I've just had two new players join the group in the last month and they are power gamers/munchkins. To a certain extent I don't mind players looking to make the most out of their character's but these guys are always looking for ways to manipulate the rules.
So what should I do? I like them as players for the most part but as a DM I don't feel that it should be the players vs the DM, with them trying to out do each other. The DM should provide challenges and provide an opportunity to be part of a story (without railroading the players).
In Game: One thing to do is use strategies that remove the power/gaming aspect from their tool box. Present situations where hack and slashing will not resolve the issue. Present some situations that the outcome is predicated on a morale choice. Ensure that their activities have consequences. Run a low magic campaign.
Out of Game: Have rules discussions with them and be open to their ideas. Test their ideas with mock battles, etc. Share your ideas about game play what you think is fun and listen to theres and see if there is a in-between place for you. Read some of Monte Cook's DM advice in dungeon. Lots of good advice there too.
By "manipulating" the rules, do you mean that they are not adhering to the core rules and your house rules? I don't allow that, but I have no problem with players using the RAW to gain every advantage they can--to me that's (human) nature--their characters would want to learn all the best skills and feats to survive in a dangerous world.
Powergamers do so because they enjoy making the most out of their characters. It is a game after all, and winning is as good an aim as any. Not everyone is into that softy "playing the game to tell a collaborative story" malarkey, especially not young players or new players.
Generally, allow people to play powerful combinations. However, you're fair to demand a certain realism or prohibit especially game-breaking choices. For example, in my own games I require players to justify unusual races, templates, multiclass options and prestige classes, while I prohibit four-armed characters, the feral template and a handful of stuff from older books.
|
People have diverse tastes, and that includes the way they game. Either you can accept that and try to run with it, or you can restrict your game to the style you like. The latter may be more satisfying in some ways, but you may alienate perfectly good players who just like a bit of power-gaming. I personally believe it is up to the DM to provide the game that satisfies all parties: DM and players too. And it is part of the challenge to accommodate differetn tastes within the same game.
Thanks for input everyone. I understand the different gaming styles since I've been Dming since 1982 and it may just come down to what is fun for myself as well as them.
I guess by manipulating I mean things like getting enchantments on hand x-bows to fire 10 shots per round and firing one in each hand, things like that they have done in other peoples games.
I have talked to them about munchkinism and they said that they had done it before because the previous DM would set them against challenge rating of 10+ over their level, which I can understand why they would be that way. Now though they appear to want to start that kind of stuff in my game, that what urks be I guess.
|
|
Thanks for input everyone. I understand the different gaming styles since I've been Dming since 1982 and it may just come down to what is fun for myself as well as them.
I guess by manipulating I mean things like getting enchantments on hand x-bows to fire 10 shots per round and firing one in each hand, things like that they have done in other peoples games.
I have talked to them about munchkinism and they said that they had done it before because the previous DM would set them against challenge rating of 10+ over their level, which I can understand why they would be that way. Now though they appear to want to start that kind of stuff in my game, that what urks be I guess.
OK, firstly the sort of stuff they are talking about can only be allowed if you so choose. There is nothing in the rules about multi-fire hand crossbows, so it has to be someone else's house rule. So you can restrict them to official rules, say just the PHB and DMG. This should curb their tendencies to look for "silly" stuff like that.
Arguably, their previous DM ran a very "herioc" style of game where madness like that was allowed. Up to him and his players, if they enjoyed it. But you are trying to tell a different story, so you are entitled to say what goes. You should probably explain what you want to do and why, and what the implications for the PCs are (i.e. no whacky hand-held artillery). And you should also explain why they don't need it - they won't be facing the tarrasque at 1st level, but much more balanced encounters.
Ultimately, what you want to do is ensure that communication is clear. If they have different expectations, then you need to get them to see that your game will be different to what they would expect. If it just looks like you are being mean and not giving them their toys, you might get frustration and resentment. If they understand why, then they don't really have an excuse to get difficult - they have a choice: enjoy the game you are offering or find another one.
