The Rancor Pit Forum Index
Welcome to The Rancor Pit forums!

The Rancor Pit Forum Index
FAQ   ::   Search   ::   Memberlist   ::   Usergroups   ::   Register   ::   Profile   ::   Log in to check your private messages   ::   Log in

Why Powergaming does not exist
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Rancor Pit Forum Index -> Miscellanea -> Why Powergaming does not exist Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Mamatried
Captain
Captain


Joined: 16 Dec 2017
Posts: 535
Location: Norway

PostPosted: Wed Apr 25, 2018 10:17 pm    Post subject: Why Powergaming does not exist Reply with quote

Why powergaming is actually roleplaying.

Common to most rpg system is some form of class, you are some type of character.
often these are distinguished by what they do or excell at, or are supposed to do and excell at.

Most common are casters, warriors, and sneaks, each often further divided.

Lets take a warrior, lets take the arguments against powerplaying and look if they actually make sense.

So would it make sense for a warrior to go advnturing, live by his weapon if he is is not good at it, then he in my opinion an idiot.

broken down to the essentials a powergamer makes a character to win the game, "wrongly" playing the RPG as a game to win and loose
in the normal sense.
While I to some extent agree with this, it also makes no sense in a powerplayer debate.

The mission is to go into a dungeon and steal the gold crown form the evil necromancer.
This is a challenge, if you win the challenge you get the crown, if you loose the challenge you don't get the crown.
Now playing to not get the crown is simply stupid, it negates the challenge, why have it if it si not to be completed, or won?
Now the rogue going in to the dungeon, is not powerplaying whn he excells at sneaking in and stelaing it, as in having high attrinutes and skills relevant
Why would a person choose to be a sneak unless he has a very high attribute that offer a bonus to sneak? it is stupid to not hav such as high as possible
even maxed out, and one can not rely on being only one thing, meaning a rouge sneaking through the dungeoun would be wise to have enough smarts to
recognize danger, to have knowledge on the whats and wheres of his trade and things related to it, meaning the rouge would be wise to have a brain enough to
offer these much needed skill.
A burglar that is capable of breaking into anywhere, but have no clue as to what to steal and what is valuable is an idiot, so again high skills are needed in the
area of where and what to steal, this could include knowledge about nobility, as well as streetwise, but even bookeeping and business and forgery depending on
what type of rouge.
Now the rogue needs to eb able to get to his target, he needs enough strenght to climb, jump, to drag his weight and gear effectively and with enough
ease to not be too fatigued, and to have the strength to actually do his thing.
So he needs a strength I would say is above average, but still not out of the world high.
Rogues makes mistakes, they step on the wrong ledge and fall, they fail to disarm a trap and sets it off, taking damage from it.
Being so frail you die from falling off the chair really makes you an idiot if being a rogue was your plan, so you need some level of fitness.
God forbit you are a highway man robbing people, not being able to survive being shouted at, not much of a rouge?
So some health, again above the average farmer on the fied is most likely needed.

now we come to bluff, to lying and acting innocent, this has to be at least somewhat believable so a charisma that is at lest average should not be something
deemed unreasonable.

Then it comes to senses, abilites to spot objects, dangers and to listen or otherwise find things, this too should for a rouge be high, high enough for the rogue
to not break in and know where and what but being unable to find it.

So the powergamer, the sinner, the hobby destroyer, makes his rogue.
(using d20 stats here)
STR 12
DEX 18
CON 14
INT 14
WIS 16
CHA 14

Or
he made this
STR 14
DEX 18
CON 15
INT 14
WIS 18
CHA 16

both far beyond any point buy, but none of them beyond what a rigue actually do and can represent with reason.

The rogue is created by the player to win the challenge posed in the adventure, in this case the dungeon and steal the crown.
so even with the what 99% woud call owerpowerd stats, they are actually not.

if the difficulty to beat is 12, then no matter how you role play, unless you can actually roll 12 or more often enough to actually
have a feeling of sucess then you must have attributes and skills high enough, and given most characters face a multitude of challanges they must
roll for, having low skills and attributes then is stupidity, as the mere nature of fantasy adventuring is actually surviva of the fittest.

This example of the rogue can be used in any system I feel becuse it describes why a character is both heroic and by that a cut above the rest and then some
and why such and such must be so and so .

Lets take the classic d20 warrior, regardless of warrior type, but lets take the fighter.

The fighter is stupid character concept that makes zero sense, and is actually utterly useless.
In d20 he gets a lot of feats, and wow wow wo, but is this so great?

Well most of the feat are from a list, most of these relate to the sole thing the fighter can do, fight.
However mostly due to the people making the games hving no clue about actual fighting a fighter is not just someone that swings a weapon and that is it.
looking at the classic knights, they were fairly acrobatic, moving almost unhinderedd in a plate armor, with a sword weighing in at about the same as a
baseball bat.

