking, not the stupidity), I found a way to incorporate some of his fever-induced, mythomaniac ideas to the game without too much sillyness. He was to be the link between all the supernatural communities that lived in my world (Mages being really underpowered hedge wizard in said world, garous being killing machines, more spirits than flesh, appearing in response to the blight of the land, so no easy powerbase there). The political potential and the intrigues that would follow would be nice. I made sure to make him burn a lot of points for his various allies and started the game. Alas, I had forgotten the most important variable: he had to actually keep his true identity a secret. For someone having only very rares flashbacks (wich he *****ed and moaned everytime they happened in a sticky situation ) of memories, he knew an awfull lot about his past. Unfortunatly, so did the other characters. By the end of the lunch break, everybody had been told exactly who he was. OOC. Yet, when the players even remotly mentionned it in game, he accused them of metagaming. I decided that since everybody knew it after a mere 2 hours of play, he was not subtle, and would therefore be known by a lot of people. I gave him ennemies taken from his background. You killed the Grand-master of the cult of isis? Fine, they're searching for you. Beaten a major spirit of corruption to save the Garou's bacon? His cult has summoned his ******-off master to teach you a lesson. Wanting to give the twink a last chance, I decided to manoeuver that behind the scenes, and not try to kill him but humiliate him and make him work harder to accomplish anything. But when he yelled at me for refusing him a bonus on a noddist lore roll (and denying said roll, as noddist lore got nothing to do with the true names of a pagan god) because he had been there. The forces gathered around him struck hard and basically nuked him from the face of the earth. It was the only time I used the random damage rule, but it was worth it. (roll a handfull of dice. Add or choose a number. Inflict that amount of unsoakable damage to a random player.or just choose and call it random).
Solidcobra 01-16-05, 01:39 AM	Okay...time for input. >_> Min-maxing: What everyone does. you'd rather take power attack than skill focus (basketweaving)? Min-maxing. Munching: Cheating, playing ******* characters and generally being annoying. Powergaming: ahh, the lovely powergaming... It is, quite simply, to create a powerful character, within the rules, BASE WotC rules that is, as good as you can. Most powergamers don't even PLAY the characters. They go forth to the DM, shows him 5 charsheets that can take over the world, then the 6th (a cleric, non-cheater of mystra, non-archer) that is the REAL character. While a powergamer likes to brag, just as munchkins, they brag differently. Munchkin: "My character is the son of a god with the "kill anything" ability at will because i got the DM a date with my sister" Powergamer: "I spent over 5 hours reading books before i finally found the PrC combo that allows me, at lv.15, to have caster level 20 with both divine and arcane casting. as well as BAB 16 and persistant spell 5 times per day" Powergaming has NO effect on a players roleplaying. The problem isn't that the powergamers make strong characters, it's that they show it too much. I suggest that the DM sits down and talks it over. NOT "your char is too strong, make another please", but rather "you know how Gandalf only used his full power when the life of the entire group was VERY definitely on the line? can't you do the same?" While one will make him mutter because it's like slapping him with a newspaper "bad boy, you're too useful!", the other will make him proud. "i know you rock, you know you rock, but they don't like to know that, so just pretend not to rock until it's life or death" If the powergamer refuses to just play along and be the Gandalf, you've got a munchkin, most likely. A guy who needs the spotlight too much to back down. Hit him with the murderin' axe.
Ze_Mighty_Vegetable 01-16-05, 01:55 AM	solid cobra. Very well defined. the only problem is when the group think there is one. It's a subjective thing. And it always will be.
TripleF 01-16-05, 03:07 PM	I find that justifying game mechanics in game is stupid and a waste of time. My character doesn't know I have power attack, he just knows that sometimes he can hit harder. My character doesn't decide he is taking a level in ranger or fighter it is just what happens. Getting training to level up or learn a new class is a tool used by closed minded DM uses to keep players down. The rules for multi classing should keep people from multi-classing too much, less they take the experience penalty. Letting people play what they want to play within the rules should be paramount. Especially non-spellcasters, because by level 4 their hey day is over and the spell casters will out shine them. I can understand keeping a Cheater of Mystra or a billion+ damage Hulking Hurler out of the game, because both of those builds break the game. I make mechanically effective characters because role-playing falls into place on its own.
