I've been reading in this thread and this thread about how 3.x allows for munchkin Players to use CharOp in order to create powergaming nightmares for other Players and Gamemasters to deal with. The problem of how the rules can be used to craft nigh-unstoppable characters like the monstrosity of Pun-Pun is being used as an example of how the 3.x rules are broken in the face of Players who are System Mastery adherants.

Now, if this happens in a game, all I can call it is a failure of common sense on the part of the GM. System mastery does not and can not replace basic tactics in combat or good role-playing in social situations. If a spell-caster will become an unstoppable killing machine if he gets a certain spell, then he first must attain that spell. If any character will become like onto a God should he acquire this one magic item, then first that character must acquire that magic item.

Are the munchkins using the 3.x rules to create these problems? Yes, but are you the bitch of the rules or are the rules your bitch?

Maybe I've read Listen Up, You Primitive Screwheads!!! one too many times but I cannot understand why people would let some munchkin shit on their game like this in Actual Play.

I say that a fair bit, but I'll repeat myself:

At my table, rules are my bitch, and I'm damn into kinky stuff, so they best be flexible and ready.

In older days, I'd probably be foolish enough to just allow my munchkin to blow my game up, if only because of deciding to quit when I'd stop him. Nowadays, I prefer tricks much more nasty, if one tries to pull off powergaming at my table.

A lot of times it's because you have to experience the problems before you can fix them.

If the GM themself doesn't have system mastery how do they know that giving the wizard a certain spell will break the game?

Edit: It's also worth considering that the kind of social enforcement against power gaming that a lot of us picked up when we entered into role-playing seems to have faded.

It's no longer considered embarrassing to be a munchkin or rules lawyer.

I think the people who kept the best rein on 3.X were probably those who had already played a lot of AD&D and knew how the game was supposed to be played.

My response to character optimization, which I've been making quite likely too clear in various threads, is: NO.

NO. You can take whatever feats, PrCs, Multiclasses you like. But if you go outside this range, the answer is NO. You cannot be God. You can't have a ridiculous to-hit. You can't have stupid stats. I'm sorry I'm hurting your feelings. Be thankful I'm not hurting your face.

As others have said, you don't always know what'll cause problems until you see it in play.

More importantly, it's often a failure of nerve. "I've got a new game group, these guys haven't played with us for long, if I say no maybe they'll get offended and leave..."

A lot of these issues go back to people problems. Game mechanics can't really fix those; only people getting along and trying to work for a decent, mutually acceptable compromise can achieve that.

But the issues with "system mastery" also have a more recent root, the fetishisation of the RAW and the undermining of GM authority. PunPun is not a problem where the rules are seen as a customisable framework, and the GM, acting in the interests of the group, can reject game- or setting-breaking character builds. PunPun is a problem in an environment where "everything is core", every character based on the written rules is legitimate, and there is no social dynamic to weed out builds which will destroy the game except officially published rule fixes.

There are various reasons for this development - M:tG's influence on the understanding on the treatment of rules, a backlash against power-tripping GMs, publishers' dependence on the supply of crunch-focused supplements, even the Forge's strictly textual reading of game rules and their anti-GM bias. None of these are necessarily detrimental, but put together, they have created an atmosphere where the kind of players who are likely to create a character like PunPun in the first place are accepted and even catered to.

It is part of the current game culture around us.

Well said, Melan. I think I would add MMORPGs as a source of the problem as well - as they feature strong Player versus Player interaction, balance is a very strong issue in them, and it projects upon tabletop RPGs - because it is simply impossible for some to grasp, that tabletop RPGs are mostly built as a cooperative game, where issue of balance is not so important, because it is unlikely that Ted the Wizard will attack Bob the Fighter in PvP zone - that is why Ghost Stories is a great board game, despite the fact that the board'll kick your ass 9 out of 10 times, and Three Musketeers is an awfully designed game.

I'd say that the idea of GMPM is a good measure of my levels of spite for this anti - GM sentiment of late.

I don't think it's a common sense issue at all.  It's more a question of understanding what your game is all about and getting into the spirit of things.

The same sort of applies to roleplaying games. For some it's primarily a game to be won which just happens to have more flexible rules. For other it much more of an immersive experience or a celebration of genre fiction.