However a fighter must be strong, he must or should deal as much damage as possible, so a fighter with less than 14 strength is an idiot and should
return to being a farmer, adventuring is the wrong career.
A fighter also needs to be fast and quick to react, he needs a high mobility to be an efective fighter, thinking he is stationary and just swings is idiotic
so he needs to move, and to utilize his armor bonue with his natural dexterity as much as possible, so a anything under 14 is simply stupid and back to the farm

then it comes to taking a beating.....this needs to be so high as it can be and 16 should be a minimum, after all you are not much of a fighter if you are
down on the second strike.

Now comes the intelligence, most poeple owning a set of armor and weapons of some quality knows how to read and write, how to live of the land, hunt and
gather, that was the lifestyle even for the nobles, so a fighter pr d20 should minimum have the skillset of the ranger, but that is another matter.
so he needss enough smarts to learn, and do all that mundane stuff he actually does, so anything less than a 10 here is again silly as it will not depict the fighter
as he actually knows these things.

Now surprise surprise a fighter who doesn't have his senses with him is a dead man, he needs to be able to spot the enemy, to hear and even smell him
so his attributes and skills that he doesn't have needs to be at par with the demands of combat, meaning very very high, maybe higher than those of the
rogue, again solved by using the ranger skills for the fighter.

Now as to his social skills, well again, he needs to not be an outcast, not having any social flaws in such a society, meaning he can not have a charisma less than
10, and needs some knowledge and social skills.


One can go on with class after class, but that is not the point nor intention.
My point is that it is not the high stats, the ability to over what the GM throws at them with relative ease, it is not being able to cut down goblins by the
dozens, and it is not being able to kill the dragon that is powergaming, that is the actual point.
you have to rescue the princess from the dragon, it does not mean you have to kill the dragon, but if you also have to kill the dragon the that is what you
have to do, you have to win, you play to win, you make your character creation and advancement choices to win, to overcome the challenges adventuring is
and you must have a good enough chance at this to actually be a hero, after all that is what you are.

So I dare say, powergaming does not exist, an over powered character do not exist, or at the latter si at best extrmely rare, and it allboils down to role playing
and how player plays his concept. Making the rogue but using him as a warrior is stupid, but sometime it must be done, and the rogue, or the caster must be
able to, in fact realisticly they are.

So I would say since there is little or not possiblity in any game system for a character to actually be best, not good, but best, and best of the best above all
other in ever single skill and attrinute and other aspects, like ever spell, every power, then flat out, no Powergaming and powerplayers do not exist.

Now as it relates to this, meta gaming, as I see it, where the rogue knows that he needs such and such to protect against the necromancer, becuse the player
knows this, but the character reasonably do not automatically know this, then this is meta gaming and to me a sligh issue that is often just shut down at the table

so I dare say Powergaming do not exist.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Wajeb Deb Kaadeb
Commodore
Commodore


Joined: 07 Apr 2017
Posts: 1452

PostPosted: Wed Apr 25, 2018 11:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Power gaming does exist. I've seen it.

I had a player once, in my AD&D games, that always wanted to play the Paladin. Why? Not because he liked the class or wanted to roleplay a classic knight that is close to his god, but because he liked all the extra powers and abilities the Paladin got due to his class.

That's power gaming.



Or, another player I met who refused to random roll stats. He wanted to use point buy, which I didn't allow in my games. With point buy, he was guaranteed what he called a "decent" set of stats.

I've had other players would would play whatever they rolled, low or high--they were just as happy.

The top is a power gamer. The bottom is a roleplayer.

The roleplayer plays a role. The power gamer plays a character.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mamatried
Captain
Captain


Joined: 16 Dec 2017
Posts: 535
Location: Norway

PostPosted: Wed Apr 25, 2018 11:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wajeb Deb Kaadeb wrote:
Power gaming does exist. I've seen it.

I had a player once, in my AD&D games, that always wanted to play the Paladin. Why? Not because he liked the class or wanted to roleplay a classic knight that is close to his god, but because he liked all the extra powers and abilities the Paladin got due to his class.

That's power gaming.



Or, another player I met who refused to random roll stats. He wanted to use point buy, which I didn't allow in my games. With point buy, he was guaranteed what he called a "decent" set of stats.

I've had other players would would play whatever they rolled, low or high--they were just as happy.

The top is a power gamer. The bottom is a roleplayer.

The roleplayer plays a role. The power gamer plays a character.



If I play a paladin then naturally it is because of the character abilities that follows, if not I would be a LG Fighter.

It is like complaining that it is powerplaying to be a Half orc and then choose barbarian, and you get a super duper CON bonus........but would not most half orcs be just that?

And isn't a specialized type class chosen for the special features?

So I would call both roleplayer and non power player
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Wajeb Deb Kaadeb
Commodore
Commodore


Joined: 07 Apr 2017
Posts: 1452

PostPosted: Wed Apr 25, 2018 11:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mamatried wrote:
If I play a paladin then naturally it is because of the character abilities that follows, if not I would be a LG Fighter.


