Just Say No To Powergamers
It's the weekend and the usual roundup of friends comes together. The living room/den/garage has been prepared for a fun filled evening of romping through the enchanted woods or infiltrating the seedy underbelly of Neoville. The session begins and characters are played, each bringing a creative balance to the team. The players catch a break and find an uber item to help them continue their journey. Unfortunately now the ugly side in everyone comes out. Everyone wants the item and no one is willing to back down. Welcome dear powergamer.
It's the weekend and the usual roundup of friends comes together. The living room/den/garage has been prepared for a fun filled evening of romping through the enchanted woods or infiltrating the seedy underbelly of Neoville. The session begins and characters are played, each bringing a creative balance to the team. The players catch a break and find an uber item to help them continue their journey. Unfortunately now the ugly side in everyone comes out. Everyone wants the item and no one is willing to back down. Welcome dear powergamer.
Powergamer; n. 1. a game player that sees the primary purpose of playing as being as powerful as possible. 2. a game player that see no other purpose in a game besides winning
The first portion of the definition is simple evolution. It's human nature to compete, but in role-playing I'm confused as to why competition exists so much. Within seconds characters are lost in a feeding frenzy of loot grabbing. Since when did the Paladin care about the worth of the armor on a defeated enemy? First hand I've seen stories fall into an abyss as players spent hours trying to up their stats with no focus whatsoever on the events around them. Even worse are the players who refuse to start a game until they've successfully used every trick in the book (no puns intended) to make their level one character as powerful as the final boss you had in store for them. Where's the fun in that? Whitewolf is especially bad at giving players the ability to "tweak" their stats before a game even begins. That doesn't mean the fault is in the system, by any means. The fault is in players who take fifty points in flaws ranging from blind in one eye, to acute phobia of infants, to max out their strength and dexterity.
This does take a GM to allow it however. It is their world to manipulate as they see fit, and if that means changing game rules to prevent exploitation, then they should do as they see fit. But too many gamers, powergamers or not, are sticklers for the rules, and regardless of how much sense it makes to change something here or there, the rule book is their bible, and no one changes that. So where do you draw the line between allowing a player freedom to do as they want, and being fed with no one caring the Princess was kidnapped because they're too busy buying new spells. No one wants to be accused of being a gaming Nazi, but I would like to finish at least one campaign before I die.
The second type of powergamer might even be worse than the first. This player whole heartily believes the only purpose he serves in life is to kill everything on the planet. Story? What story? Character development? What character? I'm confused as to how you exactly "win" an RPG, but despite this, I have yet to run or play a single campaign where someone wasn't trying to win. However they hoped to accomplish that.
Some friends and I were in the midst of an Earthdawn game just beginning to take shape. The party had stopped in a city in time for a festival that thanked the gods (or Passions as the game calls them) for freeing them of the Scourge. In the middle of this, a new player comes to the table, a friend of a friend. He hasn't played many RPGs and never this particular system before so we give him a simple warrior to play. As if by animal instinct, his first question is when does the killing begin. Lovely. We attempt to explain to him that killing comes later, not now during the celebration. He patiently waits for a while, occasionally interjecting questions about the system -mainly about how much damage his weapon does and how he figures out if he hit or not- and then grows bored of waiting for the genocide to begin and sits down at one of the nearby computers to play Might and Magic. At least there he knows when he's won.
How do you avoid these types of gamers? Either play the system as a hack 'n slash, or simply don't play with those people. Unfortunately, supplies of gamers in my area are low, so any suggestion on how to convert would be much welcome.
Both of these types of players are prominent in the RPG world. Not that it makes any sense in the least. Role-playing is just what it says: playing a role. A character is created with the intention of representing some type of mindset or perspective of the world; a greedy crafter, a noble warrior, or a daring spy. All cliche roles, but when was the last time anyone actually stayed with that role? Unless there is a background story for it, why would a group of companions fight over who gets the Amulet of Luck +5? Powergaming turns a simple wandering explorer in a back stabbing lair for an item that would be of no interest to him realistically.
Perhaps this desire for at least a tinge of realism is my downfall, causing me to be overly critical. After all, it is a rush to defeat a slew of enemies and anything to make it easier next time is welcome. But one of the reasons I find myself gaming less and less is because I'm tired of running from PointA to CastleB hoarding everything in sight and selling it at the nearest town so I can afford the power-up to win the game. It's the blue potion on the back shelf by the way. That's the one that wins the game. Or maybe my problem is I just need to find some better players.
So do your game a favor. As a GM, stop these gaming fiends at all costs, and as a player, do your best to keep from having the GM stop you.
- Login to post comments
A quick solution is to enforce the encumberance rules.
You don't get pcs hoarding up 6 sets of plate mail armor when they realize they have to carry it all themselves, or that the mule they bought is going to run in terror from the werewolves attacking them, or that every sneak thief around is going to be doing their best to take a piece of the action, or that the store where they were hoping to sell the magic items they've found simply doesn't have one thousand pounds of gold coins laying about.
Assume that unless you are selling to a king, or unless you are trading for a different magical item, basically anything above ten thousand gold pieces in value is practically priceless. In d20, the average wage of a scribe with profession: scribe +10 is going to be about 10 gold a week. (Half the average check result of 20.) At 10 gold a week for a middle class citizen, a 1000 gc magical item would take every single cent earned for 100 weeks, which is almost 2 years. Realistically, such an item is unpurchasable, or priceless.
I'm not fond of powergamers, but I think this essay misses an important point. While it's fine to emphasize the "role-playing" part of RPG, that leaves out 1/3 of the equation: in the end, this is still a game.
An article by Scott Kim (http://www.scottkim.com/) defined a game as "rule-based systems in which the goal is for one player to win," involving players who interact and respond to one anothers' actions. The trick, however, is that role-playing games generally do not have an end. How can a player or players win?
I think the way players win a role-playing game is by having an effect on the gameworld the GM provides. The simplest way for that to happen is obviously through combat; there's no doubting that the players definitely killed those orcs. But since players are frequently competing with each other to impact the game world, they want to be as efficient as possible at whatever it is they do to make that impact. That's why most RPGs provide different niches for characters to occupy: the noble paladin probably won't feel she has to prove her combat superiority if she can resolve diplomatic or healing obstacles that no-one else can. It's only when niches compete or aren't necessary that powergaming starts to get really rampant: in hack-n-slash, everyone fights. So everyone wants to fight as well as possible, to maximize their impact on the game.
Taken from this angle, I can easily understand the plight of the bored player who wound up playing computer games while everyone else socialized; it's hard to measure progress simply through role-playing, especially if you're new. Things might not have turned out so badly if you outlined some goals for him--better still if these goals could have included a die-roll of some type. I can't imagine the situation was helped when you "gave him" a warrior to play; the most obvious way for a warrior to impact the world around him is through violence. If the warrior were at least, say, adept at telling when people were lying, you could have suggested he try to find out which noble house was still sheltering supporters of the Scourge, or something. The point is, give more clear goals to heavy role-playing situations so that people less comfortable with RP, especially newer players, have something to hold on to and strive for. I have a feeling this will go farther toward eliminating the powerhungry trend you're lamenting than simply wishing they'd go away.
I despise powergamers. Probably the more so because I used to be one. Ever talk about smoking with a former smoker? ;-) In any case, I have a couple ways to deal with powergamers on the tabletop.
1) do not invite them back. This is quick and easy and removes most of the problem in one fell swoop (the rest of the problem I'll get to in a minute).