Obviously, power-gamers like their toys. Arguably, their previous DM got into an arms race with them, handing out dumb treasure and then having to compensate with insane CRs. They can still have fun in your game - frankly, it will be more fun as the challenge won't be mitigated by super weapons, but instead they will have to use tactics and teamwork and the ultimate victory will be the sweeter. If that isn't a good enough to tempt them, maybe D&D isn't the game for them. But I doubt it will come to that.
|
|
One of the fundamental tenets and cornerstones of 3E was that whatever the 'good guys' could do, so too could the 'bad guys'. Make them run up against mobs who use their own dirty tricks against them, and see if that is something of a wake-up call.
-- George Krashos
I think you should avoid this sort of thing to some extent - you don't want to get into an arms race, and you don't want to pit yourself as a DM against the players. Yes, what is sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander. But you need to be happy with the sauce in the first place. If the enemies have multiple-firing crossbows, then you are setting the wrong tone - you want no one to have them, not everyone.
Usually, I find power gamers end up tripping and falling on their sword about halfway through the game. They get caught up in the idea of their character being invincible(or close to it), and eventually get speared RIGHT through their achilles heel. In my experience, this has always occured without the DM "gunning" for them or altering the rules in any way- even house rules. I guess it's just a case of there always being someone bigger and badder with an even worse case of chip on the shoulder.
|
I have talked to them about munchkinism and they said that they had done it before because the previous DM would set them against challenge rating of 10+ over their level, which I can understand why they would be that way.
What if they are suffering not so much from "munchkinism" but from the Abused Player syndrome? The previous Killer DM squished their PCs several times with absurd challenges, until they complained, so he or she let them have automatic crossbows to compensate.
Faraer (spelling?)is right on the money. Sadly you might lose one or two players but enjoyment of time spent with is what I think you're striving for. Sometimes ya gotta boot player with too different expectations. This is not a reflection upon them as people but it can be taken that way. Good luck!
|
I guess by manipulating I mean things like getting enchantments on hand x-bows to fire 10 shots per round and firing one in each hand, things like that they have done in other peoples games.
There's a nice little rule called Damage Reduction; hey, you got 10 shots/round? Here! Have 100! Makes no difference if none of them get through...
|
|
One of the fundamental tenets and cornerstones of 3E was that whatever the 'good guys' could do, so too could the 'bad guys'. Make them run up against mobs who use their own dirty tricks against them, and see if that is something of a wake-up call.
I find prevention is better than the cure. Let them know before they start drooling over some new PrC/feat/item, that if they pester you to use something, the genie will be out of the bottle, and it will end up being used against them.
Now, do you still think that prestige class is balanced?
No?
Oh, how strange...
|
|
Powergamers do so because they enjoy making the most out of their characters. It is a game after all, and winning is as good an aim as any. Not everyone is into that softy "playing the game to tell a collaborative story" malarkey, especially not young players or new players.
Agreed.
I reject the argument that 'roleplaying' only happens when one makes a sub-standard loser with sub-optimal skill, feat and spell choices.If my character lives in a hostile world where magic, gods, devils, and undead roam at will, and you are liable to be killed every time you step out your door, then that is going to give him a very paranoid outlook.
Therefore the following make very realistic ideals for my current wizard in SCAP:
Be prepared (ie. play an adaptable wizard instead of a stupid Johnny One-joke sorceror).
Knowledge is Power! (another reason to play a wizard; those are your class skills for a reason, damn it! Use them!)
Get your retaliation in first (and make it count).
An eye for an eye (plus another for interest).
The best defence is a good offence (but you have to be alive to press the attack).
The enemy of my enemy is my friend (until my enemy is dead,of course, then all bets are off....).
If at first you don't succeed... go away, pick on someone your own size and come back when you've levelled up!
Is this 'powergaming'?
Or is it 'deep-immersion role-playing of a cornered man in a hellish world'?
None of the above precludes the character having a sense of humour (though it is a dark, gallows-humour), personal honour, friendships, loyalty, ideals, tact, diplomacy, and romance.
