TheRPGSite

I've been reading in this thread  (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=21704)and this thread  (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=21668)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 (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19869366/The_most_powerful_character._EVER) 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!"

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  (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=21704)and this thread  (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=21668)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 (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19869366/The_most_powerful_character._EVER) 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.

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

Exactly. I do not worry about this kind of stuff. If some build happens to be negative to the game, either (a) we discuss it and make the changes needed to make things work or (b) I note it down and it becomes part of the bad guys tactics, too.

Quote from: RPGPundit;504820and thus the smartest thing a GM can do is not play 3.x

RPGPundit

This is not a stupid proposition :D

There's been a cultural viewpoint shift where a segment of the gaming population wanted to move away from GM interpretation authority to RAW literalist authority. I think we've all observed such a phenomenon over the past 15 years. I know I have, in both real life and online. It's sort of a thing that has permeated beyond just this hobby as well, so I can't really blame it on something trite like, "GM abuse under crappy AD&D 2e modules." It's been a cultural shift where people tend to demand all options be spelled out for them, instead of general restrictions as interpretive guidelines. I guess our history is just going through some literal v. interpretive cycle in some Hegelian interpretation or whatnot.

I myself don't partake of such literalist/legalist nonsense, for that path leads to madness in my opinion. I feel that critical thinking and social trust compacts are important for maintaining gaming table health -- and well, at simplest basic gamer friendships so as to not be a douche. Which probably explains that I have little truck with rules lawyering and little love for the community standard of play in D&D 3e/PF and 4e.

There are too many rules changes necessary for 3e to function beyond about eighth level for me to bother.  It has less to do with outliers like Pun-Pun and more to do with rules clusterfucks like polymorph.

QuoteThere's been a cultural viewpoint shift where a segment of the gaming population wanted to move away from GM interpretation authority to RAW literalist authority.

This too.

I still wish someone had published an E6 or E8 book, instead of just having guidelines on a forum.

Quote from: Opaopajr;504942There's been a cultural viewpoint shift where a segment of the gaming population wanted to move away from GM interpretation authority to RAW literalist authority. I think we've all observed such a phenomenon over the past 15 years. I know I have, in both real life and online. It's sort of a thing that has permeated beyond just this hobby as well, so I can't really blame it on something trite like, "GM abuse under crappy AD&D 2e modules." It's been a cultural shift where people tend to demand all options be spelled out for them, instead of general restrictions as interpretive guidelines. I guess our history is just going through some literal v. interpretive cycle in some Hegelian interpretation or whatnot.

This wasn't new in 1998 with 3rd ed D&D.  During the 80s some gamers would turn to more comprehensive rule sets like Champions or GURPS - then the pendulum swung the other way in the 1990s with the popularity of the Storyteller system.  This taste isn't for "raw" rules - the people who want rules with no human judgment play computer games.  Rather, some people prefer rules that clearly state what they mean, and don't take a self-proclaimed expert to creatively interpret.  

Quote from: Opaopajr;504942I myself don't partake of such literalist/legalist nonsense, for that path leads to madness in my opinion. I feel that critical thinking and social trust compacts are important for maintaining gaming table health -- and well, at simplest basic gamer friendships so as to not be a douche. Which probably explains that I have little truck with rules lawyering and little love for the community standard of play in D&D 3e/PF and 4e.

This sounds like the typical line of "People who don't play the same way I do are all jerks and swine" - which is always bullshit.  I can play a rules-heavy Champions game and have plenty critical thinking and trust, while still following the rules exactly.  It's just a different style of play.

The E6 guidelines also exist as a 12 page PDF; it is available from various places, like the OP in the ENWorld thread (http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/206323-e6-game-inside-d-d.html). Unless you mean the actual game rules edited down to 6 levels - that doesn't exist.

Play however you need to play; no skin off my back. But I know two things: 1. There's no such thing as a perfect system, and 2. You're going to eventually need a judge. Which explains why regardless of our English common law or other country's statutory law foundation, you're going to come across confusing situations that don't work with the system in a literal sense, and you'll need someone to adjudicate the result from an interpretive sense.

Now if you have the time to deal with the headache from RAW, lengthy online petition for redress, and wait for errata from on high, more power to you. But that ain't anything I'm interested in doing for my RPGs. Already dealt with more than enough of that growing up playing CCGs (and probably explains why I retired from most of them). And I'm not sorry my opinion harshes anyone's buzz.

If this is a problem with your group, I suggest checking out games with randomized chargen.

My Champions group did well for years because I declared myself final arbiter of chargen. And I was hardcore about disadvantages. I was the guy who openly rolled everyone's Hunteds and DNPCs at the start of the game and kept copies of all the NPC stats in a handy binder.

I knew a group in HS who played Villains & Vigilantes and Heroes Unlimited because they could not trust their players to play Hero in a civil manner. They were good guys, but couldn't help from going all asshat with point buy games.

I'm not really clear why feats are always implicated so heavily in these discussions. -Any- item in the design space which offers players significant choice concerning their characters are ripe for abuse, and as that design space expands the opportunity for disaster increase at an ever escalating rate; for no other reason then the viewpoint of one (or a handful) of designers cannot hope to notice every broken 'combo' while thousands of CharOp users can.

Feats in 3.x were a major contributor in that game but so were class features being mixed and matched, items, substitution levels, prestige classes, straight up errors etc.

It didn't matter that most of them were garbage so long as enough of them existed to eventually create a perfect storm. In 4e picking the right paragon path could sometimes mean "I win".

Most of this I credit to feats giving players abilities they normally would not have, as opposed to increasing the potency of an existing feature (that too can a problematic however).

For instance a feat that gives you 2 more healing surges per day 8 -> 10 is a lot less dangerous than saying you suddenly deal damage to everyone near you when you Teleport, or charge as a move action.

Quote from: Imperator;504920Exactly. I do not worry about this kind of stuff. If some build happens to be negative to the game, either (a) we discuss it and make the changes needed to make things work or (b) I note it down and it becomes part of the bad guys tactics, too.

(b) is a really valuable tip for any situation where the players have discovered a tactic or ability combo that seems unbeatable to you. Once the NPCs start doing the same thing, there are only two possibilities:

(1) The players will realize it's busted and will be amenable to the problem being fixed.

(2) The players will figure out an effective counter for the tactic... which the NPCs can then use.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;505137(1) The players will realize it's busted and will be amenable to the problem being fixed.

Hold person, enemies started to carry scrolls, put an end to that shit real quick.

There is NO SUCH THING as common sense in a fictional setting, only a sense of what the GM assumes to be true. This is kinda a fundamental element of RPGs people keep missing. In an RPG session there are no reasonable assumptions outside of either the rules or the GM's decisions. They only seem reasonable because you have enough shared experience not to notice them.

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

Would it be reasonable then to want a set of rules which prevent, or at the very least enable you to spot, what doesn't work before it becomes a problem in play?

Quote from: RPGPundit;504820By 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

I agree completely.