Then, in my book, you are a power gamer and not a roleplayer.

I mean no offense with this comment. It's just how I see it.

Role players choose based on the type of person that they want to play--not on the in-game bonuses.

What if we played old school, hard core AD&D, and your by-the-rule DM allowed you to roll stats and roll your starting hit pints.

And, you ended up with something like 15, 14, 13, 10, 10, 11.

And then, you rolled only 1 HP.

Would you take those stats and play them to their fullest?

Or would you hate the game, not play, or just complain about the character until he was dead and you got to roll up something new?

That's a good test for a roleplayer.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Sovereign Protector


Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 11883
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.

PostPosted: Wed Apr 25, 2018 11:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wajeb Deb Kaadeb wrote:
Power gaming does exist. I've seen it.

I had a player once, in my AD&D games, that always wanted to play the Paladin. Why? Not because he liked the class or wanted to roleplay a classic knight that is close to his god, but because he liked all the extra powers and abilities the Paladin got due to his class.

That's power gaming.


Exactly. Or as i had in SW, someone wanting to play a force user, for all the kewl jedi powers, but NONE of the jedi baggage.

Wajeb Deb Kaadeb wrote:

Or, another player I met who refused to random roll stats. He wanted to use point buy, which I didn't allow in my games. With point buy, he was guaranteed what he called a "decent" set of stats.


I do allow (for my 2e adnd game) a point buy option, but with the points one gets, you could have 5 stats at 15, and one at 9. OR max two out to 18, have one at 15, and two at 12.. with one at 9. To ME that is not powergaming, but where it would be, if the player demanded say 10 more points, so he could have three stats maxxed out and NONE in the average or low category...

Wajeb Deb Kaadeb wrote:
The top is a power gamer. The bottom is a roleplayer.

The roleplayer plays a role. The power gamer plays a character.


Well said.

Mamatried wrote:
If I play a paladin then naturally it is because of the character abilities that follows, if not I would be a LG Fighter.


And would you be happy to take all the downsides of paladins (alignment, items etc) just for that. Also would you demand that the DM allows you to have stats to fit your 'vision' of a paladin, even if you didn't roll one up?

Then yes to me that qualifies as a power gamer..
_________________
It's Not who you kill, but how they die!
You cannot dodge it if you do not know it is coming, and you cannot hit it if you do not know its there.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mamatried
Captain
Captain


Joined: 16 Dec 2017
Posts: 535
Location: Norway

PostPosted: Wed Apr 25, 2018 11:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

garhkal wrote:
Wajeb Deb Kaadeb wrote:
Power gaming does exist. I've seen it.

I had a player once, in my AD&D games, that always wanted to play the Paladin. Why? Not because he liked the class or wanted to roleplay a classic knight that is close to his god, but because he liked all the extra powers and abilities the Paladin got due to his class.

That's power gaming.


Exactly. Or as i had in SW, someone wanting to play a force user, for all the kewl jedi powers, but NONE of the jedi baggage.

Wajeb Deb Kaadeb wrote:

Or, another player I met who refused to random roll stats. He wanted to use point buy, which I didn't allow in my games. With point buy, he was guaranteed what he called a "decent" set of stats.


I do allow (for my 2e adnd game) a point buy option, but with the points one gets, you could have 5 stats at 15, and one at 9. OR max two out to 18, have one at 15, and two at 12.. with one at 9. To ME that is not powergaming, but where it would be, if the player demanded say 10 more points, so he could have three stats maxxed out and NONE in the average or low category...

Wajeb Deb Kaadeb wrote:
The top is a power gamer. The bottom is a roleplayer.

The roleplayer plays a role. The power gamer plays a character.


Well said.

Mamatried wrote:
If I play a paladin then naturally it is because of the character abilities that follows, if not I would be a LG Fighter.


And would you be happy to take all the downsides of paladins (alignment, items etc) just for that. Also would you demand that the DM allows you to have stats to fit your 'vision' of a paladin, even if you didn't roll one up?

Then yes to me that qualifies as a power gamer..


If I was to be a paladin, I would do so with a character that could just as well be any other type of fighter stat wise, with a focus on trying get as high charisma as I could.

A paladin that don't have the paladin special abilites is a LG fighter., in fact not even that, he is an LG (npc)Warrior.
it is stated that he looses all his paladin-ness, if he violates his allignment, and this turns him not to a fighter with all the feats, but a base warrior.
so playing a paladin for any other reason is silly.