2) Make use of their point-munching. I'm not the first one to suggest this, but you can trun those seemingly inconsequential disadvantages into some pretty important ones. How about the One-Eyed Infantaphobe? Have enemies sneak up on his blind side about half the time, and give them to-hit bonuses, surprise bonuses, whatever, until that one eye is a clear disadvantage, even though the PC has a massive strength. Have social situations where there are babes-in-arms present. Maybe the PCs need to hide in an orphanage or something? And then when the munckin walks right into the nursery without batting an eye, make him roll an incredibly easy perception check. Then tell him--oh my gosh, there all around--they're gonna get you! There's one right freakin' next to you!!!! And he'll say "I pull out my sword and attack (or something very like it)." Run the "battle" for as long as you can without telling him that he's slaughtering infants. Then tell the rest of the party that Slagar the Viscious is hacking up a roomful of babies. If they don't censure this behaviour, maybe the locals find out somehow, and nobody in town will sell anything to the baby-killing feind. (Extreme example, I know, but most powergamers need to be slapped upside the head with stuff.)
The second suggestion deals with the "rest of the problem:" powergamers do what they do because it gets results. They can get away with having a PC with various disadvantages because why? Because those disadvantages never ever come into play. You don't necessarily need to tell a player that he can't take all those disads (though you might ask him if he's sure he wants to play them). But you absolutely positively need to enforce those disads. The danger is that you'll turn your campaign into an object lesson for a powergamer as opposed to a roelplaying campaign. It's up to you to decide if it's worth it.
Cheers,
JKB
Powergamers are the direct result of the society we live in. That said, here's my funny little story.
Being a long time player of the AD&D system (12 years as of January), I don't think that I ever played with true roleplayers until I went to Basic Training in Ft. Benning, GA. One of the guys in my infantry unit got his girlfriend to copy a Vampire sourcebook and smuggled it in for us with a couple of handfuls of dice. I think about five of us (two of us being Ranger school candidates, those guys are hardcore) used to play the nights away armed with flashlights on the cold, hard floor.
The only member of the group that had ever played Vampire before was the GM; the rest of us were blank tablets awaiting dictation. Not one member of the group spent hours maxing out stats or arguing over loot and while one could argue that our non-powergamer play style was a direct result of the training we were receiving, I would like to think it was because we didn't know any better. None of us had ever seen the destructive and world altering behaviors of a powergamer demonstrated before, and as such experienced a fantastic introduction to the world of RPG's.
Warp ahead to the present day. I have just quit a bi-weekly dungeon group thanks to the efforts of one powergamer who likes to play these uber powerful fighters or cleric/mages with ludicrous stats, names them and proceeds to play them just like every other character he's ever rolled in that dungeon.
However, I don't blame the player. I blame the two GM's that continue to let him roll demi-godlike characters. I particularly blame the players and the GM's of the groups that he played in before. Somewhere along the way, some powergamer was allowed to run rampant through a game and this lost soul was summarily inducted into the game destroying habits of powergamer culture.
As for me, I recently found an experienced GM who is teaching myself and three other n00bs the ropes of the GURPS system. I'm having a blast; it's just like being in Basic Training all over again. Maybe I should start up a three month long camp for roleplayers to learn good gaming habits. Just a thought...
"Whitewolf is especially bad at giving players the ability to "tweak" their stats before a game even begins. That doesn't mean the fault is in the system, by any means. The fault is in players who take fifty points in flaws ranging from blind in one eye, to acute phobia of infants, to max out their strength and dexterity."
Huh? By definition...the system that allows players to get great benefits without paying for them is flawed. I've played Vamp - I've seen it happen. It's one of the most flawed systems out there - though I like the world. A system should not depend on the charity of players, depending on them to create a character that is second best. A good system counts on power-gamers stress-testing the system, offering choices rather than freebies.
Scott Kim is wrong. I can define a word however I want, but that doesn't make it correct. The correct definition of the word "game" can be found at http://www.dictionary.com and it says nothing about winning being a requirement. If you need further clarification you can read the first few pages of nearly any RPG base book where it describes what an RPG is. Most of them are quite explicit about the fact that there is no such thing as "winning" or "losing".
The game is the thing. The game is role-playing.
The one powergamer who wandered into the long-running RPG I'm in left after four or five sessions. He wanted to bring in his own character from some other game. The character was min-maxed to hell and back -- bending and even breaking rules for maximum munchkinism. It "obsoleted" several different types of characters in the group as far as skills went, but we're all adults so noone really complained much. We just sat back and watched the GM give the character enough rope to hang himself with. The guy's habit of screwing over everyone he came into contact with caught up with him when he lost some valuable NPC contacts (and the expensive hardware he had them operating) because he admitted to them that he was brainwashing them into being his friends. The player dropped out soon afterwards.
As you can see, these things can be handled quite easilly if the GM is willing and able to deal with them.
I agree with much of the thought above.
The problem I find is that to an extent, most players have an instinct to powergame at some point. It may only be one point in their PC career, but it doesn happen.
e.g. Mild mannered paladins who finally get their Holy Avenger....
My solution, let 'em have their toys or ability tweaks...for a while...
By doing this, you scratch that itch they have. If they are reasonable players, they will accept their ability point/item loss when it happens. Handled correctly, this becomes one of their bragging rights stories which they will lovingly tell again at the drop of a hat.
"Remember when I had XX strength and a Sword of YYY...sigh"
I haven't played EPIC level. Does that have powergamer problem elements or does it all work out OK?
- Grey
I don't agree with you DP. Role playing is one-half of the activity that is a role-playing game. It's the role-playing half. Get rid of the game, and you have an improv session, not a game. (not a dig at improv at all - I do enjoy it).
Likewise, ditch the role-playing aspect and you now have Battletech. Again - not a bad thing at all, but it ain't much of a role-playing game.
Look, winning a role-playing game can be defined in a number of different ways, depending on the scenario that is presented. Players should endeavor to "win" the challenge - that is - to figure out the problem, defeat the villian, to win the battle etc - each of these things is a victory, and fits the game definition of 'winning'. This subject was a good one when we dealt with it in the RPG Gig or Game thread. Check it out...
http://www.gamegrene.com/rants/roleplaying_gig_or_game.shtml
I've also seen several GM's attempt to reign in players who have already abused a broken system - attempting to take away the toys that they previously allowed. It wasn't pretty and caused some nasty fights - it didn't happen at all as Greyshirakwa suggested.
On epic level challenges - game designer Sean K Reynolds had some interesting words to say about them turning into hack fests...
http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/misc/highlevelchallenges.html
I agree with Nephandus. A good player strikes a balance between the two. If your character is not any good at fighting/ picking locks/ healing/ casting the spells that makes the peoples fall down (bonus points if you get the reference) he/she's not gonna be much help when you finally do get to combat. ON the other hand, a powergamer is gonna be a liability when you need to by diplomatic.
An introduction to my reply as the Eternal Newbie. A self branded name because I went from the world of simple pen and paper games with my brother when I was six and his older friends, to the battletech boardgame, and was then flung into about eight years of collaboritive freeform through the net. My experinces with diced gaming has existed maybe for a full year since then.
It wasnt until this article popped up that it hit my full force why having sixteen edges and fifteen flaws in Shadowrun is bad for the GM. I didnt use them for stat bonuses, someone just failed to inform me I could still play an insane character without going through the flaws list. Go figure.
It's stuff like this that gets me mistaken as a power gamer. I take personal glee and pride in playing some of the damned weirdest personalities most people have run into and very rarely does anyone walk away from my without something new to think about.
