[Darzil]

Tune into any rpg stream on Twitch any chances are very high that you'll be watching a group that uses minimal description, rolls a lot of dice, and has a table full of powerful characters. That is the normal group these days. Tuning into a channel with actual roleplaying is much more rare, especially with the less established (and presumably less experienced) channels

Tuning into a Twitch channel implies you're looking at a bunch of attention seekers (or people looking to change the world to their way of thinking by example, which isn't much different). I highly  doubt a normal group is broadcasting on Twitch.

We all move in our own circles. In the ones I've moved in (in my 34 years of roleplaying, whether tabletop, live action or online), I've not noticed a strong relationship between nature of gamer and age. I have noticed (particularly online) a tendency to assume the assholes are young, but among those whose ages I actually know, the evidence is not strong.

It is dangerous to assume that your experiences are general. The plural of anecdote is not data.

Again, and I should not have to repeat myself so often but I feel that I have no choice, I am not saying that power gamers are poor roleplayers I am saying that they *tend* to be less experienced. You may consider this to be a generalization but whatever it is, it is a statement that is backed by logic, experience and typical human behavior.

If it were true, then you would have far more people agreeing with you. Age is not much of a panacea, other than that you'll typically appreciate people of similar age more. Typically you'll find older people less tolerant and more racist, and younger people impatient and badly behaved. It doesn't mean you won't become the former or that you weren't the latter.

Edit - Please accept that your experience is yours, and others experience is theirs, and that neither is 100% true of everyone. The world is a wide and fascinating place, and it is worth opening your mind to the experiences of others, rather than trying to impose your own world view on them. Or at least that is my recommendation, take it or leave it.

[Marcus]

the priority system being a power gamers wet dream

Leaving aside the fact that prio is a much weaker optimization system than 4e's BP, what point are you trying to make now exactly, beyond "I'm right and the rest of you should feel bad," because that's basically the implication of every post you've made for at least a page, no matter how much you keep denying that that is your intent.

I mean, feel free to go ahead and deny it again, IMO there's no credibility to those denials given statements like this.

I'll say one thing to you, maybe you'll listen, maybe not. I knew coming in that there was going to be controversy. It doesn't matter how these threads start out, the arguments are misconstrued over and over. If you don't believe me you should try taking a look around the net, this discussion has popped up many times and spans across many systems. The way it usually goes is this.

1. Non power gamer makes a criticism about power gaming. This may be for any number of reasons, some noble, some disruptive.
2. Power gamers reply fiercely, often jumping to conclusions OR responding to offensive suggestions
3. There is a lot of confusion on both sides, points are not articulated well or are ignored completely
4. Tensions rise
5. The original poster is accused of being pretentious, holier-than-though, a jackass, etc

That's pretty much how it goes. Many posters in this thread responded appropriately by challenging my point of view, sharing it or providing their own insight. That is essentially what I wanted. Some posters took my statements as an attack, which it was not intended to be. I have repeated myself on many occasions in an attempt to prove that my intentions were not malicious and that I respect different playstyles, I even said that I've tried them myself. However, I have always found this particular sub forum to be very discouraging. The faces change and while things were much more viscious in the past, power gaming is the norm here. I try to advocate a different approach, one that does not bash character concepts. Each group plays differently and I am not trying to change that. I'm simply stating that I think many people here are overlooking some diamonds in the rough and perhaps they would enjoy the game more if they gave these things some thought. I'm not forcing you to do anything, by all means, play the game you want, but be open minded about the possibilities within the system and refrain from making absolute statements with regards to character creation.

I remember when I was about 15 years old I was DMing a DnD campaign. I was much more power game oriented at the time, if I saw a way to make my character "better" I'd probably do it. I didn't consider all the subtle elements of the game, I was too inexperienced. My Brother was 9 years old and played a Paladin. He selected the Running Feat, whatever it was called. I told him that it was no good and that he should take a useful feat like Weapon Focus because it was always useful in combat. Naturally, he followed my advice. At the time I thought nothing of it, but many years later I realized that I had done a bad thing. I looked at the thing he selected because he thought it was cool and I told him that it wasn't cool and encouraged him to remove it. I still feel a bit bad about that for some reason. That is the sort of activity I see here all the time. When you create your character you should be allowed to create it the way you see fit. If you ask for advice and others are willing to provide it, great! But when giving advice please do not destroy the fun for the player.

ZeldaBravo, that may be true.

