Whats the difference in Powerplay and Roleplay

[Shoemacker]

I am seening a lot of heated argument about powerplaying and roleplaying. Maybe someone could tell me what the diffence is. I always thought it was ok to role for the best scores, kill drizzt, and use wands of fire and monster summoning. I mean, really, they are all in the game and you have the option to do so.

[Dundee Slaytern]

Roleplay uses logic. Powerplay uses loopholes.

[Rothrorn]

I would also suggest they roleplay is more in keeping with the spirit of the game and is therefore preferable (wands of fire and monster summoning aside!)

[Pirengle]

Originally posted by Shoemacker: I am seening a lot of heated argument about powerplaying and roleplaying. Maybe someone could tell me what the diffence is. I always thought it was ok to role for the best scores, kill drizzt, and use wands of fire and monster summoning. I mean, really, they are all in the game and you have the option to do so.

Powergamers go through the game to get the best possible everythings. The most money and experience, the best gear, etc. Roleplayers, on the other hand, go through the game pretending that they are the character they have chosen to play.

Powergamers tend to go with lawful good alignment, high charisma, and a heroic reputation. This is not because they wish to be the defenders of Fae'run, but because a lawful good PC with 18 charisma and 20 reputation are going to get discounts from stores, better quest rewards, and even certain quests.

Roleplayers play the game of pretend. If a PC is a true neutral druid, the player won't be choosing greedy dialogue options or fight animals turned hostile, such as bears. It doesn't matter to a roleplayer about getting uber gear or the most of everything. What matters is staying true to alignment and character.

(light spoiler)
.
.
.
Let's use an example from Chapter 1. Dreppin needs an antidote for his sick cow. Hull has one, as long as you fetch his sword in the guardhouse for him. Fuller's also in the guardhouse, and wants you to fetch him a quarrel of crossbolts from Winthrop.

Here's how some of my recent characters did this quest:

PIRENGLE (chaotic good cleric/ranger, cha 16): Got the antidote for Nessie for experience, got Hull's sword for ~10 gold and some experience, got the bolts for Fuller for ~15 gold and experience.

MAR CIZAT (chaotic neutral mage/thief, cha 11): Kept the antidote (figured I'd need it more than the cow). Got Hull's sword for ~5 gold, wasn't happy with that, so I pickpocketed it back off him, which turned him hostile, so I charmed him and left him with Dreppin. Fuller didn't speak nicely to me, so I didn't do his quest.

ARGON (lawful evil fighter/illusionist, cha 14): Kept the antidote but wanted something in return, but charming the cow didn't exactly work. Neither did knocking the cow unconscious. (I accidently killed it and turned Dreppin hostile. Ack.) I vowed to myself that if we ever crossed paths again, I'd get that favor paid back. (I had Krypton, a pureclass thief, pickpocket him for spare change later.) Got Hull's sword, and the same thing happened: services rendered did not equal payment. He was rather nice to me, so instead of having chaotic evil Krypton quadruple backstab him on our next meeting, I just had him pick Hull's pocket (well, his scabbard) and got the sword back. I nabbed the bolts for Fuller because I liked his style.

TEMPEST (chaotic evil fighter, cha 6): Kept the antidote, killed the cow, then killed Dreppin. Didn't feel like getting the sword after I talked to Hull, but Fuller did not want to talk to me. Took me a couple of reloads, but managed to at least wound him without getting hurt myself.

QUALIS AUDIENDA (lawful good paladin, cha 18): Gave the antidote to Dreppin, gave Hull back his sword, got Fuller his crossbolts and also got an extra gift for being such a great paladin. Bought my gear, sold everything I didn't need (including the gift), and paid a tithe of 20% to the temple of Oghma. Every time I enter a city with a temple, I tithe 20% of cash on hand to the temple. Every time I use a temple service (buy items, resurrections, etc.), I sell an item to the temple. Since I am a member of the Most Radiant Heart, I pay a 50% tithe to the Temple of Helm.

I roleplay three of these characters. Pirengle is more of my tester for everything, and is more of an extention of myself (as in, what would I choose to do in this situation).