The thing about diced RPing I dont get is the fights. More specificaly, how friggin boring they are. When a table goes into battle mode, they just sit there and ask where all the monsters are positioned, how theyre positioned in comparison to them and roll a bunch of dice to see weather they hit or not, damage and armor rolls. I'm not saying this is BAD, but it seems to deliniate form a game if your trying to keep everyone in character all the time.
Or have I just been in lame groups? Hmm.
Incidetally, I've converted a few gamers myself. I dont particularly gloat about them since most of them were purely by accident. Everyone just starting out wants to do hack and slash because its considered to be exiting Give the a few years and they'll get bored and discovor the joys and responcibilities of plot.
Or just conviniently have their leg bitten off by the local dragon and a healer with a tendancy to bean students on the head for being incorrect. Comprimise is always possible as well. Slip in something pertinant to the story for them to take out once in a while, give them extra points for mere hostage situations rather than killing, and wean them off that tendancy to kill. Some never notice it hapening. Others catch on, get excited y the prospect of other things to do, and follow you in like a leech for knowlede. Some, though, are unwilling to see just how far down the rabbit hole goes.
Or maybe this has just been me. How may female GMs are out there? I've only heard of one other for Shadowrun...
Sorry for the ramble, I've been dealing with a few of my own ghosts and goblins of the gaming world. You know your game is in desperate trouble when your new player asks to play Kurama of YuuYuu Hashiko in a D&D game, or Ash Ketchum for a Shadowrun campaign (Although my twisted and demented mind is working on a shadowrun/pokemon transfusion, you really dont want to know about it. I'm scary).
Reading through the commentary, I'll have to agree partially with Ander. It is harder for newer players to interact with 'complex ideas' of a new system. But not impossible. I've seen people activly ignore any plot going on just to vent some problem outide the game on passing NPCs and go through general mass killings even if their character dies in the end (and usually loudly complains about it, decides your ruling didnt happen, and leave the tabe. Or call for a Hand of God).
Question though. Where would we be in our worlds without the antogonists? Its one thing to enjoy a good game, but its another to enjoy a good game when you know how many things coudl've gone wrong with it from seeing so many god moders and power gamers muck it up.
After writing that, I realise I dont think I've ever been in a game without a powergamer. This thought actually kind of frightens me.
After reading thecraichead's commntary, I realized my responce could be an aticle in itself and will likely submit myself as a writer shortly.
Final thought while going through commentary: Since when do games have to end? If its fun, whats the point of stopping?
*Shrug*
And this was another long arse commentary from your friendly Eternal Newbie, someone who should probably bother with trying to specilize in a charater class before registering commentary anymore, lighting the flame and passing on down the dark halls of endless opinions and knowledge.
P.S.: Anablepophobia, if you ever do games online, let me know. You sound like someone interesting to watch, at the very least.
This may be a long one, but it's a big issue.
Ah, the old powergamer quagmire... it's an eternal
headache to GMs everywhere. In my time, I have faced
down and converted many a powergamer, frequently through
the White Wolf system. I will provide my insights and
suggestions at no cost to you. First, a brief ramble
about White Wolf (for those who don't care, just skip
the next paragraph).
The White Wolf system is not broken. It's one of the
best systems I have come across, and its setting is one
of the richest. One of its key points, though, is that
it is, in essence, a storytelling system. It's combat
system was made to quickly resolve violent conflict in
order to return to the story ASAP. As such, an inattentive
GM may find himself in hot water. The trick is to make
the player keep to his character concept. In other words,
I make the player explain how his CEO happens to be a
better marksman than most Navy SEALs. If he cannot
convince me (and it is rightfully a hard sell), I make
him reduce his skill in the weapon. The same goes for
flaws. Why would a CEO have a phobia of babies? BTW, the
White Wolf system that limits the number of flaws a
character can take. In other words, unless the GM is
willing to be tough and force characters to be realistic
and keep to the theme of the story, any White Wolf game
is ready fodder for munchkins, but those munchkins will
hit a brick wall if the GM understands the point of the
Storyteller system -- for the GM and players to work
together to weave a great tale.
Now, on to the ways of handling powergamers. There are
3 general strategies for dealing with twinks:
1) Break and rebuild
2) Containment
3) Throw them out
Obviously, the third may not be possible, and the twink
may call your bluff. The first two have merit, but
they require an ability to ignore whining. Here's a
more detailed description:
1) Break and rebuild. My personal favorite. The general
idea is to place the powergamer in situations where all
his powergaming becomes useless, and he is forced to
find a roleplaying solution. Call of Cthulhu is perfect
for this. Let them take whatever weapons they want but
keep a straight face. Then drag them through a Lovecraftian
plot of insanity and mystery. If he refuses to risk
his character's sanity by reading the books, put him up
against foes for which he will need the knowledge in
those books. Once he's hallucinating with madness, take
him on a trip down weird street. Have him fight brutal
foes, only to find out that he's just been banging his
head on a nearby wall for a few hours. Once he's lost,
unsure of what is real, offer him a way out that involves
no combat at all or very little. In any system in general,
Make sure that the game is fast-paced enough that he
can NEVER catch his breath and get his bearings, put
him in situations that violence simply cannot solve (in
Mage: the Ascension, perhaps the Technocrat simply can't
be forced to betray his fellows due to Mind magic
defending him against the agony of torture), and
constantly place him in those types of role-playing
situations. The inability to use his min/maxed stats
break him, the role-playing solutions rebuild him.
2) A policy of containment works too. In essence, you
simply don't hand out as many magical goodies, or you
hand out goodies that only one person can use. If an
Amulet of Luck +5 will cause a party to infight, don't
give them one. Also, don't let them sell magical items
except in special circumstances. Heck, not too many
armory shops would be interested in orcish mail,
especially if it was used. If you aren't callous enough
to break people, this would be an interesting alternative.
Perhaps an Amulet of Luck that becomes inert if friends
shed blood over it. Who knows what the hell that wizard
was thinking when he enchanted this uber-powerful item
centuries ago?
Now, one final note. The breaking method does work on
powergamers who have no other motivation for playing,
but it must not be used on "fighters." These are people
who are more than willing to role-play their parts, but
simply prefer to play combat-oriented characters to
more peaceful characters. The way to figure out the
difference between the two lies in their character
concept. The fighter will likely have a well-rounded
concept (Example: "My character is a monk of the
Iriguchi clan, well-reknown for their skill in the
short spears, etc." justifying extra skill in unarmed
and short spear fighting, but also maing up some details
on this clan), while a munchkin will not (Example: Taking
extra skill in martial arts, guns, and then trying to
be a noble on top, or focusing on martial arts to an
insane degree without any real explanation, "My guy is
a monk or something, whatever."). Of course, this takes
a good eye and experience to tell a fighter from a
munchkin. Another clue: A fighter will frequently get
really into a combat, having various self-named attacks.
Of course, a munchkin will generally be more worried
about the actual statistics. As such, a fighter will
just be frustrated and miffed about the break method,
since he is already role-playing.
Well, there's my piece. Take it or leave it, my ways
work for me, but may not work for you. BTW, if you are
tired of running the same old game, switch it up a bit.
How about a city-based mystery, or a situation in which
the enemy is not obvious? Either would provide a
refreshing change for you, I think.
That's all.
“The White Wolf system is not broken.
its setting is one of the richest.”