I said you showed yourself to be ignorant and prejudiced, b/c that is what your posts said. You personally attacked me after only two reply posts, and if ya look at them again, you will find they are polite posts, respectfully asking you to consider trying it another way. If you think that was or this is rude please by all means report me. I reported you, so it's only fair. But  the only person who's made a personal attack is you. The only person who has made sweeping generalizations is you. If you want to lump up me and all other power gamers and say terrible things about us, the only person who is going to look bad is you. I'm sorry that you don't like that, but if you can't keep your temper under control, I don't know what to tell you. But right off hand you pretty much are just digging it deeper, so by all means carry on.

[Whiskeyjack]

That's why I was very particular in using Whiskeyack for my example.

I assumed, given all the posts of his he wrote and I have read, that he would actually read the whole post and not just jump down my throat accusing me of being negative towards him.

I did  just didn't have a specific response to it

[celondon]

Interesting thread.

For what it's worth, I've made characters of the sort the OP talks about and been told by GM's they are "Too generalist; focus on one aspect more and bring up your dice pools." That was a bit annoying, but c'est la vie.

In my experience, no matter how powerful your characters are, no matter how min/maxed the GM always, always has the upper hand if they are at all competent. Super PC's might win a battle or two, but there's no way to 'win.' If the GM wants your characters dead, it's not hard, even without resulting to "rocks fall, everyone dies." So, play what you want. Give the GM hooks and handles to help tell a good story with your character rather than approaching it as a mechanical exercise to 'win.'

Everyone at the table will have more fun.

Anecdote time. I played a game of Warhammer Fantasy many years back. One of the PCs developed a horrific disease early in the campaign and spent the entire rest of the thing slow RPing getting sicker and sicker and becoming more and more insane as a result. This character was in no way, shape or form min/maxed. Hell, he was almost completely ineffectual in terms of accomplishing anything in the game. He was, however, a Role Play focus for the entire group and it resulted in a truly memorable, fun game and that's what we should all be aiming for.

[Raiderjoseph]

Tune into any rpg stream on Twitch any chances are very high that you'll be watching a group that uses minimal description, rolls a lot of dice, and has a table full of powerful characters. That is the normal group these days. Tuning into a channel with actual roleplaying is much more rare, especially with the less established (and presumably less experienced) channels

Tuning into a Twitch channel implies you're looking at a bunch of attention seekers (or people looking to change the world to their way of thinking by example, which isn't much different). I highly  doubt a normal group is broadcasting on Twitch.

I laughed at this. And I am thankful I am not the only one who thinks as such.

[AJCarrington]

Personal attacks, regardless of circumstance are NOT welcome. I will be reviewing the thread in more detail, but would ask the people take a step back and consider their posts before making them. No issues with differing opinions, but they need to be expressed constructively and respectfully.

[gradivus]

I must also note that people toss around the Stormwind Fallacy as some kind of irrefutable fact but it is very far from it and many people, myself included, consider it to be completely false.

Thus you prove your ignorance.Ad Hominem attack-fallacious, Which I might add caused the subsequent comment that you felt insulted enough to report. Action/Reaction; Newton' Law; Hillel's commentary on the Torah-Don't do to others what you don't want done to yourself... any of that sink in. Refusing to accept stormwind's fallacy doesn't actually make it untrue, the logic of it holds. Yes, you're not alone in refusing to accept it, many prejudice ignorant gamers do reject it, tragically.Again fallacious argument- the onus is not on Shadowjack to disprove that something is a Stormwind's Fallacy- the onus is on proving that something does in fact fall into that falacy. Saying 'it is', in and of itself, isn't logical proof.  But in end the gamers most hurt by their ignorance is themselves. 

I do feel bad for you having spent so much time reading and having failed to understand it all. Again-Ad hominem.

But the point of your posts are attempting to say power gaming is bad, and that will now and forever be untrue.  Nothing you say will change that fact. Again fallacious. The statement "Powergaming is good" and the statement "Powergaming is bad." is an opinion and not a fact.I agree that role playing is as important a part of gaming as the system is, and yes like system master it's a skill that takes time to develop. But sadly it's  not something that can be developed as much in forums, you can teach tropes and strategies, but it's not a skill that can communicated clear in the forums. To be a true master of table top you must master both role playing and the system, to master one without the other will leave you deficient in the other.

But back to the topic of your ignorance, you showed it in several places,  your generalization of power gamers as quick to anger when called in question is frankly just another example of your prejudicial stereotyping. Notice that no one has come back at you with any of usual RP obsesses silliness. Your statement that you think the example character are a good model is another example, if you know the rules well  then you know they are built incorrectly.

