To powergame or not to powergame....

[paleskin]

Actually got a game in last night.....hooray!

Ended up with a discussion between myself and another player because I "took him to task" over his complaint to the DM that he didnt get as many xp's from the session as some of the other players.This led to me observing that he was "powergaming" and that the most important aspect is to enjoy the game and not let the advancement become your driving force for playing,though I must admit to that when a teenager!

 

Question being,how important is character advancement to players of roleplaying games generally,I guess ultimately it is the "point" of playing,but surely it doesnt matter if it happens slowly?

 

Any thoughts people?

[Decado]

I like advancing my character as much as the next guy. However, I will take a great plot/story that really helps the players get into thier characters over character advancement any day.

 

Decado

[Lastman]

This issue was a factor in my decision to quit RPGs a few months ago. It's a can of worms. A person who's played RPGs for x-teen years can have fun with a wider variety of parameters than someone who's new.

 

I get bored playing at low levels because I've done that so many times. I want a character that has more buttons to press (feats, skills, abilities) because I know how and when to press them to meet challenges. My ex-DM thought that was "powergaming" and deliberately kept us in the petting zoo when I wanted to be in the jungle, so I left.

 

Once a new person gets a consistent persona and knows how to be part of a team, anything goes, even if the crybaby DM calls it "powergaming" and tries to kill his dwarf with a horde of zombies, and then gets the dwarf fired from his job for attracting zombies to the town.

 

I don't hold grudges, I just have a good memory.

[haldir]

where the fun in getting your guy up to whatever level, for me the fun is the story & being involved with the story, wether your 1st of 50th level.

 

one thing I can't see is the online games where the guys have to pay to get to 50th, hell I'm having fun with my 18th level Mastermind or my 28th level Tanker in Cov/oh & both were played to get to those levels.

 

RM

[Ranzadule]

Advancing the characters and the story are the motivating forces in an RPG. Some people care more or less about each. You can't fault a guy for wanting to advance. I have taught martial arts for a long time and every student is always excited to be on the list for the next test for rank.

 

The players are playing for fun and some people like levelling up a lot and others find it a chore or not that important. If the guy is enthusiastic and otherwise not a pain in the arse, let him be excited about advancing. It's hard keeping good rpg groups together.

[Shakandara]

I've been running the current incarnation of my campaign for a little shy of 3 years. I started the characters at 4th level (in part to bypass the lower, boring levels and move on to more exciting and challenging story arcs), and during that time they've advanced an average of 9 levels. We average about 35 sessions a year, so we've logged about 90 or so sessions in that time. That means my players are advancing at a rate of about one level per 10 sessions, well below the "recommended" advancement rate in the D&D game. I run a challenging game (my players might describe it as brutal at times), but there is as much a focus on role-play as combat and XP. I do what I think most of us try for, either consciously or unconsciously; to provide a balanced game filled with a mixture of opportunities for the players and the characters to develope themselves.

 

~v

[Bodhi]

The reason I stopped playing dungeons and dragons was levels and ridiculous advancements.

Reason I liked call of cthullhu was that it was the exact opposite: Slow advancement, primary focus on acting (ROLEplaying) and you didn't stand a chance if you tried "hack and slash" gaming.

That and I allways prefer playing total and utter loosers in any RPG or LARP I join.

My personal record is fifteen gamesessions in a row whithout ONCE being involved in battle (though running away and hiding from quite a few)

[Gimp]

Roleplaying is what you make of it.

 

If you're pushing for advancement or just going for high power, and the rest of the group is also having fun, it's working.

If you're running and hiding from every combat situation, and the rest of the group is also having fun, it's working.

If the group is simply playing around, and everyone is having fun, it's working.

 

If people aren't having fun, then you have a problem that either needs to be dealt with, or the group will split.