The setting is not at issue with Whitewolf the system. The system is the thing
that allows powergamers to exploit and unbalance the game – not just with combat, but with any number of different game actions. It’s not just about buying merits cheaply either. The Whitewolf attributes/skills/talents system is a particularly oddball assortment of potential game moves – with overlap between them. Thus, in a game I played with a bad GM – the ‘hacker’ character was able to outfinance the Ventrue ‘kingpin’ character by doing stocktrades on the Internet. He had skills in Computer, you see – therefore the GM thought anything that could be done with a computer, he should be good at. The lack of definition and oddball areas of focus leave too much room for negotiation on game moves in Whitewolf. This kind of loose system tends to reward the player who lawyers his way through conflicts – rewriting the game as he goes, rather than applying his character to the scenario.
“One of its key points, though, is that it is,
in essence, a storytelling system. It's combat
system was made to quickly resolve
violent conflict in order to return to
the story ASAP. As such, an inattentive
GM may find himself in hot water.”
If the system works, then the GM need not be attentive to the ropes and pulleys of the game mechanics, and may instead focus on the story and role-playing elements to a greater extent. Unfortunately WhiteWolf is one of the worst offenders in quality control this way.
“The trick is to make the player keep to his character
concept. In other words, I make the player explain
how his CEO happens to be a better marksman than
most Navy SEALs.”
OK, my CEO used to be a NAVY SEAL before he went into business running a mini-army of mercenaries for combat in Latin America. There. Now I have the advantages of a Navy SEAL and a CEO. Sa-weet!
See, my great story angle doesn’t actually temper my character’s juiced up stats. I like that Whitewolf makes you play for your merits, but they are so loosey-goosey that a shrewd players can ride rough-shod over them.
“1) Break and rebuild. My personal favorite. The general
idea is to place the powergamer in situations where all
his powergaming becomes useless, and he is forced to
find a roleplaying solution. […]
Mage: the Ascension, perhaps the Technocrat simply can't
be forced to betray his fellows due to Mind magic
defending him against the agony of torture), and
constantly place him in those types of role-playing
situations. The inability to use his min/maxed stats
break him, the role-playing solutions rebuild him.”
The problem with this is that the player is usually in a group situation, so anything you throw at the one player will affect the others in the group. Typically, this means the player who is best at using min/max exploits will often be the player who is MOST adept at handling the challenge you throw at him. You’ll be punishing the fair players more than you will punish the abuser as they struggle to keep up. In fact, this is more likely to create more min/maxing.
Moreover, any player who designs a character will expect to use his attributes when the situation calls for them – whether he bought those stats fairly or whether he took advantage of a flawed system and bought them cheaply. Altering the scenario so they can’t use the attributes they’ve included in their characters makes their characters somewhat irrelevant to the story.
Basically, my preferred solution is simply to toss all games with broken or bad systems – to not play them or buy them. I’m tossing all of my Mage and Vamp stuff. The second solution is to toss the players or quit groups where power gamers rule.
Just as a response to The Bebop Cow, I plan on playing on "Starsider" when Star Wars Galaxies comes out. It's the unoffical RPG server so hopefully we'll fill it up before the powergamers take it over.
I don't realy think there's anything wrong with White Wolf's system. I've been playing for quite some time, and encounter fewer power-gamers there then I do in D&D games.
Rick
"Role playing is one-half of the activity that is a role-playing game. It's the role-playing half. Get rid of the game, and you have an improv session, not a game."
It's sad that you seem to see the concepts of "role-playing" and "game" as separable in this context. RPG are called what they are because ideally you shouldn't be able to separate the "role-playing" from the "game" anymore than you can figure out which direction the water is going in an Escher print. They should be thoroughly intertwined and nearly indistinguishable from eachother.
"winning a role-playing game can be defined in a number of different ways"
This is irrelevant. The point I was making (and that you are ignoring) is that the ability to "win" or "lose" is not a requirement for something to be defined as a "game". Indeed: These states are not supported by most RPG rules.
Your straw man, Nephandus seems to be that "systems that can be abused cause powergaming" however ALL systems can be abused. Powergaming is not a technical issue -- it is a social one. It is always up to the GM to decide who and what he will allow in his game. If there are players stuck in the mindset of "winning" the game by "beating" the GM they need to be educated or ejected (unless the GM enjoys this of course...).
Most RPGs are intended to be cooperative affairs, not competitive. This is why the rule books lack win/lose states. If people aren't able to see the bigger picture and cooperate with eachother then ugly scenes will develop no matter what system you're using.
Hm. Power gamers. The bane of all games? Not quite.
Actually, I think that it's usually the GM's fault when powergamers run rampant. It certainly is in White Wolf, where you don't really need any flaws to create a Killing Machine of Death (+2). After a few levels, I also know that D&D can be just as bad with letting people twink out horribly.
The trouble, however, is not in the stats. The trouble lies in the fact that a lazy GM will make it so the linear, powerful character is the most adept. A GM I played D&D under made the game entirely an open battlefield in which people slugged it out. Therefore, the bard and rogue in the group had very little to do, because it was purely hack-n-slash. Another GM, however, had an objective-based game with lots of politics and character development. My character happened to be the most "power" of the characters (in an open fight, he could easily have slaughtered the rest of the party) but he wasn't all that good of a character in the actual game because enemies were sneaky and did not always come to physical battle. If I were to play another game with him, I would have chosen a much weaker character who actually had some skill points and charisma.
If you want to have a nice direct hack-n-slash game, then I really think you shouldn't whine about the 4th level fighter who does 14 damage on a minimal hit, because that's the conditions of the engagement. The more types of goals your players have to accomplish, however, the less power-gamers will mess up everything.
PS-Don't let your party collaborate so you have a Killer, a Socialite, a Sugar Daddy, etc...that makes it so people take turns playing, and takes away most of the fun of RPG's.
>The Whitewolf attributes/skills/talents system is a particularly oddball
>assortment of potential game moves – with overlap between them. Thus, in a
>game I played with a bad GM – the ‘hacker’ character was able to outfinance
>the Ventrue ‘kingpin’ character by doing stocktrades on the Internet. He
>had skills in Computer, you see – therefore the GM thought anything that
>could be done with a computer, he should be good at.
Uh, that's not a flaw in the system as I see it... that's a flaw in the GM's understanding of what a character should be able to do and could have happened in any system with a Computer skill. RPGs are aimed at reasonably intelligent people, and thus don't have rules set down for things that should be common sense (like using a different medium for a task not changing what skill is used for that task).
Back on the topic of powergamers... honestly, my usual policy is to cherry-pick, though I've converted one powergamer who had potential simply by talking to him and nudging him for several sessions. He frequently gets best-RPer experience awards in games now. :) Sure, he still loves playing with power, but as The GM of One Too Many Games pointed out so nicely, there is a difference between a powergamer and a good role-player who wants to play a powerful character; there's nothing inherently wrong with enjoying the hack-and-slash parts of a game, just with focusing on that alone. Powergaming takes away from the role-playing experience of those around you; simply wielding power doesn't necessarily.
Iridilate wrote: 'The trouble lies in the fact that a lazy GM will make it so the linear, powerful character is the most adept.' Wow, I think you really hit the nail on the head here. I've GM'd a session with one player who had gone through the true powergamer process of creating an ultimate fighter (even cheating as it turned out later). In our group emphasis wasn't so much on the rulebooks and the character joined an ongoing adventure so we didn't really check all the details. While the character was by far the most powerful it didn't really make any difference at to the adventure, and here's why:
The scenario had a mystery plot (somehow all my scenarios seem to have :), and all the fights there were mainly a distraction from the objectives, a chance to grip the sword and stop thinking too hard. That character helped brilliantly with those situations - I just threw in some extra fodder for him. Everyone seemed happy during those situations.
