|
10 months ago ::
Sep 18, 2012 - 12:18PM
#41
|
Date Joined:
Apr 10, 2009
|
If everyone at the table is a powergamer they are not doing it wrong.
But they are doing it wrong if there's a mix? Why aren't the non-powergamers doing it wrong?
Majority rules.
To insist on doing it your way when it degrades the game for the other players is to be a jerk.
The number one rule of gaming (The Wheaton Rule) is don't be a [jerk] (edited for content).
Carl
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Sep 18, 2012 - 12:20PM
#42
|
|
|
So according to that logic, if my group consists of 3 people using the ruleset in good knowledge and like to build powerful characters, and two not so much, they are at fault? This seems awfully shaky.
If you have questions about 4th Edition - don't hesitate to ask me via PMs. Join the Community Monster Manual Group and help to collect a mass of monsters which will make your life as DM easier, and your life as Player pure hell!  I am a cartographer. You can find some of my maps in my profile, free for non-commercial use. Also, if you happen to like maps or make them yourselves, join into the Cartographers Group!
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Sep 18, 2012 - 12:26PM
#43
|
Date Joined:
Apr 10, 2009
|
So according to that logic, if my group consists of 3 people using the ruleset in good knowledge and like to build powerful characters, and two not so much, they are at fault? This seems awfully shaky.
This is why people talk to each other. The five of you need to come to a reasonable expectation - or else the game is going to suck for some of them.
If you can't come to a reasonable agreement - you probably should either play a different game or go play with different people - since someone in the group is not being reasonable.
But the most likely outcome is that the two who don't want to bother with powergaming (the minority) either learn to tolerate it or quit. In which case the three powergamers get to pat themselves on the back for being the ones 'playing it right' - and then go find some new gamers.
Carl
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Sep 18, 2012 - 12:28PM
#44
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
So according to that logic, if my group consists of 3 people using the ruleset in good knowledge and like to build powerful characters, and two not so much, they are at fault? This seems awfully shaky.
Which is why I'd put for the idea that neither one is "wrong."
Their playstyles don't line up, no, but that doesn't make either of them wrong.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Sep 18, 2012 - 12:31PM
#45
|
Date Joined:
Apr 12, 2008
|
So according to that logic, if my group consists of 3 people using the ruleset in good knowledge and like to build powerful characters, and two not so much, they are at fault? This seems awfully shaky.
Which is why I'd put for the idea that neither one is "wrong."
Their playstyles don't line up, no, but that doesn't make either of them wrong.
This is basically how I saw it.
Incompatible (or at least not easily compatible) playstyles, but neither one of those styles is wrong.
In fond memory of Mark "Wrecan" Monack.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Sep 18, 2012 - 12:32PM
#46
|
Date Joined:
Apr 10, 2009
|
So according to that logic, if my group consists of 3 people using the ruleset in good knowledge and like to build powerful characters, and two not so much, they are at fault? This seems awfully shaky.
Which is why I'd put for the idea that neither one is "wrong."
Their playstyles don't line up, no, but that doesn't make either of them wrong.
No- I'd say the group needs to decide which is right and which is wrong.
Right and Wrong in this case is subjective. Right is playing the way the group decides to play it; Wrong is ignoring the group consensus and doing it the way you want anyway.
They may not be wrong in the absolute sense - but they are playing it wrong for their table.
THis is also an extreme case. The simplest fix is that the powergamers agree to reign in their impulses and create good, strong characters - just without exceeding certain bounds. Maybe the DM can request that they not elevate their AC past a certain point or not use certain broken combinations. In most cases, I assume the group finds a happy medium where the non-optimizers can play their way and the powergamers can still work their craft.
Because if you can't find a compromise than, again, someone is being a [jerk].
Carl
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Sep 18, 2012 - 1:03PM
#47
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
No, there's not right and wrong, there's "the way we're going to play" and "not the way we're going to play."
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Sep 18, 2012 - 1:09PM
#48
|
Date Joined:
Jun 21, 2012
|
But if I'm wrong and then some other guy is also a different kind of wrong, do the two wrongs make a right? Sounds to me like the people who are right-like right are sometimes wrong-like right or maybe they're actually right-like wrong(or wrong-like wrong). But if everyone at the table is right-like wrong, then they're right because nobody notices that their rightness is only right-like and actually they're wrong. On the other hand, if everyone at the table is wrong-like right except for one person who is actually wrong-like wrong, we have a problem but everyone is wrong-like so it kind of evens out. Same goes for a scenario where there's a mix of right-likeness that is right and wrong. And then we can all be right(or wrong)!
