Power Gamers & Concept Gamers - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 bawylie Feb 09, 2015 8:24:16	Today, @theangryDM writes a compelling article on the conflict between two types of player. Most importantly (to me) is the edict for DMs to get involved in the process of sculpting the game - limit options, foster compromise, get your hands dirty. I have some experience with this problem, but most of my players aren't selfish A-holes. Either way, though, this is part of the answer to some of the problems I'm seeing around here lately: "My players mow through my encounters." "One player is crazy tough!" "PVP plz halp." "Thief vs Paladin alignment Q." A lot of our advice has been to set & manage expectations in Session Zero, write complete encounters (not just math!), keep the goals of play in mind, and to write challenges and not solutions. Now we add "tailor your campaign to suit your goals," and "broker compromise" to our general design principles. Anyway, read it! And then come back here and fight about the G-D tone with me!
#2 Rhenny Feb 09, 2015 8:54:33	I loved the article, especially since I could relate to the canceling of game sessions due to life, weather, football, etc. The common denominator that makes player management problematic definitely boils down to selfishness and rigidity. I like angryDM's suggestion about DM guiding pc creation to forge some common ground or centricism between power gaming and roleplaying. When it comes down to it, it seems like every player should have a bit of both to maximize enjoyment personally and for the table.
#3 bawylie Feb 09, 2015 9:09:15	Unsurprisingly, I'm supportive of the via media. Obviously you should play what you love to play - but not in a selfish or disruptive way. There was an old thread "My Happiness or Yours?" that sort of treated this as a zero-sum game. It isn't, or it doesn't have to be.
#4 Mommy_was_an_Orc Feb 09, 2015 9:18:58	Yup, really good article. Especially given how passive-aggressive or socially unaware members of both groups can be at times.
#5 Chiisai_Usagi Feb 09, 2015 9:19:22	He seems to hit in the general vicinity of my thoughts on the topic, although his recommendation about limiting options (3rd party splats notwithstanding) isn't quite what I find optimal. In order for that to make any difference at all, the DM has to know just as much as the would-be power gamer. Look at it this way: If a third of the options are better than the other two thirds and you remove that third, roughly a third of the remaining options will then be better than the remaining two thirds, repeat to infinity. Rather, I like to let the players police each other. While I don't buy into the whole 'consensus building' craze that's popular in so many avenues today, letting everyone know ahead of time that not only CAN I target their weaknesses but that, in circumstances where the enemies could discover them, most certainly WILL target their weaknesses helps to keep people from sperging too far down either line. Often, the assumption of how much lethality there will be is a contributing factor in the decisions about how to make your character. I try to keep just enough lethality to keep the method actor from taking Underwater Basketweaving 101 and the Power Gamer from turning into Combat Twink without a brain just to eke out a +1 to damage. It does make me wonder sometimes about some of the people populating others' game tables, though.
#6 MrHotter Feb 09, 2015 9:28:01	I don't realy think you can have the two types in the same game and have people enjoy themselves. I've only had two campaigns in the last few years, and neither set of players could play at the same table. If I tried to put my family players into the same encounters that my beared guy group enjoyed I'd end up with a bunch of dead characters and bored players. If I tried to put my beared guy group into my family campaign I'd have a bunch of guys falling asleep while their combat oriented characters spend several sessions without picking up the dice. As someone who would rather be the DM than a player I've always wanted to make sure that the player makes no 'wrong' choices for their character. If a player thinks that their greatest ability is basket weaving, then the campaign will have plenty of basket weaving. If the players don't care about the story I'm happy to play a 'dungeon of the week' campaign. I just don't see those two players enjoying the same game table.
#7 The_White_Sorcerer Feb 09, 2015 9:38:54	This is your regularly scheduled mandatory accusation of bawylie and theangryDM being the same person. Carry on.
#8 Eldren73 Feb 09, 2015 9:40:43	It seems to me the easiest way to avoid this sort of thing is to make sure all the players at the table are there to work as a team. I've been playing D&D for nearly 30 years at this point, and that's always been where the root of intraparty problems lie: one or more players don't want to be team players. I still recall, with some irritation, a Planescape campaign I was running back in 2nd Edition. I'll never be a good DM, but I was an atrocious one at that point. In the city of Sigil, there was a grand library, and the players (logically) concluded that all this knowledge must include the locations of portals to most anywhere in the planes they wanted to go. They chose to do that instead of take hold of the adventure hooks I'd put in for them, which forced me to railroad them ("No, you can't actually find information on a portal to that location." "Why?" "The Great Library just doesn't seem to have it available.") just to keep the session going. Needless to say, the whole thing fell apart rather quickly, and soured me on DMing for years. Optimization can always be done, even with 5th Edition, though it lends itself less to it in comparison to the systems-heavy 3.5/Pathfinder. I still recall being part of a high-level 3.5 campaign where the DM let players use whatever was in a WotC-published rulebook, which meant I was running around with a 17th level dragon wildshaping Druid who routinely had an AC of 72. After that concluded, I was planning on running a campaign where the only classes/spells/items players would have access to were in the Player's Handbook and Dungeon Master's Guide. I felt it was time to get back to the real meat 'n potatoes of D&D. That's one reason I love 5th Edition: it does just that. In our session this past Saturday, we just started Hoard of the Dragon Queen. One of the guys in our group brought his 14 year-old son and 12 year-old daughter, and they joined the campaign. It was their first D&D game. It was awesome watching them. They didn't have the weight of decades of playing RPGs, they weren't trying to figure out optimal stats and equipment (not that you really can at 1st level...), they were just there to have fun. Combat ran a little slow as they were figuring out what bonus to add to a die roll, but they picked it up, and we completed the encounters and got through the 1st scene in a 5-hour session (with breaks for food). No one was using an excess of secrecy about their character (personal pet peeve of mine: the player who wants to be as mysterious as possible, withholding information about their character just so they can be mysterious and have a "big reveal" at some point, or feel like they have something that only the Dungeon Master can discuss with them), no one was interested in succeeding at the expense of someone else, no one was deciding they weren't getting enough spotlight, people were just having fun. If you're finding conflicts between power gamers & concept gamers, the conflict is likely sourced not in a difference of gaming goals, but in the reality that one or more of those players just aren't interested in cooperative group play. They'd rather do everything they can do meet their own goals, and often treat the other players as "uncontrollable" hirelings.
(Reply to #7) bawylie	The_White_Sorcerer wrote:
#10 Shasarak Feb 09, 2015 10:27:05	Yeah, angry dm who says you can not play DnD to win? You can put a fork in that one.