Quote from: jeff37923;504841Except 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.

First, the only reason it isn't more prevalent is it requires system mastery which is difficult, and I suspect not fun for most players (thankfully).

Second, the RPGPundit's comment IS an example of how an effective GM solves the problem, that is, by not using a crappy set of rules which enables players to create this problem in the first place.

Quote from: chaosvoyager;505149Would it be reasonable then to want a set of rules which prevent, or at the very least enable you to spot, what doesn't work before it becomes a problem in play?

No, it wouldn't be reasonable to want that. Because in the end this is a social creative game. And when players are being creative, they will find a way to break things - however thorough and "balanced" the rules are. Thus part of the GM's job is to act as referee and deal with problems as they arise.

In asking for a set of rules which don't allow players to break things, you're asking for a set of rules which stifle player creativity. Which is sort of like asking for a running race in which people keep stopping. It's not reasonable, no.

Quote from: chaosvoyager;505149There is NO SUCH THING as common sense in a fictional setting, only a sense of what the GM assumes to be true. This is kinda a fundamental element of RPGs people keep missing. In an RPG session there are no reasonable assumptions outside of either the rules or the GM's decisions. They only seem reasonable because you have enough shared experience not to notice them.

This whole paragraph would make sense if I wasn't referring to the common sense of Gamemasters. You know, those guys and gals who exist in the Real World?

Quote from: chaosvoyager;505149First, the only reason it isn't more prevalent is it requires system mastery which is difficult, and I suspect not fun for most players (thankfully).

Go Google Pun-Pun and then tell me how many places that build can be found as a reference. The Internet has become a grand equalizer in this.

Quote from: chaosvoyager;505149Second, the RPGPundit's comment IS an example of how an effective GM solves the problem, that is, by not using a crappy set of rules which enables players to create this problem in the first place.

Which I would agree with if it was a rules problem and not a Player type problem.

Face it, the same type of Player who would pull this munchkin bullshit in a 3.x game would also pull this in any other RPG system available to them that they were playing if given the chance.

It's worth a mention (to those ignorant enough to not understand it already), that there's a vast difference in "breaking" the mechanics because there are no rules for an attack done by swinging from a chandolier, and breaking the rules by making your character deal 500 damage when bull - rushing on 5th level.

If it makes them happy and doesn't completely break the game then I let them do it.

If it breaks the game to such an extent that it is unplayable, then I throw a few more powerful NPCs at them with the same, or similar, setup and see how they like it. If they still think it's a good idea then I use my GM-Munchkinery to optimise a few more NPCs and throw them in the mix. Normally they get the point and we house-rule to prevent game-breaking side-effects.

It's only a game, after all. Everyone is there to enjoy themselves and if it makes a player happy to optimise a PC then I don't have a problem with that.

Quote from: two_fishes;504810really. 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!"

For future reference, the most obvious indicator of when I'm joking will be me, saying "I'm not even joking", while saying something patently ridiculous. No way you'd know this, of course. I'll be more careful in the future.

Quote from: chaosvoyager;505149There is NO SUCH THING as common sense in a fictional setting, only a sense of what the GM assumes to be true. This is kinda a fundamental element of RPGs people keep missing. In an RPG session there are no reasonable assumptions outside of either the rules or the GM's decisions. They only seem reasonable because you have enough shared experience not to notice them.

I'd argue that reasonable assumptions that seem reasonable because of shared experience is the very definition of 'common sense'.

The idea that what a sane and reasonable GM thinks is 'common sense' and what any particular sane and reasonable player thinks is 'common sense' is somehow entirely arbitrary is false, in my experience. Minor differences are moderated through effective communication - major differences, assuming two people from the same culture and neither is intentionally unreasonable or mentally ill, probably don't exist.

Quote from: Kaldric;505275For future reference, the most obvious indicator of when I'm joking will be me, saying "I'm not even joking", while saying something patently ridiculous. No way you'd know this, of course. I'll be more careful in the future.

You got me. I didn't catch on to the sarcasm at all.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;505137(b) is a really valuable tip for any situation where the players have discovered a tactic or ability combo that seems unbeatable to you. Once the NPCs start doing the same thing, there are only two possibilities:

(1) The players will realize it's busted and will be amenable to the problem being fixed.

(2) The players will figure out an effective counter for the tactic... which the NPCs can then use.

Exactly. Once a group of players see their brilliant tactics used against them, they really have to think really hard about the stuff, and if it makes sense to them.

Anyway, this problem seldom happens to me.

Quote from: Imperator;504920Exactly. I do not worry about this kind of stuff. If some build happens to be negative to the game, either (a) we discuss it and make the changes needed to make things work or (b) I note it down and it becomes part of the bad guys tactics, too.


This is not a stupid proposition :D

Quote from: Justin Alexander;505137(b) is a really valuable tip for any situation where the players have discovered a tactic or ability combo that seems unbeatable to you. Once the NPCs start doing the same thing, there are only two possibilities:

(1) The players will realize it's busted and will be amenable to the problem being fixed.

(2) The players will figure out an effective counter for the tactic... which the NPCs can then use.

Sounds like a good common sense solution to me.

Honestly, I do think that common sense is really underrated on RPG message boards. The problem with stuff like rules-lawyering, uber-CharOp-powergaming and the likes isn't the rules system, unless issues are generalized with it, but the people who use those rules to break the game. If you forget the game's the thing here, and not the rules, you fail at role-playing. Try again. So. Rules don't fix people. People fix themselves. Nothing beats good communication at the game table.

If you consistently have problems like this at the game table ask yourself: am I being obtuse here? Am I perceived as a douche by the players? Is there something to be said about my GMing that spawns this bullshit all the time? Chances are, there is a bad dynamic going on. That can be fixed with good communication and an ability to be honest with yourself.

I'm taking a turn DMing my group. We were talking about what system to use next, and d6 Star Wars came up.

The first thing one of the players said was "Oh, cool, I'm totally being a Smuggler or a Bounty Hunter [I think it was]". He then went on to explain how over-powered they are. Another one of the players agreed with him.

Strangely, no one seems to have connected "we know how to break Star Wars and we will" with "James isn't running Star Wars".

However, I don't really blame the players. Maybe it's inappropriate for Star Wars, but they're mostly 3.5 players, and they're only doing what you're supposed to do.

PS Yes, I simmered in rage instead of saying something.

Quote from: Age of Fable;505545I'm taking a turn DMing my group. We were talking about what system to use next, and d6 Star Wars came up.

The first thing one of the players said was "Oh, cool, I'm totally being a Smuggler or a Bounty Hunter [I think it was]". He then went on to explain how over-powered they are. Another one of the players agreed with him.

Strangely, no one seems to have connected "we know how to break Star Wars and we will" with "James isn't running Star Wars".

However, I don't really blame the players. Maybe it's inappropriate for Star Wars, but they're mostly 3.5 players, and they're only doing what you're supposed to do.

PS Yes, I simmered in rage instead of saying something.