As to a jedi, if you play a jedi then you have to consider things, but sete are more role play than mechanical.
If you don't play a jedi then the jedi-centric rules dont apply.

so I say if you do not make you character stated to fit your class ( above average) then you are under power playing .
I say what is normally seen as powerplaying is the norm, and anything less is underplaying.

a roge that is not good in rogung is not a rogue, no matter how much he rps, he can't open the lock unless he has the numbers to back it, and he is a stupid rogue and useless if he choose to not have his rogue.ness and then call out the fighter for using his fighting-ness as a powerplayer
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dredwulf60
Captain
Captain


Joined: 07 Jan 2016
Posts: 538

PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2018 11:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

When you Roleplay you play a role.

You do not necessarily play an 'ultimate' version of that role.

When a player contrives to make an 'ultimate' version of that role is a power gamer.

Take a real-life job or 'class'.

Like soldier. Not every soldier is going to have outstanding weapon skills. There are minimum standards that must be maintained, but not every solider is going to shoot a perfect score.

mamatried, you said you were in the military. Think about the guys you served with. if you were to translate them into a game's stats, would they all be optimal? were you? Are they 'stupid' if they aren't?

Everyone has strengths and weaknesses. Sometimes the best performances come from the weaknesses and how the character deals with them.

If a player of mine played the same character class and each time they did, they picked the same set of skills and stats etc because he determined the build to be optimal, I would have a problem with that.

Just like every smuggler should not be a Han Solo clone.

Some games are about 'winning'. If that's what that group wants, then they can go ahead and try to build optimal game-pieces. But that's not the standard of role playing, as observed by the general gaming community.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mamatried
Captain
Captain


Joined: 16 Dec 2017
Posts: 535
Location: Norway

PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2018 1:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dredwulf60 wrote:
When you Roleplay you play a role.

You do not necessarily play an 'ultimate' version of that role.

When a player contrives to make an 'ultimate' version of that role is a power gamer.

Take a real-life job or 'class'.

Like soldier. Not every soldier is going to have outstanding weapon skills. There are minimum standards that must be maintained, but not every solider is going to shoot a perfect score.

mamatried, you said you were in the military. Think about the guys you served with. if you were to translate them into a game's stats, would they all be optimal? were you? Are they 'stupid' if they aren't?

Everyone has strengths and weaknesses. Sometimes the best performances come from the weaknesses and how the character deals with them.

If a player of mine played the same character class and each time they did, they picked the same set of skills and stats etc because he determined the build to be optimal, I would have a problem with that.

Just like every smuggler should not be a Han Solo clone.

Some games are about 'winning'. If that's what that group wants, then they can go ahead and try to build optimal game-pieces. But that's not the standard of role playing, as observed by the general gaming community.


This is something I agree with. Copy characters is something I dislike.
I generally urge the players to make some changes to the recomended skills on the templates to get some variation, but I don't enforce it.

As to the guys, yeah we would be very different, and yeah I would by far not be the best shot with ever weapon, but we did have one that was fairly good at most things, he was no expert, I was the stronger shooter, and he was by far the weakest.

My issue comes when you have a character than has some skill all round, and the other players character for whatever fully acceptable reason have decided to be weak in the areas they would be "considered" to shine in, like a pilot starting with a MEC 4D but decides to not place piloting D keeping it at 4D, to be better at something else, like dodge or blaster or both.

Then a merc comes along, placing a D in his 3D+2 Mec and is the best pilot in the group.
Now he can't help hogging the spotlight also on piloting where the pilot should have, and now that character/player is accused of powergaming.

This is the issue.

Not every one are good at everything, I doubt there re any masters of everything, but there are those generally good in most things, that does not make them experts.

So if a group is made up of people who collectively have not decided to use so and rules/house rules for character creation, but 3/4 chooses the kind of character like the pilot who is qulified, but not really a pilot.
and the last guy decided, I'm gonna make my merc reflect a combat veteran, he knows so and so...and then ends up as the best in the group in another's field.

This the problem with the power gamer debate, and why I say they don't exist.

Now if everyone agreed to make solders that "could not shoot", pilots that "could not fly", etc beforehand and then one player went his own way, then it is a bad player and he should be told or booted, sorry to say.

But just because everyone decide to be "pilots that can't fly" or rather at a qualify level, then if another makes his and happen to be the best pilot there is no power gaming, even if that means the pilot who didn't want to fly can't shine as the other now is better in everything.

so it is not powerplaying it is simply playing the role.

I mean why would you decide to become a pilot, then quit, then call other pilots power players when they are better than you?
I am not saying you as in you but as in the players crying powerplayer.


I have a pilot that chose to not focus on flying, vs a combat veteran who among other things picked up a little flying, this happen to mechanically place him as the best pilot in the group on top of being the "designated" combat guy, the merc best in shooting of the group.
Now is it the "normal" merc ot the "not normal" pilot that cause some issues in balance?

Would it not be logical for someone to step up to the plate, aka hog the spotlight if the others chose not to by their character design???

You can only rp so much, before the numbers settles the matter and regardless of rp the higher number wins the roll
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MrNexx
Commodore
Commodore


Joined: 25 Mar 2016
Posts: 1232
Location: Houston

PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2018 2:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Powergaming exists, but is, IMO, somewhat subjective... and also becomes harder to pin down the more rules you have to cover more situations.

