Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Journeyman Samwise 01-17-06, 02:50 AM	Let's face it, there's a lot of crap that we put up with. Whiney players, metagamers, obscure rules, and rules lawyers. You'd think that the last thing we need is people with the ability to break the game horribly would be the last thing we need, right? Absolutely right! For most DMs. I am not most DMs. There are two paths you can take when dealing with munchkins and their ilk. You can talk to them in a mature, professional manner out of game, or you can do something effective. I enjoy beating them at their own game. Dervish/frenzied berzerker build got you down? Give an Iron Golem a ring of Blink, sit back, and laugh. For spellcasters, couple up a spider creature with a Web ability with ability-draining undead, preferably incorporeal. The point of my thread is, munchkins and powergamers put a lot of effort into their characters, and the people complaining about them destroying their game, just aren't trying hard enough. I have not yet seen a build on the CO board, except for Pun Pun, that was absolutely perfect in every way. They all relied on one or two methods of attack, such as frequent criticals or multiple attacks or massive damage exploitation, all of which have a weakness. I'm going to go on record and say that there isn't a character in existence that I can't provide a challenging encounter for, at or around an appropriate CR. I think we need to stop blaming power gamers for all the woes in the world. They don't cause cancer, leporasy, or hairy palms, no matter WHAT the WizO's say.
HalasterAteMyHamster 01-17-06, 02:55 AM	Gotta agree with this. I've always believed that there is no such thing as being overpowered in D&D. Why? There's an intelligent [hopefully] sentient being creating and managing the challenges players face.
Vaalingrade Ashland 01-17-06, 03:10 AM	I don't have time to play games of one upsmanship with a disruptive player.
Journeyman Samwise 01-17-06, 03:16 AM	I don't have time to play games of one upsmanship with a disruptive player. .... This is absolutely the best quote, ever. Just because a player makes you stop and think about your encounters for a moment, doesn't make them a disruptive player. Do you have a high horse behind your DM screen? Because it definitely sounds like it.
Andorxor 01-17-06, 04:04 AM	Do you think of the others in the party,when you build your Ubermonster for your Uberpc or do you let them all die to show that you can optimize your monsters better than the player can optimize his Uberpc?
Paradisio 01-17-06, 04:17 AM	I've seen it before, the game breaks down because the DM has to pit insane CRs against a single party member and the rest of the party (who isn't powergaming) dies in the process. At one point in a game I was in, the DM was piting us against epic level vampires at level 8, and the only way the party could function was hiding behind the uber praying for his victory. I have to agree with the quote, "I don't have time to play games of one upsmanship with a disruptive player." Sure its a bit cocky, but it's true. If I think a player is playing a stupid powerful, broken or isn't following the rules with the character I will tell them to make a new one or rechoose the abilities that make them so. I won't kill them off in some stupid way, I'll simply tell them to reroll or remake and why. If its only one player that is infringing on everyone elses enjoyment and must play broken characters, then I think I'll cut off the foot to save the leg.
Lenarior 01-17-06, 04:24 AM	.... This is absolutely the best quote, ever. Just because a player makes you stop and think about your encounters for a moment, doesn't make them a disruptive player. Do you have a high horse behind your DM screen? Because it definitely sounds like it. I totaly agree with Vaalingrad here and I don't think it has anything to do with high horses. Roleplaying (for me) is about playing a game where everybody has fun and stay friends, not a competition too see who can kill who. Question to the OP. Do you guys play the game as a DM against player game? If so I guess there's nothing wrong about your approach. Otherwise it just seems disruptive to a good story where everything has to do with maximised monster who always seem to be prepared for everything the characters pit against them.
bhu 01-17-06, 04:32 AM	I'm going to go on record and say that there isn't a character in existence that I can't provide a challenging encounter for, at or around an appropriate CR. I think we need to stop blaming power gamers for all the woes in the world. They don't cause cancer, leporasy, or hairy palms, no matter WHAT the WizO's say. The point being you said 'character'. What about the other characters aside from the munchkin who make a new pc every other gaming session because you have to make something powerful enough to challenge him? And no, munchkins dont cause cancer and such. What they do is ruin games for the other players, and likely for most GM's as well. If one player is a munchkin and the others arent, run a solo hack and slash for the munchkin. Run the roleplaying game for the others.
