I am become Pun-Pun, destroyer of multiverses

[Quasqueton]

If anyone is interested, I'll also explain the flaws of Traveller, Top Secret, Deadlands ... heck, I'll talk about how to break any game.

Except AD&D, apparently?

“Players breaking the design” “DMs breaking the design” “accidental breaking” – there is no RPG ever designed that could not be broken.

The Pun-Pun case is useful and instructive because it shows how easily accidental breakage can pile up.

Actually, Pun-Pun was not easily constructed – he was created through long discussion by many people with the sole purpose of making an absurdly powerful character. It’s like pointing to the Egyptian pyramids and saying their existence and survival is “instructive because it shows how easily accidental construction can pile up.” There was nothing accidental about Pun-Pun.

It's my impression that AD&D was better-playtested and harder to break accidentally, but possibly if I knew about the right supplements I would know how to do it.

AD&D1 was essentially play tested by EGG’s home players – what, maybe 50 people at most – before publication? D&D3[.0] was play tested by hundreds of players before publication, plus it was building on the play experience of all the thousands and millions of players who had played BD&D, AD&D1, and AD&D2.

That’s not a slam or denigration of AD&D1, it’s just the logistics of publishing a brand new game that *relatively* few people have played (it was new) vs. publishing an update to that game once it has picked up thousands (millions) of players over ~25 years.

What I meant was, "In AD&D, there was one way to become a god, namely by going through the process in Deities and Demigods." That process required DM input explicitly, which prevented casual loophole abuse.

Does Pun-Pun have divine rank? That’s true godhood, and only attainable through the current Deities and Demigods – that still requires DM input explicitly. I thought you were referring to having “godlike” power.

is it also a foolish mistake to judge the supplemental material's optional rules based on Pun-Pun?

Pun-Pun is a mishmash of optional material/optional rules. I wouldn’t judge a single book based on Pun-Pun (I wouldn’t judge a single feat or spell or ability based on Pun-Pun, much less an entire game system). Can you judge corn based on its use in a casserole, or a fuel additive? Can you judge corn on what it is after passing through someone’s digestive system (if you know what I mean), or through an automobile’s exhaust?

Should AD&D1 be judged on the barbarian or cavalier classes? Should AD&D1 be judged on its core (in the PHB) psionics rules? Should AD&D1 be judged on the Tomb of Horrors adventure module? I have seen the AD&D1 rules abused, terribly. I have read about even worse cases.

Just remember, the D&D3 rules did not remove the DM from the game, regardless of what some people claim. There is still a DM running and judging and refereeing every game of D&D.

I could sit down and type out the gory horror stories of bad DM judgement calls and incompatible players. All of that doesn't really establish anything about the game at all, because it basically says that a DM ran a bad game -- whether that was due to unplaytested rules, bad DM skills, bad players is pretty hard to prove from one man's story.

Is this a reference to your D&D3 games or your AD&D1 games? I can say this about all editions, and all games.

And after all is said and done, note that several people have pointed out in this thread that Pun-Pun does not work as constructed. So the basic premise for the point of D&D3 having break points is not supported by that character.

Quasqueton

 

[Barak]

Pun-Pun is the worst possible basis for what this thread has become. His build depends heavily on somewhat obscure material never used by anybody, ambiguous rulings, and what not.

 

[msoya]

Pun-Pun does actually have Divine Rank. Something to do with using the Ice Assassin spell to summon a replica of a god with all the god's powers (using Manipulate Form to be able to cast it as a Supernatural Ability (I think that's the one - the one which means you don't need the material components)). He tells the Ice Assasin god to Proxy him, gaining DvR 1. He Proxies a random squirrel, reducing his DvR to 0, and making him eligible for Proxying again. He repeats this until he has X Divine Ranks in a small army of squirrels, then draws them all back into himself. Allowable by RAW, if not by sanity.

They looked pretty hard at Ice Assassin, and it can do that if you have a piece of the god in question, which is usually very difficult. But that requirement is bypassable...

Whoever said he'd require 10,000 rounds to power up is probably incorrect, as they figured out an infinite action loop fairly early on. It takes him a little while to get that far, though.

They also looked very hard at the rules governing gods, and figured out that without DM fiat, playing strictly by RAW, the gods probably wouldn't know about him unless he decided to kill one of them within 21 weeks after his 'Ascension' (DvR 21 being the highest DvR around, usually) - the rules don't give them perfect knowledge of the entire world, and he won't even affect most of their portfolios. If he wants to do so, all he has to do is do it a number of weeks equal to their DvR after powering himself up.

I think it's a neat idea, personally. Hopefully it'll prod the designers into paying more attention to new abilities as they introduce them - if nothing else, show all the new abilities to the CO Board and see which ones are turned into ubercheese. He's also inspired a few other neat tricks, like the No-Ship someone's working on as a way to kill him, and the Terminator method to kill him as an infant. It's pretty hard for Pun-Pun to travel through time, as the most obvious method explicitly gives the DM license to screw with him by doing so, and Pun-Pun could only possible work with a RAW-only game, with no DM fiat.

Also, c'mon, Pun-Pun's funny. There's nothing wrong with trying to find ways to theoretically break the game.

 

[Quasqueton]

There's nothing wrong with trying to find ways to theoretically break the game.

So long as no one turns around and uses the result as support for a claim that the core and/or whole game system is broken. That's like tampering with a new car's engine, and then driving it so fast and long that the engine detonates, and then saying that is proof that an older car is more stable and dependable.

Quasqueton

 

[gizmo33]

Pun-Pun is the worst possible basis for what this thread has become. His build depends heavily on somewhat obscure material never used by anybody, ambiguous rulings, and what not.

QFT.

Any monster that can increase another characters ability scores permanently with no cost is just a badly designed monster. The entire DnD game system is not broken because of the existence of this monster.

 

[gizmo33]

If it's exclusively a DM tool, then why not just call it "Rule 0" and not write it up? Seems to me like it's supposed to be used by players.

I disagree. I think it's common for a monster designer to not consider that a player might be using the monster. AFAIK the term "rule 0" is never used in the way that you say it should have been. There are other monsters, like the Efreeti, that don't seem to be designed to be used by players - there's no mention made of how an Efreeti spends XPs for it's wish spell, and so I think it's just something they didn't think about.

 

[riprock]

And after all is said and done, note that several people have pointed out in this thread that Pun-Pun does not work as constructed.

Several folks have claimed that here. Other folks have claimed otherwise on the Wizards boards and rpg.net. Still other folks have taken a middle position on the wording of the d20 rules, namely, "We think the average reader would understand the intended meaning, but we agree the wording is bad and many readers will be misled."

The more I belabor the point, the more indignant the opposition will become.

I'm willing to shut up because it's in bad taste to talk when the audience doesn't want to listen.

 

[Quasqueton]

I'm willing to shut up because it's in bad taste to talk when the audience doesn't want to listen.

Just because people don't change their opinions to agree with you doesn't mean they're not listening.

It seems that everyone here has listened to you, but we come to a different conclusion regarding the existance of Pun-Pun. Some say, "Who cares?", some say, "It's wrong," and some say, "Even if it's right, it doesn't mean anything."

Quasqueton