#11 edwin_su Feb 09, 2015 10:30:12	"Too many DMs take a kitchen sink approach to their games. Everything that exists is allowed. And too many players assume that’s how it should be." This might be a issue that pops up in the groups where I play. We always seem to have the most fun with a edition early in that editions life, before a lot of bloat starts to come in. Often the bloathing comes with power creep and the more power game focussed players will use that power creep. making the gap between the “power gamers” and “concept people.” bigger.
#12 AaronOfBarbaria Feb 09, 2015 11:02:11	I am glad to finally read an article by the angry DM that I didn't feel the point of was overpowered by simple "bah I'm angry and I'm so much better than everyone else!" rhetoric. The distinction between an optimizer or concept player and a selfish optimizer or selfish concept player is a very important one to make, and treating the issue (the selfishness) rather than the coincidental trait (being an optimizer or a concept player) is the only way to actually fix the situation. The two things I don't exactly agree with: 1) I don't think there is actually any disagreement between Will Wheaton's philosophy and what the angry DM says. I understand Will Wheaton saying "you can't win at D&D" to mean that the act of power-gaming your character selfishly and spoiling the game by doing so is not a "win" - not that you shouldn't make your character capable of overcoming numerous challenges effeciently and play in a style where your goal is something along the lines of "defeat the bad guy and complete the campaign." 2) The Kitchen Sink approach: I don't like telling a player they can't use some game material they purchased... so I go for a slightly modified approach: I evaluate if a particular option works fine in this campaign, allow it if it does, and commit to creating a future campaign in which it will work fine if it doesn't.
#13 Noon Feb 09, 2015 11:16:59	Generally a functional type of powergamer is like a gun - they aim and fire once you designate a target for competition. Generally this is combat. Generally this works out in combat because from the perspective of characters, characters don't want to die and do what they can before (training/char gen) or in combat to live. Though that assumes the perspective of characters matters. A lot of method gamers are all about following a script and 'it's what my character would do' is anathema to them. So the article misses the mark in not describing that third faction. Or maybe he already treated 'method gamer' as script followers and missed describing where what the character does IS the plot - could be either way around.
#14 bawylie Feb 09, 2015 11:40:48	"The distinction between an optimizer or concept player and a selfish optimizer or selfish concept player is a very important one to make, and treating the issue (the selfishness) rather than the coincidental trait (being an optimizer or a concept player) is the only way to actually fix the situation." - Aaronofbarbaria this exactly.
#15 Storyteller-Zero Feb 09, 2015 12:07:27	The kitchen sink approach seems to have a greater chance to go awry if the DM has problems adapting during the session. Surprises can happen to anyone, and having that ultimate villain's plan get foiled earlier than expected (due to a well-planned exploit by a player) can be a scary moment. A "selfish optimizer" can be worked around if the DM can keep things flowing. Your character does an instakill or can't be hit by the enemy? Instead of arguing against the build, or punishing or restricting options, there should be a plethora of possibilities that make the best of having an OP character at the table without spoiling it for the rest of the table.
#16 Bluenose Feb 09, 2015 12:14:17	If there isn't a big disparity between what an aggressively optimised character is useful at and what a "concept-built" character is useful at, the two types of player can work perfectly well in the same party. It's most obviously seen in games where the player has less control over how the character develops - Traveller with highly random character generation, Runequest through it's particular skill advancement rules - but it's not present in others which lack the disparities that lets optimisers create their OTT characters or "concept" players make their equally self-centred characters.
#17 Touc Feb 09, 2015 12:40:02	Personal experience has soured me on the peaceful co-existence of the "power gamer" and "concept player." Show "Power Gamers" aren't really noticeable at lower levels because there's fewer options. In Pathfinder, somewhere around 5th level or so it became very apparent. I restricted players to the Core and 1 accessory book, but as you'll see below, that's a negative to certain player types.
#18 bob_goes_up Feb 09, 2015 12:51:04	There are different aspects to "power gaming" Acting strategically during character creation Action strategically during combat Acting strategically during social encounters
#19 Adjule Feb 09, 2015 13:23:52	Touc wrote:
#20 The_Angry_DM Feb 09, 2015 14:44:29	AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
(Reply to #20) DaveDash	The_Angry_DM wrote:
#22 Saelorn Feb 09, 2015 16:30:44	There are two kinds of characters - 1) Characters who don't want to die; and, 2) Characters who are insane.
#23 Zardnaar Feb 09, 2015 18:02:20	Its a problem our group is having. The power gamers do tend to be team players though. IN 2 campaigns one player took. fighter polearm master+sentinal feat And 2 Crossbow expert+sharpshoter The concept players took garbage and do not play as a team to the exrtent there rogues can't sneak attack as they are to busy running away. One even min/maxed his movement rate and stayed away from everyone else by around 16 squares. We tried talking it out as well and everyone agreed on some stuff to take like the healer feat and then that player took a different subclass and then buffed charisma and intelligence after agreeing to take the healer feat as we lacked a full time healer. Hell I do not mind beiung the healer just LMK and I will do it. The PCs also take a lot more damage than they need to and the healers can'[t keep up or is to busy misty stepping everywhere running away to you know actually heal. Net result is one DM doesn't wanna play anymore and I am taking a break in general and might play something else like C&C where you can't really build your PC as such. Hell the concept players have fireballed the partyu and get themseles or other PCs killed.
#24 Orethalion Feb 09, 2015 18:28:19	Storyteller-Zero wrote:
#25 Orethalion Feb 09, 2015 18:30:03	Saelorn wrote:
#26 Psikerlord Feb 10, 2015 3:47:50	I quite like the article and agree. Intraparty balance problems are what breaks the game. In my experience, powergamers are the most problematic - they are the most common and exploits tend to be obvious over time. I have never met a true "concept" player who goes to the extreme described in this article. Every concept player I've met is a half optimiser, or is easily persuaded to be. It's the full on gonzo minmaxers who break things. I very much agree with the solutions suggested, and have adopted some of them for 5e. I dont allow all options. Some feats have changed, we dont use inspiration, and we use some of our own optional rules. The players all understand we need to keep the PCs in the same power ballpark (in particular, damage dealing). I think clarifying expectations in the "session zero" can save a looooot of heartache later on.
