Wednesday, December 2, 2009

"Powergaming" so called

Most of my friends really don't like "powergaming" as a style of play, or at least that's what they say.  Some might consider this a fundamental misunderstanding of what the point of RPG play is.  Terms, like "roll playing" vs. "role-playing" are used to try to get at this.

I'm going to state for the record that I personally don't really like powergaming either.  But what I've observed is that it's really very common in our hobby, and rather than define it as "something bad" I'm going to let it be what it is, and then try to understand it better.

It may have become apparent already, but I'm pretty open minded when it comes to games, and how they're played.  I accept that there are a lot of different motivations and diverse play styles that meet some need on the part of the players in a game, and I'm also going to accept that these are all equally valid, if at some times, not compatible styles of play.  Our hobby is a big tent.  It should stay that way. 

So, back to powergaming.  There are actually a lot of different things that come up when people are asked to define this.  We might say that powergaming falls under the mindset of "winning" the game, but that's not very useful, since I want to "win" too, it's just that how I define a "win" is different. 

But, we can tease out some common manifestations of what powergaming is, and look at them.  Here's my list.

1) powergaming using character generation - min/maxing, creating a character that is very, very good at one thing, and not creating anything approaching the fully fleshed out character with quirks and flaws and weaknesses, but rather generating an unstoppable machine, as much as possible.

2) powergaming using the rules - looking for loopholes to avoid bad things happening to the character, rules lawyering, using the rules to force the GM into letting your character get the best of any situation.

3) powergaming using objects of power or money - using the special things in a game (magic items, etc) in ways that the GM hadn't thought of to again create a situation where the character "wins" and isn't exposed to risk. 

4) powergaming by ignoring the story - being singlemindedly determined to advance character power and abilities without regard to whatever the story says, or what the character might reasonably be expected to do, such as a paladin murdering people to possess an item of great power.

Looking back on this, I'm struck by how this all sits firmly in the realm of how a player sees their character.  A common bit of advice from the diceless gaming world says "Love your character" which, actually, is exactly what the powergamer does.  He just loves it from afar.  In other words, it's more important to develop the character's abilities, rather than their interior life.  To make the character powerful on paper, rather than something more realistic, flawed, or deep. 

I would think that, for the powergamer, the satisfaction of playing a character comes from seeing that character, as defined by it's abilities, grow. 

Implicit in this is the idea that the GM is the source of all power, and it's the player's job to cajole, force or blackmail the GM into giving it up.  It turns the game into a competition between the GM and the player. 

In many ways, modern online RPGs are a perfect expression of this.  The GM is faceless.  It doesn't provide much in the way of moral quandary or ethical choices, it's just a machine that if interfaced with in the right way will provide levels, artifacts, and powers.  Success is defined by getting to level N, and completing quests or missions, for which there are awards. 

It is important to remember that these online games came out of our hobby - we're all the fathers and mothers of that style of play.  I'm not actually knocking it.  It can be a lot of fun to play that way, and if a group of players and a GM want to play that way, more power to them (sorry, I couldn't resist).

There are an awful lot of bits of advice for GM's about how to control this sort of behavior, often with the implication that it's "bad" and needs to be stopped, or transformed into "good" RP by using various tactics.  I'm not so sure if that is necessarily true.  It's a fundamental difference in view, actually, and until that is addressed, openly and compassionately, trying to change a powergamer into something else is probably going to fail. 

Because, even if you take away the rules, even if you take away advancement, even if you make it extremely onerous to disregard story, the true powergamer will find a way to get what they want out of the game.  A game like Amber DRPG tries to encourage RP and get around the powergaming issue by making all the characters immensely powerful right off the bat, but even so, there's always some goal implicit - take the throne, recreate the universe - that plays right into the mindset of the powergamer.  Yes, the means by which a powergamer will try to accomplish their desire to make their character really powerful will be different in a game like that, but it will still be there.  And it's probably impossible to set up a game with any sort of conflict and goal without providing opportunities for powergamers. 

In other words, powergaming is a state of mind.  This is not something that can be addressed by rules, or by in-game stuff.  It's the basis for what a player brings to the table. 

So, you have a few choices.  First, I suppose, is to not play with powergamers.  This is perhaps the easiest solution, but of course, it means that you need to be able to know ahead of time if a player is a powergamer, and this can be subtle, so it may not always be obvious. 

Another option is to try to accommodate them, and just live with it, but this means almost running two different games.  On the other hand, this is much the same as what we do when we've got players with other styles, say someone who is into tactical stuff, and another who is more about screen time and character drama.  You would need to structure your game in such a way that the powergamer gets what they want, and also in such a way that the powergamer won't mess things up for everyone else.  This is hard.

Third, you can try to block or otherwise mess with the powergamer, which is probably doomed to fail, and is a ton of work.  It also reinforces the GM vs Player model that's at the core of powergaming.  So this approach contains the seeds of it's own failure.