mrpopstar 01-17-06, 04:33 AM	Journeyman Samwise: This is absolutely the best quote, ever. Just because a player makes you stop and think about your encounters for a moment, doesn't make them a disruptive player. Do you have a high horse behind your DM screen? Because it definitely sounds like it.Please refrain from making accusations based upon assumptions you've garnered from a single sentence; a single sentence that is rather curt in mirroring your own 'high-horse' stance in reference to dealing with a player that is potentially disruptive to gameplay. Frankly the irony is obviously lost upon you (since you've chosen to argue the subject, instead of realizing Vaal's submission to this discussion for what it was). Andorxor has a very valid point. Do you in fact compensate for the reality that your single powergaming player is solely/largely responsible for overcoming the challenges you've been inveigled into producing as a means of satisfying the requisite CR of your imbalanced group, or are we to assume that 'all' of your players are equally capable powergamer munchkins that produce crunchie builds with equal efficacy? We as fellow DM's do not hate 'munchkin' players in the manner that we abhor the idea of 'disruptive, unbalancing, egocentric' players; it is simply so that most munchkins are disruptive, unbalancing, and egocentric to the point of catastrophically damaging campaigns. You are correct in defending the fact that powergamers are not the cause of lepresy, cancer, or hairy palms, but one must admit that powergamers are contributing factors to party imbalance, feelings of lagging productivity in fellow players, and general disruption at the game table. I honestly don't understand what sort of response you wish to ellicit from us since your post was basically an example of a one upsmanship between you and a well-versed player, and a high-horse statement that you could provide a challenging encounter for any possible character proposition. Oh yeah, there was a question in there somewhere: Why do I hate powergamers? I don't.
Lottery_of_babylon 01-17-06, 04:33 AM	Let's face it, there's a lot of crap that we put up with. Whiney players, metagamers, obscure rules, and rules lawyers. You'd think that the last thing we need is people with the ability to break the game horribly would be the last thing we need, right? Absolutely right! For most DMs. I am not most DMs. There are two paths you can take when dealing with munchkins and their ilk. You can talk to them in a mature, professional manner out of game, or you can do something effective. I enjoy beating them at their own game. Dervish/frenzied berzerker build got you down? Give an Iron Golem a ring of Blink, sit back, and laugh. For spellcasters, couple up a spider creature with a Web ability with ability-draining undead, preferably incorporeal. The point of my thread is, munchkins and powergamers put a lot of effort into their characters, and the people complaining about them destroying their game, just aren't trying hard enough. I have not yet seen a build on the CO board, except for Pun Pun, that was absolutely perfect in every way. They all relied on one or two methods of attack, such as frequent criticals or multiple attacks or massive damage exploitation, all of which have a weakness. I'm going to go on record and say that there isn't a character in existence that I can't provide a challenging encounter for, at or around an appropriate CR. I think we need to stop blaming power gamers for all the woes in the world. They don't cause cancer, leporasy, or hairy palms, no matter WHAT the WizO's say. My response to this is: Why? Why does your campaign world/adventure/setting/etc suddenly have an Iron Golem with a Ring of Blink? What's the in-character reason and justification and motivation for it? Why does your adventure have these PC-specific destroying NPCs...does it really make sense for the story? I've addressed a lot of these issues in the thread titled "Why Everyone Hates Munchkins"(http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=569897), but I'll touch on it here. If it's all about creating numerical strategies for destroying one another, I don't see why people play D&D. Why not play miniature combat games or similar video games? Or if you want a table-top setting, why bother with an adventure or campaign...especially if it's going to become entirely unrealistic simply to defeat similarily unrealistic(in terms of concepts, not rules) PCs. Just make a Mortal Kombat style arena and instead of gaming sessions, you can have combat tournaments where player-created power-gamed PCs can fight DM-created NPCs. Fun for all! To be honest, I do admire the artistry it takes to make such PCs and NPCs. It is a creative pursuit, no doubt. Is it role-playing? Not by my book--it's mathmatical logic puzzles. Why do I not try and out-smart my power-gamer players? 1) Thankfully, I have no power-gamer players. 2) Out-smarting such players would mean destroying the integrity of my world/setting/campaign. I don't have a genuine or honest reason for creating Iron Golems with Rings of Blink or more ludicrious variations. My NPCs adhere to the logic of the world, the setting, the adventure and most of all, to their internal personalities, backgrounds and reasons. They don't adhere to The Best Way To Kill X PC. I never, ever make a monster or NPC designed to specifically kill PCs. My litmus test for my NPCs is: Is this something that would actually exist and legitimately have a life, goals, plans, motivations outside of just presenting a challenge to the PCs? Does it have its own desires and wants and hopes and agendas or is it just a PC-killer/challenge? If it fails the litmus test, I toss out my NPC idea/write-up. 3) I spend hours upon hours preparing for my games, as is. I do tons of research--history books, political science books, literature, etc. I sit down and think out my NPCs--protagonists, antagonists, etc, and figure out not only their motivations, but what they are doing each day, even when the PCs aren't interacting with them. I sometimes even write out dialogue and/or scenes between my NPCs, to figure out what their personalities are really like, what they're up to, who they really are and what they want, what their feelings are on other NPCs, situations, world events, governments, etc. All of this takes an enormous amount of time and preparation. And this is where I want to put my effort. It is so much more rewarding for me and my players. I've kept the same group of players for ages. They've told me that while they've played a lot of campaigns where there combat-prowess was tested and had fun, they've never played a game that was as complex, diverse, suspenseful, engaging and as fulfilling as mine. Anyone can throw together tough combat challenges--providing a real story is something else entirely. This is my goal--a cooperatively woven, intense and suspenseful, dangerous and gripping game. Is combat important? Yes. PCs die. They have to plan well. But the PCs spend more time planning...not the way to min-max their stats or have the best tactical advantage via position, spells, buffs, etc, but by gaining the right allies, bribing their adversaries henchmen, by getting their enemies to fight at the time and location of their choosing, etc--it's truly long-term planning of the non-numerical-rule kind. So this is why I hate the so-called munchkin. It doesn't work for my game. But hey, maybe it works for yours.