#27 QwertyAzerty Feb 10, 2015 5:54:25	Some of those problem can be solve by WotC themselve. For exemple, make all feat equal, make all feat same power level wise, and give all feat a conceptual aspect. So instead of having a fully conceptual feat like actor (+1Cha, and receive advantage to mimic the voice and mannerism of someone) and a fully powered feat like great weapon master(bonus action attack and -5att/+10damage), you could power up Actor a little bit to give it some power value (+1Cha, you learn minor illusion as a cantrip and silent image once per day, +1DC on Illusion spell and get advantage on check to mimic voice and mannerism of someone) and give Great weapon master some conceptual aspect like witnesses who see you use your heavy weapon are inspired or afraid (your choice) by you . So can use your strenght on your perssuasion/deception/intimidation check when talking with witnesses. This way the player who made a bard and want to take actor because it make sense for a bard to be an actor, he still gain something usefull out of it, he can supply his act with some usefull spells And the barbarian conceptual player will still be interested in Great weapon master since it give his character a new concept trait, he can use his heavy weapon is such a talented way that he inspired fear or admiration within people he witness, but it doesn't make the power gamer wanting the feat more since for a power gamer he would probably have ask the bard/sorcerer to do the talking after the fight. At the same time it could solve the problem that we have now where only 5 feats are used by everyone: Crossbow expert, Sharpshooter, great weapon master, polearm master, sentinel, shield mastery, I never saw any tread on the other feat on these forum, those are the feat that everyone talk about because they are the "powerfull feat" that everyone use, since they seem to "unbalance" the game, but if all feat would match there power level then it wouldn't be unbalance anymore Yes the dragon sorcerer power gamer who use a single elemental type will take elemental adept, but anyone else taking it it mainly for conceptual reason (since a power gamer wild sorcerer or wizard will already have a wide variety of elemental spell so if he face a fire resistance monster he got a cold spell ready to cast) but elemental adept could be made into a choice that even wild sorcerer and wizard who got a wide variety of spell elemental type could be interested in. Something like +1 to your DC on spell using that element, or give +1to Cha/Intellect or Wisdom (player choice). Feat like weapon master, light/medium/heavy armor proficient (feat giving you proficiency) this is so conceptual feat since a power gamer who want to build a gish sorcerer will dip 2 level in fighter or cleric to gain the armor proficiency, the weapons and some melee survival ability. - Heavy proficiency should be merge with the 3 damage reduction feat and the 3 DR should be scalable to still be relevant at higher level (maybe you gain 1/2 your character level in DR (round up) for example. - The medium armor proficiency should be merge with the feat allowing your medium armor to give you maximum +3dex to AC medium armor never give disavantage to stealth. - Now the light armor, all class are able to use light amor, the few rare class unable to use it receive a bigger bonus that the light armor bonus (mage armor give 13 base AC instead od 12 (studded leather), So with the feat giving you proficiency with light armor should also light armor no longer change your base formula, padded armor give you +1AC (and disavantage on stealth check) leather armor give you +1AC and studded leather give you +2AC. Light armor count as being unarmored for you. So this way a dragon sorcerer who got 13+dex from his dragon resilience (or with mage armor) class feature, who take this feat, can now equip a studded leather and his AC will be 13+dex+2(studded leather). The monk unarmored AC with studded leather will be 10+dex+wis+2, Even the barbarian who already have light armor profiency could be interested in this feat to obtain an AC of 10+dex+con+2(studded leather)+2(shield) and now the barbarian have a hard choice to do do at level 4 (or for his human feat) he could take light armor mastery feat to gain +2AC (magical bonuses) or does he take great weapon master? now this is a decision a barbarian need to take without an easy answer and the choice will be done depending on his concept that his want, do he want a raging barbarian cleaving throught the ennemies (GWP) or does he want a unkillable barbarian taking the punishment from the ennemy and protecting his friend/clan (light armor mastery)
#28 Mommy_was_an_Orc Feb 10, 2015 6:08:07	Psikerlord wrote:
#29 Kazadvorn Feb 10, 2015 7:08:55	This brings to mind 'The Good Old Days'... I started playing in 1975/76... when you rolled up characters with 3d6. Some folks took great joy in playing characters that had absolutely TERRIBLE starting stats... and there were no ability upgrades for leveling in those days - your stats were your stats... forever. (magic upgrades aside.) I wonder how that approach would be viewed by the current crop of 'optimisers'. I really don't think you can mix full on 'optimisers' and full on 'concept' players at the same table... at least not well. In a sense, these two types of players are participating in very different games... One player is looking to play a type of tabletop miniatures skirmish game... focused on combat... and aspects of the game that support combat (initiative, perception, speed of movement, etc). The other player is less concerned with combat effectiveness... and more interested in a 'storytelling' experience. I've run into both types of players over the last 30 or 40 years... and the player's attitude towards 'Combat' will tell the story.... (YES - this is a generalization... and many, if not most, players balance 'optimizaton' and 'concept'.) One player looks at the 'role playing' end of the game as a necessary evil required to move the party from combat encounter to combat encounter.... The other player tends to look at 'combat' as an inconvienent interruption in the role playing narrative.
(Reply to #27) AaronOfBarbaria	QwertyAzerty wrote:
#31 Touc Feb 10, 2015 9:44:31	If the gist is whether a selfish player will accomodate, my life experience is probably not. My experience is that the gamer who won't budge in their ways is almost always the number cruncher power gamer. Show DM attempts to restrict books, limit options, creates more friction as the power gamer sees the DM only enjoying the game if all the players are "gimped."
#32 Eldren73 Feb 10, 2015 10:15:40	Touc wrote:
#33 Noon Feb 10, 2015 14:57:41	It's also worth considering a distinction in powergaming. The game designers may have aimed for a ceiling on PC power. One powergamer might get near or at that ceiling. Another might find a hole in the rules to get above it. But the fact is the ceiling is part of the game. It's not the former powergamers fault here - instead it means as DM you aren't keeping up with the game. Catch up!
#34 Rhenny Feb 10, 2015 14:43:50	Interestingly, I think most players are part optimizer, part concept player. It will be harder to accommodate the extremes at the same table unless the extreme optimizer or extreme concept player realize that they are playing for self and other. As long as the optimizer or the concept player gives others a chance to contribute, and doesn't act in a way that breaks pre established expectations of teamwork, they can play well together. Now, if the group understands that in combat, the concept player's pc might run and hide instead of fight because that's the concept of the character, it will add to the game. This type of acceptance and buy in will be much harder for the extreme optimizer though.
#35 Saelorn Feb 10, 2015 16:14:42	Orethalion wrote:
#36 ModusPonens Feb 10, 2015 17:45:57	The_Angry_DM wrote:
#37 warpiglet Feb 10, 2015 18:30:46	I will make a bold statement. If you power game and have no concern about Leaving out your fellows, you suck. If you role play to the exclusion of being viable or to the exclusion of allowing attention being given to other players you suck. For me, you MUST value your fellow players' and the dm's fun even as you seek your own. If you are 12, whatever. If you are 20 plus and don't see how you effect other people at the table you are to be avoided. I once played at a con when a stranger spent 15 minutes explaining how he was killing a one hit die orc using polymorph and falling damage etc etc while the rest of us sat there wit our hands on our...pencils...doing nothing. The dude was oblivious and the dm not very capable. CARE about your fellows and your min max deep immersion can still fit in. Worry about yourself only and you will SUCK either path u take.