I've got to ask, how in WEG d6 Star Wars can a Smuggler or Bounty Hunter break the system?

No idea. It might not have been those two either.

Quote from: Age of Fable;505545I'm taking a turn DMing my group. We were talking about what system to use next, and d6 Star Wars came up.

The first thing one of the players said was "Oh, cool, I'm totally being a Smuggler or a Bounty Hunter [I think it was]". He then went on to explain how over-powered they are. Another one of the players agreed with him.

Strangely, no one seems to have connected "we know how to break Star Wars and we will" with "James isn't running Star Wars".

However, I don't really blame the players. Maybe it's inappropriate for Star Wars, but they're mostly 3.5 players, and they're only doing what you're supposed to do.

PS Yes, I simmered in rage instead of saying something.

Wow.  Simmering with rage sounds pretty bad.  I don't know the people here, but do you think that talking to them in the future could help?  

From what you say, this sounds just like play that I have often engaged in as a player, and at other times as a GM accepted such behavior without problem.  Often, the fun for me is not just playing make-believe, but specifically working within a rule system with mechanics, and trying to do best with those rules.  I don't think it's too much an issue of Star Wars d6 vs. D&D 3.5.  I remember when I first played D&D3.0, my DM sometimes seemed annoyed when I would do things that seemed best within the rules.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;505137(b) is a really valuable tip for any situation where the players have discovered a tactic or ability combo that seems unbeatable to you. Once the NPCs start doing the same thing, there are only two possibilities:

(1) The players will realize it's busted and will be amenable to the problem being fixed.

(2) The players will figure out an effective counter for the tactic... which the NPCs can then use.

Unless there is a logical line of communication between witnesses of the PCs battle and later enemies, I find this one pretty annoying - much like the discussion of The Ethics of )(*#$ing with the PCs' plans (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=21619).  The message is likely to come across as "Don't use good tactics, because then I'll just make things harder for you."  

Basically, if there is an infinite loop type problem with the rules, then I'd simply rule straight out that it doesn't work.  Other than that, though, I would prefer to just let them succeed, and offer generally tougher opponents (and greater rewards) in the future - rather than specifically trying to break the one tactic.

Quote from: Age of Fable;505545I'm taking a turn DMing my group. We were talking about what system to use next, and d6 Star Wars came up.

The first thing one of the players said was "Oh, cool, I'm totally being a Smuggler or a Bounty Hunter [I think it was]". He then went on to explain how over-powered they are. Another one of the players agreed with him.

Strangely, no one seems to have connected "we know how to break Star Wars and we will" with "James isn't running Star Wars".

However, I don't really blame the players. Maybe it's inappropriate for Star Wars, but they're mostly 3.5 players, and they're only doing what you're supposed to do.

PS Yes, I simmered in rage instead of saying something.

I suspect those were empty boasts. For one thing templates don't really mean much in Star Wars; they are just a pre-packaged set of points. Sure if you spend all your dice in combat related abilities you'll be good at combat - it doesn't take genius to figure that out - but unlike D&D3.x there are no tricks or complicate combinations of Feats  that will make you disproportionally more powerful.

Also, my experience with WEG Star Wars games is that you need an equal amount of combat, technical (especially ship related), roguish and social skills. So the guy who made the combat monster you can end up being sidelined for most the adventure.

Quote from: jhkim;505708Unless there is a logical line of communication between witnesses of the PCs battle and later enemies, I find this one pretty annoying - much like the discussion of The Ethics of )(*#$ing with the PCs' plans (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=21619).  The message is likely to come across as "Don't use good tactics, because then I'll just make things harder for you."

Meh. The game is also a game: Both players and GMs are going to get better at playing it. Saying that the GM is never allowed to get better at playing the game is, IMO, sophomoric self-entitlement.

"E2 to E4."

"You can't use that opening! I used it in the last game! You're just trying to send the message that I'm not allowed to use good tactics!"

Quote from: Justin Alexander;505766"You can't use that opening! I used it in the last game! You're just trying to send the message that I'm not allowed to use good tactics!"

I don't think the analogy's appropriate; chess is an explicitly competitive winner-take-all game.  TTRPGs are ostensibly supposed to be cooperative ventures between players and GM, and I think it's entirely reasonable to be concerned about GMing tactics that are pretty much guaranteed to create an adversarial relationship between the players and their GM and kick off an arms race to boot.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;505766Meh. The game is also a game: Both players and GMs are going to get better at playing it. Saying that the GM is never allowed to get better at playing the game is, IMO, sophomoric self-entitlement.

"E2 to E4."

"You can't use that opening! I used it in the last game! You're just trying to send the message that I'm not allowed to use good tactics!"

Note that I never said that the GM is not allowed to get better at playing the game.  I'm fine with the GM getting better on his own, or learning broad principles from the players.  My problem was with the PCs' enemies using specific tactics only after the PCs have tried them.  

As GM, I don't have to be tactically clever with my NPCs -- because I can always just give them more levels/points/etc.  RPGs are not like chess games, because there is no such thing as fair competition between me and the players.  

If the campaign has gone on for a while and my understanding of tactics has gone up significantly, I might introduce a new bunch of NPCs who are more tactically skilled who use some tactics including ones the PCs have used.  However, that wouldn't be a general thing, and it wouldn't be done as a "counter" or "solution" to the PCs using an effective tactic.  In general, if the PCs come up with an effective tactic, then that tactic will continue to be effective, and I won't try to find a "solution" so that tactic is no longer effective.

The thing with countering PCs with magic is that it warps the setting too much from baseline fantasy.

If the spellcaster can cast Silence 15 Radius and Invisibility then what's the point of the rogue or ranger with stealth?

Sure I could put in counter magic, give guards rings of detect invisibility or something like that, but then I have a setting where magic is becoming increasingly mundane and I have to play a constant arms race with the players.

At this point D&D ceases to become a fantasy game where I can reference and be inspired by fantasy literature and instead becomes it's own constantly self-referential thing.

Quote from: Dog Quixote;505922The thing with countering PCs with magic is that it warps the setting too much from baseline fantasy.

If the spellcaster can cast Silence 15 Radius and Invisibility then what's the point of the rogue or ranger with stealth?

Sure I could put in counter magic, give guards rings of detect invisibility or something like that, but then I have a setting where magic is becoming increasingly mundane and I have to play a constant arms race with the players.

At this point D&D ceases to become a fantasy game where I can reference and be inspired by fantasy literature and instead becomes it's own constantly self-referential thing.

Well, to me, D&D is already it's own thing distinct from the kinds of fantasy literature that I prefer.  

However, I agree that balance *among* the PCs can be an issue - where a player can feel bad if they are overshadowed by another player's PC.  However, it's an issue that is tied up a huge amount with player dynamics and personalities.  Sometimes players are OK with one PC being Gandalf and one PC being Pippin.  However, sometimes it can cause problems.  