There were also some situations that this character got into trouble especially. One was a rope bridge overgrown with living vines. While the main group backed off the bridge to gauge the situation, the powergamer charged ahead with his magic greatsword in hand. Needless to say he was grappled down and entwined after cutting a few vines, and his magic sword tumbled down into the darkness below. Stupidity needs to be punished after all.
Another situation in the scenario was that one NPC was tagging along with the group who somehow was needed for overcoming the curse the group was seeking to remove. Now this NPC was a very curious and naive character and needed a lot of protection from the party... only that the powergamer thinks first and foremost about bringing his own character into the limelight. Imagine his surprise when after charging into a fight it becomes obvious that their main goal has been jeopardised because the NPC has fled somewhere or was cornered by some smaller monsters etc.
A really ridiculous situation arose when the powergamer decided to get out his ring of flying (how'd he get that one?) to pursue a group of enemies in a forest. I was just starting to question him about this item when I got a better idea... after managing to dodge a few trees he ended up critically wounded stuck in an oak. (which gave the healer a special occasion to use his skills)
All throughout the scenario I had the positive experience that the player accepted my judgements, and I think this was partly because he was allowed to 'win' in some situations where his use of force was appropriate and at least had a chance (even if tiny) of succeeding or reconsidering his actions at other times, and his attempts always created an interesting situation for the rest of the party.
At least powergamers aren't the ones that will fall asleep during a session!
I'm a firm believer that the goal at the role-playing table is to create a good story. That is the focus of all, both players and DM's alike, and everyone has author rights.
But, at the same time, I don't pretend that everyone has the same goals in play, or that any system for that matter is designed with the intent.
A lot of the claims and counter-claims can be put down to that. I don't view powergamers as a negative trend, I just don't play with them.
Neither do I see storyteller as broken, I just see it as a system that relies on the fact it is played by adults and adults who have agreed a certain goal in the context of their play.
I certainly don't see it as a necessary function of a game system to provide all the checks and balances to keep players in check.
If your group is that dysfunctional that you have to rely on the system to keep everyone 'in control' you already have major problems.
On May 27, 2003 06:30 PM, D.P. said:
It's sad that you seem to see the concepts of "role-playing" and "game" as separable in this context. [...] They should be thoroughly intertwined and nearly indistinguishable from eachother.
Nephandus:
Are you saying you can’t see a difference between the mechanical system and the role-playing element?.Are you trying to equate a combat matrix and tactical map with a heartfelt speech a player gives before his party battles the Big Bad? Are you saying that lining up a Firearms + Dexterity dice pool and rolling to hit a truck, is the same thing as a creepy description of a sinkhole cavern in a cemetery?
RPG’s are not some mystical magical activity that can’t be boiled down to their ingredients. They consist of game mechanics, setting, story scenario, and improv from the participants. Separate things. It’s why they are described by compound word:
Role-playing. Game.
I’m tired of ‘role-playing’ artistes constantly devaluing the value and importance of good game mechanics in the activity, as if it is somehow below them to consider such things. I agree with you DP, in as much as attention should be paid to both sides of the activity, with a clear and logical connection between them. And they are most definitely two different things. I can’t comprehend why anyone would think it ‘sad’ that I can plainly see what is obvious.
DP:
"winning a role-playing game can be defined in a number of different ways"This is irrelevant. The point I was making (and that you are ignoring) is that the ability to "win" or "lose" is not a requirement for something to be defined as a "game".
Nephandus:
No, winning or losing is irrelevant to ‘playing,’ which is about the process, but it is quite relevant to ‘gaming’ - which is about the process AND the goal. Virtually every game will have a winner or loser, or a goal which will be achieved or not.
In another thread, Dmhoward makes a good point about players who plan their character deaths as part of the story. Quite rightly, he says that this is selfish – that the activity is also a game, and that intentionally planning your character’s death selfishly deprives the game and players of one’s unique skill sets. It’s a game as much as anything, and planning one’s non-participation isn’t really a useful contribution.
DP:
Your straw man, Nephandus seems to be that "systems that can be abused cause powergaming" however ALL systems can be abused. Powergaming is not a technical issue -- it is a social one. It is always up to the GM to decide who and what he will allow in his game.
Nephandus:
It is both technical and social, like security at the zoo. You may not be able to stop determined visitors from climbing into the tiger pen, but at the very least, you should make sure there’s a lock on the door and that the fence is mended.
Sure, most complex games can be abused. Some more than others. Some to the point that they become unenjoyable. It’s not unreasonable to expect players to design the most interesting and advantageous character they can for their style – that’s part of the game. A broken system allows the particularly shrewd players to unbalance the party though, to effectively marginalize the other players. There’s no magic formula for a better system or a worse one – I know it when I play it. Rifts is bad. Whitewolf is bad (at least the 2nd edition Mage and Vamp I’ve played). Earthdawn is better. 3e DnD is better.
I agree with your statement about the GM’s authority – to an extent. I just think it becomes more important for a GM to exert that authority in games with broken systems where power gamers rule. In games with slick, logical mechanics, the so-called social power gamer really doesn’t matter any more, since for every advantage he gains, he loses something else. It’s auto-balancing, math-tested and play-tested – much harder to beat (unless you start loading up on the class book supplements).
DP:
If there are players stuck in the mindset of "winning" the game by "beating" the GM they need to be educated or ejected (unless the GM enjoys this of course...).Most RPGs are intended to be cooperative affairs, not competitive. This is why the rule books lack win/lose states. If people aren't able to see the bigger picture and cooperate with eachother then ugly scenes will develop no matter what system you're using.
Nephandus:
Your straw man, DP. I made a point about attempting to win the scenario, not about ‘beating the GM’. These are different things – although I agree with your statement about those who take an adversarial stance against the GM. Most frequently these are the rules lawyers and power-gamers in loosey goosey systems. We’ve had players who chafed under Mage, for exactly the reason you suggested, who power-gamed under 1st and 2nd DnD and who threw a fit about 3rd when they lost some of the leeway they’d been accustomed to having. We either bailed on those games, or ejected him.
Nephandus said:
I've also seen several GM's attempt to reign in players who have already abused a broken system - attempting to take away the toys that they previously allowed. It wasn't pretty and caused some nasty fights - it didn't happen at all as Greyshirakwa suggested.
I dunno, I get the impression from virtually all the threads where you mention your previous gaming groups that they are full of very unreasonable people bereft of an ounce of commonsense. Maybe you just pick abusive groups. Or really crap DM's.
All the groups I have played with have been open to reason, including the DM's, powergamers and the rest. And even the quiet ones have all powergamed from time to time. But in a way which was a)enjoyable for the group, b)with a view that they knew it would come to an end.
Nephandus said:
who power-gamed under 1st and 2nd DnD and who threw a fit about 3rd when they lost some of the leeway they’d been accustomed to having.
Lost leeway? Ha...ha.....ha......ha...! No, puleeze, I must remember that one.
Nephandus said:
We either bailed on those games, or ejected him.
People skills? Remember those....
- Grey
Grey - I've been looking through our correspondence, especially the last one, in which you seem to make an effort to attack me personally. I don't really care to be characterized in such a manner by someone who doesn't really know me, and who could probably stand to take a dose of his own advice - based on how you've treated me in what began as a civil discussion.