#38 Uchawi Feb 11, 2015 4:07:36	The concept of power game roots itself in class disparity. And that is also very dependent on the DM and the type of campaign they run. There is no real fix, except the DM can try to offer challenges that caters to each type of player. If they do not, then the player will do the work to optimize the character, or leave the table disappointed since their expectations on roleplaying are not met. I believe it would be easier to deal with power gaming if each class had options with the class (maneuvers, spells) and outside the class like items or feats to fine tune. The concept gamers will always be present and are better dealt with through the story.
(Reply to #35) bawylie	Saelorn wrote:
#40 Thunaer Feb 11, 2015 7:38:15	warpiglet wrote:
#41 arnwolf666 Feb 11, 2015 9:01:12	My dream is that no combination of race, class, archetype, or background can't be powergamed. I kind of dislike how they made races effective with certain classes. I wish they would drop the racial ability score modifiers and just let everyone have a +2 to 1 ability score and a +1 to a different ability score. Go Halfling Berserker with a 20 strength.
#42 Vahnyu Feb 11, 2015 10:38:23	Thunaer wrote:
#43 Noon Feb 11, 2015 14:48:53	[quote="Rhenny"] Interestingly, I think most players are part optimizer, part concept player. It will be harder to accommodate the extremes at the same table unless the extreme optimizer or extreme concept player realize that they are playing for self and other. As long as the optimizer or the concept player gives others a chance to contribute, and doesn't act in a way that breaks pre established expectations of teamwork, they can play well together.[quote] Why not just work out what contribution chances are for other players and not for that particular optimiser. An optimiser wont get the idea of failing to rise to a challenge - which is what it is when you leave it to someone else to contribute on something you can nail. If you set up rules though, for what challenges are his to complete and what aren't, then he'll get it (or even what aren't his challenges, but if the player who owns them says he can take them on, THEN he can take them on). If it feels uncomfortable to say 'These monsters are for you, optimiser - the rest of the monsters are for the rest of the group'...well, that's not the optimiser having a problem there.
(Reply to #43) Rhenny	Noon wrote:
#45 feartheminotaur Feb 11, 2015 16:50:45	Rhenny wrote:
#46 Xguild Feb 12, 2015 0:56:46	bawylie wrote:
#47 Neonflux Feb 12, 2015 2:15:17	I DM two groups.. Friends at home, two players had not played since high school, two had never played Strangers in a game store, all have played pathfinder. my home group enjoy it, but mostly just want to hang out almost as an alternative to playing poker or something. They tend to argue a lot, everyone seems to want to tell everyone else what to do on each turn. And they are generally meta gaming based on incorrect info... eg: last session facing a gelatinous cube one player tells the rest not to bother attacking it with weapons as he thought they'd be ineffectual. Which meant the fighters in the party didn't do anything for about 4 rounds while the wizards did the fighting. They have lots of personality clashes because that happens regardless the activity. The group I play with in store are both better power gamers and role players than my home group, they have made short work of stuff that troubled my friends who were a level higher. They seem to be really enjoying 5e but we've only played twice. Even though the home game is far more disruptive and frustrating, I enjoy it because they're my friends.
#48 edwin_su Feb 12, 2015 8:51:44	Often optimizing also means specialising. Make sure the drawbacs of doing so also come into play, like dump stats. Yes you might be the high STR and CON fighter, with CHA and INT known for being one of the best greatsword fighters in the land. But when traveling with your party you might be ignored by NPC's in negotations, seeing you just as the hired big dumb muscle of tha party
#49 Bluenose Feb 12, 2015 10:37:06	edwin_su wrote:
#50 Rastapopoulos Feb 14, 2015 13:08:05	bawylie wrote:
#51 Kayal Feb 15, 2015 9:23:43	That's a good article. Thanks for sharing.
#52 Qmark Feb 15, 2015 10:35:24	Saelorn wrote:
#53 durntaur Feb 15, 2015 14:17:46	Qmark wrote:
#54 Qmark Feb 15, 2015 14:31:16	durntaur wrote:
#55 Shasarak Feb 15, 2015 15:42:46	Qmark wrote:
#56 Noon Feb 15, 2015 15:59:47	Qmark wrote:
#57 Pompadour64 Feb 19, 2015 16:46:05	One thing I've recently been thinking about how this thread relates to a certain design philosophy in Magic:The Gathering. For those who aren't familiar with the game, I'll try to explain the philosophy in terms more related to D&D. For those who do know, I'm talking about the Timmy/Johnny/Spike/Vorthos player profiles. Essentially, they are player stereotypes that designers try to appeal to when designing any given set of cards. For further reading, here's an article that explains these profiles in relation to MTG: http://archive.wizards.com/Magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr11b Vorthos is the classic concept gamer. He comes up with some wacky character with a host of flaws and/or traits that really brings the character to life. His main concern is flavor, and thus the stats on his character sheet are only the tip of the iceberg. This type of player can rarely be seen as an optimizer. Timmy, the first brand of power gamer, would be the player who creates a character to be amazing at something specific. Maybe he wants his character to be really hard to hit, or really good at grappling, or really good at skill checks. For example, his character may have really awesome Nova potential in combat without as much longevity or versatility. This is the kind of player who would get a kick out of one-shotting a monster at the cost of mediocre average damage, having an astronomical passive perception, or having the highest initiative so he can act first as much as possible. This type of player, while technically an "optimizer," isn't doing so to break anything. He just wants to show off this cool thing his character does. The second kind of power gamer, Johnny, is the type of player who comes up with a unique concept and does his best to emulate it in game. Maybe he wants to recreate Wolverine in game. Maybe he wants to make an armorless swordsman who is hard to hit and has the ability to deal devastating damage when he gains the upper hand. Maybe he wants to build a jedi knight. This is the type of player who will multiclass into 3 different classes so he can get the mix of abilities just right. His primary focus is creating a character that is powerful in his own right, but unique above all else. This type of player is also an optimizer. He looks for synergies here and there that really bring power and weight to his fun concept, but his motivation is rarely to create something overpowered. The last archetype of power gamer, and the one that I see as the problem, is Spike. This type of player plays to win. His goal is to create something of maximum possible power. Usually this comes in the form of combat prowess and high DPR. In Magic this isn't a problem because Magic is a game you play against other people. In D&D, this type of player inevitably ends up outshining his fellow players to an unacceptable degree and/or gets into an arms race with his DM. When people say they dislike "optimizers" or "power gamers," I think this is what they really mean. The point of all this is to show that, while Timmys and Johnnys can be lumped in with Spikes as "power gamers" and consequently demonized, it is important to distinguish the type of optimizer you're dealing with so you can recognize if it truly is a problem or if it's just a player trying to express himself by creating something cool or unique. If a player isn't playing "to win," then what's the harm in him having fun in creating his character?
#58 Orethalion Feb 20, 2015 6:40:10	Qmark wrote:
#59 Gunthar Feb 20, 2015 6:49:05	AaronOfBarbaria wrote:

Post/Author/DateTime

Post

bawylie

Feb 09, 2015 8:24:16

Today, @theangryDM writes a compelling article on the conflict between two types of player.

Most importantly (to me) is the edict for DMs to get involved in the process of sculpting the game - limit options, foster compromise, get your hands dirty.

I have some experience with this problem, but most of my players aren't selfish A-holes. Either way, though, this is part of the answer to some of the problems I'm seeing around here lately:

"My players mow through my encounters."

"One player is crazy tough!"

"PVP plz halp."

"Thief vs Paladin alignment Q."

A lot of our advice has been to set & manage expectations in Session Zero, write complete encounters (not just math!), keep the goals of play in mind, and to write challenges and not solutions. Now we add "tailor your campaign to suit your goals," and "broker compromise" to our general design principles.

Anyway, read it! And then come back here and fight about the G-D tone with me!

Rhenny

Feb 09, 2015 8:54:33

I loved the article, especially since I could relate to the canceling of game sessions due to life, weather, football, etc.

The common denominator that makes player management problematic definitely boils down to selfishness and rigidity.

I like angryDM's suggestion about DM guiding pc creation to forge some common ground or centricism between power gaming and roleplaying. When it comes down to it, it seems like every player should have a bit of both to maximize enjoyment personally and for the table.

bawylie

Feb 09, 2015 9:09:15

Unsurprisingly, I'm supportive of the via media. Obviously you should play what you love to play - but not in a selfish or disruptive way.

There was an old thread "My Happiness or Yours?" that sort of treated this as a zero-sum game. It isn't, or it doesn't have to be.

Mommy_was_an_Orc

Feb 09, 2015 9:18:58

Yup, really good article. Especially given how passive-aggressive or socially unaware members of both groups can be at times.

Chiisai_Usagi

Feb 09, 2015 9:19:22

He seems to hit in the general vicinity of my thoughts on the topic, although his recommendation about limiting options (3rd party splats notwithstanding) isn't quite what I find optimal. In order for that to make any difference at all, the DM has to know just as much as the would-be power gamer. Look at it this way: If a third of the options are better than the other two thirds and you remove that third, roughly a third of the remaining options will then be better than the remaining two thirds, repeat to infinity.

Rather, I like to let the players police each other. While I don't buy into the whole 'consensus building' craze that's popular in so many avenues today, letting everyone know ahead of time that not only CAN I target their weaknesses but that, in circumstances where the enemies could discover them, most certainly WILL target their weaknesses helps to keep people from sperging too far down either line. Often, the assumption of how much lethality there will be is a contributing factor in the decisions about how to make your character. I try to keep just enough lethality to keep the method actor from taking Underwater Basketweaving 101 and the Power Gamer from turning into Combat Twink without a brain just to eke out a +1 to damage.

It does make me wonder sometimes about some of the people populating others' game tables, though.

MrHotter

Feb 09, 2015 9:28:01

I don't realy think you can have the two types in the same game and have people enjoy themselves.

I've only had two campaigns in the last few years, and neither set of players could play at the same table. If I tried to put my family players into the same encounters that my beared guy group enjoyed I'd end up with a bunch of dead characters and bored players. If I tried to put my beared guy group into my family campaign I'd have a bunch of guys falling asleep while their combat oriented characters spend several sessions without picking up the dice.

As someone who would rather be the DM than a player I've always wanted to make sure that the player makes no 'wrong' choices for their character. If a player thinks that their greatest ability is basket weaving, then the campaign will have plenty of basket weaving. If the players don't care about the story I'm happy to play a 'dungeon of the week' campaign. I just don't see those two players enjoying the same game table.

The_White_Sorcerer

Feb 09, 2015 9:38:54

This is your regularly scheduled mandatory accusation of bawylie and theangryDM being the same person.

Carry on.

Eldren73

Feb 09, 2015 9:40:43

It seems to me the easiest way to avoid this sort of thing is to make sure all the players at the table are there to work as a team. I've been playing D&D for nearly 30 years at this point, and that's always been where the root of intraparty problems lie: one or more players don't want to be team players.

I still recall, with some irritation, a Planescape campaign I was running back in 2nd Edition. I'll never be a good DM, but I was an atrocious one at that point. In the city of Sigil, there was a grand library, and the players (logically) concluded that all this knowledge must include the locations of portals to most anywhere in the planes they wanted to go. They chose to do that instead of take hold of the adventure hooks I'd put in for them, which forced me to railroad them ("No, you can't actually find information on a portal to that location." "Why?" "The Great Library just doesn't seem to have it available.") just to keep the session going. Needless to say, the whole thing fell apart rather quickly, and soured me on DMing for years.

Optimization can always be done, even with 5th Edition, though it lends itself less to it in comparison to the systems-heavy 3.5/Pathfinder. I still recall being part of a high-level 3.5 campaign where the DM let players use whatever was in a WotC-published rulebook, which meant I was running around with a 17th level dragon wildshaping Druid who routinely had an AC of 72. After that concluded, I was planning on running a campaign where the only classes/spells/items players would have access to were in the Player's Handbook and Dungeon Master's Guide. I felt it was time to get back to the real meat 'n potatoes of D&D. That's one reason I love 5th Edition: it does just that.

In our session this past Saturday, we just started Hoard of the Dragon Queen. One of the guys in our group brought his 14 year-old son and 12 year-old daughter, and they joined the campaign. It was their first D&D game. It was awesome watching them. They didn't have the weight of decades of playing RPGs, they weren't trying to figure out optimal stats and equipment (not that you really can at 1st level...), they were just there to have fun. Combat ran a little slow as they were figuring out what bonus to add to a die roll, but they picked it up, and we completed the encounters and got through the 1st scene in a 5-hour session (with breaks for food). No one was using an excess of secrecy about their character (personal pet peeve of mine: the player who wants to be as mysterious as possible, withholding information about their character just so they can be mysterious and have a "big reveal" at some point, or feel like they have something that only the Dungeon Master can discuss with them), no one was interested in succeeding at the expense of someone else, no one was deciding they weren't getting enough spotlight, people were just having fun.

If you're finding conflicts between power gamers & concept gamers, the conflict is likely sourced not in a difference of gaming goals, but in the reality that one or more of those players just aren't interested in cooperative group play. They'd rather do everything they can do meet their own goals, and often treat the other players as "uncontrollable" hirelings.

(Reply to #7)

bawylie

The_White_Sorcerer wrote:

#10

Shasarak

Feb 09, 2015 10:27:05

Yeah, angry dm who says you can not play DnD to win?

You can put a fork in that one.

#11

edwin_su

Feb 09, 2015 10:30:12

"Too many DMs take a kitchen sink approach to their games. Everything that exists is allowed. And too many players assume that’s how it should be."

This might be a issue that pops up in the groups where I play.

