[Pathfinder] - or similar - is a clearly gamist game, meaning its main focus is to overcome challenges...

Or you just play a better game that's made for actual roleplaying.

I'm more of a WFRP fan actually, I am the GM at that table while I'm just a player at separate tables of friends playing D&D and D&D+Path hybrid. I don't even know the rules that good, I'm just there for friendship and trying different settings run on a very commonly known game system.

>I'm not sure what you're actually asking
I just stumbled to the realization that maybe powerplaying - that is, mastery of the system rules and application of them into character building - is actually the way these kind of games are meant to be played: they just apply the rules to char generation after all.
And if that's so, why are powerplayers seen as bad examples of play when they may be actually the most committed to the game.

That's it basically. Not even trolling.
Thought provoking maybe, but not trolling.

Play 4e you unsufferable troglodyte. It fixed this. It fixed all of this.

But this thread is bait anyway. So why am I even bothering to reply?

> why are powerplayers seen as bad examples of play when they may be actually the most committed to the game.

Because it's neither fun gameplay nor a satisfying story when the min-maxed Wizard solves every encounter with a couple of spells, basically becomes a god, and treats the entire game like it's Skyrim with mods enabled, then falls back on the "BUT IT'S RULES AS WRITTEN!" excuse.

It's also not fun to want to go in the game as non-expert player, pick a class like Fighter, then not be able to ever do anything except weapon attack each round. Then when you wana do something cool like disarm an opponent or make an attack while jumping off a table be told "Well, you didn't take these traits at character creation, this feat at level 4, this feat at level 8, ect. So technically you can't do this thing your character should reasonably be able to do, sorry."

Might as well just cut out the need to play in real life at all and just play World of Warcraft. 4E is basically "MMO Combat Simulator".

I am just asking from a theoretical point of view what i wrote in the OP, I am not really asking for alternatives. Especially the ones that, as I read around, are perfect for simulating MMOs.

Thanks anyway for your meme image.

Which is another way of saying that you'd like to be a puppet dancing on the GM's strings, which is cool if you're into that no-agency stuff I guess.

So the problem is the system, is not really the player. Is it?

Not OP,

What you’re saying is true, but why is that the fault of the powerplayer? Is it not the fault of the game system?

Are you retarded?

OP here, and we are clearly part of the same hive mind.

Name one game system that cannot be powergamed, or be exposed as a dullard.

>Name a system where one thing isn't better than another thing ever.

Yeah, nice strawman.

The real issue here is the degree of powergaming the system allow, encourages, or flatour REQUIRES... and DnD and it's derivatives are an 11 on a 1-10 scale for it.

This is literally only true of 3.5

Welp, congrats on "winning" the argument. At this point it's abundantly clear you're just gonna cover your ears and start screeching at a scapegoat while completely ignoring reality. I have no way of arguing against that.

Pic Realated is 5e by the way.

>the one person that goes out of their way to game the system

How is the sistem "gamed" when the system itself clearly allow you to freely choose your options to build your character?

This picture still misses a point. The point isn't that certain classes are better at ending encounters (as your pic clearly shows), nor is it that they have more options to end encounters (this is where your picture makes a mistake). The problem is that power gamers/certain classes make the rest of the party redundant. They do everything everyone else is doing at the same time and sometimes better than their classes (see: the 3.5e druid being able to turn his animal companion AND himself into better tanks than the dedicated tank classes while still retaining his full range of spells).

What about every one in the party powerplaying? Is this going to be a compensating group or just redundancy all around?

And if so, it's a system problem, a player problem or a DM problem?

The player who wants to study and game the system plays Wizard, the player who wants to have a loose grasp on the rules and just hop in plays Fighter.

It's undeniably a system problem, because I sincerely result the intended outcome of design was the current state of affairs.

It's also a player problem, because it's unreasonable to assume a group playing D&D isn't aware of caster supremacy, and most groups have an unspoken social contract to attempt to make characters that can work together at roughly the same level.

Finally, it's also a DM problem, because there are usually (convoluted and hard to discern, mind) possible solutions to imbalance written into the rules. (See: Caster Supremacy becoming less of a problem when paired with an absolute scarcity of rests.)

Happy now, cunt?

Excellent, so you admit that all systems can be powergamed. Now then, let's dismantle your claim that D and D is the worst culprit. Here is a list, for future reference, of games which are MUCH more powergamey than D and D:
GURPS
HERO system
Exalted
Storyteller , all forms
Mutants and Masterminds
Dungeons and Dragons is not even in the top five of powergame systems. Any point based system is far far worse for that.
Educate yourself on the subject matter a bit better before making such definitive statements .

...

You're arguing against someone that doesn't exist, bro, and it's pretty damn comical to watch.

