Broken PCs = Broken NPCs?

[Tequila Sunrise]

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.

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.

I don't think we're in disagreement; I'm suggesting that the DM take fixing and nixing into his/her own hands should an option turn out to be broken. Although certainly, a good game minimizes the need to do this with play testing and errata.

As opposed to A) allowing a munchkinized PC to rain on the game parade, or B) going thru some metagame arms race/detente process that has no in-game explanation. (My wizard suddenly decides to stop using Uberspell after encountering several enemy wizards who also use Uberspell because...?)

 

[Elf Witch]

I don't think we're in disagreement; I'm suggesting that the DM take fixing and nixing into his/her own hands should an option turn out to be broken. Although certainly, a good game minimizes the need to do this with play testing and errata.

As opposed to A) allowing a munchkinized PC to rain on the game parade, or B) going thru some metagame arms race/detente process that has no in-game explanation. (My wizard suddenly decides to stop using Uberspell after encountering several enemy wizards who also use Uberspell because...?)

All true and don't think there is any disagreement. Though I once handled a really broken spell by saying that the casting caused damaged to the wizard and he never wanted to cast it again because of the horrible pain he went through.

Maybe not the best solution but it was a role playing one instead of a metagaming one.

 

[Jon_Dahl]

Just to be a little bit more specific about the situation:
One of the players has been creating psionic characters. Yes, I've allowed psionics, assuming that there will be an honest, low-key approach without munchinism. Unfortunately, things haven't gone like that. He had an extremely optimized Psychic Warrior which recently died.

I was thinking that one of their future opponents could possess all the powers his character had.

I've talked to this player. The thing is that he doesn't like tough challenges, he's never satisfied with difficult encounters and usually starts protesting. Other players seem to be satisfied with the overall difficulty and have mentioned that they are ok with everything. They don't create overly powerful characters.

 

[Evenglare]

I've only run into a few gamers that min/max deliberately to break the game. Normally I throw out encounters that specifically target a weakness of that character to let him know that they are not all powerful. Again, this has happened very rarely, I'm not normally the kind of GM that does this, but when a player goes out of their way to become clearly better with no regards to the narrative or roleplaying aspect , i feel it's in the best interest to take them down a peg.

 

[Jhaelen]

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.

When I notice 'munchkinizing' in the making, the first thing I tell my players is this: Be aware that the GM will always win an arms-race.

So far that's always been sufficient to dissuade players from creating broken characters.

I don't mind some amount of optimization, though, and will also optimize encounter groups if I notice the pcs aren't challenged otherwise.

 

[delericho]

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?

No. The DM always has the right to use those methods, whether the players do or not. The reason he shouldn't is not "the players don't do it", but because hitting the PCs with overpowered stuff is likely to lead to a TPK, and more than a few TPKs will lead to the players quitting in disgust.

Now, that said...

Ideally, the players and the DM should discuss power levels between them, and in particular expectations regarding min-maxing. If they all decide they want to min-max to the hilt, then that's absolutely fine, and go for it. If they all decide they don't want to min-max and prefer a much less optimised game, that's also fine; go for it.

The problem only crops up when one member of the group decided to min-max well out of proportion with the rest. In which case you have an out-of-game issue. And it's a bad idea to use in-game solutions for out-of-game problems. The thing to do is to speak to the player and ask him to rein in his power-gamer impulses, to perhaps redirect his system mastery away from 'optimising' areas of the game and towards 'fun' areas of the game. But, basically, deal with it that way. But if he refuses, you have a problem player on your hands - in exactly the same way as if he insisted on playing a Neutral Evil Assassin in an otherwise Good party, or a LG Paladin in a party of Assassins. In which case, if he really refuses to fit with the group, then it's better to drop the player. As hard as that may be.

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.

The problem is that in an option-heavy game (like 3e or 4e) you can't fix or nix all the broken stuff. Because when you depower one combination, this has the effect of simply making another combination optimal - your power-gamer will simply migrate from the one to the other. Worse, very often the individual elements are fine; it's only the combination that is problematic.

It's far better simply to acknowledge that if a player really wants, then they can and will find a way to break the game. Put that to them, and point out also that it would be better for all involved if they didn't. The overwhelming majority of players will then have sufficient respect for the group not to destroy the game. And the rest you don't want to play with anyway.

 

[Li Shenron]

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.

Maybe it could be done by having the unbalanced NPC/monsters always target the unbalanced PC, so that he has about the same challenge as everybody else.

Also, the villains might have their means to notice that one of the PCs after them is particularly strong, and use all their capabilities specifically to prepare against him.

But in general, I would too prefer to solve the issue out-of-character.

 

[Umbran]

Maybe it could be done by having the unbalanced NPC/monsters always target the unbalanced PC, so that he has about the same challenge as everybody else.

That can get very awkward, story-wise. If the tricked-out character is not the one that earns the ire of the NPC, you get into silly situations like, "The party bard taunts the evil wizard to the point of lashing out, and then the wizard lashes out at... the party fighter? What?"

It also means that the PCs can start guessing that the heftiest enemy will always target one person, and alter play to suit. In general, that's not grand.

Thus my preference to handle this out-of-game. While I am not a real stickler for party balance, I prefer the PCs all be in the same ballpark, and I'm not at all afraid to speak to players to keep it that way.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

The problem is that in an option-heavy game (like 3e or 4e) you can't fix or nix all the broken stuff. Because when you depower one combination, this has the effect of simply making another combination optimal - your power-gamer will simply migrate from the one to the other. Worse, very often the individual elements are fine; it's only the combination that is problematic.

See, finding out what's broken is a feature of my method rather than a flaw IMO. This way, I can fix the problem not only for this campaign and group, but for all my future campaigns and groups.

It's far better simply to acknowledge that if a player really wants, then they can and will find a way to break the game. Put that to them, and point out also that it would be better for all involved if they didn't. The overwhelming majority of players will then have sufficient respect for the group not to destroy the game. And the rest you don't want to play with anyway.

But I understand if less tinkery DMs find it easier to simply sweep the broken stuff under the metaphorical rug and hope their players have the same idea of 'broken.'

 

[Li Shenron]

That can get very awkward, story-wise.

Oh yes, story-wise I agree, it'll get very awkward... but somehow I think the munchkin is going to be the least one to worry about the story

I'm not really suggesting to use this policy. It sucks just like it sucks to exploit the rules when everybody else at the table is upset by that. But in the hypotheical case that a DM has decided to pay the munchkin back, it's possible to do it more subtly than overtly, you know... just like in those drinking games where there is a "victim" targetted but you have to avoid making it too clear