Finally, what this forum does is help teach people to build better character at their request (Often their first or second character), as well as discussing implementation of certain concepts, and of course there is some level rules discussion that occurs. Yes sometimes we do suggest scrapping a mechanical approach, but only when such a thing cannot be executed in the system in a way that would work at a table, or given the constraints the player has already listed. Not all things are possible in the system or under stated preferences.  Nothing in that is about indoctrinating new posters into power gamers.  Plenty of times folks myself included have posted suggestions on how to role play a concept, or given advice on how to deal with the many communication issues that arise at the table.

In closing I respectfully suggest you correct your ignorance. You have much to gain, and nothing to lose by doing so.

Comments in red are, of course, mine.
There are other things I could point but I think what I pointed out is enough.

Your comment to Shadowjack:If you think that was or this is rude please by all means report me. I reported you, so it's only fair. I wholeheartedly endorse this.

Lastly: let me retype what I said in an earlier post.So yes- these types of discussions, whether it be about gaming styles or the difference between a clip/mag (no, please don't comment on this, just an example), it always seems to blow up. So I am now looking forward to the moderator locking this thread to prevent the situation turning uglier than it already is.

Edit: my screen showed raiderjoesph as the last comment- had I known the moderator already chimed in I'd have stayed out of it. But I wrote it so I'm not going to use the magic wand to erase it. I believe that if I overstepped my bounds, and I probably did, hiding it is not the answer. I'll accept the reprimand/repercussions of my actions as I have always done.

[Shadowjack]

I must also note that people toss around the Stormwind Fallacy as some kind of irrefutable fact but it is very far from it and many people, myself included, consider it to be completely false.

Thus you prove your ignorance.Ad Hominem attack-fallacious, Which I might add caused the subsequent comment that you felt insulted enough to report. Action/Reaction; Newton' Law; Hillel's commentary on the Torah-Don't do to others what you don't want done to yourself... any of that sink in. Refusing to accept stormwind's fallacy doesn't actually make it untrue, the logic of it holds. Yes, you're not alone in refusing to accept it, many prejudice ignorant gamers do reject it, tragically.Again fallacious argument- the onus is not on Shadowjack to disprove that something is a Stormwind's Fallacy- the onus is on proving that something does in fact fall into that falacy. Saying 'it is', in and of itself, isn't logical proof.  But in end the gamers most hurt by their ignorance is themselves. 

I do feel bad for you having spent so much time reading and having failed to understand it all. Again-Ad hominem.

But the point of your posts are attempting to say power gaming is bad, and that will now and forever be untrue.  Nothing you say will change that fact. Again fallacious. The statement "Powergaming is good" and the statement "Powergaming is bad." is an opinion and not a fact.I agree that role playing is as important a part of gaming as the system is, and yes like system master it's a skill that takes time to develop. But sadly it's  not something that can be developed as much in forums, you can teach tropes and strategies, but it's not a skill that can communicated clear in the forums. To be a true master of table top you must master both role playing and the system, to master one without the other will leave you deficient in the other.

But back to the topic of your ignorance, you showed it in several places,  your generalization of power gamers as quick to anger when called in question is frankly just another example of your prejudicial stereotyping. Notice that no one has come back at you with any of usual RP obsesses silliness. Your statement that you think the example character are a good model is another example, if you know the rules well  then you know they are built incorrectly.

Finally, what this forum does is help teach people to build better character at their request (Often their first or second character), as well as discussing implementation of certain concepts, and of course there is some level rules discussion that occurs. Yes sometimes we do suggest scrapping a mechanical approach, but only when such a thing cannot be executed in the system in a way that would work at a table, or given the constraints the player has already listed. Not all things are possible in the system or under stated preferences.  Nothing in that is about indoctrinating new posters into power gamers.  Plenty of times folks myself included have posted suggestions on how to role play a concept, or given advice on how to deal with the many communication issues that arise at the table.

In closing I respectfully suggest you correct your ignorance. You have much to gain, and nothing to lose by doing so.

Comments in red are, of course, mine.
There are other things I could point but I think what I pointed out is enough.

Lastly, your comment to Shadowjack:If you think that was or this is rude please by all means report me. I reported you, so it's only fair. I wholeheartedly endorse this.