The traditional power gamer is the person who makes mechanical choices instead of role-playing choices... they ignore skills like Value or Persuade because, though they may be useful, they seldom represent real, mechanical, power. But, if you create, say, a social combat system), and where skills like Persuade, Willpower, and the like have real value, then someone can powergame from another angle.

3.x had a theoretical character build called the Jumplomancer. With a bit of careful design, you can create a character who can jump 380 feet, on average, and turn most on-lookers into completely fanatically followers by doing this. It's powergaming. It is using the system to ensure mechanical strength, rather than making the character you want to play... maybe you do want to play that character, but I'd also be willing to bet that, without knowing that it's possible, your character concept problems wasn't "Someone who jumps so well that everyone loves him."
_________________
"I’m telling you, you’ll never have a deeper sleep than curled up in a Wookie’s lap."
“We're going to win this war, not by fighting what we hate, but saving what we love.”
http://rpgcrank.blogspot.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Sovereign Protector


Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 11883
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.

PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2018 2:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mamatried wrote:
If I was to be a paladin, I would do so with a character that could just as well be any other type of fighter stat wise, with a focus on trying get as high charisma as I could.


So for a 1e or 2e adnd game, let say you rolled 17, 15, 14, 13, 11, 8. Since you HAVE to have a 17 for Cha that gives you 15 14 or 13 for Str, but you also need to have a 13 min in Wis, a 12 in Str, and 9 in both Con and Int. So you Could go
15 Str, 14, wis, 13 Con, 11 Int, 8 Dex and 17 Str...
Or some other combo (like maybe the Con and int were switched).

That is a perfectly viable paladin character.

Mamatried wrote:
A paladin that don't have the paladin special abilites is a LG fighter., in fact not even that, he is an LG (npc)Warrior.
it is stated that he looses all his paladin-ness, if he violates his allignment, and this turns him not to a fighter with all the feats, but a base warrior.
so playing a paladin for any other reason is silly.


True, a paladin is just a fighter with other abilities tacked on. BUT HE also has the downsides..

Mamatried wrote:
As to a jedi, if you play a jedi then you have to consider things, but sete are more role play than mechanical.
If you don't play a jedi then the jedi-centric rules dont apply.


What's "Sete are more role play than mechanical"??
Secondly not every DM allows non-jedi force paths to be started with..

Mamatried wrote:
so I say if you do not make you character stated to fit your class ( above average) then you are under power playing .


That above stat block for that paladin, comes from one of MINE over the many years i've ran ADND, and i had NO problems playing it.. So i guess to YOUR mind i under power-played..

Mamatried wrote:
a roge that is not good in rogung is not a rogue, no matter how much he rps, he can't open the lock unless he has the numbers to back it, and he is a stupid rogue and useless if he choose to not have his rogue.ness and then call out the fighter for using his fighting-ness as a powerplayer


So i take it you hate starting out as a level 1 thief in adnd, whether 1st OR 2nd edition...

Mamatried wrote:
My issue comes when you have a character than has some skill all round, and the other players character for whatever fully acceptable reason have decided to be weak in the areas they would be "considered" to shine in, like a pilot starting with a MEC 4D but decides to not place piloting D keeping it at 4D, to be better at something else, like dodge or blaster or both.

Then a merc comes along, placing a D in his 3D+2 Mec and is the best pilot in the group.
Now he can't help hogging the spotlight also on piloting where the pilot should have, and now that character/player is accused of powergaming.


Then you must have had some real screwed in the head players, to feel someone with a 4d+2 starting out, was power gaming.. To ME since starting templates can get potentially up to 7d (without the wookie here or uber special abilities taken into account), that is NOT power gaming. WHere it would be, would be if someone started out making a verpine tech, MAXED OUT his technical, put 2d into 3 skills and using his verpine bonus would thus be rolling 9d for those 3 skills and 7d for every other damn tech skill..

Mamatried wrote:
So if a group is made up of people who collectively have not decided to use so and rules/house rules for character creation, but 3/4 chooses the kind of character like the pilot who is qulified, but not really a pilot.
and the last guy decided, I'm gonna make my merc reflect a combat veteran, he knows so and so...and then ends up as the best in the group in another's field.

This the problem with the power gamer debate, and why I say they don't exist.

Now if everyone agreed to make solders that "could not shoot", pilots that "could not fly", etc beforehand and then one player went his own way, then it is a bad player and he should be told or booted, sorry to say.


Maybe this is part of your problem. You see someone at 4d as 'not being able to do his job, when the BOOK LISTS 4d as professional level.
_________________
It's Not who you kill, but how they die!
You cannot dodge it if you do not know it is coming, and you cannot hit it if you do not know its there.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dredwulf60
Captain
Captain


Joined: 07 Jan 2016
Posts: 538

PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2018 2:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, it may be off topic...but all this talk of Paladins...I'm going to put this in here.