My usual solution is that if the Pippin character is being overshadowed, to give him some personalized benefit - rather than trying to drag down the more powerful character.  The fixes are individual, though, not just to the character but also to the player.  i.e. The questions is, what will make this player happy?  There is no need to universally balance the two PC builds.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;505153No, it wouldn't be reasonable to want that.

Then what is it reasonable to want the set of rules to enable you to DO?

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;505153And when players are being creative, they will find a way to break things

Define 'break' things, because so far the definition I'm seeing in this thread = making play suck, and at least with my group this is not what happens when they are being creative.

Though perhaps you're using a different definition for 'creative' too :)

Quote from: jeff37923;505171This whole paragraph would make sense if I wasn't referring to the common sense of Gamemasters. You know, those guys and gals who exist in the Real World?

No shit. Also, that's the ENTIRE FUCKING POINT!

What's one common sense assumption when facing a Dragon?

Quote from: jeff37923;505171Go Google Pun-Pun and then tell me how many places that build can be found as a reference. The Internet has become a grand equalizer in this.

In other words, the internet has made the game of character optimization a non-game. Wonderful. Now perhaps we can remove such systems entirely since they're redundant :)

On the other hand, GMs without internet access, or who lack the cognitive ability to spot that the synonym for 'broken character' is 'Pun-Pun', are at a disadvantage against the players who do.

Quote from: jeff37923;505171Face it, the same type of Player who would pull this munchkin bullshit in a 3.x game would also pull this in any other RPG system available to them that they were playing if given the chance.

First, they're likely not going to enjoy the games I run if their primary source of fun is in optimizing character generation, and I will not play in games with people who do this. So the nature of the game filters this kind of shit out.

Secondly, I'd like to see them TRY to munchkin in Apocalypse World, Dogs in the Vineyard, Smallville, Leverage, Don't Rest Your Head, Sorcerer, Marvel Heroic Roleplay, Amber, FATE, and (I think) Legends of the Wulin (which is still too new to be sure).

Can't. Be. Done.

In running/playing these I have eliminated a major headache both in analyzing potentially broken characters, and avoiding players who make it a fucking game to try and sneak a broken combination past me.

Quote from: soltakss;505190If it breaks the game to such an extent that it is unplayable, then I throw a few more powerful NPCs at them with the same, or similar, setup and see how they like it. If they still think it's a good idea then I use my GM-Munchkinery to optimise a few more NPCs and throw them in the mix. Normally they get the point and we house-rule to prevent game-breaking side-effects.

Is that really a better idea than just asking the player in question to please stop being a massive dick?

Quote from: Kaldric;505277I'd argue that reasonable assumptions that seem reasonable because of shared experience is the very definition of 'common sense'.

Yes, yes it is.

Quote from: Kaldric;505277The idea that what a sane and reasonable GM thinks is 'common sense' and what any particular sane and reasonable player thinks is 'common sense' is somehow entirely arbitrary is false, in my experience. Minor differences are moderated through effective communication - major differences, assuming two people from the same culture and neither is intentionally unreasonable or mentally ill, probably don't exist.

A sane and reasonable GM? What are those?

I kid :)

The thing is that every major problem that arises in play (short of someone deliberately being a dick) can be attributed to a conflict of expectations or a breakdown in communication. And considering these problems still pop up, even with groups of friends, I can only conclude that a lack of common sense is still an issue.

And while gamers of a particular RPG may share a lot of common experience, people who have never played, or played a different enough RPG, will not only be in danger of making different assumptions in play, but potentially contradictory ones.

Finally, the reason the kind of optimization being discussed in this thread is a problem is because most of the players who do this in my experience do not tell the GM what it means in play! As I said, they try and just sneak it past like a bad patent application. They are NOT COMMUNICATING with the GM on the level necessary for a good game. And the only ways for the GM to spot this breach is to understand the rules better than the player, or encounter it in play.

So yes, I agree that at heart this is a social issue, but the game rules play a fundamental part in giving this particular issue form. Chekhov's Rules if you will.

Quote from: Benoist;505288Honestly, I do think that common sense is really underrated on RPG message boards.

Considering the size of the community, and the level of shared experience between its members, why is this still the case?

Quote from: chaosvoyager;506088Considering the size of the community, and the level of shared experience between its members, why is this still the case?

I think a huge part of it has to do with the nature of the medium. The question the internet as a medium answers best for its users is: "Why Wasn't I Consulted?" (http://www.ftrain.com/wwic.html) (if you haven't read this column before, do yourself a favor and read it - you'll understand the internet, the way people post, and why they get so mad in particular when they see someone disagreeing with them, or us, much better)

Then, I think this has to do with who, amongst gamers, is more likely to come to a message board to basically complain that he wasn't consulted. That will be the whiners, the rules lawyers, all the people that blame the games for their own failings, or who want to bitch at their mean GMs, which then the would-be designers read and take to heart by designing games that "fix" the GMs, and so on, so forth. That comes down to a simple social rule: people who are generally satisfied have no particular reason to open their mouth, whereas unsatisfied people will grab the bullhorn to yell their miscontent to whoever wants to hear. Same with politics, religion, etc etc.

I also think there's something to be said about the timing of it all, and how the internet boom coincided with the release of 3.0 D&D, how from then the 3rd ed rules became interpreted as hard-coded and static affairs, rather than you know, the advice and explanations they really were (the obvious example here being the EL/CR system of 3.0. D&D, the outrage that took over the internet when some 3PPs used them as mere guidelines and how that was "bad design" and "unfair to the players" blah blah blah, which then basically sealed the deal in the minds of the publishers that a module HAS to be designed following these guidelines in a mathematical, anal way, otherwise it's "Bad"...).

There's certainly more to it than that, but this is a start.

Quote from: Benoist;506100I also think there's something to be said about the timing of it all, and how the internet boom coincided with the release of 3.0 D&D, how from then the 3rd ed rules became interpreted as hard-coded and static affairs, rather than you know, the advice and explanations they really were.

In one the the "legends & lore" articles they talked about the transition from 3.0 to 3.5 in the 'hard coding' of rules as arbiters. Specifically the cover chart. In 3.0 it was a rather clever illustration showing what 9/10 to 1/2 cover looked like with the assumption that players and DMs would be comfortable comparing and making decisions on there own. Whereas in 3.5 there was an absolute standard for if you had cover or not (involving lots of imaginary lines).

Now I personally liked that there was now fewer 'categories' of cover, but not 'the rules' resting the more imaginative aspects from me, and more importantly from my DM.

Quote from: chaosvoyager;506088No shit. Also, that's the ENTIRE FUCKING POINT!

What's one common sense assumption when facing a Dragon?

Then you have missed it because I am talking about the Players while you seem to be talking about the Characters.

Quote from: chaosvoyager;506088In other words, the internet has made the game of character optimization a non-game. Wonderful. Now perhaps we can remove such systems entirely since they're redundant :)

On the other hand, GMs without internet access, or who lack the cognitive ability to spot that the synonym for 'broken character' is 'Pun-Pun', are at a disadvantage against the players who do.

