Compared to some Hero and Gurps builds I've seen, there are very few really overpowered 3e builds, and they are well-documented.

Quote from: jeff37923;504769I'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.

This is a stupid argument.  By the same note, I could say that an intelligent GM won't use a system that would create this problem in the first place, and thus the smartest thing a GM can do is not play 3.x

RPGPundit

Quote from: Kaldric;504776My 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.

...then aren't you essentially telling him they CAN'T have whatever feats, PrCs, multiclasses, etc. that they like?  Because if the whole point of a feat is that it synergize with some other feat they took before that combines with two other feats that lets them have unlimited attacks or do +100 damage or whatever fucking thing, then if you tell them "you can take the feat but it won't do that" is basically the same as saying "you can't take the feat".

This is the problem. As soon as you allow the feat system, you have to allow for the abuses it can create. As soon as players have a list of options of more than 2 or 3 to choose from, they'll find ways to combine those to do things completely against the spirit of the mechanics but completely within the letter of the rules, and then you're stuck explaining why they "can't" do something that the rules clearly say they can; so suddenly, you're stuck having to give permission for every single feat.  And god help you if the player doesn't actually tell you how he plans to use that feat, and you're not anally-retentive or autistic enough to notice that said feat will combine with another feat to create some ungodly emulation-shattering effect, because then what do you do?
You're stuck either forcing the player to take away a feat that you expressly approved of, to keep a feat but not let him actually use it (essentially a double-punishment, since now he lost a feat-slot for nothing), or letting him keep it and breaking the game.  In the first and last case, emulation is ruined. In the middle case, the player is likely to be seriously resentful.  

So no, its not as simple as saying "No", which is why I will generally try to avoid ever running a game that has non-randomized feats or its equivalents in it ever again.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Serious Paul;504792I 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.

I've never, ever had a player leave my group because I was too strict.  I've seen lots of players abandon groups where the GM lets them do whatever they want.

I have, however, had resentful players who were denied some pet munchkin-item end up trying to sour the game on purpose.  Usually, that's not as bad as it sounds, because it turns the other players, who might have been open to supporting said player in his munchkiny quest out of their own sense of power-lust, against the primma donna, because now he's fucking up their fun.

RPGPundit

A simple solution is not to play stock 3.5. A second solution would be to learn to the rules beforehand, rather than having to constantly jump around making ad hoc fixes, and exploit them yourself in an asymmetric fashion during combat.

Beyond the bravado, CharOp is not generally a problem so long as everyone, including the DM, has a decent or better level of system mastery and understands the basic ideas of how CharOp works. Builds like Pun-Pun are hypothetical concept builds, not intended for play, and distract from discussion of actual CharOp.

Quote from: RPGPundit;504820This is a stupid argument.  By the same note, I could say that an intelligent GM won't use a system that would create this problem in the first place, and thus the smartest thing a GM can do is not play 3.x

The rare coincidence of moons where Pundit and I agree on something.

Quote from: RPGPundit;504820This is a stupid argument.  By the same note, I could say that an intelligent GM won't use a system that would create this problem in the first place, and thus the smartest thing a GM can do is not play 3.x

RPGPundit

Except it isn't a problem with the rules, it is a problem with munchkin Players and ineffective GMs which is then blamed upon the rules of 3.x. If it were a problem with the rules, then it would be far more prevalent than it is.

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.

Okay, let's look at the reverse scenario, a player creates a character who is largely ineffective. Is that okay or do you smack him too?

Quote from: RPGPundit;504825This is the problem. As soon as you allow the feat system, you have to allow for the abuses it can create. As soon as players have a list of options of more than 2 or 3 to choose from, they'll find ways to combine those to do things completely against the spirit of the mechanics but completely within the letter of the rules, and then you're stuck explaining why they "can't" do something that the rules clearly say they can; so suddenly, you're stuck having to give permission for every single feat.