When I was running a D&D for a long time, I found a lot of players who wanted the Paladin for the 'powers'. It then became awkward watching them stumble with the paladin's code and ethos.

Some warnings etc. But it stretched my own suspension of disbelief that a powerfully divine being would look upon this person and bestow their blessings (in the pre-game character's background) only to watch them pay mere lip service to the ideaology that is supposed to go with it.

So...I made Paladin a prestige character of sorts.

The player makes a fighter...and the character LIVES the lifestyle and ideals of a paladin. If they move up a few levels without major stumbles and accumulate a number of Renown points (a bit of a score card on how they live up to the code) then they earn the powers and abilities of a Paladin.

Suddenly...only people who were serious about roleplaying a paladin wanted one.

As compensation, I actually boosted the abilities of a paladin a bit to balance the levels of doing without.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mamatried
Captain
Captain


Joined: 16 Dec 2017
Posts: 535
Location: Norway

PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2018 3:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

garhkal wrote:
Mamatried wrote:
If I was to be a paladin, I would do so with a character that could just as well be any other type of fighter stat wise, with a focus on trying get as high charisma as I could.


So for a 1e or 2e adnd game, let say you rolled 17, 15, 14, 13, 11, 8. Since you HAVE to have a 17 for Cha that gives you 15 14 or 13 for Str, but you also need to have a 13 min in Wis, a 12 in Str, and 9 in both Con and Int. So you Could go
15 Str, 14, wis, 13 Con, 11 Int, 8 Dex and 17 Str...
Or some other combo (like maybe the Con and int were switched).

That is a perfectly viable paladin character.

Mamatried wrote:
A paladin that don't have the paladin special abilites is a LG fighter., in fact not even that, he is an LG (npc)Warrior.
it is stated that he looses all his paladin-ness, if he violates his allignment, and this turns him not to a fighter with all the feats, but a base warrior.
so playing a paladin for any other reason is silly.


True, a paladin is just a fighter with other abilities tacked on. BUT HE also has the downsides..

Mamatried wrote:
As to a jedi, if you play a jedi then you have to consider things, but sete are more role play than mechanical.
If you don't play a jedi then the jedi-centric rules dont apply.


What's "Sete are more role play than mechanical"??
Secondly not every DM allows non-jedi force paths to be started with..

Mamatried wrote:
so I say if you do not make you character stated to fit your class ( above average) then you are under power playing .


That above stat block for that paladin, comes from one of MINE over the many years i've ran ADND, and i had NO problems playing it.. So i guess to YOUR mind i under power-played..

Mamatried wrote:
a roge that is not good in rogung is not a rogue, no matter how much he rps, he can't open the lock unless he has the numbers to back it, and he is a stupid rogue and useless if he choose to not have his rogue.ness and then call out the fighter for using his fighting-ness as a powerplayer


So i take it you hate starting out as a level 1 thief in adnd, whether 1st OR 2nd edition...

Mamatried wrote:
My issue comes when you have a character than has some skill all round, and the other players character for whatever fully acceptable reason have decided to be weak in the areas they would be "considered" to shine in, like a pilot starting with a MEC 4D but decides to not place piloting D keeping it at 4D, to be better at something else, like dodge or blaster or both.

Then a merc comes along, placing a D in his 3D+2 Mec and is the best pilot in the group.
Now he can't help hogging the spotlight also on piloting where the pilot should have, and now that character/player is accused of powergaming.


Then you must have had some real screwed in the head players, to feel someone with a 4d+2 starting out, was power gaming.. To ME since starting templates can get potentially up to 7d (without the wookie here or uber special abilities taken into account), that is NOT power gaming. WHere it would be, would be if someone started out making a verpine tech, MAXED OUT his technical, put 2d into 3 skills and using his verpine bonus would thus be rolling 9d for those 3 skills and 7d for every other damn tech skill..

Mamatried wrote:
So if a group is made up of people who collectively have not decided to use so and rules/house rules for character creation, but 3/4 chooses the kind of character like the pilot who is qulified, but not really a pilot.
and the last guy decided, I'm gonna make my merc reflect a combat veteran, he knows so and so...and then ends up as the best in the group in another's field.

This the problem with the power gamer debate, and why I say they don't exist.

Now if everyone agreed to make solders that "could not shoot", pilots that "could not fly", etc beforehand and then one player went his own way, then it is a bad player and he should be told or booted, sorry to say.


Maybe this is part of your problem. You see someone at 4d as 'not being able to do his job, when the BOOK LISTS 4d as professional level.



The paladin is playable, but would someone without high, and then it is a debate what is high, attributes in his class' attributes be a wiser choice than not.

If we look at that system in particular, though the principal can be applied to almost any system, we see that a 12 giving a +1 is not considered high, it is however slightly above average,
a 14 or a +2 is also in general not considered high, but way above average.
a 16 at a +3 is high, and even up to very high.