You do understand that there is an entire subforum called "Character Optimization" (http://community.wizards.com/go/forum/view/75882/136042/d20_Character_Optimization) on the WotC forums, right? That Players can just look up to find out some of the best ways to munchkinize their characters?

Quote from: chaosvoyager;506088First, they're likely not going to enjoy the games I run if their primary source of fun is in optimizing character generation, and I will not play in games with people who do this. So the nature of the game filters this kind of shit out.

Secondly, I'd like to see them TRY to munchkin in Apocalypse World, Dogs in the Vineyard, Smallville, Leverage, Don't Rest Your Head, Sorcerer, Marvel Heroic Roleplay, Amber, FATE, and (I think) Legends of the Wulin (which is still too new to be sure).

Can't. Be. Done.

In running/playing these I have eliminated a major headache both in analyzing potentially broken characters, and avoiding players who make it a fucking game to try and sneak a broken combination past me.

So your best advice is to throw away the games I enjoy? Unacceptable. Better to throw away the disruptive munchkin Player.

Rules won't solve people's problems, that's what Forge and quite a bit of traditional RPGs doesn't understand. Player tries to roll up a powergamed character?

1) Deny him.
2) Send out just as powergamed opponents against him - if needed, use exactly his bloody build, if you have no other idea.
3) Do some challenges in your game that are not based on mechanic.

I know that point 3 is all gasp and such, as it requires some imagination on GM's side, but hey - you knew this wouldn't be easy when you signed for the job.

Of course, alternatively, you can just go ahead and get a copy of AW, and pretend that you are now a fully - fledged GM, as you are guided by careful hand of Vinnie so you don't break his precious game.

Quote from: jhkim;505841Note that I never said that the GM is not allowed to get better at playing the game.  I'm fine with the GM getting better on his own, or learning broad principles from the players.  My problem was with the PCs' enemies using specific tactics only after the PCs have tried them.  

As GM, I don't have to be tactically clever with my NPCs -- because I can always just give them more levels/points/etc.  RPGs are not like chess games, because there is no such thing as fair competition between me and the players.  

If the campaign has gone on for a while and my understanding of tactics has gone up significantly, I might introduce a new bunch of NPCs who are more tactically skilled who use some tactics including ones the PCs have used.  However, that wouldn't be a general thing, and it wouldn't be done as a "counter" or "solution" to the PCs using an effective tactic.  In general, if the PCs come up with an effective tactic, then that tactic will continue to be effective, and I won't try to find a "solution" so that tactic is no longer effective.

Agreed. Unless the opponents have observed or heard about the tactic then they won't build a counter. In actual fact preserving the secrecy of their tactics migh become a PC goal. Leave no one living, never explain how you did it etc.
If I was a PC and I built a legal character that the DM had okayed and then when I used my trinket of trapping in combination with my glove of grasping the DM when hold on you can't do that I would be mighty pissed off. Likewise if our party divised a way to teleport uneringly into a treasure room and steal everything based arround some clever combo with mirrors and polymorphed rodents and then the third time we tried it there were loads of cats on guard but our methods had never been revealed or discovered i would call bullshit.

When the game is put into play the NPCs are 'real' they exist in the same way the PCs and everything else exists. You can't give them knowledge they wouldn't gain through actually interacting with the world. There are thousands of way to achive that which you wish without breaking the rules of "immersion".

Quote from: jibbajibba;506219Likewise if our party divised a way to teleport uneringly into a treasure room and steal everything based arround some clever combo with mirrors and polymorphed rodents and then the third time we tried it there were loads of cats on guard but our methods had never been revealed or discovered i would call bullshit.

On the flip side, one could always claim that the opponent understands the tactic without needing to have contact with PCs who use it. I could be that case that the guard had -already- figured out it would be easy to sneak as a polymorphed animal and then teleport in. After all they live in the same world as the PCs and ought to have access to the very knowledge that enabled the plan in the first place.

I'm reminded of a wizard build who's only strategy was to locate elder dragons via scry, then teleport to them, win initiative (via some self made item cheese), use the ray that damaged dexterity (dragons always had low dex), kill them while they were helpless, and port out with the treasure.

IIRC they could even do this several times a day.

But if the player can do this independently then an NPC figuring it out independently would not stretch my willful suspension of disbelief. In fact the Dragons may even know they are vulnerable to this tactic and try to shore up their weakness, before the wizard even attempts. One needs not even change the rules, just let the target be proactive.

Quote from: Benoist;506100I think a huge part of it has to do with the nature of the medium. The question the internet as a medium answers best for its users is: "Why Wasn't I Consulted?" (http://www.ftrain.com/wwic.html) (if you haven't read this column before, do yourself a favor and read it - you'll understand the internet, the way people post, and why they get so mad in particular when they see someone disagreeing with them, or us, much better)

Then, I think this has to do with who, amongst gamers, is more likely to come to a message board to basically complain that he wasn't consulted. That will be the whiners, the rules lawyers, all the people that blame the games for their own failings, or who want to bitch at their mean GMs, which then the would-be designers read and take to heart by designing games that "fix" the GMs, and so on, so forth. That comes down to a simple social rule: people who are generally satisfied have no particular reason to open their mouth, whereas unsatisfied people will grab the bullhorn to yell their miscontent to whoever wants to hear. Same with politics, religion, etc etc.

I also think there's something to be said about the timing of it all, and how the internet boom coincided with the release of 3.0 D&D, how from then the 3rd ed rules became interpreted as hard-coded and static affairs, rather than you know, the advice and explanations they really were (the obvious example here being the EL/CR system of 3.0. D&D, the outrage that took over the internet when some 3PPs used them as mere guidelines and how that was "bad design" and "unfair to the players" blah blah blah, which then basically sealed the deal in the minds of the publishers that a module HAS to be designed following these guidelines in a mathematical, anal way, otherwise it's "Bad"...).

There's certainly more to it than that, but this is a start.

Guess that explains you being on the internet.

Quote from: Sommerjon;506245Guess that explains you being on the internet.

And you posting this.

Guys guys stop, the heat is killing me.

Quote from: Rincewind1;506249Guys guys stop, the heat is killing me.

It's funny he didn't see the irony in posting his pearl on this thread. :D

Quote from: Benoist;506250It's funny he didn't see the irony in posting his pearl on this thread. :D

Oh, I am well aware.

Quote from: chaosvoyager;506088Define 'break' things, because so far the definition I'm seeing in this thread = making play suck, and at least with my group this is not what happens when they are being creative.

Though perhaps you're using a different definition for 'creative' too :)

The thing is, "making play suck" isn't an objective fact.  Some people think that play with optimized characters sucks, while other people enjoy it.  The issue I'm having is some people insisting that players who optimize their characters are "dicks" or "assholes" or whatever - when I enjoy that style of play.  

