|
Post by ilina on May 2, 2016 15:56:11 GMT -8
i know that many people complain about powergamers for ruining the hobby. but how many of you honestly beleive the concept of powergaming could be something positive? something constructive? how many good things were born out of an honest desire to not actually drastically fall behind your companions? how many things were born out of a desire to tell a grandiose, epic and exaggerated story in the vein of various tales from mythology, anime or even fantasy fiction? if a mary sue is a wish fulfillment character inserted by the author? how many of us have wishes we desire to fulfill? how badly do we desire to fulfill these wishes?
i used to think being called a powergamer was a bad thing because of the stigma that surrounded the label and my desire to avoid the stigma. but everybody optimizes numbers to some extent. Archetypes, classes and roles in many RPGs prove this to be true. i realized, i was using a redundant word to hide from the shame of something i was exposed to for a little over 20 years.
everybody wants their character to be effective, to contribute to their role in a team. nobody wants to be the character that is carried, whether due to their character's age, disabilities or level. it is a primordial urge. Separate but Equal is an important thing in RPGs. i mean, murderhobos and minmaxers themselves aren't a bad thing. rather, it is jerkwads and elitists that are the problem, people who cause tension for their fellow players by simply being rude.
i mean. building a combat optimized character isn't an issue. building a socially optimized character isn't an issue. using dice to overcome obstacles tailored to a character's role despite an IRL deficiency isn't an issue. the issue, is players who feel a desire to bully other characters and rub their face in it.
do any of you think powergaming is honestly a bad thing? do you think any of the grandiose and epic wish fulfilment characters that pervade our world's literature is honestly a bad thing? Power Gamed Characters aren't Exclusive to Anime, many characters in Mythology, Comic Books, Literature and Stories dating back older than the written word, include powergamed wish fulfillment characters.
|
|
|
Post by ericfromnj on May 2, 2016 16:01:33 GMT -8
Give me a definition of Powergaming all of us on the forums can agree on.
|
|
|
Post by ilina on May 2, 2016 16:07:26 GMT -8
Powergaming is simply the desire to play a character who is efficient at their pre-assigned and preplanned role while also being able to reliably have a fighting chance at overcoming relevant obstacles within the story or game. akin to characters found in a Variety of stories. everybody does it to some extent. it doesn't correlate exclusively to combat. powergaming a Scavenger would be the desire to build a Scavenger who is good at Scavenging.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2016 16:55:26 GMT -8
do any of you think powergaming is honestly a bad thing? I mostly consider powergaming to be a positive trait, since it means the player cares enough to really put forth some effort in becoming invested in the character, and since most characters are supposed to care about whatever their job is. A pseudo-medieval fantasy knight (for example) is literally putting their life on the line in every combat, so it makes sense that they would do everything in their power to optimize their chances of success. And if that means retiring a family heirloom weapon in order to take up a magical replacement, well... you can't really respect your ancestors by dying needlessly. And honestly, it's disrespectful to the other players if you don't at least try to optimize. If your character concept is (for example) a magician who isn't very smart and kind of slacks off, but makes up for it with enthusiasm, then why are the other characters going to bring you along? Why shouldn't they find some other magician, who actually put in the effort to be as good as they can be? If you aren't powergaming, then you're either not role-playing, or you're role-playing as a character who is a fool. The bigger problem comes from complicated systems, where a player can't just sit down and decide to make a competent character. GURPS is especially guilty of this, and I'm inclined to think Hero is about the same. When the rules are so obtuse that an inexperienced player can't design a character that's even remotely comparable to what an experienced character can make, then that's where powergaming can seem like the culprit. D&D 3E was actually designed to encourage this sort of thing, so players would make better (more optimized) characters as they gained mastery over the system. I have no idea why they thought that was a good design model.
|
|
|
Post by ilina on May 2, 2016 17:32:24 GMT -8
D&D Developed the Concept of the Ivory Tower to encourage players to slowly become more invested into their later characters over time. i mean sure, i might bring the child prodigy wizard who was trained by the great sage if i am not allowed to bring the great sage themselves. but i wouldn't bring the Orko style mage who can only get magic missile and light correctly while fumbling at every other spell.
at the same time, i wouldn't bring the monk who slacked off and relied on their raw talent. i would bring the monk who has slightly less talent but spent a great deal more time practicing their trade and actually fights like a proud and dedicated monk.
i might bring the Squire if i can't find the knight. only because the squire has the potential to through trial, grow and mature into something that equals or even surpasses their mentor. it is a common console JRPG practice. you generally had the character that started higher level, but also the character that started lower level but could grow into something better than their mentor.
|
|
|
Post by uncommonman on May 2, 2016 22:47:25 GMT -8
I love powergaming and min/maxing but only for roleplay reasons.