Lottery_of_babylon 01-17-06, 04:34 AM	.... This is absolutely the best quote, ever. Just because a player makes you stop and think about your encounters for a moment, doesn't make them a disruptive player. Do you have a high horse behind your DM screen? Because it definitely sounds like it. Are you sure you aren't the one on the high-horse with your philosophy of "I can out-think any player and create a monster to beat anything the PCs can make"?
Lottery_of_babylon 01-17-06, 04:38 AM	Journeyman Samwise: Please refrain from making accusations based upon assumptions you've garnered from a single sentence; a single sentence that is rather curt in mirroring your own 'high-horse' stance in reference to dealing with a player that is potentially disruptive to gameplay. Frankly the irony is obviously lost upon you (since you've chosen to argue the subject, instead of realizing Vaal's submission to this discussion for what it was). Andorxor has a very valid point. Do you in fact compensate for the reality that your single powergaming player is solely/largely responsible for overcoming the challenges you've been inveigled into producing as a means of satisfying the requisite CR of your imbalanced group, or are we to assume that 'all' of your players are equally capable powergamer munchkins that produce crunchie builds with equal efficacy? We as fellow DM's do not hate 'munchkin' players in the manner that we abhor the idea of 'disruptive, unbalancing, egocentric' players; it is simply so that most munchkins are disruptive, unbalancing, and egocentric to the point of catastrophically damaging campaigns. You are correct in defending the fact that powergamers are not the cause of lepresy, cancer, or hairy palms, but one must admit that powergamers are contributing factors to party imbalance, feelings of lagging productivity in fellow players, and general disruption at the game table. I honestly don't understand what sort of response you wish to ellicit from us since your post was basically an example of a one upsmanship between you and a well-versed player, and a high-horse statement that you could provide a challenging encounter for any possible character proposition. Oh yeah, there was a question in there somewhere: Why do I hate powergamers? I don't. I should have probably read your post before writing my own rambling comments--you summed up my arguments much more eloquently. Thank you for the lucid and erudite post.
mrpopstar 01-17-06, 04:43 AM	Lottery_of_babylon: I should have probably read your post before writing my own rambling comments--you summed up my arguments much more eloquently.Think nothing of it; rambling thoughts are always appreciated (if they're honest). I believe we posted at the same time, actually. :) Thank you for the lucid and erudite post.Thank you, and no problem. :cool:
Otto the Bugbear 01-17-06, 08:14 AM	I love munchkins. Absolutly. Why? Because I believe that we all, or very nearly all, went through that stage at some point, if we started gaming at a young age. (By young, I mean less than high school graduate.) As young players, most are drawn to having "cool super powers", so they get incorporated into the games. Many time, this is an entire group phenomenon. After all, when starting it's much more common to play with a group of peers than not. Then, as the years roll by, the munchkins mature and start seeing more in the game. Or they don't and leave the game altogether. The ones that stick with it, move into different phases of their gaming lives. Some just follow the rules and become Powergamers. Some like making effective characters and become optimizers (once called min/maxers). Some get into the RP far mor that other aspects of the game. The key here is, munchkins either go away from the game, or eventually evolve into another style. So, the more munchkins we see and/or hear about, the better it is for this game/industry. Now, that being said... Munchkins = good Munchkins in my game = bad I just can't stand the level of immaturity that most munchkins display. The characters they create aren't the problem. I know that, no matter what they bring, I can deal with the character. Cheers Otto :)
carioca 01-17-06, 08:40 AM	dealing with munchkins PCs being a munchkin DM? nah, i don't think so. this way you'll only got an one player vs. DM competition. maybe you two gonna have fun, but i'm not sure about the rest of the party. what you gonna do after the blinking golem gets a TPK? laugh to everyone and mock their weakness? i don't dislike munchkins, i dislike people that aren't interested in my campaign. if the guy wants the best build ever because he's loving the game and wants a pc to remember, that's great. i just have to talk with him, to help in some things he wants and ask him to decline in others. that's to make sure his pc don't disrupt the whole campaign or steal the thunder from everyone else.