Quote from: chaosvoyager;506088Secondly, I'd like to see them TRY to munchkin in Apocalypse World, Dogs in the Vineyard, Smallville, Leverage, Don't Rest Your Head, Sorcerer, Marvel Heroic Roleplay, Amber, FATE, and (I think) Legends of the Wulin (which is still too new to be sure).

Can't. Be. Done.

In running/playing these I have eliminated a major headache both in analyzing potentially broken characters, and avoiding players who make it a fucking game to try and sneak a broken combination past me.

It depends what you mean by "munchkin".  It's true that optimizing in, say, Dogs in the Vineyard is very different than optimizing in 3rd edition D&D.  There is a lot more social engineering into coming up, say, with traits that one can always draw into a conflict.  However, strategies that involve a social side are still strategies.  To illustrate, I have an essay on  Dogs in the Vineyard Strategy Guide (http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/dogsinthevineyard/strategy.html).

Quote from: Kord's Boon;506228On the flip side, one could always claim that the opponent understands the tactic without needing to have contact with PCs who use it. I could be that case that the guard had -already- figured out it would be easy to sneak as a polymorphed animal and then teleport in. After all they live in the same world as the PCs and ought to have access to the very knowledge that enabled the plan in the first place.

I'm reminded of a wizard build who's only strategy was to locate elder dragons via scry, then teleport to them, win initiative (via some self made item cheese), use the ray that damaged dexterity (dragons always had low dex), kill them while they were helpless, and port out with the treasure.

IIRC they could even do this several times a day.

But if the player can do this independently then an NPC figuring it out independently would not stretch my willful suspension of disbelief. In fact the Dragons may even know they are vulnerable to this tactic and try to shore up their weakness, before the wizard even attempts. One needs not even change the rules, just let the target be proactive.

It depends....
If the GM didn't think of the idea it maybe isn't obvious.
Are the PCs exceptional individuals who are supposed to defy the normalities of the game world or are they typical.
If your world has magic shops and adventure guilds and a small town has a 10th level wizard in his tower and the captain of the guards is 9th level then yes.
In my games that is not the game I am playing. Yes a very smart and rich and clever NPC might enploy a famous mage to protect his treasure room from magical intrusion but that still means there is a famous mage the party can have a little chat with....

Take a typical PC plot to steal a mcguffin. enter in gaseous form, shrink the object replace it with an illusionary copy and then escape.

Quote from: Kord's Boon;506228On the flip side, one could always claim that the opponent understands the tactic without needing to have contact with PCs who use it. I could be that case that the guard had -already- figured out it would be easy to sneak as a polymorphed animal and then teleport in. After all they live in the same world as the PCs and ought to have access to the very knowledge that enabled the plan in the first place.

I'm reminded of a wizard build who's only strategy was to locate elder dragons via scry, then teleport to them, win initiative (via some self made item cheese), use the ray that damaged dexterity (dragons always had low dex), kill them while they were helpless, and port out with the treasure.

IIRC they could even do this several times a day.

But if the player can do this independently then an NPC figuring it out independently would not stretch my willful suspension of disbelief. In fact the Dragons may even know they are vulnerable to this tactic and try to shore up their weakness, before the wizard even attempts. One needs not even change the rules, just let the target be proactive.

Here's how I see it.  Once the player comes up with this tactic and you haven't predicted it, then it has highlighted an inconsistency in the world.  The question becomes:  Why hasn't anyone done this in the many years (or centuries) prior to this PC?  

There is no "pure" simulation answer to this question.  The real answer is probably that the GM / world designer failed to take into account how magic worked in setting up the world.  So if I made happened on this error, I would have to change my background to explain the inconsistency of what I had previously come up with.  

However, the answer is not necessarily to shut down the player and prevent it.  One answer might be finding a reason why his PC is new and different.  For example, maybe key spells he is using were newly invented within the last generation.  I might write in how, say, teleport was a long-hidden secret that the PC gained when he got the spell a few adventures ago.  The backstory of that spell might lay groundwork for future adventure.  

The thing is, that many GMs act very defensively about their world.  So if a PC comes up with a successful tactic for defeating monsters, the GM gets angry and resentful that the player is "ruining" the world.  They might show this by having all sorts of NPCs act surly or worse towards the PC.  

My reaction would probably be to give the players their win.  Most people celebrate the disappearance of the known elder dragons of the world, and they are flush with vast treasure making them lords of the land.  Meanwhile, there are probably many people going on about the mystery of what happened to these dragons - and they will probably run into some of those would-be detectives, but not all of them.  The meat of new adventures would probably be on a higher level, like dealing with whole enemy empires and such.

Quote from: Benoist;506100I think a huge part of it has to do with the nature of the medium.

That... makes a lot of sense.

Someone needs to write a similar article on the inherent media strengths of RPGs as compared to movies, books, MMORPGS, etc. Because while it seems obvious, I don't think it is.

Quote from: jeff37923;506187Then you have missed it because I am talking about the Players while you seem to be talking about the Characters.

o_o

The characters don't exist. The players are the ones making the decisions, so they're the ones that need to know what the hell the GM is thinking.

Quote from: jeff37923;506187You do understand that there is an entire subforum called "Character Optimization" (http://community.wizards.com/go/forum/view/75882/136042/d20_Character_Optimization) on the WotC forums, right? That Players can just look up to find out some of the best ways to munchkinize their characters?

Well, I do now :(

Quote from: jeff37923;506187So your best advice is to throw away the games I enjoy? Unacceptable. Better to throw away the disruptive munchkin Player.

Fair enough, better to throw away a disruptive player period. But different rules give players (and GMs) different ways to be disruptive.

Quote from: Rincewind1;506188Rules won't solve people's problems

Depends on the problem. I've seen rules create or exacerbate problems that would otherwise not exist as often as I've seen the reverse.

Perhaps it's a matter of different problems.

Quote from: jhkim;506272The thing is, "making play suck" isn't an objective fact.

No, but the OP proposes that optimizations in this case DOES make play suck, and the GM should be smart enough to know when this is the case and preempt or put a stop to it.

Quote from: jhkim;506272Some people think that play with optimized characters sucks, while other people enjoy it.  The issue I'm having is some people insisting that players who optimize their characters are "dicks" or "assholes" or whatever - when I enjoy that style of play.

The problem is that this kind of play depends on GMs knowing the rules better than the players. It's an arms race, and the GM's control of the game depends on how well they understand the rules.

See, if a player enjoys this kind of play, and they are able to create more optimal builds than the GM, then the GM will either have to be able to out think them (a perfectly fine basis I wish systems provided more support for), or they will have to undermine the player's fun, apply rules the player has no authority over, and veto/restrain that character in order to maintain the game's balance. And because smart players know this, they don't draw attention to their techniques in an attempt to get past the GM.

Optimized characters also require optimized challenges, and most of those kinds of challenges/counters will seem like 'cheating' because by their very nature they are typically specific to the optimized tactic in question. Regardless again, the GM has to be smart enough to construct such challenges/counters in the first place.