Our last session had no combat at all; along with a fellow player, we hit the dice tables at the nobles' club in Cauldron, won a tidy sum, casually name-dropped our exploits as if they were no big deal, raised funding and manpower for our own temple, befriended the next Mayor-to-be (fingers crossed!), agreed for his wayward daughter to jump the healing queue if needed, established that he had as much contempt for her companions as I did, that if they should come near me they DIE, and that if a certain scar-faced ginger psycopath should wind up dead in an alley with a lightning enema, it would probably be considered 'natural causes'.
All the above conducted at a crowded table, in full view, with the utmost politeness and good manners, using euphemism and innuendo to thrash out our dealings as if we were calmly discussing the weather.
One of the best sessions yet.
My concern is that it turns into a pissing contest between myself and the players with the one with the most toys winning. If I wanted that I'd just play diablo 2 and skip the whole role playing experience and I have no problem with players wanting to improve their characters or their items.
In the past I've always had players play things that appealed to them because they thought they where cool, not I want to play that cause then I can do such and such damage and become invincible. That to me isn't what play a role playing game is about and at that point who need D&D as it becomes a sort of mental ego trip.
You guys have given me some good ideas though. I'll just have to watch these players carefully and put my foot down to any potential abuses.
My concern is that it turns into a pissing contest between myself and the players with the one with the most toys winning. If I wanted that I'd just play diablo 2 and skip the whole role playing experience and I have no problem with players wanting to improve their characters or their items.
In the past I've always had players play things that appealed to them because they thought they where cool, not I want to play that cause then I can do such and such damage and become invincible. That to me isn't what play a role playing game is about and at that point who need D&D as it becomes a sort of mental ego trip.
You guys have given me some good ideas though. I'll just have to watch these players carefully and put my foot down to any potential abuses.
It will only become a pissing contest if the DM lets it.
Bottom line: The DM gets final rule; if a player doesn't like it, he can leave the table.
Note that all of the ideals Snorter listed above make no mention of pushing any statistical value above a REALISTIC value (realistic in a sense of common logic, not fantasy/reality); a power gamer will push the rules system to its limit, while a munchkin will abuse the system, taking liberties with details of the game that are not expressly written in order to bend the game realism to his advantage.
Example:You mentioned a case where a player wished to use an enchanted hand crossbow in each hand that fired ten(?!) times per round.
As the DM, you should ask:
- What enchantments possibly stack that will jack up a rate of fire that high? Have you verified ALL possible rules/feats/etc. to justify this rate of fire?
- Remind the player that a rate of fire includes reload time; the rules may not explicitly say so, but it can be taken on good faith (or DM ruling) that reloading a hand crossbow takes TWO hands to accomplish...PER CROSSBOW. Thus, the reload time limits the number of attacks per round from each crossbow, regardless of how high the number of POSSIBLE attacks per round by the character - unless the crossbow magically reloads, which, of course, is an enchantment that is bought and paid for.
- Attacks per round, for the most part, is a function of player level, not item enchantment; again, verify rules.
Personally, I might not stay a step ahead of EVERY rule, but when it comes to power gamers, I have a few that maintain balance; I hope these tips help you:
1. Do not allow any class, prestige class, feat, template, race or other modification without having the player present you with the written rule for you to read and, if necessary, either permit or prohibit from your game; remember, it is your game, your table and you have final approval over any rule you use - just because it is in a book doesn't mean you have to use it.
2. As a general rule, I don't allow players to use or introduce optional rules or other game resources from non-core books unless I've read and approved them; this allows the DM to at the least, be aware of all possible rules that can be abused and avoid being 100% blindsided by a munchkinized character.
3. If your player tends to over-specialize (uber-melee, uber-archer, etc.), just build your encounters to avoid going head to head with their strength and hit them in their weakness - which would likely be anywhere else. I almost took out a strong, 12-member party with three Hags that charmed the two biggest fighters - who turned around and almost massacred everyone else before being brought down - by their own party...
I have nothing against creative and colorful characters; but when they are designed and generated to abuse the rules system, it indirectly portrays the player as selfish and unfair to the other players in the group. I'm sure that if there was ever a case of a munchkin DM who regularly TPK'ed parties with his "custom monsters", there would be a huge revolt in the ranks...