Thank you very much for coming to my defense. I did not appreciate the way I was treated and did feel provoked. I do feel that there is a serious issue on these boards, and has been for as long as I can remember. I am not here to convince everyone that my stance is the perfect one, I'm simply stating it to have an interesting discussion, one which I hoped could be had without hostility. It is not the first time I have been attacked in a power gaming thread and it probably won't be the last. I even addressed that I suspected the  thread to be controversial and was clearly aware that emotions could flare. As such I made my points as diligently as I could. I think my points can do good for this sub forum and this is historically the most violent one on these forums. I would very much prefer if people would take more time to consider the impact their posts can have on others, especially new players, many of which are ready to play their first game and have their character concept turned upside down and torn to shreds for no good reason. Contrary to what others seem to believe, I am very open minded about different playstyles and I don't think that my way is the only way to play. I just think it has benefits that are routinely overlooked and I'm far from the only one who thinks that way. Just like people have told me to never take fluff skills I have the right to promote the concepts I believe in, ones which are purely based on roleplaying. The suggestion that because a few people here disagree with me proves very little, I suspect many of my breed have been driven away long ago and I myself have quit these boards several times over the years because of things like this.

As for the Twitch steams, I wholeheartedly disagree with what has been said. I do not think they're a bunch of attention seekerrs, a comment which goes against the advice I was given to not make generalizations. At least what I said was something I could back up. The people that stream on Twitch are doing a service to the community and bringing money into the company and the hobby and they at least have the guts to put themselves out there. I do share the opinion that the average Twitch Shadowrun game isn't to my tastes but I have seen some great games there too and I've learned a few tricks by keeping an open mind.

[FST_Gemstar]

Hey folks -

I find the character creation subforum to be a lab to experiment and display unique character concepts that take advantage and push the limit of the character creation system. I don't think a lot of posts are of characters that people necessarily intend to play, but to demonstrate new ideas and combinations, especially as more and more expansions have been released. It's also a great way to work out the kinks mechanically and get ideas from other interested people. I'll call out Gradivus and his Fancy Derek mockup. I loved seeing that character sheet, and it's one that I never would have thought was possible. I skimmed over what I thought was less interesting rules in an expansion and missed the possibility of such a character entirely. Now, am I going to run and play a Giant Face with 9 Charisma? Probably not. But I like that I can, and I might. I also might include such a character in my shadowrun universe as a contact or NPC. Yes it was a way to "powergame" a charismatic troll and there were mechanical aspects of the character to discuss - but it was the mechanical optimization that made such a fun potential character (literal sense) possible.


I also want to note that I don't believe active skills represent how well someone performs a task, but how much time/energy/investment a character put into becoming better at particular tasks. Performing tasks are a dice pool - Attributes + Active skills.  A character with 8 Logic and 1 First Aid and a character with 1 Logic and 8 First Aid are going to be equally competent at First Aid tasks. It may be for different reasons (ex. someone just being super rational with a storehouse of anatomy facts vs someone who dreamed of being an EMT and worked super hard over many years despite difficulties in school to become one), and we as players/GMs may like some reasons more than others, but in game terms, the characters are equally competent. Dice pools, the measure of how well a character can perform a task,  can be visually displayed by graphing them on two axes (attributes and skills) and put into four general categories: Low attributes/low skills (Lower Competency), High Attributes/Low Skills (Natural-Medium Competency), Low Attributes/High Skills (Learned-Medium Competency), and High Attributes/High Skills (Higher Competency). Yes  having a low attribute and linked skill is going to make someone worse at a task, but having a higher skill only makes someone more competent if they also have a higher attribute. It is sensible to have high attributes and skills for the things you want to to focus on (and get hired for), but as  attributes are more difficult to raise in game (karma expense and caps) than skills, lots of character skew their secondary dice pools towards natural competency (using the character creation rules to build towards specialized/higher attributes) instead of learned competency. Is this powergaming?I don't think so.  Again, some people may prefer certain stories we tell about these dice pools more than others, but mechanically, a dice pool is the same dice pool no matter what extent of it is attributes or skills.

I'll quote core pg 89 "Whatever your character concept, you should think of your character's skills as a whole, building some excellent skills while also providing some overall balance to maximize your chances of success. You won't have all your skills where you want them at first, but that's why you play the game...you'll have a chance to boost both your skills and your attributes." Experienced Shadowrunners, the kinds of runners the priority system is intended to generate, will specialize with an eye towards survivability. Even experienced shadowrunners don't have all of the skills they would like to start play with after character generation. It's ok to pick them up in game. As stated earlier, the system skews towards natural competence vs. skilled competence for secondary dicepools, which is why so many characters will pick up their lower level skills in game instead of character generation.

