Pathfinder 1E How to be a munchkin GM

[Libramarian]

This is an interesting turn of advice I never considered. I have no problem cheating since the DM can't cheat I may well do that. In truth if it comes to that perhaps I am better at choosing another game. I will look into that too.

Careful with this, not everyone agrees that the DM can't cheat.

 

[ggeilman]

I know what you are saying Celebrim about 3.5, but I just stopped using every source from Players Guide II on. Most of the creep came from there.

 

[Triskaideka]

Nerf the problematic character. The character is the problem, the character needs to be changed, not your DMing style, not the game. When you're a DM you need to consider the good of the whole table. If you're throwing roided-up encounters at them just to challenge ONE player they're going to hate you for what to the rest of them looks like an unreasonable rise in difficulty. Sit the player down. Tell them the character is simply not balanced. Identify the attributes that are causing the problem, and fix them with a house rule, which is completely within your prerogative as a DM. This is infinitely less work than having to min-max and optimize monsters and encounters, and your players will hate you less for it.

 

[Celebrim]

Nerf the problematic character. The character is the problem, the character needs to be changed, not your DMing style, not the game.

I don't think that it is that simple. All rules systems have breakable components. Plugging up all the holes is difficult. According to the DM, this player is good at optimization. You won't be able to nerf everything he does. And eventually, if the player is a power gamer you are going to end up in table conflict responding to everything he does with focused nerfs. It's a player that presumably enjoys that aspect of the game. While a run away power gamer can be a problem, the best thing for the game is usually to find a way to integrate the character into the game without disrupting it. That's not actually that hard. Power gamers are good for the table. If you don't have at least one powergamer in the group, it can make things really hard on the DM. That's because a power gamer provides a safety valve when you accidently present too hard of a challenge. They can actually be a resource to help provide believability to your story, and they are a defense against even more disruptive problems to a game like continual PC death. As a DM you should embrace your power gamers, provided they are willing to accept the fundamental rule - "You can't be good at everything" - and willing to step up to challenge ICly. Power gamers aren't always disruptive players.

So, yes, you need to identify unsolvable rules problems and alter them preferably before they come up - planar ally or gate would be a case in point. But mostly you just need to not play solely to the power gamers strengths. By the rule, "You can't be good at everythign", there are always going to be types of challenges that a player doesn't shine against. Typically power gamers will min-max heavily, so you are almost certainly dealing with a character with low charisma or some other drawback. So throw some social challenges in the mix. Power gamers are usually types of people who solve problems by hitting them with a hammer until they go away. Throw problems at the party that can't be solved by brute force. Challenge the party in other ways than combat, and then accept that the power gamer will shine in combat. Make combat more challenging without necessarily making it more dangerous. I've been talking about ways to do that.

Don't fight power gamers by cheating or trying to power game back. It won't make for a happy table.

 

[Triskaideka]

Sure, all Pen and Papers will inevitably ship with broken rules, but if the publisher is respectable and competent they will have play-tested the rules and done a thorough job of sweeping most of them out. Under those circumstances, there should not be that many broken rules. House Rules happen when the problem arises, and fix them permanently, unless your players are prone to 'forgetting', in which case you have bigger problems. Having to constantly account for the disruptive potential of a broken character is work, 24/7. When running the game or planning sessions, they have to occupy your thoughts at all times. House ruling a fix occupies your mind once, and your players will probably continue to behave, unless they are pathological min/maxing munchkins. Essentially though, there are only so many avenues of abuse a player can make use off, and if you are fast and effective at closing them off the moment they arise, you will eventually force them into playing well-balanced characters.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

I suppose it would be edition warring if I simply told you to play a version of the game that didn't have those problems but...

This. Alternatively...

Nerf the problematic character. The character is the problem, the character needs to be changed, not your DMing style, not the game. When you're a DM you need to consider the good of the whole table. If you're throwing roided-up encounters at them just to challenge ONE player they're going to hate you for what to the rest of them looks like an unreasonable rise in difficulty. Sit the player down. Tell them the character is simply not balanced. Identify the attributes that are causing the problem, and fix them with a house rule, which is completely within your prerogative as a DM. This is infinitely less work than having to min-max and optimize monsters and encounters, and your players will hate you less for it.

This.

Treat the problem, not the symptom. I actually like discovering broken things about the games I DM, so my rule is "A broken option or combo works by RAW the first time you use it, but then I nerf it." Players who find creative stuff that the designers didn't anticipate deserve their 15 minutes of fame, but I'm not going to work overtime forever afterwards to compensate for a design flaw.

 

[Celebrim]

Sure, all Pen and Papers will inevitably ship with broken rules, but if the publisher is respectable and competent they will have play-tested the rules and done a thorough job of sweeping most of them out.

No, the older the RPG, the more baggage it tends to have and the easier it is to break it if you try. Optimization is a problem with every system. Every system that allows for varied characters, versimiltude to literary conventions, and freedom of expression is going to have balance problems. The only way to address it from a rules perspective is take away real player choice. The best you can do as a designer is try to avoid providing resources that can become the answer to everything.

Under those circumstances, there should not be that many broken rules.

My 'house rules' are running at about 600 pages, and really I can foresee them now going over 1000 at some point. Granted, they are now more of a complete system than addendums or ammendments, but keeping a rules system balanced isn't easy and I haven't met a DM worth his pizza who didn't feel that the rules he had for any system couldn't be improved or usefully extended. Even if the rules were good, they might not perfectly suit the setting, narrative, or desires of the game master.

Essentially though, there are only so many avenues of abuse a player can make use off...

If there are only a few avenues of abuse a player can make use of, then the system is probably too banal to be of much worth because it also limits the sorts of characters you can play.

....and if you are fast and effective at closing them off the moment they arise, you will eventually force them into playing well-balanced characters.

It's a really bad idea to try to use force to get players to play the characters you want them to play. If the players defines characters in his head not by what they believe or what they feel, but by what they can do if you don't provide for those options then you are going to lose a player and maybe most of your players. If the player wants to play a dinosaur rider that shoots laser beams from his eyes, you need to find out how to make that work as much as possible. If you have a player that is a power gamer, the thing that is desirable in the character is that it is empowering and right out on the broken edge. This is imaginative play at its heart. The player wants to play a super hero and impose his will on things. If you can't allow that at your table then you've got some fundamental problems. A DM has to accept player empowerment. It's only a problem when the other players don't like playing with the power gamer. As the DM that's what you are really worried about avoiding. If you are getting rolled by a player, then you are doing it wrong because you have all power in your hands. There really isn't an excuse for not being able to challenge a player. Yes, at times you should be tweaking the rules to improve balance, but slapping down every concept until its bland banality isn't going to make for a happy table in the long run.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

There really isn't an excuse for not being able to challenge a player. Yes, at times you should be tweaking the rules to improve balance, but slapping down every concept until its bland banality isn't going to make for a happy table in the long run.

This post is so full of presumptions and passive aggressiveness, I...I don't even know how to reply. So I'll keep it short and civil:

You yourself have 600 pages of house rules / heartbreaker material, yet you're leaping to the conclusion that other DMs want to 'slap down' player ideas with their house rules. Maybe you've had experiences with bad DMs in the past who were too liberal with the nerf hammer; I don't know, but I'd bet money that that's not what anyone here is advocating and that very few of us have more house rules than you.

Just food for thought.

PS: Just because a DM has the ability to do something doesn't mean it's necessary or even ideal. I can skip everywhere rather than walking, but I don't. Because it's a royal pain in the butt.

 

[Greg K]

It's a really bad idea to try to use force to get players to play the characters you want them to play.

I disagree to a point. In my opinion, it is the DM's job to set limits based on the campaign and get everyone on the same page. Sometimes this means limiting certain play styles at the table if they make the game unfun and a chore for the DM to run.

If the players defines characters in his head not by what they believe or what they feel, but by what they can do if you don't provide for those options then you are going to lose a player and maybe most of your players.

And this is not, necessarily a problem. The idea that everyone can or should game with each other is a fallacy that needs to die in a fire. If play styles are conflicting to where the power gamer's style is disruptive by bringing broken or incompatible characters, it is some times better to send them on their way if they can't adapt to the game being run.

If the player wants to play a dinosaur rider that shoots laser beams from his eyes, you need to find out how to make that work as much as possible.

Bull! you don't. While it is good to help players tailor concepts to something appropriate for the campaign, not every concept is appropriate. If the player is unwilling to play something appropriate (including play style) for the campaign in question, you don't have to accommodate them. Having them a build an appropriate character for the setting or find another table is perfectly reasonable.
However, ideally, the DM should be talking to the players upfront before anyone builds characters. Discussion should include discussing what is and is not acceptable pc concepts for the campaign, house rules and other limits.

if the player If you have a player that is a power gamer, the thing that is desirable in the character is that it is empowering and right out on the broken edge. This is imaginative play at its heart. The player wants to play a super hero and impose his will on things. If you can't allow that at your table then you've got some fundamental problems. A DM has to accept player empowerment.

The only problem is lack of communication and/or the DM and the player having incompatible playstyles, And, no, the DM does not have to accept builds that are right on the edge of being broken. The DM is in charge of how the game will be played at the table, which options are in use and how closely to adhere to the rules themselves.

It's only a problem when the other players don't like playing with the power gamer. As the DM that's what you are really worried about avoiding. If you are getting rolled by a player, then you are doing it wrong because you have all power in your hands. There really isn't an excuse for not being able to challenge a player. Yes, at times you should be tweaking the rules to improve balance, but slapping down every concept until its bland banality isn't going to make for a happy table in the long run.

Having all the power in one's hands to challenge the power gamer is not the issue. It is whether or not, constantly, going out of one's way to challenge that player makes it unfun or a chore to run the game and provide a fun experience for everyone else (including the DM).

 

[Celebrim]

This post is so full of presumptions...

It's presumptous to claim that rules systems are breakable? Or perhaps its presumptous to claim that a game master isn't going to be able to plug every hole in a system? Is presumptous to claim that every system is going to have problems?

yet you're leaping to the conclusion that other DMs want to 'slap down' player ideas with their house rules.

I wasn't replying to you, but to this statement: "and if you are fast and effective at closing them off the moment they arise, you will eventually force them into playing well-balanced characters."

Now, maybe that was badly worded, but it sure sounds like the poster was stating that the way to address power gaming issues at the table is apply a nerf hammer as soon as you have a problem. I totally agree that "just because a DM has the ability to do something doesn't mean its necessary or even ideal". I mean, that is a pretty accurate summary of the stance I've been taking on this thread. Just because the DM can cheat, doesn't mean he should. Just because the DM can nerf a player concept, doesn't mean he should.

Maybe if you replied in any sort of concrete way, I'd know what you are trying to say, but you are being so short and confrontational that I'm not even sure what you are trying to say or confront me over.