>What about every one in the party powerplaying?
That does create some parity, but it also requires a VERY talented DM to keep challenging them. In 3.5e at last, power gaming often results in rocket tag: either you go first, or you're boned (which is why theoretical optimization places so much emphasis on boosting your initiative while in play "as intended" it's not super important).

>. Any point based system is far far worse for that.
But DnD is a point-buy system now... even 3e had point buy rules.

How would you powergame Don’t Rest Your Head, Maid, Paranoia, or Golden Sky Stories?

Oh, and what about Risus, Wraith: The Oblivion, and FATAL?

FATAL's got enough stats to min-max, I'm sure. You'd have to be a supercomputer or have the highest levels of god-tier Autism, but it could probably be done.

>Tactical anal rounds
>Roll for circumferfence

That cant be a real hit chart?
t.never played FATAL

It has a ton of stats, but the combat system is immensely lethal, highly random, and severely retarded, so I’d expect that powergaming FATAL just makes you 10% less likely to lop off your own genitals if you get in a fight.

OTOH, FATAL is probably riddled with painfully stupid loopholes, so maybe it’s actually quite easy to powergame.

It's not a real FATAL hit chart.
It's Phoenix Command.

I wonder if Realms of Atlantasia would be even harder to powergame, seeing as that appears to be completely busted. Synnibarr and SenZar'd probably be pretty easy to powergame.

Give it a read sometimes, it's 900 pages of pure trip.

The spells section is especially mind-rapey.

Here is the secret art of keeping the "I know the rules well enough to build the most effective character" players satisfied as a DM, without encounters getting to that point where only that player feels like they are doing well enough:

If the difficulty needed to push the well-built character to its limits is 10, and the difficulty needed to have the not-so-well-built characters feel like they are making meaningful contributions is 5; set your fucking game difficulty at 5 - and leave it the fuck there.

The players that can only manage to build to that difficulty because they hardly know the rules (or whatever else is making their character less effective) will be able to "keep up", and the players that are masters of the rules can use that mastery to build their character exactly as effective as they want it to be (i.e. if they want the game to feel harder, they'll pick things they know aren't as effective, and if they want the game to be easier, they'll squeeze out all the bonuses to do it).

That whole thing where a player makes a strong character so the DM steps up the challenges to try and make it just as hard as if they didn't build a strong character is absolute fucking mental deficiency - it's making those extra bonuses effectively mandatory, rather actually extra, which is invalidating why the player tried to get them in the first place, and all that does is make them try to get more. People don't build the best character they can because they want the same level of challenge as if they had just grabbed some random options, the do it because they want their character to kick ass - so fucking let them do it. And if it turns out they don't enjoy crushing the opposition they built their character to crush, they'll self-correct that a lot easier than the DM could possibly correct it.

4e might have fixed that one problem but it was shit in every other regard, you faggots need to stop bringing it up because it died for a reason.

Option C: build an effective character but don't use your full power every fight. Just because you can trivialize every encounter with one spell doesn't mean you should.

Why should I restrain to fully apply the knowledge I gained by studying the system and committing to play the game?

Because you're not a cunt.
What am I saying, this is Veeky Forums.

>"Just because I can solve all the party's problems quickly and safely, I should back and let people almost die because it's more fun that way. This is a completely positive and non-douchey in-character motivation."

Literally retarded.

but, you CAN disarm an opponent or attack while jumping off of a table with 0 feat investment. The first one just isn't the most likely to WORK, and the second is literally movement followed by attack rolls

You know, some can say that since you don't even take your time to understand the rules of the game we are all playing at the table - instead of doing something else with our time, anything else - you are the cunt.
I am playing a gamist, very challenge oriented game, and I want to play it specifically because I like to overcome those challenges through my character's means and skills. Why aren't you doing the same, since this system offers AND INCENTIVES this kind of experience?

And still, powerplaying is seen as a bad style of playing especially at the tables hosting D&D/Path.
Which is completely retarded, when there's a roleplay game for nearly every style of playing, especially more relaxed-less gamist ones.

But no, let's play D&D/Path and put ceilings, bans, and limits on everything.
It's like buying a Ferrari and purposedly getting stuck in traffic. Buy a bycicle for that.

(my answer should have came off as less "I am really taking this stance" and more "I am trying to get into the mindset of a gamist, but heh...)

This.

Hell, in my group, we generally help each other build optimum characters that don't step on each other's toes. After all, the goal of the game isn't personal power, but to work as a team towards a goal (and have an awesome adventure while doing it).

>the other players don't have my encyclopedic knowledge of the system
>instead of building down to their level, I'm going to cheese hard and make it so none of them ever have anything to do because my character has already done it 12 times better
>if they ever tell me to tone it down I'll tell them to git gud
>why does nobody want to play with me anymore?