I'll also note the "Knowledge and Imagination" sidebar on page 147. Knowledge skills are a great way to nuance characters and flesh them both on paper and for roleplaying. You can have characters that are highly specialized in their task competency, but have very different interests and character. Also, knowledge skills can be used to fill knowledge gaps (obviously ;-) ) that more specialized characters may not seem to have. For example, A character can be knowledgeable and appreciative of art with both an Artisan 3 (Painting) active skill and an Art 3 (Modern) knowledge skill. The active skill runner may be a skilled painter while the knowledge skill runner is not, but I don't think it is "power gaming" to not invest active skill points at character generation to Artisan when a character has no intention of ever painting as part of a run. The rude decker at the party mentioned above may not have a lot in the way of social skills, but instead of a GM instantly having a random approach him about why he is there and rolling a con check to say anything that isn't "I'm here to steal this mcguffin," the character might have some knowledge skills to roll to convincingly chit chat around the party to look like he fits in (even if he is a bit rude). Is there a random NPC approaching all the guests about their reasons of being in attendance? Why just the player characters? Perhaps other NPCs don't have good reasons to be at the party and poor con rolls--are they going to get kicked out because, for example,  they are there to oogle at their boss's cute  son/daughter and not support the cyber-whales? Could the decker who has an interest in marine biology fit in enough at the party to avoid random con checks if they are playing it cool? I don't mean to be snarky, but am legitimately asking.

In all - when people make suggestions to increase/decrease dicepools or question why someone has made a particular character generation choice, it is not to belittle or tear down a character, they are just suggestions and questions. If a poster posts a character because they are having trouble making it work, then these suggestions/questions might be really helpful to come to a concept/sheet that the player is excited about. If the poster is there just to demonstrate/conceptualize, other people's ideas might take that demonstration/concept further or to new, interesting places. If a poster writes a detailed backstory for review, others'  comments/questions/critiques might strengthen or add new ideas to that backstory. I haven't seen a "powergamer" deny that someone isn't having fun playing a character if they are, but may insightfully offer why a character sheet might be difficult or boring to play for a character still in progress. Everyone's goal is to have fun playing game here! 
 

[gradivus]

@Shadowjack- hold off on the thank you.

While I pointed out what he did I also wrote,  caused the subsequent comment that you felt insulted enough to report, which also means you made ad hominem attacks too.

While I know it's hard not to respond in kind, in the end it doesn't make the situation better.

A lot of us on this forum, myself included (actually myself most of all since I'm giving this advise), need to reread our entire post before hitting the send button. Oftentimes we don't mean to be rude but in our haste to get a post done, especially if its a long one, we accidentally phrase things in a manner that can be improved so as not to imply something we wouldn't normally imply. If I would just listen to my freshman year English teacher and proofread, 3/4 of my mistakes would vanish instantaneously.

Edit: And to be clear. In the post I wrote the phrasings I used in some instances could be construed as Ad hominem. Therefore, I too am guilty. Lest anyone think I'm trying to not own up to my own failure to remain dispassionate in this discourse.

[Shadowjack]

Thanks for your detailed and well articulated reply, FST_Gemstar. I like Gradivus' character too and had no problem with it. I don't share your stance on Skill+Attribute = Problem Solved. I think if a character has a rating 1 in a skill that means he is novice. He's learned  a little but is farm from noteworthy. A Shadowrunner with a pair of 9 Agility cyberlegs and 1 Sneaking is someone who is not stealthy at all but has powerful gear to compensate. From that angle it is fantastic. But if your character has all 6's and 1's and uses the cyberlimbs to achieve a high dice pool I don't think that qualifies as a bellievable character. Shadowrunners thematically should not be relying on key skills at rating 1 because it is not realistic. A hardy professional with a storied career is not going to exist if he crutches on rating 1 skills in important areas. I understand that people think dice pools are all that matters but I strongly disagree simply due to realism and character theme. Before anyone chimes in saying that there isn't any realism in Shadowrun, I'll just say right now that the entire objective of the game is to immerse yourself into the world and it is supposed to feel realistic in that context, realism is definitely in play.