Now if I was not adept at casting spells, meaning I was at least on a 14, then I would honestly not call me heroic but mediocre.

But I am able to to do, to be the warrior or the paladin or the jedi or what not.

I am not saying all heroes are strong or should be maxed in everything, but if I have a high str and a high con, and a very low dex, I am not very wise to choose the path of the rogue, I may have more base skill points, but unless I spend them all to max out the skills, a single skill point from the fighter's cross class list can actually make him a better "rogue" than me.

Yes the paladin does have downsides, his very strict alignment being one major one etc.
But that is really no more an offset than a player being LG regardless.


As to the "Sete are more role play than mechanical" I meant that is more role play than mechanical.

I was not talking about non jedi starters, what I am saying is that if you start out a 18D non force skills but force sensitive ( does not give automatic D or pip to force skills) then you are by default more pweful at 2D in the force skills than any born and life long trained jedi at 2D, given he only have 15D to attributes.

That is the only huge balance issue I see in the rules, and I at times struggle to find ways to balance it out.

I can play a fighter that can barely lift his sword, he survied by sheer luck, it could be a fun character, but if someone is stealing the action that I am by choice incapable of ( to the same degree, though I should have) then I say it is on them, not the other player.

Stealing the action from the others by being "better" in everything is what is generally defined as power gaming.


This is why I said the 4D+2 pilot was accused of being a power player.
he was better at combat, smrts, tech, muscle and piloting, not due to him being min/maxed, highly specialized but because others decided to not put skill D in their "job"

In that way in the group, despite being a professional and thus a good enough pilot, he was not the pilot in the group, he became useless.........
by his character design, he designed the specialist pilot to be less skilled than the guy with a few flight classes.

So if the players in a group descide to "low power" their characters, compared to the overall party and general expected norm of the characters, then one who do not is not power gaming, he is simply doing as he perhaps should an would be wise to

A 4D pilot in the group, would not usually be the main pilot, if someone else had 4D+2 of 5D or 12D would he, but he was "pilot" and the others were "armchair historian" then I would not blame the historian, but the pilot that don't want to fly, but has to be a pilot, why not then be a not a pilot.

So in a group where 4D pilot is not making you the group's pilot as the others are at 4D+2 then you are as a pilot all but useless, which is wrong when you are pilot and the other is merc or anything not pilot
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mamatried
Captain
Captain


Joined: 16 Dec 2017
Posts: 535
Location: Norway

PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2018 4:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

My view on the power gamer is that he generally sticks to the "normal" concept of his character.

Now I have played and enjoyed being a rouge that really wasn't very adept at things.
I did have a 12 dex for a +1, but that did not make me eccell in the art.
now I wasn't totally clueless, but not much more than a slightly quick handed farmer of anywhere.
Not that that was an issue, the character was fun to play, but I could not perform as the group sneak, as even with the +1 I was at best equal with the non rogues, this despite my higher number of skill points, I had the basic knowledge and skills in a lot of stuff, but I was not the group's go to guy in anything at all.
Again I was fine with this, I was fun character, but I could by my character design choices never be in the spotlight on anything other to fail, no matter how much I wanted to, my numbers could not back up my "claim to class"

However, despite sometime relying on the fighter or even the sorcerer to sneak, or the cleric to spot the traps, I never called either of them power gamers, it was I who chose to make a character that could not actually take the spotlight in anything and succeed, as my chosen numbers didn't back it up.

However, rather than crying like a child, and claim others are power gaming, as being good/better in a lot, and taking even the checks my class/role should have, I accepted this and waited until the time eventually came where I could be the rouge, get the gold that drives ALL roges to some extent.
I could manipulate, create forgeries, bluff, gather information, things I mostly failed at due to my choice of low attributes, but skills only I had by being the skill monkey the rogue is.

So I say just because someone is hogging the spotlight don't make them power gamers, it should rather be why don't you hog the spot light....ahh you can't even hope to have the numbers to make the check.........

Another thing many argue is a big part of power gaming is the play to win.

I can not see that any GM would like that the players didn't try to overcome the challenge the GM have made for them, overcoming it is winning.

Dost it have to be done in a linear narrative, not at all, but the whole point is to overcome the challenge, to win.
as a team, a team that is no stronger than their weakest member.

So the point is to through playing the story, paying with it, expanding on it...WIN the price at the end, be it xp, or the treasure.

completing a challenge is winning, and I alway respect the GM enough to try and overcome his challenges.

The it comes down to the group dynamics and communication between the players.

if it is not agreed upon that all should try to play someone less than "heroic" then if one guy decides to go the heroic path and all the other choose the average joe, he will then ourshine them almost in everything, but he is not power gaming, the group has not agreed and communicated the "how" in regards to creating characters, so it then the other players in the group that may or may not have thought about it, that are giving away the spotlight, not the other guy stealing it.