Journeyman Samwise 01-17-06, 02:13 PM	Journeyman Samwise: [indent]Please refrain from making accusations based upon assumptions you've garnered from a single sentence; a single sentence that is rather curt in mirroring your own 'high-horse' stance in reference to dealing with a player that is potentially disruptive to gameplay. Frankly the irony is obviously lost upon you (since you've chosen to argue the subject, instead of realizing Vaal's submission to this discussion for what it was). Andorxor has a very valid point. Do you in fact compensate for the reality that your single powergaming player is solely/largely responsible for overcoming the challenges you've been inveigled into producing as a means of satisfying the requisite CR of your imbalanced group, or are we to assume that 'all' of your players are equally capable powergamer munchkins that produce crunchie builds with equal efficacy? Sure, why not. Also, my sense of irony was lost in the transition to 3.5 We as fellow DM's do not hate 'munchkin' players in the manner that we abhor the idea of 'disruptive, unbalancing, egocentric' players; it is simply so that most munchkins are disruptive, unbalancing, and egocentric to the point of catastrophically damaging campaigns. You are correct in defending the fact that powergamers are not the cause of lepresy, cancer, or hairy palms, but one must admit that powergamers are contributing factors to party imbalance, feelings of lagging productivity in fellow players, and general disruption at the game table. Egocentric, disruptive, yes. I still think that there isn't a player in the world that disrupts 100% of the encounters he engages in, Pun Pun aside. If I'm wrong, show me the build that proves otherwise. Providing challenging encounters is what DMs are supposed to do. Throwing rediculous CRs in a desperate attempt to provide a challenge to your players is a cheap tactic. Are you sure you aren't the one on the high-horse with your philosophy of "I can out-think any player and create a monster to beat anything the PCs can make"? Challenge, not beat. I know I can beat anything the PCs can make, I'm the DM. Challenging them, that's the tough part.
DM Dave 01-17-06, 03:08 PM	The bottom line is, regardless of your style of play, is everyone having fun? If, after spending a significant amount of my time and talents creating a scenario for the group, and a single schmoe is mucking it up for everyone... I don't have time for that. When I design a scenario its based on the characters in my game, and the direction the players(as a group) have indicated what they would like to see. If, at that point the actions of a single player are detracting from the enjoyment of the game by the other players then something has to be done. I don't have a lot of gaming time to begin with, so when my friends and I do get around the table we expect that it will be an enjoyable experience. For the most part this is true. However, on occasion, you may allow a player into the group that causes a disruption. As a mature adult I will simply point this out to the player, and give them the opportunity to alter the disruptive behavior. If at that point, there is no resolution... then in the immortal words of Donald Trump, "your fired!" I believe that's what the previous poster meant when he said he didn't have time for someone who was disrupting the game. I don't either. We are all big boys and girls, and I for one expect the people at my table (myself included) to act that way.
Bruunwald 01-17-06, 04:06 PM	Once again, the question-behind-the-question goes to whether or not anybody thinks the DM has an obligation to go out of his way to bend and stretch and work his ass off to accommodate a disruptive, disrespectful and self-centered player. I don't. Let him toe the line or let some other over-indulgent DM make him the center of his universe. I've had too many of these guys ruin a good thing. All I care about now is the group.
mrpopstar 01-17-06, 04:41 PM	Journeyman Samwise: Let me first begin by stating that I am flattered by the fact that you have responded to me in lieu of the great many posts that oppose your sentiments. I enjoy feedback that evidences I have made someone assess the manner in which they are managing themselves. Sure, why not.This is a rather ambiguous response.'Sure, why not' you in fact compensate for the reality that your single powergaming player is solely/largely responsible for overcoming the challenges you've been inveigled into producing as a means of satisfying the requisite CR of your imbalanced group? OR 'Sure, why not' assume that 'all' of your players are equally capable powergamer munchkins that produce crunchie builds with equal efficacy?In response to the former, despite all of your efforts, you still have an imbalanced group. Their enjoyment of the game is highly contingent upon wether or not they are present to this imbalance (as well as wether or not they are perturbed by such things), and how willing they are to suffer such indignities (they may be willing to compromise based on sheer desire to have a game to play in). In response to the latter, well then you're not dealing with a 'munchkin player', you are dealing with a 'munchkin group'. The implications of said situation vary greatly from what you propose inspires 'hatred' in the rest of us. Also, my sense of irony was lost in the transition to 3.5I do find it regretable that your sense of 'anything' was lost do to the streamlining, optimizing, and innovative upgrading of a 'game'. Egocentric, disruptive, yes. I still think that there isn't a player in the world that disrupts 100% of the encounters he engages in, Pun Pun aside. If I'm wrong, show me the build that proves otherwise.I am lead to believe that you do not play in campaign-style games since you lack the foresight that egocentrism and disruption of 'any' encounter can have devastating effects to the overall decency of a campaign. Furthermore; builds do not disrupt things, players of builds disrupt things. Providing challenging encounters is what DMs are supposed to do. Throwing rediculous CRs in a desperate attempt to provide a challenge to your players is a cheap tactic.Advice you should consider.