Again, this is just my opinion, I'm not forcing anyone to do anything and I'm not telling them they're "playing the game wrong!". I don't agree with the reasoning behind these decisions. Additionally, I think it is unfortunate that character creations puts the player in such a murky scenario. I think the priority system does a terrible job of creating realistic characters because it has so much potential for wasting karma built into it. It may be fast but it definitely leads to people going away from their character theme and making adjustments they wouldn't have made in the point buy system.

Agreed, everyone wants to have fun and that's what matters. I am not here to stomp on anyone's game, I don't want them to stomp on someone elses. This has happened to me and I have seen it happen to many people here, it's not cool, it's not okay and we have the power to prevent it from happening. I know not everyone will adhere to this mindset but if even one person on these boards stops ruining the fun for new players I'll consider this thread a success. If one person stops and thinks "Hmm, he does have an interesting point.", that's good enough for me!

You are right, of course, gradivus. I was wrong to lash back but I have obsessive compulsive disorder and I do not respond well to posts like Marcus'. This is something I have struggled with for all of my life and I have made great improvements but something that is difficult to nullify.

[Reaver]

I think the table and the GM has the largest hand in if "Power gaming" comes into play and how much.

After all, it is the GM that sets the tone and tempo of the table, has final say on the characters he allows in, crafts the story, and dictates what needs to be rolled, and when, and with how many dice.

So really, talk to your GM! Or GMs... or those GMing... or thinking of GMing..... or, yea...

Why do I say this? Well, it's been my experience after 30 years of gaming (Has it been that long already?!?!? Longer? Wow!) that it really is the GM that sets the pace.

I have played in groups of wooden players... You know, the ones who just sit there, not saying anything, or moving until there time for the dice comes up. They talk along the lines of "My character does <insert action>" as a response to every question.

And, I have played in groups where the moment you sit down, EVERYTHING you say, is your character speaking. (Makes for some interesting game sessions, let me tell you!)

And, I have even played in a group where the GM had a cape and a wand! (and I really, really hope a tin foil hat! Cause THAT would make sense with that bozo...)


The point is, every time the game was dictated by the GM. Some where great games, some where crappy games. Some where crappy games by great GMs, and others where great games by crappy GMs.... But it all starts with the GM.
Look, we all know the power and responsibilities that come with GMing. Some are good at it, some are bad at it. And without breaking down and writing a book on the topic, lets just say "There are as many styles of GMing as there are Stars." And there is no right or wrong way to GM... As long as the table is having fun.

But, there are certain... shall we say "styles" of GMing that lead more to a "power gaming" feel to the games they are employed in (Not just speaking of SR here. I will try to point out systems that suffer more or less as I go...)



1: "Challenge The Group"
Lets face it, conflict is at the heart of every RPG and MMo. Why? Cause deep down, shooting things in the face is fun! We all love feeling like a bad ass and doing things that socially are just not allowed. (like shooting that annoying clerk in the face). At the heart of it, RPGs and MMos are about conflict, be that a puzzle, emotional, mental, or physical, and how the players overcome that conflict. (Admittedly: I shoot them in the face 90% of the time...). But somewhere along the way, "challenge the players" has warped into "make the players fear for their safety". Everything is a Pass/Die recourse, and not  overcome/adapt.

DnD/MMos are the most notable system for this just cause for years they made everything a nice little cookie cutter "level system". Level 1 characters fight level 1 monsters, level 4 characters fight level 4 monsters, and so on. It's nice neat and simple. You want to challenge a party of level 15 characters in DnD? Pull out your Monster Manual and surf the CR 15 monsters! In an MMo, you just go to the zone that is your level and *poof*, you're "Challenged"!

This attitude is so prevailant that it seems to be a deep part of gamer psyche. Really, how often to players retreat? Or Surrender? (Be HONEST!!) Players have a "Do or Die" mentality to them, they MUST succeed, EVERY TIME. Or they DIE!!! Really, I blame video games for this. Honest. But Seriously, I am not joking, in gamer psyche, failure is NOT an option and every task really is seen as LIFE OR DEATH (as some posts on various threads show).....

Now sure, some things in RPGs/MMo are life or death for the character. (combat for sure!) But not everything is. A locked door is a locked door. It doesn't suck out the characters soul if he can't pick it. Failing a social check generally doesn't result in the character spontantiously combusting...(usually). BOTH players and GMs have to realize that failing a challenge isn't the end all of the game, it just means the character have to try different angle to achieve ultimate success.