For instance I my next character in one of my groups (my current character is a glass cannon in a harsh world) will be a powergamed quick Gunslinger and will always win initiative and probably act twice before anyone else.
She will also be quite useless in a fight (low damage output).
I have no reason to feel bad about the powergaming since she won't be a "Mary Sue" or break the enjoyment of the other players or the GM.
|
|
|
Post by OFTHEHILLPEOPLE on May 3, 2016 5:19:57 GMT -8
If the power gaming makes the rest of the table not have fun for the five hours I have my players, then yes, it is a bad thing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2016 6:07:30 GMT -8
Powergaming is simply the desire to play a character who is efficient at their pre-assigned and preplanned role while also being able to reliably have a fighting chance at overcoming relevant obstacles within the story or game. akin to characters found in a Variety of stories. everybody does it to some extent. it doesn't correlate exclusively to combat. powergaming a Scavenger would be the desire to build a Scavenger who is good at Scavenging. I would disagree with this definition. To me power gaming isn't about being efficient / good at something, it's the extreme version, building to be the absolute best so that you always win. As such it typically goes hand in hand with min-maxing (which I'd define as the numerical powergaming of character attibutes).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2016 6:24:05 GMT -8
do any of you think powergaming is honestly a bad thing? I mostly consider powergaming to be a positive trait, since it means the player cares enough to really put forth some effort in becoming invested in the character, and since most characters are supposed to care about whatever their job is. A pseudo-medieval fantasy knight (for example) is literally putting their life on the line in every combat, so it makes sense that they would do everything in their power to optimize their chances of success. And if that means retiring a family heirloom weapon in order to take up a magical replacement, well... you can't really respect your ancestors by dying needlessly. And honestly, it's disrespectful to the other players if you don't at least try to optimize. If your character concept is (for example) a magician who isn't very smart and kind of slacks off, but makes up for it with enthusiasm, then why are the other characters going to bring you along? Why shouldn't they find some other magician, who actually put in the effort to be as good as they can be? If you aren't powergaming, then you're either not role-playing, or you're role-playing as a character who is a fool. The bigger problem comes from complicated systems, where a player can't just sit down and decide to make a competent character. GURPS is especially guilty of this, and I'm inclined to think Hero is about the same. When the rules are so obtuse that an inexperienced player can't design a character that's even remotely comparable to what an experienced character can make, then that's where powergaming can seem like the culprit. D&D 3E was actually designed to encourage this sort of thing, so players would make better (more optimized) characters as they gained mastery over the system. I have no idea why they thought that was a good design model. This to me is absolute rubbish. Especially saying that somebody who isn't powergaming is either not role playing or playing a fool. [sarcasm] Using your approach I've got to ask are you the absolute 100% best at your job? Or even the top 1%? No? Well surely your employer should fire you, I mean there are better people out there aren't there? [/sarcasm] Your slack off wizard example? Maybe they're a friend, maybe they were assigned to the task by somebody higher up, maybe the best person is just too damned important to bother with your quest. But to me at least the slack off wizard sounds more interesting than the perfect definition of the archetype. Look at Rincewind from the Discworld books or Perf from the Journey Quest webseries if you need examples. Powergaming is only important or beneficial when it's winning that's important to the group as a whole. If you're more interested in nuanced and interesting stories it's detrimental and dull.
|
|
|
Post by uncommonman on May 3, 2016 6:30:28 GMT -8
Powergaming is simply the desire to play a character who is efficient at their pre-assigned and preplanned role while also being able to reliably have a fighting chance at overcoming relevant obstacles within the story or game. akin to characters found in a Variety of stories. everybody does it to some extent. it doesn't correlate exclusively to combat. powergaming a Scavenger would be the desire to build a Scavenger who is good at Scavenging. I would disagree with this definition. To me power gaming isn't about being efficient / good at something, it's the extreme version, building to be the absolute best so that you always win. As such it typically goes hand in hand with min-maxing (which I'd define as the numerical powergaming of character attibutes). Everyone has a slightly different opinion on what powergaming and min/maxing is so let's ignore the definition question and keep the discussion on what is bad and not bad about optimization/powergaming or what you want to call it. I feel that if you want a character that mechanicly works as you want to (and no one has any problems with that) go for it. And if you are out to brake the system don't. There seems to be a few people that just can't optimize a character so in stead of complaining about powergaming maby they need help to optimize. And if you like to play bad characters do that, just remember that the same caveat applies as for a powergamer - is everyone having fun?
