Powergaming is a natural impulse; when given scarce resources in a controllable environment, many people will have the urge to make most of their resources. I don’t think that should be demonised.

It’s a natural impulse for some people (aka Powergamers) but not for everyone. Or if it IS a natural impulse for everyone, lots of people (not Powergamers) can keep that impulse under control.

If you have a game that you want to play that is not Powergamer proof in the ways you outlined, and you have someone in your group who *can not* reign in those natural impulses so that they can play the game in a compatible way with everyone else your choices are:

* Play something else
* Accept the Powergamer can’t control themselves and go with it
* Play without them

I think all 3 of those are valid choices. I don’t think it’s fair to assume that a group has to *always* choose #2 though and can’t ever play a game like D&D (not powergamer proof) in a non-powergaming way just because they have a friend who won’t keep their impulses under control.

I think I’ll restate my position: System should resist the negative effects of powergaming by one of the following methods (or in some other way): By making it impossible, by making it trivial and hence boring, by making it very obvious, or by channeling it to a positive end.

The reason is, that even if someone powergames, the negative effects it will have on play are minimised (or even turned positive). Powergaming is a natural impulse; when given scarce resources in a controllable environment, many people will have the urge to make most of their resources. I don’t think that should be demonised.

3rd edition multiclassing system is an example of the trade-off existing. I think it is a design flaw. (Also, the paladin save bonus is not worth two caster levels, most of the time.)

eg. (from the Wikipedia link):

For example, a Dungeons & Dragons sorcerer might take two levels of the paladin class for the attractive synergies that come with this, even though paladins are holy warriors fulfilling a lifelong mission, and the profession is not something you could train in briefly “just for stats”. It is important to note that powergaming, in this sense, doesn’t imply active cheating or circumvention of the rules, merely using them in ways that are frowned upon by those who consider the intent of the game more important than its exact implementation – keeping to the letter of the rules, but breaking the ’spirit of the rules’.

This is only a problem is you’re trying to approach them like a boardgame/wargame though. If you approach them like an RPG it’s not an issue.

I don’t think it is quite that simple. Consider a game where people feel the need to make choices between staying true to their character and being effective (whatever that means in the game in question, but typically character being successful is being effective). Would you like to do that trade-off? Maybe it will cause no problems, because all the players (and the GM) expect the same reaction and react as expected; everyone of course ignores character or everyone of course ignores effectiveness. But in the general case this should not be assumed, and therein lives a potential problem.

For example: I was playing in a convention game set in Glorantha (the rules don’t really matter in this case). I made a choice consistent with how my character had acted, which basically meant bigoted and not very smart. Surprisingly my character ended up dying, but the GM wouldn’t have any of it and (to my view) destroyed the suspension of disbelief by not having my character die after being strangled to death with a sharp wire, essentially.

That’s the sort of problem you can get when people expect different reactions in a given situation.

Rules that force one to make a choice between effectiveness and whatever else are one such case. Forcing the GM to make a choice between sticking to the rules or breaking the story (as much as I dislike “the story” existing) is another; if GM ever has to break rules, then the rules are not ideal. Use a better ruleset or houserule to improve them.

But this is a poor model of powergaming as D&D is not every other RPG out there. Player death has a minor penalty and one can bring him back easily. The game focuses on fighting things that use all kinds of cheap tricks and problems on the players who play heroes clearly capable of overcoming those problems. What might be overpowered for most games is just another day at the office for D&D. I’d throw out that kind of hijinx in a CoC game in a heart beat because it breaks the mood and ideas behind the game core. Same if someone found some kind of loop hole for Bliss Stage.

I think the specter of powergaming is just as dangerous as a real powergamer itself to many games in the same way a person might feel worried he may be labeled something derogatory, and therefor his point being invalid, for legitimately speaking his mind without any real harm intended.

There is the potential for much debate with a powergamer over whether something is simply “using the system” or an actual “exploit”. Was this article on Battlerager Fighter builds for 4e a clear exploit? A lot of powergaming players certainly didn’t think so… but less than a month later Wizards of the Coast changes the rules of the game to prevent this strategy and calls it “abusive”.

I think it’s a better approach to not debate things on a rule by rule basis and instead talk about what style of game your group wants to play and what sort of approaches make sense for that. If someone simply can’t approach an RPG from a non-powergaming perspective your choices are: accept their powergaming, play something else, play your RPG without the powergamer.

A few things I’ve noticed that tend to be muddled in this discussion is again rules- How much of the rules of the system of choice should all participants know or be aware of to be a fair “game”?

Is a person a powergamer for taking the time to read the system rules and use what’s unique in the game? I’ve heard many stories and seen it happen where players feel like jerks because the GM keeps mixing up rules from previous systems or thinking there are rules that do not exist (this is excluding previously stated house rules) and they have to correct them for the sake of fair play. Doubly so for the gamer who just isn’t that great at doing fast talking, but is playing a character who is a social butterfly.

After all, if all players agreed to use a system, why be afraid to use the system outside of clear exploits and errors?

What’s your take on all this?

This is only a problem is you’re trying to approach them like a boardgame/wargame though. If you approach them like an RPG it’s not an issue.