20goingon1232 01-17-06, 05:17 PM	It would seem that the core problem is the fact that we have an egocentric and disruptive player, rather than a powergamer. Such a player would be a problem regardless of whether he is playing a Commoner or a Frenzied Berserker. However, how telling that the L33Ters are using a general brush to tar people whose playing styles they do not agree with...
mrpopstar 01-17-06, 05:27 PM	20goingon1232: It would seem that the core problem is the fact that we have an egocentric and disruptive player, rather than a powergamer. Such a player would be a problem regardless of whether he is playing a Commoner or a Frenzied Berserker.I was under the impression that most were in common agreement that 'munchkins' were egocentric, disruptive, and imbalancing powergamers. A 'powergamer' is solely that; a gamer who focuses on optimization. Journeyman Samwise was very explicit in stating that he was referencing 'munchkins' (as evidenced by the title of this thread). However, how telling that the L33Ters are using a general brush to tar people whose playing styles they do not agree with...L33Ters? I am unfamiliar with this term. Please define so I may praise you, or rip you a new one accordingly. ;)
nastynate 01-17-06, 06:00 PM	I guess it depends on how you define munchkin. If by munchkin you mean the PC who fudges rolls, adds extra points to their charcter sheet, and exploits their DM, then no, I hate those players. However of you mean optimization guru, then hell yes, I love when I have a party full of powerful PCs. Knowing that the PCs have the muscle to handle anything I throw at them, really enables me to let loose. I can take of my kid gloves, and mix up my encounters however I like. I come up with all kinds of interesting and powerful ideas all the time. I've got pages and pages of theoretical optimized monster and character builds saved on my computer. Being able to use them in the game is awesome! I sometimes have to draw the line, but every DM does. I'm not allowing the Twice Betrayer, or Omnificer into my game, because I want to actually play, not know the preordained outcome before hand, but I have no problem with pimped out frenzied berserkers or mega-blastificers. As the DM I know the capabilties of my PCs, and I can challenge them without any trouble at all. What I get even more pleasure out of are the PC tricks that combine the uses of their abilities. Go-Go teamwork! I get immense pleasure out of PCs who put in the same kind of effort that I do as the DM. power levels be damned! I want to throw a great wyrm at the PCs, and I can...awesome! I tend to think of D&D in two parts, roleplay and mechanics. If I've got players who are equally talented in both areas, I'm a very happy DM. That means that I can set up whatever storyline, enemies, and whatever else I deem intersting; I hate having to try to balance out every encounter just so the PCs survive...I like to toss whatever I want at them, and rely on their cunning, and skill to either defeat the enemies, or escape to fight another day. TPKs are just too easy, when your players aren't optimizing well. I don't want to bend the rules or hold back to save the PCs; I want the heroes to save themselves. The lone power-gamer scenario hasn't come up for me in a very looong time. For those less experienced players that rarely join my group, I will bend over backwards to help optimize their character. I'll get the other players involved, and I'll chime in if I need to. I work very hard to maintain party balance. I always make sure the four key roles are filled, and try to make sure all my PCs rock in some areas, but lack in others, so they have to rely on one another. As a DM it's your responsibility to ensure balance, and fun all around. Inexperienced DMs often have trouble in this regard, but in time you figure it all out.
20goingon1232 01-17-06, 06:58 PM	20goingon1232: I was under the impression that most were in common agreement that 'munchkins' were egocentric, disruptive, and imbalancing powergamers. A 'powergamer' is solely that; a gamer who focuses on optimization. Journeyman Samwise was very explicit in stating that he was referencing 'munchkins' (as evidenced by the title of this thread). No, Journeyman said that they are the ones that break the game. However, I operate on close to what Nastynate said: "I guess it depends on how you define munchkin. If by munchkin you mean the PC who fudges rolls, adds extra points to their charcter sheet, and exploits their DM, then no, I hate those players." These are munchkins in my books. It does not mean they are disruptive and egocentric. They generally are, but not all the time. They are cheaters, pure and simple. Powergamers are optimisers by any other name. Their builds are LEGAL and they do not cheat. L33Ters? I am unfamiliar with this term. Please define so I may praise you, or rip you a new one accordingly. ;) The L33Ter is a corruption/shortening of "the Roleplaying uber-L33T". These are the chaps that scream "powergaming munchkin!!!!" at the drop of a hat. Like when you put 18 into your Int. They are the ones that make a topic on OOC jealousy into a rant about how these "munchkins" cannot RP to save their lives. They think they are the schizzle when it comes to roleplaying. Apply the L33Ter in a degoratory way like how they apply the words "munchkins" or "powergamer" and you have the intent and definition of that term. I hope that this little contribution of mine to counter the rampant snobbery on these boards by said L33Ters would catch on. After all, they have a degoratory term for those that do not play exactly like they would. Why can't everyone else have a similar term for them?