|
|
|
Post by Kenigma23 on May 3, 2016 7:24:09 GMT -8
tl;dr version:Is powergaming truly negative? Only if you are being “unsporting, un-fun, or unsociable” Longer version where I use lots of words....Trying to define WHAT “power gaming” is hard in the same way that defining what “rules lawyering” is…. It is something different to different people depending on what your tolerances are for such things. ericfromnj hit the nail right on the head… Give me a definition of Powergaming all of us on the forums can agree on. We could spend pages of this forum and never agree on a definition. For example to me the response ilina gave: Powergaming is simply the desire to play a character who is efficient at their pre-assigned and preplanned role while also being able to reliably have a fighting chance at overcoming relevant obstacles within the story or game. akin to characters found in a Variety of stories. everybody does it to some extent. it doesn't correlate exclusively to combat. powergaming a Scavenger would be the desire to build a Scavenger who is good at Scavenging. This is not power gaming (to me). It is optimizing. But to players that are “pure story” even this is power gaming. When you enter into an RPG with other players you’re entering, ideally, into a social contract with others… I looked around on the googles to see if someone had quantified power gaming and found this: “Powergaming (or power gaming) is a style of interacting with games or game-like systems...” “…with the aim of maximizing progress towards a specific goal, to the exclusion of other considerations such as storytelling, atmosphere and camaraderie. Due to its focus on the letter of the rules over the spirit of the rules, it is often seen as unsporting, un-fun, or unsociable. This behavior is most often found in games with a wide range of game features…” Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PowergamingI think this the best definition I could find and sort of aligns to what I think @whodo and uncommonman were getting at (not to put words in your mouths, just my understanding of your posts). Powergaming is bad when it ruins the experience for other people. Back to my social contract statement earlier… when a group gets together they need to agree on what they want to do If everyone gets together and want to just make the most rules exploitative (or even breaking if everyone agrees) characters and then just run roughshod over the campaign world… well nothing wrong with that. I’d be miserable in that game, but plenty would love it. I’m GURPS people, so min/maxing is sort of my jam. I like to make a character that makes the most use of every point. I don’t break the rules, I do make sure he fits in with the concept for the game… but if I’m the fighter I’m the flightiest fighter that ever fought. If I’m the bard you bet I can sing a tune and tell a story that will mesmerize and audience… and so on. BUT… to some players that the wrong way to do it.
|
|
|
Post by Stu Venable on May 3, 2016 7:30:54 GMT -8
Objectively, powergaming is neither good nor bad, in my opinion. However, at the wrong table it can be disruptive, boring or otherwise unpleasant. At the right table it can be a breath of fresh air, a welcomed addition, etc.
All depends on why everyone at the table is playing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2016 10:30:17 GMT -8
[sarcasm] Using your approach I've got to ask are you the absolute 100% best at your job? Or even the top 1%? No? Well surely your employer should fire you, I mean there are better people out there aren't there? [/sarcasm] If I file my reports with 70% efficiency, instead of 95% efficiency, it won't result in anyone getting eaten by a dragon. There are times and places where less-than-optimal candidates can still contribute, and a big company is one of them. I would never qualify for SEAL Team Six or Delta Force, though, which are the modern analogs to ye olde bande of heroic adventurers. Your slack off wizard example? Maybe they're a friend, maybe they were assigned to the task by somebody higher up, maybe the best person is just too damned important to bother with your quest. But to me at least the slack off wizard sounds more interesting than the perfect definition of the archetype. Look at Rincewind from the Discworld books or Perf from the Journey Quest webseries if you need examples. When I'm going into a dungeon, the primary things I look for in a companion are competence and trustworthiness, because I don't want to die. None of us want to die. Maybe you can give me a reason to bring someone else along, but at the first sign of suicidal incompetence, I'm going to treat this as an escort mission; if you keep getting in trouble, then you're a liability, and not even worth saving. Powergaming is only important or beneficial when it's winning that's important to the group as a whole. If you're more interested in nuanced and interesting stories it's detrimental and dull. There is no winning or losing in an RPG, at least in the traditional sense. There is only playing the game, and that game is over if everyone dies to some random dragon. Or if you're more in it for the story, then that makes for a pretty lousy story when everyone dies suddenly to some random dragon.
|
|
|
Post by ericfromnj on May 3, 2016 11:21:02 GMT -8
So you never had that wonderful experience of having some seriously flawed people drawn together by random circumstance?
Also you might want to know if you all die from a dragon you can always start a new campaign Maybe one with a less crappy system that doesn't require you to optimize so much to have fun.
|
|
|
Post by Kenigma23 on May 3, 2016 11:24:57 GMT -8
|
|