We always seem to have the most fun with a edition early in that editions life, before a lot of bloat starts to come in.

Often the bloathing comes with power creep and the more power game focussed players will use that power creep. making the gap between the “power gamers” and “concept people.” bigger.

#12

AaronOfBarbaria

Feb 09, 2015 11:02:11

I am glad to finally read an article by the angry DM that I didn't feel the point of was overpowered by simple "bah I'm angry and I'm so much better than everyone else!" rhetoric.

The distinction between an optimizer or concept player and a selfish optimizer or selfish concept player is a very important one to make, and treating the issue (the selfishness) rather than the coincidental trait (being an optimizer or a concept player) is the only way to actually fix the situation.

The two things I don't exactly agree with:

1) I don't think there is actually any disagreement between Will Wheaton's philosophy and what the angry DM says. I understand Will Wheaton saying "you can't win at D&D" to mean that the act of power-gaming your character selfishly and spoiling the game by doing so is not a "win" - not that you shouldn't make your character capable of overcoming numerous challenges effeciently and play in a style where your goal is something along the lines of "defeat the bad guy and complete the campaign."

2) The Kitchen Sink approach: I don't like telling a player they can't use some game material they purchased... so I go for a slightly modified approach: I evaluate if a particular option works fine in this campaign, allow it if it does, and commit to creating a future campaign in which it will work fine if it doesn't.

#13

Noon

Feb 09, 2015 11:16:59

Generally a functional type of powergamer is like a gun - they aim and fire once you designate a target for competition. Generally this is combat.

Generally this works out in combat because from the perspective of characters, characters don't want to die and do what they can before (training/char gen) or in combat to live.

Though that assumes the perspective of characters matters. A lot of method gamers are all about following a script and 'it's what my character would do' is anathema to them.

So the article misses the mark in not describing that third faction. Or maybe he already treated 'method gamer' as script followers and missed describing where what the character does IS the plot - could be either way around.

#14

bawylie

Feb 09, 2015 11:40:48

"The distinction between an optimizer or concept player and a selfish optimizer or selfish concept player is a very important one to make, and treating the issue (the selfishness) rather than the coincidental trait (being an optimizer or a concept player) is the only way to actually fix the situation." - Aaronofbarbaria

this exactly.

#15

Storyteller-Zero

Feb 09, 2015 12:07:27

The kitchen sink approach seems to have a greater chance to go awry if the DM has problems adapting during the session. Surprises can happen to anyone, and having that ultimate villain's plan get foiled earlier than expected (due to a well-planned exploit by a player) can be a scary moment.

A "selfish optimizer" can be worked around if the DM can keep things flowing. Your character does an instakill or can't be hit by the enemy? Instead of arguing against the build, or punishing or restricting options, there should be a plethora of possibilities that make the best of having an OP character at the table without spoiling it for the rest of the table.

#16

Bluenose

Feb 09, 2015 12:14:17

If there isn't a big disparity between what an aggressively optimised character is useful at and what a "concept-built" character is useful at, the two types of player can work perfectly well in the same party. It's most obviously seen in games where the player has less control over how the character develops - Traveller with highly random character generation, Runequest through it's particular skill advancement rules - but it's not present in others which lack the disparities that lets optimisers create their OTT characters or "concept" players make their equally self-centred characters.

#17

Touc

Feb 09, 2015 12:40:02

Personal experience has soured me on the peaceful co-existence of the "power gamer" and "concept player."

Show

"Power Gamers" aren't really noticeable at lower levels because there's fewer options. In Pathfinder, somewhere around 5th level or so it became very apparent. I restricted players to the Core and 1 accessory book, but as you'll see below, that's a negative to certain player types.

#18

bob_goes_up

Feb 09, 2015 12:51:04

There are different aspects to "power gaming"

Acting strategically during character creation
Action strategically during combat
Acting strategically during social encounters

#19

Adjule

Feb 09, 2015 13:23:52

Touc wrote:

#20

The_Angry_DM

Feb 09, 2015 14:44:29

AaronOfBarbaria wrote:

(Reply to #20)

DaveDash

The_Angry_DM wrote:

#22

Saelorn

Feb 09, 2015 16:30:44

There are two kinds of characters - 1) Characters who don't want to die; and, 2) Characters who are insane.

#23

Zardnaar

Feb 09, 2015 18:02:20

Its a problem our group is having. The power gamers do tend to be team players though. IN 2 campaigns one player took.

fighter polearm master+sentinal feat

And 2

Crossbow expert+sharpshoter

The concept players took garbage and do not play as a team to the exrtent there rogues can't sneak attack as they are to busy running away. One even min/maxed his movement rate and stayed away from everyone else by around 16 squares. We tried talking it out as well and everyone agreed on some stuff to take like the healer feat and then that player took a different subclass and then buffed charisma and intelligence after agreeing to take the healer feat as we lacked a full time healer. Hell I do not mind beiung the healer just LMK and I will do it.

The PCs also take a lot more damage than they need to and the healers can'[t keep up or is to busy misty stepping everywhere running away to you know actually heal.

Net result is one DM doesn't wanna play anymore and I am taking a break in general and might play something else like C&C where you can't really build your PC as such. Hell the concept players have fireballed the partyu and get themseles or other PCs killed.

#24

Orethalion

Feb 09, 2015 18:28:19

Storyteller-Zero wrote:

#25

Orethalion

Feb 09, 2015 18:30:03

Saelorn wrote:

#26

Psikerlord

Feb 10, 2015 3:47:50

I quite like the article and agree. Intraparty balance problems are what breaks the game. In my experience, powergamers are the most problematic - they are the most common and exploits tend to be obvious over time. I have never met a true "concept" player who goes to the extreme described in this article. Every concept player I've met is a half optimiser, or is easily persuaded to be. It's the full on gonzo minmaxers who break things.

I very much agree with the solutions suggested, and have adopted some of them for 5e. I dont allow all options. Some feats have changed, we dont use inspiration, and we use some of our own optional rules. The players all understand we need to keep the PCs in the same power ballpark (in particular, damage dealing). I think clarifying expectations in the "session zero" can save a looooot of heartache later on.

#27

QwertyAzerty

Feb 10, 2015 5:54:25

Some of those problem can be solve by WotC themselve.

For exemple, make all feat equal, make all feat same power level wise, and give all feat a conceptual aspect. So instead of having a fully conceptual feat like actor (+1Cha, and receive advantage to mimic the voice and mannerism of someone) and a fully powered feat like great weapon master(bonus action attack and -5att/+10damage), you could power up Actor a little bit to give it some power value (+1Cha, you learn minor illusion as a cantrip and silent image once per day, +1DC on Illusion spell and get advantage on check to mimic voice and mannerism of someone) and give Great weapon master some conceptual aspect like witnesses who see you use your heavy weapon are inspired or afraid (your choice) by you . So can use your strenght on your perssuasion/deception/intimidation check when talking with witnesses.