Journeyman Samwise 01-17-06, 07:12 PM	Okay, people that add points, fudge rolls, and lie, they are cheaters. I don't like cheaters, I don't tolerate cheaters, and cheaters, are not what I'm talking about here. Call cheaters for what they are, don't confuse the issue. In a roundabout way, what I'm trying to say is, people that optimize their character are looking for a challenge. Provding challenges, that's what DMs do. No two people have the same style of play, and accomidating this is what DMs do best. Except if they're cheaters. Cheaters can burn. Along with rules lawyers. Bastards, calling me on the rules and whatnot. If I wanted to play by the rules, I wouldn't be a DM. :P Journeyman Samwise: Let me first begin by stating that I am flattered by the fact that you have responded to me in lieu of the great many posts that oppose your sentiments. I enjoy feedback that evidences I have made someone assess the manner in which they are managing themselves. GOD SO MANY WORDS/ This is a rather ambiguous response.'Sure, why not' you in fact compensate for the reality that your single powergaming player is solely/largely responsible for overcoming the challenges you've been inveigled into producing as a means of satisfying the requisite CR of your imbalanced group? OR 'Sure, why not' assume that 'all' of your players are equally capable powergamer munchkins that produce crunchie builds with equal efficacy?In response to the former, despite all of your efforts, you still have an imbalanced group. Their enjoyment of the game is highly contingent upon wether or not they are present to this imbalance (as well as wether or not they are perturbed by such things), and how willing they are to suffer such indignities (they may be willing to compromise based on sheer desire to have a game to play in). In response to the latter, well then you're not dealing with a 'munchkin player', you are dealing with a 'munchkin group'. The implications of said situation vary greatly from what you propose inspires 'hatred' in the rest of us. Actually, that was just lip service. It didn't mean anything, and you're trying too hard, what with your suffocating amount of words. I do find it regretable that your sense of 'anything' was lost do to the streamlining, optimizing, and innovative upgrading of a 'game'. Aaaaaand that was sarcasm. :P I am lead to believe that you do not play in campaign-style games since you lack the foresight that egocentrism and disruption of 'any' encounter can have devastating effects to the overall decency of a campaign. ARGH WHAT DOES THAT EVEN MEAN YOUR WORDS ARE CRAWLING IN MY SKIIIIIN THESE WOUNDS THEY WILL NOT HEAL/
red_scare87 01-17-06, 07:45 PM	This has turned into a "My D&D is better than your D&D!" argument and those are pointless. There is not a correct way to play. The bottom line is: Is everyone in the OPs game having a good time? If the answer is yes, then it's fine. If the answer is no, then you should stop playing that way because D&D is about fun because (and a lot of people forget this) it's a game.
celtredleg 01-17-06, 09:10 PM	Terms get away from people. Just what is the deference between powergamers, and munchkins??? I dont think the OP has used munchkin in the generaly accepted manner. He is basicly just calling them the same as powergamer. Most people seem to go with munchkin=cheater. A powergamer just builds powerful charecters. Powergamer is a different style of play. I dont play that anymore, but I do understand the appeal. Munchkin is a problem that cant be overcome. There seems to be a limited number of reformed cheaters.
BeyondFated 01-17-06, 09:37 PM	GOD SO MANY WORDS/ Actually, that was just lip service. It didn't mean anything, and you're trying too hard, what with your suffocating amount of words. Aaaaaand that was sarcasm. :P ARGH WHAT DOES THAT EVEN MEAN YOUR WORDS ARE CRAWLING IN MY SKIIIIIN THESE WOUNDS THEY WILL NOT HEAL/ This right here? Not exactly making you seem like the most mature and sensible person. Thus, your making yourself look bad, which in turn makes your arguments look bad. I'm neutral on the subject, just thought you might appreciate someone telling you that you look like a moron.
Szat 01-17-06, 09:58 PM	Not meaning to pour salt on the wound here but ummmmm why can't we mention Pun-Pun? Is it because that character does exactly what you're stating is impossible? It's like saying you won the game by removing all your opponents. My response to your question "name a PC that I can't beat". Ok. Pun-Pun.
Journeyman Samwise 01-17-06, 10:01 PM	This right here? Not exactly making you seem like the most mature and sensible person. Thus, your making yourself look bad, which in turn makes your arguments look bad. I'm neutral on the subject, just thought you might appreciate someone telling you that you look like a moron. Mature, balanced, sensible? These words mean NOTHING to me! AAAHAHAHAHAHAHA. But, yes. I was unaware that munchkin and cheater were synonimus. My bad, sorry.
Kresalak 01-17-06, 10:21 PM	This has turned into a "My D&D is better than your D&D!" argument and those are pointless. There is not a correct way to play. The bottom line is: Is everyone in the OPs game having a good time? If the answer is yes, then it's fine. If the answer is no, then you should stop playing that way because D&D is about fun because (and a lot of people forget this) it's a game. I second this. Just let it go already! The quoted text is correct.
Lady Maedhros 01-17-06, 10:31 PM	I feel disinclined to contribute to this thread, since the OP has made a moron of him/herself, but out of respect for the two or three people who've posted here who seem to have put legitimate thought into the discussion... It seems to me there are two kinds of DMs in this context. The first kind of DM is a "facilitator." He approaches the game from the perspective that he's creating a story for his players to enjoy, including harrowing battles and heart-welling triumphs. This DM despises anything that makes his life as a facilitator more difficult. A player who is significantly out of power balance with the rest of the party is one such thing. He does not want to devote all his resources to creating tailor-made "more effective" encounters that challenge all players, including the more powerful one, equally. He does not want players who are most interested in being mechanically effective, because they are likely to be bored, impatient or simply to break the mood he's trying to create. The sceond kind of DM is a "battler." She is herself a "munchkin", in that her great joy in the game is creating the most obscenely powerful character she can make. She approaches DMing as an opportunity to take on more difficult mechanical challenges - while as a player she needs only to beat a monster, as a DM she must make a monster that almost wins, but not quite. This DM adores anything that makes her life as a battler more difficult, because that's what she's all about. She relishes in the opportunities to create more powerful enemies safely. The two types of DMs naturally will never see eye to eye with each other, and make lots and lots of basically stupid threads like this.
olshanski_home 01-17-06, 11:28 PM	The term "munchkin" and powergamer are not at all the same, although people who do not know the origins of "muchkin" might easily make that mistake. Both munchkins and powergamers create very powerful characters. The term "munchkin" was based on the short stature of youthful players. The very youthful players (under age 13 or so) had not gone through the puberty growth spurt, and thus had heights around 5' or less. The thing is that a powergamer sticks to the rules, while a munchkin often asks the DM to bend the rules, or just as likely has a DM that bends the rules without the munchkin even asking... in order to make a more kewl character with great abilities. The younger players liked cool powers, and often talked their DMs into giving them unique powers, artifacts, or other magical items beyond what most would consider "balanced". The rules may or may not have been followed, but certainly the guidelines for character creation, class abilities, and wealth/per/level were thrown out the window, as were some guidelines about maximum abilities of magical items. A munckin might talk his DM into giving him a +10 longsword that casts meteor swarm once per day and talks. A munchkin might talk his DM into giving his halfling wizard a riding blink-dog familiar, and the blink dog has the ability to speak, and has a prehensile tail that can use wands, and the blink dog can carry its rider and blink or dimension door at the same time... and the halfling wizard is 3rd level. A munckin might talk his DM into letting him cast spells equivalent to his class level: IE: 4th level wizard casts 4th level wizard spells. All of these are usually done with the DMs consent, because usually the DM is a munckin as well, and likes his friends to have fun by giving them cool abilities. After watching "Fellowship of the ring", most members of a munchkin group might find themselves equipped with mithril chain shirts and fighting cave trolls. A munchkin by himself can never cause problems unless he is enabled by a muchkin DM. Nastynate was absolutely correct in his previous post that most munchkins either leave the game or evolve into more mature players, (by "more mature", this could mean rules lawyers, roleplayer, powergamer, or some combination). A brilliant munchkin with a strict DM could be at the most extreme no more than a powergamer. In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with powergamers, unless you are pretty flexible with allowing every splatbook into your campaign... then your powergamer will min-max some frightful combinations that are more likely to throw off party balance than if you stick to the core rules. With only the core rules, a powergamer is much less likely to overshadow his non powergamer peers.
Kursk 01-18-06, 01:08 AM	Dervish/frenzied berzerker build got you down? Give an Iron Golem a ring of Blink, sit back, and laugh. For spellcasters, couple up a spider creature with a Web ability with ability-draining undead, preferably incorporeal. I as a DM control what is available in the game. If I see something as a problem then it isn't in the game. If the "dervish/frenzied berserker build" is a problem then it isn't available. Simple isn't it?
Telos_Savant 01-18-06, 02:20 AM	oy
mrpopstar 01-18-06, 02:47 AM	Let me begin this response by stating that at no point during this discussion did I state that my way of playing D&D was better than anyone elses. Nor did I in any way imply this. Journeyman Samwise made a statement, I responded based upon my standing. I have in no way submitted my own play habits, what sort of DM I am, or opinions on play style. Please review my points if you think otherwise. This is Journeyman's thread and I am remaining on the topic of him. The only thing I have stated concerning myself is that I do not hate powergamers. Also, the weightless argument over the true and actual meaning of 'munchkin' is pedantic gibberish. Munchkins are cheaters are egotists are disrupters are imbalancers are unwelcome additions to the gaming table. We all know a munchkin when we see one. I have previously defined 'powergamer' in the same manner as has everyone who followed and therefore I will not yield to the idea that I am confusing the specifics. Furthermore, I consider myself to be a positively reinforcing debate partner. I do not have the intent of debasing, belittling, or antagonizing 'anyone'. It is my hope that you walk away from my points and reassess the way you are managing yourself and the kind of game you are playing. The originating poster has bowed to the fact that he misunderstood the true implications of his choice of descriptive terms. Disconcertingly, he has furthered his entire discussion in no way by paying 'lip service' (the expression 'lip service' was offered by him; it is obvious he does not understand the definition) and being sarcastic. Forgive me if I exhibit a rough tongue in dealing with someone who is offering the example that he is not thinking about the group of people he is playing his game with; I don't like that. I would be hard pressed to believe that anyone who truly enjoys this game would be comfortable with such an injustice. Journeyman Samwise: Actually, that was just lip service. It didn't mean anything, and you're trying too hard, what with your suffocating amount of words.Suffocating amount of words? My intent is not to suffocate, merely to be explicit in what it is we are discussing. You are careless with your words, thusly we have been debating a point that you lacked clarity concerning. In reference to my effort, I am expending no more energy on this thread than any other. Many people would be thankful to have someone give 'any' amount of thought to a submission they have made to these boards. Like I said before, it is unclear what sort of response you were seeking to illicit from us. It seems as though you were fishing for a compliment on your fallible thought process that you were the craftiest of DM's around, instead your effort was ill-received and now you are exhibiting an intimidated stance by utilizing sarcasm and half-considered retaliations. You would enjoy more integrity by offering gratitude to someone who is alloting energy to consider your deliberations; that is why you submitted them, is it not? 20goingon1232: No, Journeyman said that they are the ones that break the game.Um.. I am quite sure that Journeyman very blatantly stated "Am I the only DM who doesn't hate munchkins?" in his thread title. This is where I began my counter-point discussion. Telos_Savant: oyThat's what I'm screamin'.