For many of us, we've been conditioned to accept different styles of gamer, because we're somewhat thin on the ground, so we're used to playing with whoever will show up.  This is a philosophical position - is it better to play with styles you find problematic, or better not to game at all?  I leave that up to you.


Ultimately, I think I can conclude that the powergamer views the game differently than someone who is more into role-play, specifically in the sense that the character, to the powergamer, is something outside of himself, a set of abilities and scores to increase.  For someone who is more of a role-player, it's a character to inhabit, to view the world from the characters perspective.  That's the difference.  Both valid, but often incompatible. 

6 comments:

  1. I've been meaning to make some comments on your pervious posts but haven't had the time (and dont' have the time at the moment) A couple of quick things about this one though:

    I like to think of the line between power gamer and non something like which side of the 4th wall do you view your character from. Are you in the head of your character, acting as they would act, or are you playing them like a chess piece, advancing them across the board. This is the difference (very simplisticly to me) between ro"ll" and ro"le" -playing. (The analogy breaks down quickly, don't look at it too closely)

    I'm also going to argue alittle about Amber DRPG. Was in agame where I was second in the auction in strength. Well I wasn't first in anything, and basically I was pretty impotent throughout the game. Now... I totally understand that this is as much a GM issues (I'm not using the word "problem") as it is an issue with the rules. We are all at the mercy of our GMs, but at the same time it seems like a flaw that many GMs might alow themselves to fall into.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think you and I are on the same page re: powergaming and the 4th wall. That's exactly it. Are you moving a chess piece, or are you the chess piece. A difference of view.

    As far as ADRPG - you can do it that way. Certainly a lot of GMs do. But you will admit that the power differential was between you and the other players, not necessarily the world at large. Your character could pretty much have had is way with anything other than the other PCs and the Elders. Right?

    I'm increasingly questioning the role of the GM in games. I have a lot of assumptions that need examining, and am also curious about the necessity of having a GM at all. On the other hand, and I keep coming back to this, it's not that I think it's a bad thing to have a GM, or even a strong GM, just different styles of play, with different concerns and typical outcomes.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think you hit a powerful image: "loving their character from afar." To me, that speaks volumes. The characters I've played (a rare experience now, since I've been GMing for so long) have had more than their share of flaws and quirks and weaknesses, but it wasn't because I was trying to prove anything or even deliberately set out to make a character like that. I just created characters I liked and found interesting and saw how they developed as time went on, from the "inside out".

    And so even now I'll pull one of them out to play a cameo NPC role or two... because I really love the characters and who they became, and enjoyed playing them. Seeing a character as a bunch of stats just doesn't do that.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I was reasonably proud of that, actually. :)

    So, do you ever come up with characters that you don't like, but are well fleshed out? Maybe this is because I end up playing more in convention games, where I don't need to stay in the head of a character more than for a few hours, but I find myself often finding characters that are not people I particularly like - fun to play, for a while, sure, but not anyone I'd really want to see again.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The whole issue of "power gaming," especially under the min/max view of it, is kinda weird. It made me feel like they just didn't get roleplaying or something or were being wankers.

    What I didn't get is that for many people this is a game. As in the usual sense of the word. Not always in a competitive sense, but certainly in the sense of "I want to do well at this." No one gets their panties in a bind if you try to do well in Monopoly or Uno. (Well, unless you are a competitive asshole, as Dmitri Martin describes it.) But if you try to play a game well in a roleplaying game, you start to defy the unwritten social contract that some people assumes exists. To me the rules are a nice suggestion that I sometimes pay attention to. For others, it is the rules to a game you are playing.

    In a lot of traditional roleplaying games, all of the NPCs the game describes will have reasonable stats that represent a believable person that you will often not see in a player character. Shadowrun and Exalted spring immediately to mind. Pre-made adventures have always been underpowered for my groups, because they operate under the assumption that players will not try to optimize their characters.

    And yet, the default assumption for a roleplaying game scenario is that it is a cooperative problem-solving challenge. Whether it's player driven or not, the meat of the game revolves around overcoming challenges to meet goals. And so it's a little counter-intuitive to hamstring your character.

    Where I ultimately draw the line is when players are dicks about it. When they start power gaming to the point where it ruins the fun for other people, then I don't have much patience for it. I also dislike it when players try to manipulate *me* in order to get more power for their characters. (I run into this in the very nebulous rules of Amber.) I dislike people putting me in the role of another antagonist to be defeated in a game.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I think that once you get the "oh they're playing it as a game, like a "normal" game" point, a lot falls into place.

    It actually makes a great deal of sense. You go with what you know - it's hard to pick up a different view or model for doing something.

    I wonder if the long games of "pretend" I played as a kid, or the times when my Dad would pretend to be an historical figure and then talk to me about that persons life, or ask me questions about the modern world prepared me for role-playing in some way. Seems like it probably did. I did a lot more of that than playing "regular" games.

    ReplyDelete