Ze_Mighty_Vegetable 01-16-05, 05:06 PM	Getting training to level up or learn a new class is a tool used by closed minded DM uses to keep players down. . Until you see a hardcore monk taking a level in sorcerer to gain mage armor. Said monk NEVER showed any interest in magic, but he can multi-class as anybody else, so he CAN take a level in the sorcerer class. I feel asking him to train a bit or even deny it until he's passed a few games role-playing the changes. I guess close-minded means realistic-minded :D As for the rules preventing multi-classing, they unfortunatley lets you create an half-dragon/half tarasque fighter2/barbarian 2/ranger 2/dervish 2/sorcerer 2/ druid 2/über-twink 2 without XP penalty, because none of your classes have more than a level in difference.
Razoreface 01-16-05, 05:30 PM	Until you see a hardcore monk taking a level in sorcerer to gain mage armor. Said monk NEVER showed any interest in magic, And can never again show any interest in levelling up as a monk, either. :D
Ze_Mighty_Vegetable 01-16-05, 06:13 PM	you got me there. ::bending head in shame:: but you see what I meant.
TripleF 01-17-05, 12:45 AM	Its all a balance. Sorc taking a level of monk sets her behind as far as spellcasting goes. I doubt that the wis to ac really breaks the game. Most multiclassing builds, out side of full BAB builds, don't work well starting from level 1. Sure that Monk ac bonus is nice usually more spells is more important to a low level character. In a tenth level game think of multiclassing as Level Adjustment for PHB races. "half-dragon/half tarasque fighter2/barbarian 2/ranger 2/dervish 2/sorcerer 2/ druid 2/über-twink 2" This is no powergaming build. Assuming the half tarasque build is atleast 3 your build there is for 20 level. Your BAB is 10 at 20th level. That is a whole lot of stink. Sure a player could do it but why? Saves is the only reason that makes sense. Now a Dwarf Ranger 3/ Fighter 2/ Deepwarden 2/ Battlesmith 4/ Dwarven Defender 9 is a build to hold close to your heart and treasure it as it is a thing of beauty.
The nameles one 01-17-05, 04:17 AM	I have occasional min/max/powergame urges too. I usually vent these urges by making uber-NPC's and run them in a duel against each other. As a DM I prevent min/maxing to some extent by restricting the amout of classess a PC can take. A PC can have up to 2 core classess (Including psionics, monster classess and variant core classess) and 1 prestige class. In my opinion Prestige classess are special occupations. Areas where characters specialize. Thats why you cant have more than 1.
Ze_Mighty_Vegetable 01-17-05, 05:04 PM	Its all a balance. Sorc taking a level of monk sets her behind as far as spellcasting goes. I doubt that the wis to ac really breaks the game.. It's not breaking the game. This exemple was used to show that a DM could be right to ask for trainning time before alowing you to raise your level. [QUOTE=TripleF] Most multiclassing builds, out side of full BAB builds, don't work well starting from level 1. Sure that Monk ac bonus is nice usually more spells is more important to a low level character. In a tenth level game think of multiclassing as Level Adjustment for PHB races. "half-dragon/half tarasque fighter2/barbarian 2/ranger 2/dervish 2/sorcerer 2/ druid 2/über-twink 2" This is no powergaming build. Assuming the half tarasque build is atleast 3 your build there is for 20 level. Your BAB is 10 at 20th level. That is a whole lot of stink. Sure a player could do it but why? Saves is the only reason that makes sense. QUOTE] Sure, the BAB is only 20, but half dragon/half tarrasque gives you a str bonus of 12 (for exemple), meanning you've got an attack of 16. You sacrifice an attack, true, but you more than make it up in various plusses and assorted powers. What's more, I don't think there is a half-tarrasque template, it was just an exemple. You bring an interesting point when you say that most multi-class build are not workable if you really progress from 1rst level.