M
I do a number of things to minimize Power Gaming:
I use rulebooks, settings and monsters they do not know about. There is literally so many sourcebooks and material out there and I find it unlikely most people will have read all of it, let alone remember it all verbatim.
Someone messing you up using an unGodly combo of spells? Introduce psionics? Your players instantly recognise what the approaching monster is by the description and thereby know, automatically, what it's strengths and weaknesses are? Add a new monster from one of the newer MM's, from an issue of Dungeon or Dragon, or any other of the myriad of open content out there.
Secondly: Only I, the DM, am allowed rule books at the table. The players are allowed to look at the descriptions of their feats, spells and abilities, but never the Monster Manual nor the DMG (the Monster Manual is probably the most important book for them not to have open at all times).
Third: I make it my job to know the rules better than them.
And finally, if in doubt, roll a dice. Heck, don't even do that: say to them "I am the DM, and this is what happens".
My concern is that it turns into a pissing contest between myself and the players with the one with the most toys winning. If I wanted that I'd just play diablo 2 and skip the whole role playing experience and I have no problem with players wanting to improve their characters or their items.
In an arms race between the dm and players there is no possible way that players can win. You need to make that clear to players. It is the dm's responsiblity to make challenging encouners for the characters, and if the characters are power gaming like you say then what it forces you to do is to use creatures/traps enemies etc.. that are well beyond the normal CR's for the party's level. Explain to them that as a dm this can be frustrating because it forces you to exclude a lot of interesting lower CR monsters from your game, as they won't pose enough of a challenge.
An arms race between players and dm can be irritating, but what I find worse is when you have one player who is a power gamer and constantly trying to find special combinations of feats, items, prestige classes to soup up his character, and other players aren't. Then you end up with one player who has a combat super character and the other players end up feeling frustrated in battle when this other character has all these annoying little feats and tricks that they don't have.
I think the best thing to do is discuss with the players what your vision of the game is going to look like because it is such a subjective thing together you should be able to shape it to suite everyone's taste. If you find tastes are too different then you compromise or find a different gaming group.
Well, the game is all about continuity and balance right; if your players enjoy doing this sort of thing; let them, heck, encourage them, but do the same for your npc's and monsters that they will face; after all; good ideas travel and get picked up. Ensure that your mobs are not static and booring, keep them on the cutting edge and your game will be fine. Try not to penalize your players for ingenious plans; but if they work well and news gets out; other will adopt their tactics. This can be great fun in a game and keep things on the level.
hope this helps.
You might also try running different kind of adventures whereas being a combat monster pc is not as important or relavent during much of the part; make em think. I have seen some really nice goblin and kobold dungeons run this way; sure you can beat up a goblin or kobold, but their inherent cruelty and deviousness can really change the tables, you can also give them a couple dilemnas where the combat monsters have unwittingly killed several of the parties contacts. Prior to 3.5 Dungeon magazine has a great adventure we all call the mighty toilet bowl whereas kobolds or some such use themselves as cannon fodder to lure the pc's into a channel to get washed away into the darkness, worked like a charm as the pc beserkinly ran from mob to mob until the trap was set. Have your pc's think a bit more and though they know someone really should be killed; make them unsure of who the bad guys is; give them some grey morally nebulous adventures that make them use the other skills on their character sheets other than combat. I think this should work for you.
(the Monster Manual is probably the most important book for them not to have open at all times).
My Players, fortunately, are sufficiently mature that I don't have to worry about them looking up monsters as the monsters are attacking them. On the other hand, I insist that anyone who can cast Summon Monster bring his or her own MM; no, you may NOT borrow mine during the game, lol. If you want a spellcaster who knows that spell, get your own MM!
I guess by manipulating I mean things like getting enchantments on hand x-bows to fire 10 shots per round and firing one in each hand, things like that they have done in other peoples games.
Where's the roleplaying?
Player: Can I have a crossbow that fires 10 shots/round?
DM (me): Who are you asking?
Player: You.
DM: You don't know.
Player: Huh?
DM: Your character has never seen such a crossbow. If you wish, you could inquire at Skie's Treasury, or at the weaponsmith.
Player: OK, I go to Skie's.
DM: As you enter, Skie enthusiastically says, "Welcome back, adventurer! What can I sell you today?"