Because if you're not an asshole you want the other players to have fun too.

If someone's almost dying then sure, use your full power. But how often does that actually happen?

Is there any way to play a sort of barbarian/rogue hybrid besides just multiclassing barbarian and rogue? I want to be a Conan.

whoops wrong thread i r dum

In what system?

>which isn't fun for roleplaying

You do know that it's easy, as a GM, to make games have fun role-playing even if the party is full of powergamers.

>Drumpf

Holy shit you’re retarded

Point buy for stats != point buy system

a point buy systems is where EVERYTHING about your character is bought with a pool a points

>I got called out on my bullshit, luckily I can just move the goalposts and make YOU look like the retarded one!

user, pls.

...

You like arguing about things, don't you user?

>You are punished for not knowing the rules, because if you don't, you build a frustratingly non efficient character
And in my experience you have to know a little more, since people get angry if you don't know things that aren't in the rules.

It really is. My party right now is really lopsided with one guy who is powergamey and everyone else the opposite, but the DM will have encounters set up to have enough to keep him busy, so every fight isn't the rest of us getting wiped out or just him killing everything first turn. Powergamer gets to feel tough, rest of us don't get left behind.

It's the same as it would be in any other board game. If someone obsessively masters the rules in order to ensure that they always win every time, they're going to suck the fun out for everyone else just as much as people who refuse to try to learn the rules and complain that it sucks and go do something else.

this, you are a person of intellect and wisdom.

the escalation rule bro.
the dm must make challenges for the strongest of the group. if your are an encounter destroying asshole, you vampire the fun for the other players out of everything.

Rolled 3, 4, 3, 1, 4, 5, 3, 1, 4, 4, 6, 6, 6, 4, 2, 4, 2, 1 = 63 (18d6)

Ok.

If you legitimately think d&d is a point-buy system you need to go kill yourself.

10, 10, 8, 16, 12, 7.

Small Tiefling Wizard.

8 str, 10 dex, 12 con, 16+2 int, 10+2 wis, 7-2 cha.
Done.

Wait, shit, forgot it's dice in order.
10 Str
10 Dex
8 con +2
16 int +2
12 wis
7 cha -2

Good enough to play! Let's do this!

The reason being that it got memed to death turningoff potential players like

>it died for a reason
Sabotage and murder-suicide?

>I only play rp's to powerplay cause my life is weak, death should not be an option and creating a new character, unthinkable.

I do agree with that.
But then, why is the very system we are playing the game on, allowing and incentivize me to do it?
Why, given a very structured set of rules that I took time studying, is applying them considered a problem and a bad example of roleplaying while in other games "knowing the rules" is the most basic and decent thing you can do to your fellow players?

No, because other board games either have a much lighter set of rules - like chess - and it becomes a pure matter of skills, or have a very big chance component - like Risk! - between the player and victory. And yet, on those kind of games no one says "please don't study the rules or apply them lightly anyway".

Here, the DM must act as some kind of buffer (banning, restricting and amputating the system) between one - or more - player and the others, because the system allows that player to act like that.

>tripping anything humanoid
>it's a dragon
I love this picture

> For this game to be fun there's a thin line that you must not cross while learning the rules, that line separates "enough" knowledge of the rules from "too much" knowledge of the rules.
> Nowhere in the rules this basic premise is made clear. It may even be a non-existent premise as far as we are concerned.

But the asshole is the player that studies the rules, when the system actually rewards the most rule-savvy in his gameplay.
In all other games "knowing the rules" is a basic, obvious thing to do and even a respectful thing to do to other players, here it is punishable.

gentlemen, I present you the Scrub

I do know it, do you know about the stormwind fallacy?

The point here is not roleplaying though, it is why this system - or the DM - can't handle too much mastery of the system.

>the other players don't have my encyclopedic knowledge of the system
That there are many rules, allowing an "encyclopedic knowledge", is not the player's fault. You don't have an "encyclopedic knowledge" of Snakes and Ladders system, and if you do, no one is going to have a grudge with you for that.

>instead of building down to their level
You are assuming that that player is not willing to help them build to his level, instead. But dumbing it down (in a fucking gamist game, a game of challenges and clear means to overcome them) is a routine procedure now, isn't it?

>none of them ever have anything to do because my character has already done it 12 times better
Are you familiar with the "linear fighter quadratic wizards" problem? How do you solve that? Or you just hope for the group to dismantle before getting to that level in the game, thus not solving it?

>And in my experience you have to know a little more, since people get angry if you don't know things that aren't in the rules.

Indeed. But still, nowhere it's written, and no one is able to explaing where that "little more" stops being "a little more" and becomes "too much, fucking powerplayer".