I'm not sure why you are becoming increasingly strident. Perhaps you were offended because the 'difficult person' we ejected from our groups (and in some cases - was a catalyst for the dissolution of the group) advocated many stances that were similar to your own. At a fundamental level - this caused disagreements - but your 'people skills' are also an important point in how roughly he was treated for these disagreements. IMO - shouting at other players, throwing dice in anger etc. is unnacceptable regardless of the source of disagreement. Friends don't remain friends for long under such circumstances, especially when one is doing it for an 8 hour stretch. If gaming brings out the worst social behavior in someone, it's sometimes better to cut your losses and either quit the group, dissolve the group, or ask the offender to leave.
If my own game experiences or personality is at issue here, I can say without hesitation that most of the people and most of the game experiences I've had have been excellent. The issues I've discussed on these boards have mainly been things which other people have advocated on this board, which we tried, and which we found to be unsuccessful. We've had nearly 20 years of experience in RPGs - we've experienced many of the discussions and tried many of the recommendations offered as advice here (beginning with your own stance Grey), and we've had the time and experience to weigh the results. This does not mean that our experience is universal, or even that my experience within our many groups is the definitive tale of those groups- but in presenting the circumstances and the results, as well as explaining how we got there, I hope that readers can make up their own mind, and hopefully avoid the mistakes we made.
If my experience differs from yours, I don't mind that at all. Game on, but please give the personal sniping a rest. This BBS is uncharacteristically civil in discussions, and with minimal moderation - that is a rarity on the Web. I'd prefer to keep it that way and I hope you would too Grey.
Back to the topic:
The main reason I advocate well-balanced systems as the best medicine for power-gamers - is that I think for many players - player creation is part of the game. It's part of the strategizing - figuring out a combination of attributes to allow one to affect the game environment in a suitable way. I don't think that players should be encouraged to take attributes or combinations that will intentionally make them a liability in the game, with the trade-off that it will make their role-playing more interesting. For instance, it may be possible to create parapelegic character for Vampire - but it limits that player's participation, or limits the GM in the kinds of scenarios she presents if she wants to include everyone. Players may comply with a GM telling them "No." but it doesn't mean they appreciate the meddling - especially when they are creating their character according to standard base rules for that system. So, I'm saying it's better to play with a good game system.
The notion of allowing a character to be superpowered in a single stat while making them severely underpowered in others just isn't very good gamesmanship (referring to a few Rifts games from long ago). What that means is that the player is not balanced in ANY encounter with the other players - so he's either stealing the spotlight or not participating at all.
Most of the advice in the chat here seems to assume powergamers to be combat monsters - all physical attributes. Ain't so. I've seen just as many abuses in non-combat stats in my time playing - especially with the Whitewolf system. Just cause there's not a gun or sword involved, doesn't mean it's not abusing the system (or that the system is too open to abuse).
I think people keep forgetting that extra regulations created by the DM regarding the character creation process, that are not in the rule book for the system but are used for purposes of realism are, by definition, house rules.
Nothing inherently wrong with house rules. But don't use your house rules as a defense of a system's lack of holes, when you MADE them to patch the system's holes.
Nephandus said:
Grey - I've been looking through our correspondence, especially the last one, in which you seem to make an effort to attack me personally.
If that's the way it seems then I make a **sincere and full **apology.
I hope you will accept that that was not my intention.
To clarify, my main point was that my own gaming experience from 1Ed to 3Ed and all the others seemed to be different in outcome from some of the personal experiences which you quoted. And that therefore different outcomes are possible with the same initial routes.
Nephandus said:
Perhaps you were offended because the 'difficult person' we ejected from our groups (and in some cases - was a catalyst for the dissolution of the group) advocated many stances that were similar to your own
Now who's making personal attacks?
Since I don't know what that person's stances were, I could hardly be offended.
In my own groups, we have had many similar discussions and debates to the ones which appear on this board. The main point is that we between us we resolved all the evolution problems of going from 1/2 to 3Ed in a manner acceptable to all of us. And often in different ways in different groups.
If I appear more strident, then maybe it's because quite often the pro-d20/3Ed group appear to be unable to accept any suggestions/criticism/possible developments to their beloved 3Ed.
The thread of the pro-3Ed group is this:
1. d20/3Ed is perfect
2. When 3.5Ed arrives it will be even more perfect
3. Anything game-modification to d20&3Ed not of WOTC design is essentially blasphemy.
4. If you are not pro3Ed, you are anti - 3Ed.
So one last time: I am not anti d20/3Ed. I am simply saying it still has things to redesign/fix. I am clearly in the on-the - fence group.
Back to powergaming:
When I said about 3Ed:
'Lost leeway? Ha...ha.....ha......ha...! No, puleeze, I must remember that one.'
I obviously put this badly. To rephrase:
Fighters and Rogues are ridiculously front-loaded. There are many available feats which allow PC's to make these classes ridiculously good compared to virtually all the others.
I cannot see therefore that 1/2Ed was particularly permissive to powergamers, whereas 3Ed is not. If anything, my gaming group concludes it is more so.
I offer as proof whole columns in 'Sage Advice'.
- Grey
On June 1, 2003 03:08 PM, Greyshirakwa said:
No problem Grey, glad to have you back.
Grey:
The thread of the pro-3Ed group is this:
1. d20/3Ed is perfect
2. When 3.5Ed arrives it will be even more perfect
3. Anything game-modification to d20&3Ed not of WOTC design is essentially blasphemy.
4. If you are not pro3Ed, you are anti - 3Ed.
Neph:
Then I’ll clarify and correct my stance:
1. 3e D&D D20 is a better game than 1st and 2nd ed.
2. 3.5 ed will likely be a better game than 3e, if it fixes oversights, typos, and unbalanced aspects of 3e.
3. Many ‘official’ game mods and additions from WOTC beyond the basic books actually clutter the clean and logical design, and players are better off without them. I don’t allow them, because I think all players should be playing the same game with the same choices – including at the character design stage.
Grey:
Fighters and Rogues are ridiculously front-loaded. There are many available feats which allow PC's to make these classes ridiculously good compared to virtually all the others.
I cannot see therefore that 1/2Ed was particularly permissive to powergamers, whereas 3Ed is not.
Neph:
Fighters and Rogues have more choices available to them than in previous editions – yes. Largely – especially with the fighter – the old edition was too simple from a combat standpoint – not actually codifying many strategic elements and game moves. I like Cadfan’s “enabling constraints” description – as with chess. As such, fighters were often unappealing because most of the time their were there to throw down in slugfest, trading shots broadside, and not much else. There wasn’t too much strategy or choice involved with them in comparison to the other players. That’s why the fighter is always the character you gave to the ‘guest’ player, or your friend’s little brother or girlfriend. There wasn’t a lot too them. Get close, and thump as much as you can.
The new system introduces a number of new ‘enabling constraints’ to tactical scenarios, recognizing and codifying specific combat moves and tactics. At the same time, opponents also have them, so this does not automatically make the player who buys them into a powergamer. It’s balanced. The other character classes, in comparison have magic or specialized combat, or their own sets of advantages.
Versatility is traded for effectiveness in specific siloes – and this is the core of what balance is about. And the game itself recognizes more “moves” within combat – increasing the richness of the experience – the number of choices and results – for fighter characters – making them as appealing to play as the other ‘special characters’. Now they are all special (though relatively balanced.)
Rogues certainly have a wide range of choices available to them, but at the same time, they must choose from among those choices. Usually the character that hits very easily (say a halfling rogue) may not be large on causing damage. Choices and consequences.