Player: "I want a crossbow that shoots ten shots per round."
DM: "Ten shots per what?"
Player: "Um, 10 shots every six seconds."
DM: Skie laughs. Then laughs some more. Her face begins to turn red, and she continues to laugh, until she finally ends in a painful coughing spell. "Oh, my, that's the best laugh I've had in a long time!" she says, wiping a tear from her cheek while still chuckling. "Son, there is no spell that can accomplish that. Perhaps with multiple Wish spells . . . you don't have a few hundred thousand gold on you, do you? If so, wonderful! I'll contact Tenser and get him to work on it, and you'll have it in a couple of years at the latest."
|
Hehe, I'll tell you how I got rid of the power gamer in my group. I set a dominate person trap on him. He immediately started attacking the party and the party went and cut him down... after that he was pretty pacified and now realizes when making some screwed up ubercharacter that does everything can acyually hurt you. hehehehehe.
Check out the thread "Iron Fisted DMs" or some of the other threads in the General D&D forum...there are some thoughts on these kinds of questions there.
Some of these responses here are kind of rediculous... the ones that involve rectifying a problem in-game by peanalizing a PC rather than talking to the players involved? What is that? As someone mentioned above, just discuss the kind of game that the group is interested in playing and from the get-go there shouldn't be any problems.
As ever,
ACE
Well the two players and I decided to go our separate ways which probably work out for the best, no harm done.
I kind of look at it this way in the difference between a bunch of friends getting together to play penny ante poker or the people who play poker to win big money. My style is more the penny ante poker.
Powergamers do so because they enjoy making the most out of their characters. It is a game after all, and winning is as good an aim as any. Not everyone is into that softy "playing the game to tell a collaborative story" malarkey, especially not young players or new players.
Agreed.
I reject the argument that 'roleplaying' only happens when one makes a sub-standard loser with sub-optimal skill, feat and spell choices.If my character lives in a hostile world where magic, gods, devils, and undead roam at will, and you are liable to be killed every time you step out your door, then that is going to give him a very paranoid outlook.
Therefore the following make very realistic ideals for my current wizard in SCAP:
Be prepared (ie. play an adaptable wizard instead of a stupid Johnny One-joke sorceror).
Knowledge is Power! (another reason to play a wizard; those are your class skills for a reason, damn it! Use them!)
Get your retaliation in first (and make it count).
An eye for an eye (plus another for interest).
The best defence is a good offence (but you have to be alive to press the attack).
The enemy of my enemy is my friend (until my enemy is dead,of course, then all bets are off....).
If at first you don't succeed... go away, pick on someone your own size and come back when you've levelled up!Is this 'powergaming'?
Or is it 'deep-immersion role-playing of a cornered man in a hellish world'?None of the above precludes the character having a sense of humour (though it is a dark, gallows-humour), personal honour, friendships, loyalty, ideals, tact, diplomacy, and romance.
Our last session had no combat at all; along with a fellow player, we hit the dice tables at the nobles' club in Cauldron, won a tidy sum, casually name-dropped our exploits as if they were no big deal, raised funding and manpower for our own temple, befriended the next Mayor-to-be (fingers crossed!), agreed for his wayward daughter to jump the healing queue if needed, established...
Well thats interesting - I guess it depends on your world and game as all things do. But the get'em first thing doesn't really work if say there is any kind of legal system (other than might make right - or arguably an alignment system).
Also the powergaming is roleplaying argument is IMO flawed.
Powergaming assumes (in my interpetation - which granted is not universal) maximizes the characters combat potential - probably a specific type of combat as well. Which okay - thats fine (boring in my opinion but fine) - however if the game world you are playing in requires a lot of investigation, with research, gather information, diplomacy checks etc. Intrigue, and the need to be on the watch for poison, more subtle influences from mind controlled NPCs, social traps, entanglements from legal proceedings say from attacking, injuring, killing a possessed (or otherwise controlled) member of the court. Or if the campaign incorporates having to identify key materials for item creation, finding them, and then extracting them properly and transporting them back to whereever - then yu powergamer is going to be the "one trick pony" will probably get board - because they are pretty much useless outside of a direct confrontation - act out out so they can do something - and as a result disrupt the game.