Ze_Mighty_Vegetable 01-17-05, 05:07 PM	Its all a balance. Sorc taking a level of monk sets her behind as far as spellcasting goes. I doubt that the wis to ac really breaks the game.. It's not breaking the game. This exemple was used to show that a DM could be right to ask for trainning time before alowing you to raise your level. [QUOTE=TripleF] Most multiclassing builds, out side of full BAB builds, don't work well starting from level 1. Sure that Monk ac bonus is nice usually more spells is more important to a low level character. In a tenth level game think of multiclassing as Level Adjustment for PHB races. "half-dragon/half tarasque fighter2/barbarian 2/ranger 2/dervish 2/sorcerer 2/ druid 2/über-twink 2" This is no powergaming build. Assuming the half tarasque build is atleast 3 your build there is for 20 level. Your BAB is 10 at 20th level. That is a whole lot of stink. Sure a player could do it but why? Saves is the only reason that makes sense. QUOTE] Sure, the BAB is only 20, but half dragon/half tarrasque gives you a str bonus of 12 (for exemple), meanning you've got an attack of 16. You sacrifice an attack, true, but you more than make it up in various plusses and assorted powers. What's more, I don't think there is a half-tarrasque template, it was just an exemple. You bring an interesting point when you say that most multi-class build are not workable if you really progress from 1rst level. If you want to discuss multi-Prcs and level-dipping, there was a recent thread in the DM section dedicated to that very problem.
Palin the Wizard 01-17-05, 05:42 PM	"Powergamer" and "min/maxer" are not negative labels. If you want to slap the powergamer label on someone who is acting in an inappropriate way, you should probably look at "munchkin" rather than "powergamer". Powergamer is roughly equal to min/maxer. It is someone who plays to get the most power to his character, but a powergamer will never bend or break rules. Some powergamers look only at the numbers; others look at the numbers and build up a concept around them.
Juan Moore 01-17-05, 07:55 PM	I'm a player in a group where if you're on the outside looking in you might go "You're all powergamers!"... but from our perspective we're all playing normally. But then again, we all have these concepts that we stick to and optimize as we go. So, yeah, we might powergame, but we consider it to be utilizing the rules as best as possible in conjunction with as many concepts that are feasible (and that work well with other concepts). We also play with as many rules as possible... it might seem restrictive, but it's quite fun.
75RD Drum Clip 01-17-05, 09:50 PM	I don't see anything wrong with powergaming, min/maxing, being a munchkin or some other phase of being a D&D player. Once the game begins, it all comes down to RP and rolls IMC. In my 17+ years of gaming, it does not seem to matter how the character starts or is built so much as it matter how the character was played. My group prefers to have memorable characters. If my players have an idea on a type of character they want to create and work up to, I will try to craft adventures and plots to support such goals. Success is not assured, but a chance is. Have fun and MYOC.
Ze_Mighty_Vegetable 01-17-05, 10:59 PM	I'm a player in a group where if you're on the outside looking in you might go "You're all powergamers!"... but from our perspective we're all playing normally. . THIS is what it's about. Powergaming/munchkinism can't be defined by itself. You can only be accused of being a munchkin in regard to a particular group. If you're so powerfull you constantly overshadow the other players or the Dm has trouble dealing with your PC, you are powergaming. A half-giant (from psionic, not savage species) fighter 3 is probably tought of as an über-powergamer in a game where all the others are elven commoners 3. But the same PC's a pathetic weakling in a game where everybody's playing a feral half-something half-somethingelse rogue1/warrior2.