2: "RPGs are about Group play. Thus: Group think, Group Act, Group Move"
While it is true that RPGs and MMos are Social games, and for social games to generally work, all people interacting together have to be in a group. This doesn't mean they all have to do the exact same thing every waking moment. Ahhh, the age old trope of "Don't split the party" is ringing in my ears... While it is true almost all RPGs have you form teams/groups/clans/squads or whatever they want to call it..... it's a party of player characters doing "PC" shit.... But somewhere along the way this a morphed into some twisted collection of people wandering around as a single entity.... like the party is just actually a ST Borg Drone, or multi-headed hydra.
Social situation? load up the Face Sub-routine/get the face head to talk. Footwork time? Load the Decker Sub-routine/get the Decker head to talk.... usually the ONLY time the characters act like individuals is when combat comes up.

Again, I blame Video Games. Every single game out there that has a companion, what does it do? NOTHING!!! It blindly follows you doing nothing until you wack someone over the head... THEN they do something - besides useless, unwanted commentary on what YOU are doing, looking at. (to be fair, Programmers are getting better at this). Some how this is come into the RPG world (or is a left over from the old Tunnels and Trolls days...) that the "party" is a single entity that MUST go everywhere together and only one person can do something at one time (unless it's combat).

I get that, as a GM, it can be hard to multi task the actions of a bunch of different people all the time and that treating them as a single Borg drone that  loads up whatever character/sub-routine is needed at that particular moment is easier. And really, the players should be spending most of the "crticial" time together anyways... But that doesn't mean they have to be standing in a line, shoulder to shoulder, waiting for their turn to use whatever skill the Runner-Pede  needs. They CAN be spread over the building doing various things you know

This attitude really does come from the old Tunnels and Trolls days (the precursor to DnD!).. where literally you were a group in a maze moving from room to room. DnD carried on the tradition with their Dungeon Crawls. MMos basically copied DnD so.... Besides, the story of many CRPGs is about the singular main character..... so the companions are just storage bags that walk and talk anyways....But in the much more complex and diverse games out there, this "Group: = group think/move" attitude really wears thin. add in cities and their multitudes or places and people, space settings, modern combat, open places and this "Group move" trope has to die. Really. Just cause you are a party of stalwart adventurers doesn't mean you have ALL sit on the same bar stool! Heck it doesn't even mean you have to go to the same bar!

Treat the characters in the party as INDIVIDUALS.... They are not Larry with his brother Darryl and other brother Darryl. Don't limit "social" challenges to faces and "recon" challenges to Deckers. Open up the floor, and throw all the characters out on it to dance! After all, they are individuals and NOT a Borg Drone.



3: "The World We Live In"
Don't care the setting here. This is one is all on the players and the GMs both. For too many people the world that the game takes place is nothing more then a backdrop of grey. Change SR to DnD, DnD to Rifts, and WH40K to SR and the GM let alone the player would hardly notice the difference. Wow. Let the world and the setting come alive, and get IT to interact with the players! I don't know what it is, as Setting makes all the difference for me, but for some - it's nothing but backdrop.
Take the time to also think out the parts of the world that your players are going to be interacting with. Do they make sense? Spend the time. It's worth it. Not only might you see a flaw in your general logic, you might realize a blunder you made that you didn't mean to... (like making a office building with no doors!!)



4: "Me vs Them"
It's a really sad state that this still has to be mentioned. But many GMs seem to have this "Me vs them" attitude. They seem to want to make every thing about defeating the players and crushing their characters. I don't know, is it some misguided sense of entertainment that the only way they can enjoy themselves is to crush their players? Be this through their adventure ideas ("Hey wouldn't it be neat if there was a cabal of Vampire Great Dragon Technomancers that where trying to take over the world?!? And the Players have to kill them by fighting them all at the same time!?!"), their ideas of what an "appropriate challenge" is, ("So you are all level 2 right? Well, around the corner comes a Balor! He attack you.")
Take the time to vet your own ideas for a storyline. Does it make sense? Could it happen? What happens if the players DON'T do what you want? (Never trust a PC to stay on script!!). Not all stories have to be about Great Dragons, Master Shedim, or Ageless Vampires...... They can be about just about anything, so maybe leave your "Mushroom-men from the Abys that want to turn the world into fungus" story arc for a setting that warrants it's flair.
On a similar note is the player that believes it's him Vs the GM. He feels compelled to have absolutely every angle covered, every advantage possible and goes out of his way to avoid anything that puts him on even footing or less then the perceived challenge - whatever that may be. They are less interested in the game, or the story, or anything other then beating whatever the GM has planned. (And often times, they themselves are a 'Me vs Them' GM ... if they GM)

A good story doesn't need the GM to go out of his way to kill his players. (trust me, you can do it. you control the world! Killing the PCs is easy, So why waste your time?) It doesn't need "awesomely epic, totally unique, one of kind, never before seen bad-guy!", It doesn't need some grand plot to turn the World's oceans into Chicken Soup... It needs an emotional hook to lure the players in. It needs thought and substance to keep them engaged. It needs a ending that makes them feel the outcome of their actions. Nail the Hook, Substance, Thought and Ending, you've nailed yourself a good story. 