And as a GM, I would not be very happy if my rp group decided to RP the melodrama of the personal struggle of the clumsy half blind rogue that wanted so badly, when I had worked hard to give them a heist, or some other quest.

So I make my character, I make it to fit the concept I have created for this character, maybe he is not the best, maybe he is one I want rp to struggle to reach his goals more than what I would otherwise.
This is fine, it can make for awesome rp, but generally not for awesome or even adequate numbers when the roll comes, and there is where the "power gamer" now with his different concept of his character my by your choices actually be the one that has to do the roll, the one with the highest chance of making it...after all making it is part of the point.

The other players may find it eventually less satisfying that they are never rolling, never being the one to have the spotlight...but they also chose to play their character concept that way.

So unless all agree on their "power" on creation and beyond, then there can not be a power gamer, it is simply not possible
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Naaman
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral


Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 2356

PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2018 4:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't have a problem with "power gaming" as this thread seems to define it

What I don't like is players making choices that are not appropriate to the character's personality only to get more powerful, or only to ensure they don't "lose" something that makes them "powerful."

Caveat:
There are certain problems in EVERY RPG I've played that sort of "force" some classes to do things that flirt with powergaming.

The best example is a 1st level wizard cowing a 1st level fighter with a fear spell. Total non-sense, in my opinion, since the fighter makes his living by managing his emotions (and fear, most of all). Confronting danger is the fighter's livelihood. The cowardly fighter should be the rare exception inserted for comic relief, rather than the rule. Even a 2nd level rogue could intimidate a fighter and effectively manipulate him by threat of violence, even if it's perfectly clear that the 1st level fighter would defeat him in one round of combat.

What I have done in the past is take 1 or 2 levels of paladin in order to gain the "fearlessness" ability that they have, so that I don't have to deal with losing control of my character's choices for 1 minute (10 rounds!!!!! of combat).

Pathfinder does the fighter some good, and gives him a level-based class ability called... "bravery" (how ironic). This makes the fighter's will save very close to that of a cleric's or wizards with regard to fear effects specifically.

I am actually of the opinion that warriors (as opposed to "thugs," which, unfortunately, warriors get portrayed as in fantasy) should have much stronger mental resolve than other classes. The rogue, who is the quintessential "thug" should (and does) have a weaker will save. Generally speaking, characters who rely on stealth and subterfuge ought to have lower will saves, while characters who openly confront opposition have had to learn to master their emotions and function effectively while under direct assault, whether they are feeling scared, sad (because their friend was just killed in battle), overwhelmed or whatever.

I also assert that "power gaming" by way of high stats is a misnomer. No matter how high the character's stats are, the GM has unlimited resources to throw at them to maintain the appropriate challenge level. Also, the infantryman who encounters an electronic security system blocking his route to his objective is all of a sudden at a loss, even if he has 12D in blaster. He could have put some of those CP into computer programming/repair and may have been able to progress more efficiently, and still had ample blaster skill at, say, 8D to win the day.

Everything comes at a cost, so, power gaming, in my opinion, is a term inappropriately applied to characters with "high stats."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mamatried
Captain
Captain


Joined: 16 Dec 2017
Posts: 535
Location: Norway

PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2018 5:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Naaman wrote:
I don't have a problem with "power gaming" as this thread seems to define it

What I don't like is players making choices that are not appropriate to the character's personality only to get more powerful, or only to ensure they don't "lose" something that makes them "powerful."

Caveat:
There are certain problems in EVERY RPG I've played that sort of "force" some classes to do things that flirt with powergaming.


I agree on this, though seeing the arguments around and how they are presented, it seems to me that the issue is actually not so much what we all dislike, the ones that actually do make something out of this world and concept to don't loose the rolls.

I see from the various arguments presented all over the place that it seems to be a group communication issue.

If I decide to play a soldier, I have a good dex for my shooting, but I allocate all my skill dice to my "low" knowledge skills.
The a few others does similar things, but there is no consensus or anything agreed upon.
then the one that actually makes a "normal" character, will look very much like he made the character "in the wrong way" as to what is power gaming.

He did choose skills that was out of his "norm" not to make sure he didn't loose, but becuse he did't see or know what the others did and his choice did make sense.

Some soldiers could very well have a high knowledge as tactics is imporatant etc.
and if the Diplomat, who would be "normally expected to" be the better in the fields fail due to his skill choices then it is his issue, not the soldier with the added KNO skills and thus being the one hogging the spotlight.

So I feel it is a very big difference between making choices that are not appropriate to the character's personality only to get more powerful, or only to ensure they don't "lose" something that makes them "powerful."

and actually making choices that are not appropriate to the character's personality only to get more powerful, or only to ensure they don't "lose" something that makes them "powerful."

they are not always the same
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Rancor Pit Forum Index -> Miscellanea All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 1 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group


v2.0