Pathfinder 1E How to be a munchkin GM

[Celebrim]

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.

I agree. So, you aren't really disagreeing. If someone came to my campaign and said, "I want to play Mickey Mouse.", I'd be like, "I don't think you are getting it." If they said, "I really want to play a Halfling/Tiefling/Tabaxi/etc.", I'd be like, "No, halflings, but... tell me about why you want to play a halfling. I think we can probably find something that lets you capture the core idea while fitting into my setting." It is important to get everyone on the same page. I have had to turn down perfectly valid concepts because they don't fit into particular group we've got at the moment. It would be perfectly alright to play a Kelternist Fanatic in some campaigns in my setting, but it really wouldn't work with the existing party in the current campaign.

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.

And see the recent long thread about surprising the DM and in particular the discussion between me and Hussar. So you aren't disagreeing with me here either. But, "toss him out of your group", probably isn't particularly helpful advice to give to the original poster.

Bull! you don't. While it is good to help players tailor concepts to something appropriate for the campaign, not every concept is appropriate.

Again, you aren't listening to me. I'm not just making something up about the 'dinosaur rider that shoots lasers'. That was a real character concept from a player new to PnP RPG's. That one I admit threw me at first, but its not my job as DM to squash a player's creativity. My advice is that if the player comes up with something 'out there', try to treat it as workable provided that its not an anti-social concept. What I told the player was that his concept was perfectly possible, but that the power level was somewhat beyond what he'd start out with as a character. He needed to have that concept in mind of something to work toward, and that in the mean time he needed to have a player that was fun to play while he was working toward that goal. My rules did in fact provide for the concept of 'Tarzan of the Dinosaurs' already, although until he asked for that concept it had never even occurred to me that they did. That they provided for 'Beastmaster' characters or having a pet ochre jelly was something that occurred to me and was intentional. The player was just taking the ideas I'd actually approved of in a direction I'd never consider. There was a way to meet him halfway while still making sense in the campaign world.

If the player is unwilling to play something appropriate (including play style) for the campaign in question, you don't have to accommodate them.

Sure, you don't have to. But you should try to. I think it would be bad advice to tell a new DM that his default stance should be 'no'. No requires a very good reason that you can explain to the player. "I think you riding dinosaurs is cheesy." is maybe perhaps not strong enough of a reason. I play a serious game that deals with serious grown up issues, but a little cheese is not going to kill my game. A little humor is ok.

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.

Absolutely, and it usually takes about 2 weeks and a 4 or 5 hours of work before a player and me can hammer out a concept and get a character approved to play. But usually this is less about approving the concept, as it is making sure that the player has a design that really fits his imagination and which he'll really enjoy playing, and making sure as much as possible that the character's concept is integrated in the details of its conception to the game world. So if you have in your background, "My mother is an elven slave", this throws me for a big loop every bit as much as "I want to ride dinosaurs", because in my game world that's impossible (elves physically whither and die if confined, it's a major plot point of my game world). So I have to spend some time brainstorming something up that fits the concept without killing it, then negotiate with the player over the suggested story changes, etc.

And, no, the DM does not have to accept builds that are right on the edge of being broken.

Honestly, I like builds that are right on the edge of being broken. Challenging the players isn't usually a problem I have. I've got a bit of a reputation as a killer DM. Getting characters that can survive what I want to throw at them is the more usual problem. I hate having to bring the kid gloves and tone things down because the players aren't up to the challenge.

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).

As I said, bringing the challenge isn't a problem for me.