Quote from: jhkim;506272It's true that optimizing in, say, Dogs in the Vineyard is very different than optimizing in 3rd edition D&D.  There is a lot more social engineering into coming up, say, with traits that one can always draw into a conflict.  However, strategies that involve a social side are still strategies.  To illustrate, I have an essay on  Dogs in the Vineyard Strategy Guide (http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/dogsinthevineyard/strategy.html).

In most RPGs, the only thing that is (and often can be) optimized for is kill factor, though I guess there are Exalted builds designed for social manipulation, never really had the nerve to look into it. So my question is: What is actually being optimized for in Dogs in the Vineyard?

Quote from: Benoist;506100I think a huge part of it has to do with the nature of the medium. The question the internet as a medium answers best for its users is: "Why Wasn't I Consulted?" (http://www.ftrain.com/wwic.html) (if you haven't read this column before, do yourself a favor and read it - you'll understand the internet, the way people post, and why they get so mad in particular when they see someone disagreeing with them, or us, much better)

On a related note, a lot of the bullshit swirling around RPGs and Storygames would be solved if people asked the same "What question is being answered?" question that the author uses to explain how "Why Wasn't I Consulted?" is what the medium of the Internet in general solves for us.

"How can I go to places or periods other than where I am or when I am, and interact with them?" is answered by playing a traditional RPG.  As John Morrow put it, TRPGs are about you--the user--experiencing events that otherwise cannot or are unlikely to happen.

"How can I create a story, in collaboration with others, that all of us will be okay with?"  That's what the Storygame answers.

Since I have no desire to turn Writing-By-Committee into a game, Storygames are worthless to me.  I'm all about the experience, so proper TRPGs are what I'm after.

Quote from: jeff37923;506187So your best advice is to throw away the games I enjoy? Unacceptable. Better to throw away the disruptive munchkin Player.

+1.

It's worked well for my campaigns since 1975. Players are warned in the house rules that I have no use for munchkin powergaming/charop, rules lawyers, players who target other players, or the like. If they insist on doing so anyway, after a couple of warnings they are shown the door. Some my think it rude, but the other players in the my games seldom think it rude. Often they thing I am too nice to game-ruining jerks by giving them multiple chances.

Quote from: chaosvoyager;506339The problem is that this kind of play depends on GMs knowing the rules better than the players. It's an arms race, and the GM's control of the game depends on how well they understand the rules.

See, if a player enjoys this kind of play, and they are able to create more optimal builds than the GM, then the GM will either have to be able to out think them (a perfectly fine basis I wish systems provided more support for), or they will have to undermine the player's fun, apply rules the player has no authority over, and veto/restrain that character in order to maintain the game's balance. And because smart players know this, they don't draw attention to their techniques in an attempt to get past the GM.

Optimized characters also require optimized challenges, and most of those kinds of challenges/counters will seem like 'cheating' because by their very nature they are typically specific to the optimized tactic in question. Regardless again, the GM has to be smart enough to construct such challenges/counters in the first place.

I am confused by this.  As GM, I see absolutely zero need to be tactically superior or smarter than the players in order to challenge them.  Since I am GM, I can just throw vastly more powerful monsters at them.  If they are really good at building and using their 4th level characters, I can just let them fight CR 8 monsters (or CR 12, or 15).  

I've played in and GMed a considerable amount of Champions and other mechanically intricate games with a lot of character optimization.  I can remember a long time back when I threatened my players with super-optimized villains built on only 50 points each.  However, in retrospect, I realize that trying to "outsmart" them had absolutely nothing to do with balancing the game - since I could just as easily have used 900-point villains instead.  Instead, I was trying to prove I was smarter than the players for reasons that had nothing to do with game balance.  

Quote from: chaosvoyager;506339In most RPGs, the only thing that is (and often can be) optimized for is kill factor, though I guess there are Exalted builds designed for social manipulation, never really had the nerve to look into it. So my question is: What is actually being optimized for in Dogs in the Vineyard?

I've seen plenty of optimizations not related to killing.  I described my longest-run Burning Wheel character as a "lean, mean Duel-of-Wits machine" for example - and I similarly had economic and social optimizations in GURPS.  In Dogs in the Vineyard, the mechanics are all fairly unified, so I'm generally optimizing for winning conflicts - specifically winning conflicts in the context of the standard DitV formula of coming into a town beset with problems.  Basically, I want to have as many traits to pull into conflicts as I can, and have those traits be as high as possible - with the exception that I'll always want to take a social blow because that fuels my power-ups.

Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;506344On a related note, a lot of the bullshit swirling around RPGs and Storygames would be solved if people asked the same "What question is being answered?" question that the author uses to explain how "Why Wasn't I Consulted?" is what the medium of the Internet in general solves for us.

"How can I go to places or periods other than where I am or when I am, and interact with them?" is answered by playing a traditional RPG.  As John Morrow put it, TRPGs are about you--the user--experiencing events that otherwise cannot or are unlikely to happen.

"How can I create a story, in collaboration with others, that all of us will be okay with?"  That's what the Storygame answers.

Since I have no desire to turn Writing-By-Committee into a game, Storygames are worthless to me.  I'm all about the experience, so proper TRPGs are what I'm after.

If the line were so clear, those questions might be easier to answer.

Quote from: chaosvoyager;506339o_o

The characters don't exist. The players are the ones making the decisions, so they're the ones that need to know what the hell the GM is thinking.

Hmmm, I think I see the problem here. For me the Character and the Player are seperate with the Character being the device used to interact with the RPG medium. Now because of this, the Character may not think like or think as well as the Player. So there may very well be information that the Player knows that the Character would not as well as there may be common sense that the Player has that the Character doesn't.

That sounds really, almost dumbly, thespian - but that is how I approach that part of RPGs.

So, the Characters do exist, even if only within the framework of the RPG.

I have to agree with the "avoid systems that enable problems" argument and disagree with the "just say no or throw the player out if they argue" argument.

Because real life is rarely that simple.  Just saying no can lead to tantrums and literally hours of arguing that completely destroys the gaming session.  And as someone else said, that can happen with people who have been playing for 20 years and are in their 40's or older.

I've sat and listened to players in our 3e campaign argue with the DM for over 3 hours about how the Wall of Force spell worked.  I've had a player nearly quit my Rifts campaign because I wouldn't let him use his full dodge bonus while piloting a vehicle; that same player nearly derailed my 4e campaign over a disagreement over how movement and jumping worked.

The only way the "just chuck the player when they become annoying" issue works is if you are playing with a group of complete strangers who all don't know each other and the player you are throwing out offers nothing of value at all.

But that's rarely ever the case.  You may like the player.  The player may add quite a lot to the game (role-playing, planning, etc) but just be bad at exploiting rules and believes strongly they should be able to build a character RAW without you interfering.  

And the biggest problem is that if you aren't all a group of complete strangers, trying to kick a player out is playing with fire.  Other players may get really pissed if they are friends with that player.  Before you know it, you have no group.