>still no response to the notion of social contract being set at game start

Yep, powergamers are social retards, news at 11.

Otherwise we would not be here would we?
We would be posting awesome images on /wg/

Does that social contract imply a system choice?
Because if it does, and the majority of the table is going to hold a grudge to the minority who master the system (not to mention the DM or even the system itself being unable to handle too much mastery of the system), then it's better to play something else instead of playing a generic fantasy system like 1000 other, but butchering it beforehand.

Therefore, it's a system problem, not a player problem.

No system will ever be optimized 100% for the specific game you're playing, as the very nature of roleplaying leads to unexpected edge cases. As such, system choice is rightfully influenced by a wide variety of other factors, such as familiarity with the concepts and tropes at play.

While I agree that they'd be better off using a better system, a singular powergamer acting against the wishes of the group is still a player problem first and foremost.

Stupid cunt.

System mastery and optimization should not exist within the rulea due to limited choices. There, problem solved.

This problem was made by 3e which catered to MTG faggots who wanted to "build characters." This has bern part of dnd since.

RPGs should havr limitrd character building choicr because there is only one Optimal choice. Therefore, smart players do not feel like they have a choice. Bad players have a choice but it makes their chars gimped.

2e was more fun to play because there was no character building - you got the character you rolled and you had to make the most of it. This allowes players to spend more time enjoying the world than focusing on system mastery and maximizing their plusses.

Tldr; 2e is best, 3e 4e and 5e are shit

I personally get more satisfaction from overcoming a challenge with a smartly used spell. It's not my fault that martials are and will always be cucked

>Thinks a meme image proves anything
Try harder

>No system will ever be optimized 100% for the specific game you're playing

I agree, and this is why rule 0 exists.
But using D&D/PF and treating powerplaying as a problem is like going to swim and complain you're wet after. Just use a system without such blatant power creep, without classes who are bound to outmatch every other class sooner or later, without the chance of creating superheros when "the group wishes" differently. And you can even use Golarion or Forgotten Realms as a setting, so there's no excuses really.

>a singular powergamer acting against the wishes of the group is still a player problem first and foremost

If in session zero we agreed to use a system that doesn't actually reward that player for playing as intended, and gives you completely zero rules on how to treat it if you consider it to be a problem. That brings me to the conclusion the system doesn't consider it to be a problem.

>But using D&D/PF and treating powerplaying as a problem is like going to swim and complain you're wet after. Just use a system without such blatant power creep, without classes who are bound to outmatch every other class sooner or later, without the chance of creating superheros when "the group wishes" differently. And you can even use Golarion or Forgotten Realms as a setting, so there's no excuses really.

Sure, this solves "accidental powergaming." Which is a legitimate concern, mind you. But if someone decides that they want to play a character that will heavily outshine the group in a cooperative storytelling game, it's usually *possible* in most systems, frowned upon by the rest of the group, and ultimately down to that player being a cock.

Furthermore, in the specific case of D&D, much ink *has* been spilled in supplements on the notion of getting folks to play as intended. Now, it's perfectly valid to treat "core only" as the only real part of a game, but for something as vast as D&D, that seems to be... well, bullshitting by omission, frankly.

And once more-- You know all of this. So does everyone reading. You're just acting like an asshole for attention. It's annoying.

>of getting folks to play as intended

Correction: "of getting folks to play as intended for any desired usage case."

>in a cooperative storytelling game
Of course, this must be the reason why we have TONS of numbers, tables and pages simulating weapons, physics and spells and only very vague goodwill statements about "how to relate to other players within the game" or "how to manage story related encounters and situations".

WE make it a cooperative storytelling game, and in a sort-of-efficient-but-not-really way stemming from decades of cumulative experience: the system itself speaks "group combat in an arena versus monsters with occasional non-hostile interaction". Everything else depends on how good is the DM and how good is your group.

You can save your petty insults, if you don't want to add your contributions here there's a thousand other threads you can go and enjoy.

>being a meatgrinder where characters died left and right, which isn't fun for roleplaying.
A meatgrinder is when roleplaying is at it's best, you fucking child.
Meatgrinders force you to roleplay as actual fragile mortals, albeit ready to do risky stuff for riches.
Superhero D&D "role playing" is just snowflake and mary sue garbage where players do whatever they want with no expectation of death and cry if they die at level 1 from getting crit by a goblin.

>not understanding the picture of a dragon simply represents An Enemy, not a dragon specifically
I love how this picture always gets this response

>gamist

>I was just pretending to put a dragon there
Sure friend

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Game_of_Cootie

One of my little nephews loves this game. It's literally nothing but a game of chance to see how many times it takes you to collect body parts for a bug by rolling a d6.