A powergamer would do these quests, but in search of the outcome that gave the most money or experience.

(Bigger spoiler.)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
For example, I mentioned Qualis Audienda getting a gift from Fuller. You need a high charisma and a good alignment to get that gift. A powergamer would have a charisma of 18 and a good alignment to be able to get the gift. It doesn't matter whether Fuller's asking the PC to get him some bolts or kill the Gatewarden or pickpocket Phlydia. It doesn't matter whether the PC is a lawful good paladin or a chaotic evil thief. A powergamer will do whatever Fuller asks to get the gift, regardless of consequences. Why? Because the gift is there, it's obtainable if you do everything right, and BioWare/Black Isle wouldn't add the gift to the game if they didn't mean for you to get it, right?

The example you're thinking of, and the example we're currently beating to death in another thread, is Drizzt. Powergamers use every cheap tactic they've got in order to kill him, not because he's Drow or unfriendly or what not, but because he has the best gear in the game, hands down. While it is true that evil roleplayers will still want to kill Drizzt (he IS on the side of good, after all), they would be killing him for who he is, not what he carries. In that case, the gear would be icing on the cake.

(But the problem I have with the killing of Drizzt has nothing to do with powergaming or roleplaying. The cheesy methods people use to kill Drizzt have to do with the game's AI, especially character movement. It's taking advantage of a bug, which is cheating. I am against cheating that abuses the game for player benefit. Now, if a party were able to kill Drizzt in hand-to-hand combat, without the use of hordes of summoned monsters and/or booted party members, I'd say that Drizzt is fair game. He does pack a wallop, and rightly so. Players were never meant to get his items using fair play. It's only through the use of foul play that players can obtain his items.

Sorry to hijack the thread, but this point is getting lost in the powergaming vs. roleplaying debate. Six explains BG cheating in general better in his guide.)

I would say something about how it takes more skill to roleplay than powergame, but I've already served up enough community unrest... ::runs and hides::

[daan]

[img]graemlins/jumpclap.gif[/img] Applauds [img]graemlins/jumpclap.gif[/img] and starts burning his powergamer-past

Very nicely put and very nice examples

[Vedran]

I second daan. A pearl to you.
I'll bookmark this thread, to link to it in future.

[Dude 77]

Powerplaying you build your character to be super good so the game is easier and roleplaying you for example try and make your character like someone else EX: Legolas from The Lord Of The Ring a elven fighter specializinf in bow

[Lemmy]

Pirengle:
"While it is true that evil roleplayers will still want to kill Drizzt (he IS on the side of good, after all), they would be killing him for who he is, not what he carries. In that case, the gear would be icing on the cake."

I'm sure you know this, P, but I thought I'd mention it anyway.

Not necessarily all roleplayed evil characters would want to kill Drizzt. (In my mind, actually, it'd take an awful lot of bloodlust AND nuts of steel to attack Drizzt outright anyway.) Some evil characters may simply be unconcerned with the danger Drizzt faces - particularly since there're no "shinies" involved for being concerned. Or maybe you *help* him thinking that, in return for saving his life, he'll surrender to your bidding (gotta love those life debts) - only for him to spit on your plans by skipping off as fast as his legs can carry him. D'oh! [img]tongue.gif[/img]

On the other side of the coin, an extrodinarily Drow-prejudiced "good" character *may* be able to justify killing Drizzt. The character could see killing Drizzt as a moral good - purging the Sword Coast of Drow scourge - and stopping his alleged(!) do-goodery.

Whatever option is taken, the character should remain consistent. So if a character hates Drow so much he'll kill even Drizzt, the character should also attack other Drow at every possible opportunity. Consistency.

This gets back to the concept that (as noted on another forum recently) the alignment system is for developing your character. "I'm Lawful Good" doesn't mean the same thing to everyone. Alignment can help develop a character's story and history, but, IMO, it has far less bearing on a character's choices than does the character's personality, backstory, and values. To test this yourself, try playing Chaotic Evil with and without character development. It's far more difficult, for me at least, to roleplay "Chaotic Evil" than it is to roleplay "a Chaotic Evil mage who Gorion locked in the dungeon for most of her childhood where her only entertainment was mutilating the 'ratsies' and torturing the occasional prisoner." The second screams serial killer; I have an idea of what I could do with her. I could even expand a bit further: She hates father figures and goes absolutely berserk at the prospect of being imprisoned. She even slipped a poisoned dagger into Gorion's back when they were ambushed outside of Candlekeep - just to make sure.