TripleF 01-18-05, 12:39 AM	You bring an interesting point when you say that most multi-class build are not workable if you really progress from 1rst level. In my experience in playing in games starting at level 1 vs games starting at level 10, it is much harder to level dip. Mainly because you have take prereqs that are not advantageous to the current level. Like my Dwarf build in the post above. I would never try to play that from level one. I don't have power attack or cleave which are vital feats at low levels. Instead of power attack and cleave for my low levels I take toughness and dodge or whatever. Its even more difficult for spellcasters to multiclass from level 1. Take the Arcane Trickster, a pretty descent class but very difficult to get into from level 1 because you have to spend time in two classes for at least 3 levels. In those 6 levels you are behind the power-curve, you are not an awesome wizard nor are you a great rogue. In a higher level start the Arcane trickster is more workable because you have gotten past the boring parts of being a crappy mage and rogue. I will say this about level dipping, I like doing it because it lets me build my own class with the features I want. Templates, on the other hand, should be monitored very much by the DM. They can very well break encounters much more than multi-classing/PrCing.
striderII 01-18-05, 11:25 AM	Unfortunatly, so did the other characters. By the end of the lunch break, everybody had been told exactly who he was. OOC. Yet, when the players even remotly mentionned it in game, he accused them of metagaming. Sounds like you just made the best of a bad situation. Frankly, I don't have the patience for that kind of stupidity (his, obviously, not you). Hence the question regarding the stick and the violent use thereof. I will say this about level dipping, I like doing it because it lets me build my own class with the features I want. And I'll say this about level dipping: I hate it, I think it's stupid, and I also think that it's a great reason why skill-based systems are superior. strider
Zom 01-18-05, 07:34 PM	Isn't Everybody a Powergamer? Yes, unless your character's race is 1/2 elf.
Blackrazorblade 01-18-05, 09:03 PM	in every group pretty much one person is branded powergamer, i am in mine. I am more of a min/maxer then anything, but considering how little RPing my group does it looks like powergaming, i "care" more about the game more then anyone else in my group, i am the know it all with the source books. For instance we were detirmineing who was which character in 8-bit theater <www.nuklearpower.com> and i was picked as Red Mage hands down. soem times its the group not you...at least completely.
Ze_Mighty_Vegetable 01-19-05, 12:25 AM	Advice for DMs wanting to get rid of the worst excess from problem players: Do a one or 2 session game with high-level PCs. Ask them to make the most powerfull PC possible. Let them go nuts, NO restrictions whatsoever, execept be a true ***** about the rules: don't bend any. For no reason. When your players have finished twinking their unholy abomination of a PC, play a VERY low role-play scenario where everyone's a weakling. Then, introduce the monsters. Powerfull monsters 2 or more in CR than the party level. They'll trounce them. Utterly. Repeat a few times. Eventually, they'll tire. You'll revert to your old game with (hopefuly) less powergaming problems. Or at the very least, you know they are hopeless and can act accordingly...
Kulthos 01-19-05, 12:53 AM	As a level dipper who has never been able to start at 10th, I do have to say that it can be very usefull. My favortie build (until LC went away) was a first level fighter/sixth level wizard. The first fighter level gave him the HP to survive, the use of a spiked chain, and weapon finesse. At levels 2-4 he was a fighter who could cast true strike and blindness. At level 6 he was a wizard who could hit reasonably hard with a weapon from behind the fighters when he didn't feel like burning a spell. At higher levels he would mostly just have been a wizard. A halfling wiard would be more powerful at high levels, but would have had a harder time getting there.
Sturmfeldt 01-19-05, 06:35 AM	IMO powergaming is when people start using (read abusing) different sets of rules, PRC`s and third party stuff thats not mixable regarding terms of background or storylines... Everybody wants his PC to perform wel nothing wrong with that. However it gets anoying if background and cultural aspects are put aside in order to pump your DC beyond god-like proportions... After all it`s still a role playing game, not roll playing....?