This way the player who made a bard and want to take actor because it make sense for a bard to be an actor, he still gain something usefull out of it, he can supply his act with some usefull spells

And the barbarian conceptual player will still be interested in Great weapon master since it give his character a new concept trait, he can use his heavy weapon is such a talented way that he inspired fear or admiration within people he witness, but it doesn't make the power gamer wanting the feat more since for a power gamer he would probably have ask the bard/sorcerer to do the talking after the fight.

At the same time it could solve the problem that we have now where only 5 feats are used by everyone:

Crossbow expert, Sharpshooter, great weapon master, polearm master, sentinel, shield mastery, I never saw any tread on the other feat on these forum, those are the feat that everyone talk about because they are the "powerfull feat" that everyone use, since they seem to "unbalance" the game, but if all feat would match there power level then it wouldn't be unbalance anymore

Yes the dragon sorcerer power gamer who use a single elemental type will take elemental adept, but anyone else taking it it mainly for conceptual reason (since a power gamer wild sorcerer or wizard will already have a wide variety of elemental spell so if he face a fire resistance monster he got a cold spell ready to cast) but elemental adept could be made into a choice that even wild sorcerer and wizard who got a wide variety of spell elemental type could be interested in. Something like +1 to your DC on spell using that element, or give +1to Cha/Intellect or Wisdom (player choice).

Feat like weapon master, light/medium/heavy armor proficient (feat giving you proficiency) this is so conceptual feat since a power gamer who want to build a gish sorcerer will dip 2 level in fighter or cleric to gain the armor proficiency, the weapons and some melee survival ability.

- Heavy proficiency should be merge with the 3 damage reduction feat and the 3 DR should be scalable to still be relevant at higher level (maybe you gain 1/2 your character level in DR (round up) for example.

- The medium armor proficiency should be merge with the feat allowing your medium armor to give you maximum +3dex to AC medium armor never give disavantage to stealth.

- Now the light armor, all class are able to use light amor, the few rare class unable to use it receive a bigger bonus that the light armor bonus (mage armor give 13 base AC instead od 12 (studded leather), So with the feat giving you proficiency with light armor should also light armor no longer change your base formula, padded armor give you +1AC (and disavantage on stealth check) leather armor give you +1AC and studded leather give you +2AC. Light armor count as being unarmored for you.

So this way a dragon sorcerer who got 13+dex from his dragon resilience (or with mage armor) class feature, who take this feat, can now equip a studded leather and his AC will be 13+dex+2(studded leather). The monk unarmored AC with studded leather will be 10+dex+wis+2, Even the barbarian who already have light armor profiency could be interested in this feat to obtain an AC of 10+dex+con+2(studded leather)+2(shield) and now the barbarian have a hard choice to do do at level 4 (or for his human feat) he could take light armor mastery feat to gain +2AC (magical bonuses) or does he take great weapon master? now this is a decision a barbarian need to take without an easy answer and the choice will be done depending on his concept that his want, do he want a raging barbarian cleaving throught the ennemies (GWP) or does he want a unkillable barbarian taking the punishment from the ennemy and protecting his friend/clan (light armor mastery)

#28

Mommy_was_an_Orc

Feb 10, 2015 6:08:07

Psikerlord wrote:

#29

Kazadvorn

Feb 10, 2015 7:08:55

This brings to mind 'The Good Old Days'... I started playing in 1975/76... when you rolled up characters with 3d6.

Some folks took great joy in playing characters that had absolutely TERRIBLE starting stats... and there were no ability upgrades for leveling in those days - your stats were your stats... forever. (magic upgrades aside.)

I wonder how that approach would be viewed by the current crop of 'optimisers'.

I really don't think you can mix full on 'optimisers' and full on 'concept' players at the same table... at least not well.

In a sense, these two types of players are participating in very different games...

One player is looking to play a type of tabletop miniatures skirmish game... focused on combat... and aspects of the game that support combat (initiative, perception, speed of movement, etc).

The other player is less concerned with combat effectiveness... and more interested in a 'storytelling' experience.

I've run into both types of players over the last 30 or 40 years... and the player's attitude towards 'Combat' will tell the story....

(YES - this is a generalization... and many, if not most, players balance 'optimizaton' and 'concept'.)

One player looks at the 'role playing' end of the game as a necessary evil required to move the party from combat encounter to combat encounter....

The other player tends to look at 'combat' as an inconvienent interruption in the role playing narrative.

(Reply to #27)

AaronOfBarbaria

QwertyAzerty wrote:

#31

Touc

Feb 10, 2015 9:44:31

If the gist is whether a selfish player will accomodate, my life experience is probably not. My experience is that the gamer who won't budge in their ways is almost always the number cruncher power gamer.

Show

DM attempts to restrict books, limit options, creates more friction as the power gamer sees the DM only enjoying the game if all the players are "gimped."

#32

Eldren73

Feb 10, 2015 10:15:40

Touc wrote:

#33

Noon

Feb 10, 2015 14:57:41

It's also worth considering a distinction in powergaming.

The game designers may have aimed for a ceiling on PC power.

One powergamer might get near or at that ceiling.

Another might find a hole in the rules to get above it.

But the fact is the ceiling is part of the game. It's not the former powergamers fault here - instead it means as DM you aren't keeping up with the game. Catch up!

#34

Rhenny

Feb 10, 2015 14:43:50

Interestingly, I think most players are part optimizer, part concept player. It will be harder to accommodate the extremes at the same table unless the extreme optimizer or extreme concept player realize that they are playing for self and other. As long as the optimizer or the concept player gives others a chance to contribute, and doesn't act in a way that breaks pre established expectations of teamwork, they can play well together.

Now, if the group understands that in combat, the concept player's pc might run and hide instead of fight because that's the concept of the character, it will add to the game. This type of acceptance and buy in will be much harder for the extreme optimizer though.

#35

Saelorn

Feb 10, 2015 16:14:42

Orethalion wrote:

#36

ModusPonens

Feb 10, 2015 17:45:57

The_Angry_DM wrote:

#37

warpiglet

Feb 10, 2015 18:30:46

I will make a bold statement. If you power game and have no concern about Leaving out your fellows, you suck. If you role play to the exclusion of being viable or to the exclusion of allowing attention being given to other players you suck. For me, you MUST value your fellow players' and the dm's fun even as you seek your own. If you are 12, whatever. If you are 20 plus and don't see how you effect other people at the table you are to be avoided.

I once played at a con when a stranger spent 15 minutes explaining how he was killing a one hit die orc using polymorph and falling damage etc etc while the rest of us sat there wit our hands on our...pencils...doing nothing. The dude was oblivious and the dm not very capable. CARE about your fellows and your min max deep immersion can still fit in. Worry about yourself only and you will SUCK either path u take.