RPG campaigns require a certain amount of social relationship between players to work.  And like all relationships (romantic, familial, professional, etc), that means sometimes you just have to put up with annoying crap and sometimes the best thing to do is try and avoid potential conflict.

So far I kicked out 2 players in my life, and both were actually rather close friends of mine.

One dropped contact with me, one did not. I survived.

Quote from: Rincewind1;506498So far I kicked out 2 players in my life, and both were actually rather close friends of mine.

One dropped contact with me, one did not. I survived.

Yeah, you kicked two "rather close friends" to the curb over a fucking game of make believe.

Quote from: Sommerjon;506526Yeah, you kicked two "rather close friends" to the curb over a fucking game of make believe.

You are obviously just trolling, but I love the look of my words enough that I will answer you.

Funny, one of them just texted me if I have time on Friday, or we reschedule the meeting the next day.

The other obviously was not as close as I thought he was, if he disappeared over being removed from the game.

If someone does not have fun in a gaming group, and destroys that fun for others, and talking about it and trying to perhaps adjust one's playstyle a bit did not help - the weakest link should be removed.

Quote from: Benoist;506250It's funny he didn't see the irony in posting his pearl on this thread. :D

Read my comment again and show me where it has anything to do with your link.

The irony here is you.

I hope Somerjon picks up - we miss a good monkey since Darwinism slit his wrists.

Quote from: Rincewind1;506530I hope Somerjon picks up - we miss a good monkey since Darwinism slit his wrists.

He's not banned, is he?

Quote from: Rincewind1;506528If someone does not have fun in a gaming group, and destroys that fun for others, and talking about it and trying to perhaps adjust one's playstyle a bit did not help - the weakest link should be removed.

So what do you do when you consider the player the weakest link, but not everyone else agrees?

For instance, I've had a case where there's a player I don't particularly like in the group.  The player is moody, full of personal issues to complain about at the table, and not particularly fun in the game, either, as they tended to not do much.  That person was there because they wanted social interaction (largely just an audience for their "woe is me" show), and didn't care so much about the game.

But, that player is close friends with at least 3 other players.  If I kick that player out, I have to kick out the other 3, too, because they are not going to sit idly by while I emotionally injure a friend.

Do you go ahead and create the great schism that will in all likelihood destroy the group?

Just to reference the tactical discussion from the other day:

I have noticed that quite often I am far more tactically capable than the players. Some of this is natural, some of it is system mastery/gaming experience and some of it is just superior teamwork that naturally comes from a single person running all of one side.


A GM doesn't REALLY need ot learn tactics from the players.  Even a GM with a sucky grasp of tactics and even poor system mastery.

Why?

Because a GM has infinite resources.  If the PCs are regularly walking through gangs of ten orcs, I can always start to send gangs of fifeteen orcs or twenty orcs.  

More importantly, if hte PCs snipe-lock every orc to death with minimal risk, I'm 'still in the game'.   If I snipe-lock the PC's, and kill them, they are out until they get a new character.

This fundamental imbalance means that the PCs deserve tactical advantages that they earn, and that I am not in competetion with them to be the deadliest player.

Spike, this is also why I think rules lawyering is stupid. Why bother stopping the game to argue about your powerup when the gm just picks his sides' strengths anyway.

Quote from: Cranewings;506565Spike, this is also why I think rules lawyering is stupid. Why bother stopping the game to argue about your powerup when the gm just picks his sides' strengths anyway.

Its funny, but I've got a permanent 'problem player' who is both a horrible min-maxer and even a dice cheater.  

What this player fails to realize is that in order to keep the game interesting I have to throw challenges at the party that can't be done away with a single awesome dice roll by a over-powered twink, and that I can't let the party go 'well, so-and-so will be our tank since they are effectively immune to harm'.

Thus they are frequently on the verge of being overwhelmed by devestating hordes because I can't account for the power of a player who is three times more powerful than everyone else AND rolls a crit on every third or fourth throw.

Balancing against that is hard work. I've lost good players to a bad one. Kicking, however, is not an option.

The only option I have, as the GM, is to either ignore the characters and let the party waltz through more level appropriate challenges or scale up the challenges to where the group actually is based on one powerful character...

Its frustrating, but I does force me to hone my GMing skills something fierce.

Quote from: Spike;506582Its funny, but I've got a permanent 'problem player' who is both a horrible min-maxer and even a dice cheater.  

What this player fails to realize is that in order to keep the game interesting I have to throw challenges at the party that can't be done away with a single awesome dice roll by a over-powered twink, and that I can't let the party go 'well, so-and-so will be our tank since they are effectively immune to harm'.

Thus they are frequently on the verge of being overwhelmed by devestating hordes because I can't account for the power of a player who is three times more powerful than everyone else AND rolls a crit on every third or fourth throw.

Balancing against that is hard work. I've lost good players to a bad one. Kicking, however, is not an option.

The only option I have, as the GM, is to either ignore the characters and let the party waltz through more level appropriate challenges or scale up the challenges to where the group actually is based on one powerful character...

Its frustrating, but I does force me to hone my GMing skills something fierce.

Why isn't kicking the twink out of the game an option? Especially if you are losing good Players because of this guy.

I used to have 3-4 problem players at different times. One was an especially obvious cheater. I got in the habit of just watching her roll. A lot of the time, I'd just take her out with a hit, counting on her crit bow to whittle the enemy down to something everyone could deal with.

Well Jeff, lets just say its something no self respecting cannibalistic forest dwelling pika would admit to in public and leave it at that, hmm?

Can't you at least say "No" to his PC builds and explain to the table as a whole as to why? State that the goal is to not overcomplicate builds and that there is no "win" at this campaign. It'd be one of the first things I'd do, besides not touch D&D 3e with a 10' pole, but I digress...

Quote from: Spike;506582The only option I have, as the GM, is to either ignore the characters and let the party waltz through more level appropriate challenges or scale up the challenges to where the group actually is based on one powerful character...

Its frustrating, but I does force me to hone my GMing skills something fierce.

Couldn't you do something to power up the other PCs?  Give them various opportunities or individual options to put them more on the same page as the optimized PC.  

I've run a couple of games where there are very different combat power-levels among the PCs, for many different reasons.  It can definitely be tricky, but I think it's can also be very interesting to have a Merry and a Pippin alongside Aragorn and/or Gimli.  (or Triplicate Girl alongside Superman, to take an alternate example)

Quote from: Spike;506614Well Jeff, lets just say its something no self respecting cannibalistic forest dwelling pika would admit to in public and leave it at that, hmm?

Ugh.

I have not experienced this, but I have witnessed it. Yes, that is a crappy situation.

Quote from: jeff37923;504841Except 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.

From what I've seen, its pretty prevalent, in games where the rules encourage this tacitly.  There are certainly "bad" players who try to do this in every game, but I've seen a lot of good, even great players, who see a bad system, and understand that "this is what you do in that game", and end up trying to take advantage because in that game it would be stupid for them not to.

From my point of view, you can't really blame players for that!

RPGPundit