Neph siad:
Neph:
Fighters and Rogues have more choices available to them than in previous editions – yes. Largely – especially with the fighter – the old edition was too simple from a combat standpoint –
We certainly agree on this. They are more interesting to play. But the main question is this:
Do the interesting bits enable powergaming with the core game?
I submit that certain combinations e.g. Weapon Finesse + Power Attack + Cleave + Great Cleave (only 2nd level for a human fighter to get this) do tend players into powergaming.
Or Combat Reflexes + Power Attack + Cleave + Great Cleave etc. There are many other examples.
i.e. that what I believe you previously proposed as a method of having to pay for the power-ups leaves some large gaps in a investment/payback equation.
- Grey
Do the interesting bits enable powergaming with the core game? Nah, I don't really think so. Realize that while the fighter shoots up the combat scale, other classes are getting different kinds of goodies as well. Don't underestimate the power of spellcasters. Cleave and Great Cleave are nice to have, but since the villains get bigger as you get bigger, chances are you'll use it most in situations where you are fighting a lot of smaller enemies.
Also keep in mind that with the advent of Challenge Ratings, combat scenarios are geared to the game level of the players - again balancing the increased options available to players.
Does the fact that combat is interesting encourage power gaming?
I see no reason whatsoever to accept that proposal. Are you proposing that boring combat is superior? Or do you believe that there exists a rules-lawyer/power gamer proof system out there that contains interesting combat?
Now, in general, I think you messed up when trying to list scary feat chains for fighters. The weapon finesse example is especially odd.
Lets assume your pc has the max human dexterity of 18, and takes weapon finesse. Finesse only works on rapiers and small weapons, so the biggest weapon he can use finesse on does 1d6 damage. As a level 2 fighter using an ordinary weapon he has a base attack of +2 and a dex mod of +4. So, he attacks at +6.
The most he can wager with power attack is his base attack bonus, which is 2. So, he can trade that +6 attack for a +4 attack with a +2 damage. Sure, it applies to any cleaves he performs, but... +2 damage? Woo... scary. I'm going to assume that the reason he took weapon finesse is because his dex is higher than his strength, but I'll be generous and even give him a 16 strength, giving an attack that's at +4 for 1d6+5. Assuming he hits, that's an average of 8.5 damage per hit.
Now assume an ordinary fighter who for some reason possesses no feats at all at level 2. He is holding a longsword, and has a strength of 18 instead of a dexterity of 18. He attacks at +6 for 1d8+4. That's an average of 8.5 per hit. Exactly the same as the weapon finesse guy, and with less use of feats, and with a better chance of hitting his target.
Cadfan said:
Does the fact that combat is interesting encourage power gaming?
No. But interest is irrelevant to if they can powergame or not. I am not decrying fighter variation - it's one of the really good parts of 3Ed.
Cadfan said:
weapon finesse. Finesse only works on rapiers and small weapons
Wrong. Spiked chains too. Reach weapon, Two - handed, more damage.
Although, I take your point that at 2nd level, this feat chain isn't too much of a problem. The problems occur when you reach something like 4th level. Or take a rapier, where the damage may only be d6, but the criticals go 18-20.
Remember, also that the reason for having a weapon finesse feat is you do have high dex. i.e. it's not just about hitting, it's about minimising the chance of being hit - by use of the same ability points.
Let me give an example of a 4th level fighter. So BAB = 4. Allow 18 dex and 16 str. Not an overly generous ab point shareout.
Now he has -4 dex, +4 to hit, takes -4 from power attack to hit and gets +4 damage. Now, if that 4th level fighter also has expertise, they get -4 on armour class at the same time that they take -4 for their power attack.
I've read these two feats the a few times, and there is no indication that the negatives to hit stack.
Overall, damage same, AC bonus doubled, to hit figure remains unchanged. Plus, better hits on ranged attacks.
The other meta-gamey way I 've seen this used is to take a character with 1 level of ranger to get all the virtual feats, take twin short swords, weapon finesse short sword, and then 3 levels of fighter for the other benefits. (Probably one of the few ways of really making a range attractive actually...I understand 3.5 overhauls rangers)
Power attack+Combat reflexes + Cleave + Great Cleave + Weapon Finesse (Spiked Chain) for an 18 dex, 16 str fighter at 4th level is anther good one.
- Grey
The negatives stack, dude. They're unnamed modifiers, and all unnamed modifiers stack. The character could do all of those things, and could certainly get a modifier of +4 to ac and of +4 to damage, but he'd have to accept a -8 to attack.
There's not much else to say about that one, I guess.
As far as the preferability of using finesse-
That doesn't work either.
Assume 18 dex, 16 strength. With weapon finesse, you get to have a +4 to attack, a +3 to damage, and a +4 to ac.
Assume 18 strength, 16 dex. Without weapon finesse, you get to have +4 to attack, +4 to damage, and +3 to ac. AND you get to use a feat slot on something else.
I don't see this as leading to any sort of abuse.
Cadfan said:
The negatives stack, dude. They're unnamed modifiers, and all unnamed modifiers stack.
Damn! I don't suppose we could keep this quiet from my GM.....Can you point me to the page, I am going to have to confess.
I don't have my dungeon masters guide with me at college, unfortunately. I asked one of my friends, who does, and he says page 176-177 has the information you need. I can double check that for you, and give you a page number for certain, but only if you're willing to wait about 8 days until the school year ends.
What stacks and what doesn't in d&d:
All dodge bonuses.
Circumstance bonuses from different circumstances.
Unnamed bonuses stack with everything, including themselves.
And, I'm not 100% certain but I'm pretty sure, inherent bonuses stack, but only up to +5.
Also keep in mind with finesse and dex - the ultimate 'powergaming' use of them comes through halfling rogues - but with their half-size weapons hit for less damage and they tend toward less of a strength bonus.
I've often thought that the spiked chain was the strangely overpowered - but this is somewhat compensated by the fact that this is classed as an exotic, and that once you get to higher levels, you won't find many magic spiked chains. I retained it, as is, but I'd be curious to see if it is changed in 3.5.
I recently played with a group of ALL powerplayers and it was so horrible it was comical (Like Spy Kids 3-d). They had rules like if you rolled a stat point under 14 you had to roll again and many many more.
What i realized is they were so obsessed with having the baddest character that they totally missed the role-playing aspect altogether. Sometimes they would even skip through parts of the adventure just to get to the next fight.
I personally feel that an entire session in town with no weapons drawn can be just as fun as invading the orc encampment outside said town, if not more.
But i think that the biggest problem is DM's letting and/or encouraging such play tactics. Good DM's are becoming as scarce as The Sword of Kas. And with so many games like Everquest out there, based solely on YOUR characters attributes and almost no mandatory pc interaction.....gamers are losing any if not all sight of roleplaying that they once had.
My only advice is to find a group that plays the way you like, but as in my case groups are getting harder and harder to find.
Well that's all of my little rant. Have fun.
^^^
Juicing your characters that way is also unsatisfying from a straight crunchy game standpoint as well. You overpower the enemy too easily, and that's not fun either.
Long time no writing.
Well the author originally asked what to do with powergamers, here are the few solutions I've used.
0) Prior to starting the game I approve the characters. Anything I don't want or find crazy I refuse. I also use the optionnal rules for training (to gain some feats, change class, gain skills, etc)
1) Use the powergamer to tell a story with the other players.
2) Use the character's strengths against the player and use the character's strengths againts the character.
3) Focus on the non powergamers in the group.