#38

Uchawi

Feb 11, 2015 4:07:36

The concept of power game roots itself in class disparity. And that is also very dependent on the DM and the type of campaign they run. There is no real fix, except the DM can try to offer challenges that caters to each type of player. If they do not, then the player will do the work to optimize the character, or leave the table disappointed since their expectations on roleplaying are not met.

I believe it would be easier to deal with power gaming if each class had options with the class (maneuvers, spells) and outside the class like items or feats to fine tune. The concept gamers will always be present and are better dealt with through the story.

(Reply to #35)

bawylie

Saelorn wrote:

#40

Thunaer

Feb 11, 2015 7:38:15

warpiglet wrote:

#41

arnwolf666

Feb 11, 2015 9:01:12

My dream is that no combination of race, class, archetype, or background can't be powergamed. I kind of dislike how they made races effective with certain classes. I wish they would drop the racial ability score modifiers and just let everyone have a +2 to 1 ability score and a +1 to a different ability score. Go Halfling Berserker with a 20 strength.

#42

Vahnyu

Feb 11, 2015 10:38:23

Thunaer wrote:

#43

Noon

Feb 11, 2015 14:48:53

[quote="Rhenny"]

Why not just work out what contribution chances are for other players and not for that particular optimiser.

An optimiser wont get the idea of failing to rise to a challenge - which is what it is when you leave it to someone else to contribute on something you can nail.

If you set up rules though, for what challenges are his to complete and what aren't, then he'll get it (or even what aren't his challenges, but if the player who owns them says he can take them on, THEN he can take them on).

If it feels uncomfortable to say 'These monsters are for you, optimiser - the rest of the monsters are for the rest of the group'...well, that's not the optimiser having a problem there.

(Reply to #43)

Rhenny

Noon wrote:

#45

feartheminotaur

Feb 11, 2015 16:50:45

Rhenny wrote:

#46

Xguild

Feb 12, 2015 0:56:46

bawylie wrote:

#47

Neonflux

Feb 12, 2015 2:15:17

I DM two groups..

Friends at home, two players had not played since high school, two had never played

Strangers in a game store, all have played pathfinder.

my home group enjoy it, but mostly just want to hang out almost as an alternative to playing poker or something. They tend to argue a lot, everyone seems to want to tell everyone else what to do on each turn. And they are generally meta gaming based on incorrect info...

eg: last session facing a gelatinous cube one player tells the rest not to bother attacking it with weapons as he thought they'd be ineffectual. Which meant the fighters in the party didn't do anything for about 4 rounds while the wizards did the fighting. They have lots of personality clashes because that happens regardless the activity.

The group I play with in store are both better power gamers and role players than my home group, they have made short work of stuff that troubled my friends who were a level higher. They seem to be really enjoying 5e but we've only played twice.

Even though the home game is far more disruptive and frustrating, I enjoy it because they're my friends.

#48

edwin_su

Feb 12, 2015 8:51:44

Often optimizing also means specialising.

Make sure the drawbacs of doing so also come into play, like dump stats.

Yes you might be the high STR and CON fighter, with CHA and INT known for being one of the best greatsword fighters in the land.

But when traveling with your party you might be ignored by NPC's in negotations, seeing you just as the hired big dumb muscle of tha party

#49

Bluenose

Feb 12, 2015 10:37:06

edwin_su wrote:

#50

Rastapopoulos

Feb 14, 2015 13:08:05

bawylie wrote:

#51

Kayal

Feb 15, 2015 9:23:43

That's a good article. Thanks for sharing.

#52

Qmark

Feb 15, 2015 10:35:24

Saelorn wrote:

#53

durntaur

Feb 15, 2015 14:17:46

Qmark wrote:

#54

Qmark

Feb 15, 2015 14:31:16

durntaur wrote:

#55

Shasarak

Feb 15, 2015 15:42:46

Qmark wrote:

#56

Noon

Feb 15, 2015 15:59:47

Qmark wrote:

#57

Pompadour64

Feb 19, 2015 16:46:05

One thing I've recently been thinking about how this thread relates to a certain design philosophy in Magic:The Gathering. For those who aren't familiar with the game, I'll try to explain the philosophy in terms more related to D&D. For those who do know, I'm talking about the Timmy/Johnny/Spike/Vorthos player profiles. Essentially, they are player stereotypes that designers try to appeal to when designing any given set of cards. For further reading, here's an article that explains these profiles in relation to MTG:

http://archive.wizards.com/Magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr11b

Vorthos is the classic concept gamer. He comes up with some wacky character with a host of flaws and/or traits that really brings the character to life. His main concern is flavor, and thus the stats on his character sheet are only the tip of the iceberg. This type of player can rarely be seen as an optimizer.

Timmy, the first brand of power gamer, would be the player who creates a character to be amazing at something specific. Maybe he wants his character to be really hard to hit, or really good at grappling, or really good at skill checks. For example, his character may have really awesome Nova potential in combat without as much longevity or versatility. This is the kind of player who would get a kick out of one-shotting a monster at the cost of mediocre average damage, having an astronomical passive perception, or having the highest initiative so he can act first as much as possible. This type of player, while technically an "optimizer," isn't doing so to break anything. He just wants to show off this cool thing his character does.

The second kind of power gamer, Johnny, is the type of player who comes up with a unique concept and does his best to emulate it in game. Maybe he wants to recreate Wolverine in game. Maybe he wants to make an armorless swordsman who is hard to hit and has the ability to deal devastating damage when he gains the upper hand. Maybe he wants to build a jedi knight. This is the type of player who will multiclass into 3 different classes so he can get the mix of abilities just right. His primary focus is creating a character that is powerful in his own right, but unique above all else. This type of player is also an optimizer. He looks for synergies here and there that really bring power and weight to his fun concept, but his motivation is rarely to create something overpowered.

The last archetype of power gamer, and the one that I see as the problem, is Spike. This type of player plays to win. His goal is to create something of maximum possible power. Usually this comes in the form of combat prowess and high DPR. In Magic this isn't a problem because Magic is a game you play against other people. In D&D, this type of player inevitably ends up outshining his fellow players to an unacceptable degree and/or gets into an arms race with his DM. When people say they dislike "optimizers" or "power gamers," I think this is what they really mean.

The point of all this is to show that, while Timmys and Johnnys can be lumped in with Spikes as "power gamers" and consequently demonized, it is important to distinguish the type of optimizer you're dealing with so you can recognize if it truly is a problem or if it's just a player trying to express himself by creating something cool or unique. If a player isn't playing "to win," then what's the harm in him having fun in creating his character?

#58

Orethalion

Feb 20, 2015 6:40:10

Qmark wrote:

#59

Gunthar

Feb 20, 2015 6:49:05

AaronOfBarbaria wrote: