Broken PCs = Broken NPCs?

[Jon_Dahl]

The question is:
If a player deliberately creates a character that is more or less munchinized, does it give the GM a permission to allow the NPCs to use the same methods?

I was supposed to add voting... The option were supposed to be these:
No. It's unfair/counterintuive to have GM vs. players "arms races".
Yes. Everything you have is everything the rest of world can have.
Other.

 

[steenan]

Depends on what everybody wants from the game. The first thing to do is talk with the players and ask them, why they "munchkinize".

Maybe they see the game as strongly competitive and are trying to "win" it? If so, using similar tricks to keep the challenge present is a good idea - and the players will probably like it.

Maybe they just represent their character concepts mechanically and don't realize they abuse the system. If so, explain to them what the problem is.

Maybe they are afraid their characters will die if they are too weak, so they aim for each advantage they can get? If so, switch the system or houserule it to be less lethal.

And maybe they don't want any meaningful opposition, they want to be more powerful than anything they encounter? You need to decide by yourself if you are interested in running this kind of game - and if you are not, just let your players know that.

 

[Blackbrrd]

I run two types of games: balanced PC's with balanced NPC's and just plain overpowered by both sides. In 3e you could for instance use the PRC that gave you deathless frenzy (can't die from hp damage) and see how they handled that.

I had one NPC with a sentient ring of vampiric regeneration (convert damage to hp). It was fun seing the players faces when the character seemed to get better every time he dished out damage to the party.

I have used dragons that use mage armor, shield and stoneskin to have very high ac and damage resistance.

So, the question is are you happy running an OP game? If so, just go right ahead. If not talk to your players.

 

[Umbran]

The question is:
If a player deliberately creates a character that is more or less munchinized, does it give the GM a permission to allow the NPCs to use the same methods?

That depends. If a single player does it, throwing an unbalanced NPC at the party may mean other PCs get killed. I dont' want ot penalize Player B for Player A's choices. I would prefer to speak with the player about their choice of balance with respect to the party in such a case.

Mind you, this is considering that I always talk to players about how much power-crunch they want in their game before we start.

If the entire party does it... well, then the gloves come off.

 

[Grogg of the North]

I personally don't like highly optimized games. At the beginning of a game, especially with new players, I explain to them that I will do my best to not put them in a scenario where they need AC 1000 to live and my expectation is that they will play with that understanding.

The scenario I've run into in the past is if I send something that could challenge the munchkin, it had a very high probability of just completely demolishing the rest of the party. Or I could ignore the munchkin, challenge the party and put up with the munchkin's post combat touch down dance. Neither is really satisfying.

One thing I try to stress with my parties is that tactics are a two-way street. If you continue to use certain tactics or builds, expect them to be used against you.

 

[Elf Witch]

The question is:
If a player deliberately creates a character that is more or less munchinized, does it give the GM a permission to allow the NPCs to use the same methods?

I was supposed to add voting... The option were supposed to be these:
No. It's unfair/counterintuive to have GM vs. players "arms races".
Yes. Everything you have is everything the rest of world can have.
Other.

My feelings have always been what the PCs have so can the NPCs. The PCs want vorpal swords then don't be surprised if you run into NPCs with them as well. If there are awesome feats that give you sick powers on the battlefield don't be surprised to meet your match one day on the battlefield.

I prefer to avoid an arm race so I try and talk to a player and find out why they have made such a munchinized PC.

A lot of times I have found that certain players hate any sign of weakness and feel the need that their PCs be almost unstoppable. The issue with that is they usually end up sucking the fun out of the game for the other players at the table.

If they are just afraid of dying to easily and their only experience has been playing with killer DMs I let them know that there are things in place to help keep death to a minimum.

If it is because they have a concept in mind and that when they built the character the effect was this uber powered PC then I will work with to realize their concept with out being over powered to the rest of the players and the game world itself.

If it is just because this is just how they like to play well then I suggest they find a more compatible group.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

This is why the Gentlemens' Agreement is a poor solution to broken stuff. If one player munchkins up, the DM is forced into this awkward position, which will likely end badly -- especially for those players who chose not to munchkin up.

Much better to go to the root of the problem: fix or nix the broken stuff!

So, 'other,' I guess.

 

[Elf Witch]

This is why the Gentlemens' Agreement is a poor solution to broken stuff. If one player munchkins up, the DM is forced into this awkward position, which will likely end badly -- especially for those players who chose not to munchkin up.

Much better to go to the root of the problem: fix or nix the broken stuff!

So, 'other,' I guess.

Yeah but it will never completely go away. Even with play testing there is no way to completely test the game to make sure that clever gamers won't see a way for things to be broken and then share that on char op threads.

And what may be broken for one DM to handle may not be for another DM.

Not saying they should not try to make the game as balanced as possible I just think this will always be a part of the issues that come up.

 

[billd91]

This is why the Gentlemens' Agreement is a poor solution to broken stuff. If one player munchkins up, the DM is forced into this awkward position, which will likely end badly -- especially for those players who chose not to munchkin up.

Much better to go to the root of the problem: fix or nix the broken stuff!

So, 'other,' I guess.

Better still to harmonize the players because what one player or DM sees as broken, another sees as fine... under certain circumstances. Tell the munchkinizing player No.

 

[Hussar]

Yeah, this sounds much more like a Social Contract issue than anything else. Talking to the player is probably the best course, rather than getting into an arms race. After all, you're the DM, you cannot lose. Ever. So, arms race is kinda pointless after a while.