And there you have it. The 4 most common "styles" (hate that word) of GMing that (in my opinion) promote a "Power Gamer" atmosphere. Now that doesn't meant there are not more, nor does it mean that these are incorrect....(but it does give you an idea of MY opinion of them). And really it is just about having Fun. So find your fun and enjoy it. Not all gamers play the same way or in the same style. Heck I know many gamers to consistently play using one or more of the above "styles" and that's just how he like to play! Good on him.


But, if you are tired of seeing Power Gaming at your table, try changing your attitude and playstyle in the four areas I listed above and see what happens... willing to bet that the "Power Gaming" slows down some.

[FST_Gemstar]

Shadowjack, we can agree to disagree on this. I don't think that "dice pools are all that matter," but I do believe they represent how well a character performs a certain task, and just like in real life, there are lots of ways and different factors  to do well (or poorly) on a task. I also think Shadowrun is a prime example of an immersive world where someone can have limited skills and natural ability and rely on gear/'ware instead to get the job done as well (or better). Resources is as much a part of the priority system as any, and is something that makes up a character as much as metatype, attributes, skills, or awakened/emerged status. It the cut throat 6th world, wage-slaves are always trying to get the best gear and 'ware to get the edge over their coworkers or at least not get canned. Can a Shadowrunner with skills E believably and with rich backstory invest in a Rating 6 skillwire system with multiple high rating skills to swap through? I think absolutely yes! Are they going to be better at some things than some people spent their life learning (higher dice pool)? Yes! Is it fair? Not really. Is it Shadowrun? I think yes.

[gradivus]

<snipped>
You are right, of course, gradivus. I was wrong to lash back but I have obsessive compulsive disorder and I do not respond well to posts like Marcus'. This is something I have struggled with for all of my life and I have made great improvements but something that is difficult to nullify.

As long as we're sharing...I'm bi-polar. While not the same as OCD, I understand the strain that some types of pathology can cause in the staying cool, calm and collective department.

And being bi-polar I can tell you RF quality in no way reflects the disorder properly. However, I will concede that a rule that would be realistic would probably be very long- like CRB length long. So playability must win out over realism in this case.

[Glyph]

The one thing I do agree with Shadowjack on is that sometimes posters who are evaluating characters can be a bit dogmatic with their advice.  Although I think it is hypocritical to decry this while dismissing and straw-manning character optimization.

I think there is a place for optimization, and unless you take it to the furthest extreme (and honestly, most of the examples of that, such as the pornomancer, are thought exercises more than characters for play), it enhances roleplaying.  Because I feel that, for both strong and weak areas, the character's statistics should match the character's background.  If the character has a dice pool of 8 in pistols, he is about as good as a ganger, not an expert marksman.  On the other hand, if the character is supposed to be clumsy, then muscle toner: 2, while normally a good investment, might not fit that particular character.  Powerful characters don't automatically equate to stats over story.  If your background is that you were a combat sorcerer for an underworld syndicate, then it might make sense for the character to have a power focus, several high-rated magical skills, and just a few skills such as intimidation and perception at lower ratings.  On the other hand, if that same stats were used for a recent college graduate, those stats would not fit.

The archetypes often get touted as examples of more organic, less optimized builds, but that isn't always the case.  Some of them suffer from too much hyperbole in their descriptions - the gunslinger adept isn't bad by any stretch, but his background makes it sound like he should superhuman, not just pretty good.  Some of the archetypes, such as the decker and the street samurai, are actually pretty optimized.  The street samurai, in particular, has some pretty bare-bones skills.  He can hit people, shoot people, sneak, ride his bike... and that's it.  He rolls a single die to default on social skills, and two dice to default for perception checks.  He seems more like a one-trick pony than a fully fleshed-out character.  Oh, wait.  Knowledge skill of poetry: 1.  Guess he's well-rounded after all.