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Sep 18, 2012 - 1:54PM
#49
|
Date Joined:
Jan 10, 2012
|
But put these both at the same table and it screws up the game balance. If the creatures can hit the optimized characther, they shred the unoptimized ones; if the creatures are tought for the optimized character, the unoptimized characters can't touch them. It is equivalent to having characters many levels apart in power.
And that's when the DM steps in and drops a few magical items on the non-optimized characters to balance things out. I think that if you are going to allow fully optimized characters in your game then you are effectively increasing the level of play for everyone. If you don't do your part as a DM to balance things out then yes your game will be screwed. It doesn't however mean that you can't play with powergamers.
In my game, the rewards for role playing are always greater than having a fully optimized character. I look like to look at powergamers as players who have already received their reward. Role players therefore get things that the powergamers don't. After all, how much more rewarding is it for the lowly unoptimized fighter to receive a castle of his own along with the title of Knight Commander of the kings army. Sure those optimized characters are good in combat, but that's all they get. The don't have any real power in the game world.
With that said, there is another type of player that everyone has forgotten about. What about the Handicap gamer? I know players who will deliberately make the game more difficult for them. Most of the time this is due to a role playing concept or a background they are trying to play. For example, these players will make a fighter that doesn't use armor or only use wooden weapons that do very little damage.
Regardless, for this kind of issue I always fall back on the 2e DMG regarding min/maxing.
Spoiler:
Show
Min/Maxing
Sometimes players resort to "min/maxing" when selecting weapon proficiencies. Min/maxing occurs when a player calculates all the odds and numerical advantages and disadvantages of a particular weapon. The player's decision isn't based on his imagination, the campaign, role-playing, or character development. It is based on game mechanics--what will give the player the biggest modifier and cause the most damage in any situation.
A certain amount of min/maxing is unavoidable, and even good (it shows that the player is interested in the game), but an excessive min/maxer is missing the point. Reducing a character to a list of combat modifiers and dice rolls is not role-playing.
Fortunately, this type of player is easy to deal with. Just create a situation in which his carefully chosen weapon, the one intended to give him an edge over everyone else, is either useless or puts him at a disadvantage. He will suddenly discover the drawback of min/maxing. It is impossible to create a combination of factors that is superior in every situation, because situations can vary so much.
Finally, a character's lack of proficiency can be used to create dramatic tension, a vital part of the game. In the encounter with kobolds described earlier, the player howled in surprise because the situation suddenly got a lot more dangerous than he expected it to. The penalty for nonproficiency increases the risk to the player character, and that increases the scene's tension.
When a nonproficiency penalty is used to create tension, be sure the odds aren't stacked against the character too much. Dramatic tension exists only while the player thinks his character has a chance to escape, even if it's only a slim chance. If a player decides the situation is hopeless, he will give up. His reaction will switch from excitement to despair.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Sep 18, 2012 - 2:14PM
#50
|
Date Joined:
Apr 16, 2009
|
In short, "you play dnd wrong" belongs to established edition forums.
It has no place in playtests and ideas.
I'd say you came closer to getting that backward.
In a normal home campaign, "wrong" consists of "not fun for us". That's it.
In a playtest... well if you find someone posting a playtest report that says everything is really good, and then you find out that they had a list of houserules half as long as the official ruleset which they never actually tried... that's doing it wrong.
(They could have said "We had a thick stack of houserules, and it worked pretty well", but then it isn't a playtest report. They could have said "We tried the official rules, found problem 1, fixed it with houserule A, found problem 2, wrote houserule B..." and that could potentially be useful - up to the point where the houserules are interacting with each other as much as with official rules.)
If everyone at the table is a powergamer they are not doing it wrong.
But they are doing it wrong if there's a mix? Why aren't the non-powergamers doing it wrong?
The group collectively is doing it wrong (assuming the imbalance is sufficiently disruptive that people aren't having fun); the group collectively needs to fix it. How they fix it is up to them.
No individual is doing it wrong per se, because they'd be right in a different group. But still, the group is wrong.
"The world does not work the way you have been taught it does. We are not real as such; we exist within The Story. Unfortunately for you, you have inherited a condition from your mother known as Primary Protagonist Syndrome, which means The Story is interested in you. It will find you, and if you are not ready for the narrative strands it will throw at you..." - from Footloose
|
|
|