"It's only through the use of foul play that players can obtain his items."

Hm. So, are you saying the lack of a summon limit is an actual bug? I know it was fixed somewhat in BG2, but I've not seen it called a bug in BG1 before. Definitely cheese, though.

-Lem

[Pirengle]

Originally posted by Lemmy:

On the other side of the coin, an extrodinarily Drow-prejudiced "good" character *may* be able to justify killing Drizzt. The character could see killing Drizzt as a moral good - purging the Sword Coast of Drow scourge - and stopping his alleged(!) do-goodery.

This sounds like something Ajantis would do, come to think of it...and he's just as bad as Noober when it comes to dialogue. For Helm this, for Helm that. Makes a PC want to go for his helm and jam it up his righteous, self-possessed--erm, this topic was about Drizzt, right?

There's also something to be said about avenging a wrong, or a mercenary-for-hire.

This gets back to the concept that (as noted on another forum recently) the alignment system is for developing your character. "I'm Lawful Good" doesn't mean the same thing to everyone. Alignment can help develop a character's story and history, but, IMO, it has far less bearing on a character's choices than does the character's personality, backstory, and values. To test this yourself, try playing Chaotic Evil with and without character development.

'Tis true. I brought Tempest's party and Argon's party back through Beregost and let loose the evil upon the poor town. It was harder to wreak havoc with Tempest. Ran into some situations where picking the nastiest choice wasn't as nasty as she wanted to be.

Argon, however, is a member of an all-gnome evil-aligned party. While Argon sat demurely in Feldepost's Inn, he allowed the other members of the party to go forth and have fun. Krypton was out painting the town red--literally--and started with Feldepost's Inn. Argon did say it was a bit too noisy... Neon (neutral evil fighter/cleric) chatted it up with Kagain before killing him to check out what was behind the counter. Xenon (chaotic evil fighter/thief) made it his personal mission to kill anything over four feet tall. Radon (chaotic evil fighter) quaffed a good deal in the Red Sheaf, got drunk, and slaughtered everything in sight. He would've killed Helium (lawful evil illusionist) except Helium cast a Hold spell on him, then proceeded to steal his armor and inventory.

Hm. So, are you saying the lack of a summon limit is an actual bug? I know it was fixed somewhat in BG2, but I've not seen it called a bug in BG1 before. Definitely cheese, though.

I'm saying that the fact Drizzt can't get around the summons to get at your party members is a bug. One wonders why he can't whip out his composite long bow +4 and nail people with his +4 arrows of utter demise. Wait, if he did that then people would want to kill him for that gear. Sigh.

Summons are cheesy. That's why I like Dynaheir. Can't cast 'em from memory.

EDIT: screwed up the quote blocking on the first try
SECOND EDIT: screwed up the quote blocking on the second try. remind me to hit the preview button instead of the post button...

[ 02-24-2003, 08:14 PM: Message edited by: Pirengle the BNM ]

[Lemmy]

P:
"I'm saying that the fact Drizzt can't get around the summons to get at your party members is a bug."

It is? Interesting. Player characters are limited in the same way. Does that mean getting trapped by monsters is actually a form of falling prey to a bug? For example, just today Daveron (sp?) cast a critter summon and trapped me against a wall. Was he (unwittingly) abusing a bug? [img]tongue.gif[/img]

"One wonders why he can't whip out his composite long bow +4 and nail people with his +4 arrows of utter demise."

Well, he apparently doesn't have those on him. And who *would* need those when you have an absurd number of attacks per round, utterly obscene magic resistance, and downright cruel AC? Someone under assault by a whole army of kobolds, that's who! Muhaha, and so on.

You wanna talk about cheating, though, take a peek at Drizzt's vitals. Yowza! I think he did a little Gatekeeper in his youth, if you catch my meaning.

-Lem