I don't have direct experience playing Heroclix, but I remember reading with amusement how the community was divided. On one hand you had players who enjoyed building thematic teams and playing out X-Men vs Brotherhood of Mutants battle. On the other players who just picked what ever miniature worked best with no regard of the fictional character the miniature was based on.  I suspect wargamers have a similar split between those who are more interested in historical recreation aspect and those who just enjoy solving tactical problems.

If have a game that is based mostly on physical challenges, that rewards team work and sound tactics, punishes failure with death and at the same time gives you point based character creation rules which allow in which some combination of abilities are clearly superior to others, how is char op not the only rational response?

A substantial difference between wargaming, boardgaming (mostly) and RPGs is that the former are based on opposition, while the latter are based on cooperation, as GM is recreating the world, and all the dangers and advantages that can be found in it.

It is the only rational response. Of course, it's also the stupid response. Char Op is not difficult. Run through your options, find the stupid synergy, exploit it.

Fixing the problem isn't hard either, for the DM. Say: That doesn't work.

When they say "But the rule..." You smack them in the goddamn face. Right in the nose. Swat them hard. Because they're subhuman buffoons. Swat them. Do it. Do it now. I'm not even joking. Their lives will be better for it.

Quote from: Rincewind1;504786A substantial difference between wargaming, boardgaming (mostly) and RPGs is that the former are based on opposition, while the latter are based on cooperation, as GM is recreating the world, and all the dangers and advantages that can be found in it.

True, but even with board/war games you can approach them with a dispassionate play to win approach or you can approach them with a more aesthetic/thematic stand point like the guy who builds his Heroclix team around the X-Men or the Fantastic Four even if it is sub-optimal.

PS Same goes for sports as well. You can play competitively to win and drop players who aren't really pulling their weight or you can kick around the ball in the park with your friends. Depending how you pitch the game the attitude and/or type players it will differ.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;504778As others have said, you don't always know what'll cause problems until you see it in play.

More importantly, it's often a failure of nerve. "I've got a new game group, these guys haven't played with us for long, if I say no maybe they'll get offended and leave..."

I think this sums it up pretty well for me. I try to be fair, and firm-but I do need to keep in mind that with out players there is no game. But all in all this is rarely a problem at my table.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;504778More importantly, it's often a failure of nerve. "I've got a new game group, these guys haven't played with us for long, if I say no maybe they'll get offended and leave..."

This was the main reason why many games collapsed during chargen, where we never even got around to playing one session.  The game died stillborn in the middle of chargen, where several players just walked away when the DM would not let them do something.  Not exactly easy to play an rpg game with only the DM and one player (or zero players).

In practice, I've found that this "spoiled brat" type behavior was largely independent of chronological age and past rpg experiences of a person.  I've come across 40 or 50 year old players, who exhibited such behavior where they walked away mid way through a game session because of disagreements with the DM.


It's usually hard to know what a new person is like, without playing with them in a previous game.  Over the years I found some long time friends to be like this too, who have not played rpg games before.

I dont see charop as a problem more as a sign of where the player wants to take his character, obviously they arent getting away with starting out like that in my games but my answer is usually "hey thanks for giving me a breakdown of where you intend to try and evolve your character concept should your character survive a few sessions and should you find trainers for these weird feats and such". "Oh and you may want this perticular magic weapon eh? well your gonna have to figure out if it exists in the world and where it is first matey coz magic items like that are kinda rare in my campaign"...if they dont like my answer then they can take the character concept and bugger off to munchkin land.

Quote from: Kaldric;504787It is the only rational response. Of course, it's also the stupid response. Char Op is not difficult. Run through your options, find the stupid synergy, exploit it.

Fixing the problem isn't hard either, for the DM. Say: That doesn't work.

When they say "But the rule..." You smack them in the goddamn face. Right in the nose. Swat them hard. Because they're subhuman buffoons. Swat them. Do it. Do it now. I'm not even joking. Their lives will be better for it.

really. You do this, do you? You smack your players in the nose and you consider them subhuman if they don't play the game the same way you do? I sincerely doubt you really do; I suspect this is a load of internet bluster, but if you do then maybe you should stop for a minute and ask yourself who's really engaging in the cheap power trip.

how about this, for all responses. Talk to your player about what kind of game you want to play, you know, like actual colleagues and social equals, rather than making stern demands or doing cheap passive aggressive tricks like, "oh, my campaign doesn't play that way!"