mrpopstar 01-18-06, 02:52 AM	Lady Maedhros: Your points are very insightful. Thank you for sharing them. :)
Cadfan 01-18-06, 03:36 AM	For what its worth, a pc doesn't have to disrupt "100%" of encounters to be a problem. I fail to see what's worthwhile about a pc who disrupts, say, a mere 70% of encounters.
YRM 01-18-06, 07:59 AM	I like my players to try to be effective. (pick good spells, feats, etc.) In the case of a Frenzied Berserker / Dervish though, I'd have to agree that it's tough to figure out why a person would be able to be trained like that. Even if the motivation for the character was fine, I'd still make it somewhat hard to achieve two different Prestige Classes in my game. They'd have to be role-playing and investigating as part of their build up to gaining that combo. I definitely wouldn't let them cherry pick just a level or two of a PrC because "Prestige" implies that it's tough to gain the class, and you wouldn't just trade it in like a used car. Then, even if they did gain that combo, there are always soft spots in the design that have to be covered by the other players. By the time a PC can be a Barbarian/Fighter/Frenzied Berserker/Dervish, they have to be a pretty high level PC. So what if they're really good at melee combat? There are a lot of ways to defeat melee specialists at higher levels. The party HAS to work together or the damage dealer isn't doing much of anything. Even a simple 3rd level Cleric spell can repeatedly smash a melee artist flying 50' above the ground (multiple Downdrafts). I would agree that I don't believe there is anything a player could do that I can't counter. Going farther, I wouldn't create an unusual, hard to explain enemy to pull it off... and even more, our group works with each other enough, and I'm probably the person who just naturally optimizes stats (but within an explainable story) that everyone ends up being effective. At one point, as a player with a tough PC, I gave the DM some hints on how to deal with my PC... about a dozen, and offered to retire the PC in private(which he declined). However, I was only using one class, with a good backstory, so this wasn't a cherrypick fest of abilities and racial templates. Some classes hit the steep part of their power curve at different times, but, with a cooperative group and cooperative DM, every player will eventually be working effectively. It's up to the DM to restrict Prestige Class training and the amount of items a party is able to aquire to manage it so that CRs stay effective.
mrpopstar 01-18-06, 02:47 PM	Cadfan: For what its worth, a pc doesn't have to disrupt "100%" of encounters to be a problem. I fail to see what's worthwhile about a pc who disrupts, say, a mere 70% of encounters.That sentiment is worth much. In truth, a player who distrupts even a 'single' encounter at my table (with conscious effort) is guaranteed a one-on-one conversation concerning his actions and motives for doing so; after the night's game is completed (assuming he didn't ruin the entire experience for the evening).
WayneTheGame 01-18-06, 02:59 PM	First let me state that I do not hate munchkins. In fact, I'm a wannabe munchkin myself :) What I do hate, is the munchkins who do what they do deliberately to "win" the game and profess their own "l33tness" over the other players. But I think we ALL agree on that, as well as on the fact that ANY player, powergamer or not, can be a jerk. However, I feel that this excerpt of a previous post I wrote needs to be said; hopefully this will help to justify the way that powergaming works: The class you write down on your character sheet is NOT a description of your character. Rather, the class/classes on your character sheet are only the game mechanics that make your character who he is.. In other words, a Paladin/Monk/Sorcerer/Spellsword/Eldritch Knight character didn't join a paladin order, then leave and join a monk order, then leave that to fine-tune magic. If you think that, then you're reading too much into the game mechanics. The abilities you gain from taking a "class" does NOT have to be explained as physically becoming that class. That dip into three prestige classes does not mean that you joined and left that secret society; it means that the game mechanics of that class can be used to explain YOUR character. Think of it as a unique class that you're creating, but creating within the confines of the system. So when you take a level of Spellsword at 8th level, you're not essentially becoming the Spellsword PrC, but your "unique" class gains the exact same benefits as the Spellsword class' first level at level 8 (for example), and then the exact same benefits as the Eldritch Knight class from levels 13-20. However, rather than come up with a unique base class for yourself, you're picking the existing classes that best suit that class.