 

We had a player in a Shadowrun campaign that never wanted to work with the group. He'd move off and muck with things during stealth operations, be obnoxious to contacts that were needed for information, caused general grief in every session, and wanted to harvest every opponent we faced to sell any cyber or bioware they had. He got mad when his character was knocked out by a bodyguard whose room he had tried to break into (with no skill) because nobody abandoned the mission to save his sorry hide. He left early that night, and came back to find out his character had been sold for parts by the other characters, and the money donated to charity. That dealt with the problem.

 

People are different, and how they play will be different. So long as players can compromise on a style everyone enjoys, the group can thrive. If they can't compromise, the group will die. We play multiple game systems, and different systems appeal to the players in different ways. Everybody gets a chance to push different styles to their limit. If a system doesn't work for somebody, we don't go back to it when they are playing.

[Bodhi]

Agreed. But there are also those rare players who have the skill to work with the PLAYERS group while still being totally obnoxious pests AS CHARACTERS. I'm not claiming such skills though but I've got a friend who usually plays unreliable bastard types and does it with style and finess. He's great fun to play with even if he often makes quite a mess out of predicaments because he stays in character as an unreliable crook but he does not try to "cheat" - which is being an unreliable crook in real life.

[Dragon Snack]

Ended up with a discussion between myself and another player because I "took him to task" over his complaint to the DM that he didnt get as many xp's from the session as some of the other players.

Flag on the play! Right there is the problem.

 

If he was playing the game, he should get the same XP everybody else gets (other than a game mechanic / rule that would grant it). Anything else smacks of favoritism.

[haldir]

the only thing I would add to DS's post is if the person did something in the game that day or whenever the xp was handled out, was exceptional character xp.

 

Say the person really played is character, espically if the person has the personality already drawn out (a somber paladin or pacifistic cleric) & actually played the character well, something I try to do in a game, but certain games just don't go the way you want to play the person, I would award character xp, or if the person saved the party from certain doom by doing something extraordinary or something on those lines. (just read DS's post a bit more clear & I see he kinda follows this with the rule or mechanic statement)

 

but I've would never take it away from the player cause he had a agruement with me (DM during a game), I would just take that person aside AFTER game & see what the problem was, heck I know I don't know everything about the game & maybe I was wrong with a agrument.

 

As long as the player is happy, that is the goal of my games.

 

Also wanted to clear up a earlier statement, too me it looks like I love lower level gaming (which I do), but the point of getting to the high levels & by passing the low levels is wrong for me, maybe because most of my gaming has been the lower levels (really never had a game stick around long enough to gain extraordinary levels, with one exception, my 28th level basic D&D cleric). thought maybe that was unclear on what I posted.

 

RM

[Rastl]

We get points for killing the monsters and those are evenly distributed. But we also get them for doing RP and other social-type interactions. A good idea will generate a few XP. Our DM also thought the advancement scales were a bit quick so she spread out the levels so it takes longer.

 

What does that mean to me? It means I get to play with the feats/skills from each level a little longer and figure them out better.

 

I'm playing because I like the game. Advancing is fun, but the story is more interesting than hoardes of XP beasts (hmmm, a suggestion for the 'fantasy minis we'd like to see' thread??) with no purpose other than for us to slaughter.

[Ranzadule]

I'm fine with individual xp awards in addition to or in lieu of group awards. If individual awards are the way things are run, questioning awards is to be expected and healthy if done properly. You cannot have a merit system and not be willing to discuss the merits. ;)

[Hexxenhammer]

Ended up with a discussion between myself and another player because I "took him to task" over his complaint to the DM that he didnt get as many xp's from the session as some of the other players.

Flag on the play! Right there is the problem.

 

If he was playing the game, he should get the same XP everybody else gets (other than a game mechanic / rule that would grant it). Anything else smacks of favoritism.

 

Yup, unless someone does something spectacular or hilarious I give out the same xp for everyone. And the individual awards are smallish.

 

I once played (once!) with a DM who only gave out xp based on how much damage you did to a particular monster. "Write down 'half a giant scorpion,'" he said. Under this system fighters and wizards would rule and everyone else would suck. Didn't go back.

[vejlin]

I'm wondering. Why even use XP? Why doesn't the DM just decide when he thinks the party has enough experience to level?