4) Make situations where roleplaying is the key to success, not power.
5) If all else fails, toss em'.
Here's how it works.
0) Little need for explaining right. It solves some problems before they start.
1) Having a killing machine in the group makes combat kind of secondary. So let the brute have fun killing while the rest of the party focusses on the story and intrigue. Have a computer with heroes of might and magic on and let the player play. Powerplayers usually just get in the way during the plot/intrigue driven parts of the game.
2) Using the characters strength. This is judo applied to DMing. Let's say the character is a uber fighter that can deal an average 50 points of damage per hit. If the fighter specialises in ranged attack, have the party fight underwater, in high wind conditions or reduced visibility. If the fighter is a melee specialist, have fights against flying oponents, or those with abilities like spring attack combined with alot of moves. These encounters will be equally tough for the whole group, but the powergamer will loose his/her edge.
You can also find what the PLAYER likes, or what motivates his/her choice of character. If he/she likes combat, have the opponents surender or flee after a few rounds. Guards might ask him/her to leave weapons at the town's gates (knowing how dangerous he/she is). An even worst punishment is to create a frenzy like Beatlemania around the powergamer's character. Hordes of fans wanting to marry the character, offering to follow the character, asking for the character's blessing and following him around everywhere. Hard to sneak up on a dragon with a hundred cheering fans behind. Although this could ruin the game for the other players if you spend too much time on the powerplayer, it could work well with #1 and #3.
3) This is the worst punishment for a powerplayer. Focus on the other players and their characters. Make combat quick and unrewarding while taking more time on the other aspects of the game. This will encourage the attention grabbing powergamer to devellop in more than one direction.
4) This is the part I like most. The players meet an avatar, a dragon, an epic character, an Antideluvian or whatever that doesn't really want to fight the characters. The powergamer will hack/blast/fire/rage away without event scratching the opponent.
Now the opponent will give the party what they want if they can dance, solve a riddle, convince him, tend his gardens, whatever. Think Monica Bellucci in Matrix, or the Impossible Man in Marvel.
5) But warn them first. You know, tell them their style of play isn't compatible with the campaign you are running. Point them towards the right direction. If that fails, toss the character (assassination, gang ups, custom designed enemies and challenges) or toss the player.
Doesn't always work, but hey it's woth a try right?
Here's something I would like to ask:
Have you tried just telling them?
Remember that not everyone has grown up with this stuff. Alot of these "powergamers" are just people taking baby steps, doing what they think is best. Powerplaying is mostly a problem because very few of the powerplayers may even realize their doing it. I'm not trying to be rude here. I'm not even a DM. But I led a prayer group, and they had the same problem the powerplayers have: misplaced focus. Nurture them in the right direction and hope for the best. If it's becoming a serious headache for you and others, then you can get to the harsher behavior. Warn them in advance that fighting isn't everything, and that they should try to build a more adaptable character.
I have something radical to say:
(1) Power Gaming can be good ! There I've said it. I would never have believed it myself, but when I think back, I've played in at least two game groups in which everyone was in it for the hack and slash, and they were all enjoying themselves thoroughly. Personally, its not to my taste, I prefer a well designed, 'realistic', generally low level campaign with good co-operation between players, but thats just my preference. Other guys, seem to love power playing. It takes all sorts I guess.
(2) Everyone power plays to some extent. And combat is exciting. If that wasn't true, then you would play your character deliberately badly, and fantasy books would have conflict resolved by commonsense and dialogue rather than cold steel and hot spells.
Mohammed, at least I don't consider hack and slash to be same as powergaming. Hack and slash is certainly not my style, but it is lot more better than powergaming.
I agree with you VMB. You can be a fighter with a gratsword who takes people out within three rounds or less and not be a power gamer....your just a good fighter. It's when you play EVERY character like that. Every mage you use is an evoker, and all your stats have to have at least +3 modifiers, or you want +10 magical items at first level that you fall into the powerplayer category (to me at least). Every party needs a strong swordarm, but it's when that person makes the game unenjoyable for others,(such as by killing the local guards), that they can be truly marked with the scarlet letter of roleplaying.
But that's just me! Have fun!
The people I game with aren't the powergamer type. Well...not totally. We try to focus on teamwork and unfolding the plot, but we'd never back down from a fight...no matter the odds. I can recall a situation that occurs quite often in the early sessions of a game...
"Ok, in front of you is this demonic-looking 8th level mage, riding a land-dragon. Behind you is a portal...leading to a firepole that will drop you into the pillow-car of a bullet train, which will leave as soon as you land in it. What do you do?"
(FYI - we're all 1st level characters)
"BATTLE!"
That's a problem with abstract combat systems right there. If your party never runs from a fight, fighting just isn't lethal enough. Think about using a different system. If you can win any fight, no matter the odds, no matter how many times you fly in the face of the odds, there's a serious systemic problem if you're not all getting killed (or at least taking heavy losses) in the process.
LOL
I never said we always win...we RARELY win! When our group's "tank" character went down in 2 rounds. We did what I like to call "the HR dept."
We (H)eal and (R)un!!!!!!!!
Our team is usually split down the middle. Side-A wants to fight, Side-B wants to leave but stays to keep Side-A from being slaugtered. As soon as Side-A goes down, Side-B heals them above zero, and then starts high-steppin outta there.
umm....
We're all taking pills now and its getting better...
MA
In my last rpg session (I am trying a BESM campaigne along the lines of a D+D universe but more like Orphen than anything) and I got one of these powergamers who basically wanted to play Goku.
I let him.
I make players start off with low character points so they have to take some defects but limit the number of how many they can take. Limiting the number of defects almost ensures that the player wouln't make a ridiculusly flawed character. (I'm really sick of players trying to take Skeleton In the Closet and trying to tie it in to something stupid like they spit in a burger at their last job). Before I go on a rant about nothing I need to go back to the powergamer.
SURE he can lift a buick with no problem and his fist can basicaly destroy a tank on a critical. But that can't save him when a deranged techno-mage (whom the party lost to in the previous session) challenges him to face off against his newly created steelgolem...
to Rock-Paper-Sissors.
All that muscle just became become usless.
(of course he could have fought it but he was taken down in TWO hits from the mage's poweresuit last game and still hadn't fully recovered. "YOU make a strong character, I'LL make a stronger villian.")
One of his Defects is a phobia of water. So the next adventure involved the NPC getting tickets to the hotsprings and if he wants to miss out on the adventure and stay in town (actually he got kicked out for causing fights and nearly destroying a building) and watch the grass grow he'll have to get over his fear of taking a bath (why does this guy sound like a five-year-old?)
He didn't role-play it so he got only the minimum XP (i'm too nice)
same to the other PC who expected the NPC to do all the work for him when a plot did show up, they met THE major villain in the campaigne and they knew who he was. Both were a little confused when no major fighting occured, the Goku guy transformed when he saw the moon making the rest of the party run for their lives but that's another story. I told them the villain was there and he was there to fight but I guess seeing him take out the transformed player in couple of hits was too much for them.
One last note: I don't really watch DBZ but do read the mangas when I can get my hands on a Shonen Jump but thats about the extent of my knoledge of it, so converting into a RPG world where I had no intention of including saiyans in is most likely a mistake on my part. I like to let players create anything they want because i believe that when a player is given the chance to play any type of character free of classes and steriotypes a little part of their own "self" if defined. And that maybe you can start to see the true nature of that person.
Though almost everyone in this party has copied of an existing character leaving very little to their own feeble-primetimeTV imaginations.