I don't have to explain in detail as my house rules always state that the GM outranks the RAW and that (for games like 3e or HERO where their are builds) that any powers, feats, builds or usages that are abusive to the campaign or simply do not fit the style of the campaign will be fixed or banned/nerfed when the problem is noticed and that no explanation beyond "this does not work in this campaign" is required of the GM. My house rules also state that powergaming and rules lawyering are unacceptable behavior in my campaigns.

Yes, the above costs me some potential players who read it and find out I mean it, but that's one of the purposes of my house rules sheet -- letting players who just would not fit with my group or my style discover they would probably not like my game before they invest much time in it or cause problems for the campaign.

Quote from: Soylent Green;504844Okay, let's look at the reverse scenario, a player creates a character who is largely ineffective. Is that okay or do you smack him too?

I just give him a power up so that he becomes regular. A common feature of my games is the monk who goes into the temple and goes through a trial to gain a special power up (template, magic item, or spell like abilities). The players never notice that the monk is getting special treatment and it closes the gap.

Shoring up weaknesses during the game can be fun because it makes everyone happy. Telling someone that their character is too good pisses them off.

Sometimes power gamers know what they are doing is broken and wrong, and they are just doing it to be pricks. Other times, a player will just make a character they think is "good" and play them well, and the GM feels like they are getting away with too much.

Quote from: RPGPundit;504827I've never, ever had a player leave my group because I was too strict.  I've seen lots of players abandon groups where the GM lets them do whatever they want.

I have, however, had resentful players who were denied some pet munchkin-item end up trying to sour the game on purpose.  Usually, that's not as bad as it sounds, because it turns the other players, who might have been open to supporting said player in his munchkiny quest out of their own sense of power-lust, against the primma donna, because now he's fucking up their fun.

RPGPundit

Very well said and I agree.  I never had a problem with powergamers, munchkins, and in other words, troublesome players because they are easy to identify and easy to say no to when they ask to play.

QuoteOkay, let's look at the reverse scenario, a player creates a character who is largely ineffective. Is that okay or do you smack him too?

Give an example of such a character...

Over the years I have found that players with the highest propensity for abruptly walking away from a game, were typically the same individuals who throw tantrums regularly (both in rpg games, and outside of rpg games).

In the many one-shot evening rpg games and boardgames I've played over the years, I've noticed the tantrum throwers were the individuals that nobody wanted to play rpg games or boardgames with.  Frequently these were also the same individuals who responded to want ads (posted at gaming stores), that were searching for new players.

Quote from: Ancientgamer1970;504904Give an example of such a character...

For 3.5 / PF

Two Weapon Fighter with a high dexterity score, light armor, and weapon finesse.

It is an obvious character and its is trash.

Sorcerer - Two First Level Spells: Magic Missile and Mage Armor

Again, an obvious warrior type character but has nothing to contribute.

Monk 3.5

Same as the crappy TWF above but with less armor and health.

Quote from: RPGPundit;504827I've never, ever had a player leave my group because I was too strict.  I've seen lots of players abandon groups where the GM lets them do whatever they want.

That pretty closely mirrors my experience. I have seen a guy who was way too strict and his group dumped him-for me. But that's really an exception not the rule.

QuoteI have, however, had resentful players who were denied some pet munchkin-item end up trying to sour the game on purpose.  Usually, that's not as bad as it sounds, because it turns the other players, who might have been open to supporting said player in his munchkiny quest out of their own sense of power-lust, against the primma donna, because now he's fucking up their fun.

Again this mirrors my experience. I don't think our approach to this is all that different.

Quote from: Ancientgamer1970;504904Give an example of such a character...

Gosh, my D&D lore is rusty. But I'm sure that if, for concept reasons or just due to lack of experience, you were to take a unwise race/class combination and choose the less useful Feats you can end up with a character who under-performs for his level.

For what it's worth I seem I remember my halfling monk back when 3e was new being less than impressive with her 1d3 damage.

Of course now someone will show that with Feat X,Y and Z halfing monks are the true combat monsters or something.