Basically the hostile world - creates maximized comabatants arguments is IMO shallow in a well developed world. Don't get me wrong, a world in which the game is basically one monster after another may be fun for people - but politics, more complicated magic, intrigue, and long term goals and planning are part of the game for many as well - in that type of game min/maxed combat casters/fighters are mostly good as body guards.
Along these lines every opponent isn't going to step out of the shadows with an "I challenge thee", or roar rand attack, and then after the attack stand their ground in a fight to the death.
Some combats should be heavy on illusion.
Some on fear or charm effects.
Some on ranged attacks.
Some on manipulation of terrain.
Some on heavy movement.
Some on a specific type of energy.
Some on high number of combatants.
Some on a single opponent.
I have seen very few DMs use harrassing attacks over the course of days to wear parties down - attack at range with poison arrows one volley then run - so hit some don't so what - the party can't effectively respond - the attacker have fled at a 4x move later in the day again - the next day again - then in 4 days time (or whatever) the part exhausted, out of potions, weak from ability score dame from the poison is attacked in earnest.
Oh and then combinations of the above - do that and then let them play the all feats into one melee weapon fighters and see if they still feel like they are the best thing since Conan or the stupid Drizzt thing.
The other thing is these uber powerful NPCs/monsters attacked alone by a party - please. Okay if the party uses skill to isolate the guy with a good plan. But boss villains are "Bosses" hance the term with minions, mercenaries, magic, and time and incentive and resources to prepare their lairs.
They should be able to at least call for back-up. The idea that 4 or 5 characters can attack the boss alone is kind of lame - and the minions would have tactics prepared to set up positions to flank, aid another, etc even if they themselves are not particularly effective as direct combantants - most munchkins (in my experience) don't do well if the bad guys aren't retarded.
IMO there is a difference between a powergamer and a munchkin.
I have no problem if a guy wants to be the best melee combatant (or whatever) but if the rules are followed - cost of cross class skills, pre-requisites for feats, the true point buys (as opposed to fudging a few point), creation costs and creation times for items, encumberance, armor check penalties - most min/max PCs are pretty much one trick ponies. Thats okay and can lead to a cool character - as long as the player is willing to play by the limitations that character will have. And if the DM chooses to cater to that fine - but thats his choice. Munchkins though will fall apart in thte face of more complex challenges - fine let then walk, if thats not the kind of game you want. I like collaborative storytelling, if you want a hack and slash, or god bulder game thats fine - but those too are collaborative efforts as well. For a game to work, everybody needs to be if not on the same page - at lest within the same book as regards style and objective. Not everyone is a good fit for everygame. That doesn't mean they are bad gamers - or that you are bad DM, just that they aren't a good fit.
Rambling in this post ends now.
|
|
Not everyone is into that softy "playing the game to tell a collaborative story" malarkey, especially not young players or new players.
Agreed.
I reject the argument that 'roleplaying' only happens when one makes a sub-standard loser with sub-optimal skill, feat and spell choices.
I realise, after reading the last post, that I may not have been as clear as I could have been, thus giving the impression that I want a powerful 'playing-piece' at the expense of an interesting character.
That's not the case at all; I prefer games where there is an ongoing narrative (other than"Go down this hole, kill things and take their stuff").
I believe the game works better this way, and is more interesting, especially at higher levels, where characters could flatten half a town without even trying. I agree with the previous posters, that the only options are to ramp up the power-level of everyone they meet (in which case campaign collapses under its own implausibility), or simply introduce situations where force is not the answer.
However, I hear many opinions that 'successfully role-playing a character', and 'making the character actually effective at his job', must be mutually exclusive, and I do not agree that is the case.
I am quite happy to play a session where no dice are rolled in anger, as long as we are actually advancing the plot (rather than just wasting time discussing last night's TV, or so on).
That was the reason for the example session I quoted, which revolved around our efforts to find a sponsor at The Cusp of Sunrise.
The DM had come round to my view (as ruled in my campaign) that the Leadership rules are bunk, and had relaxed them, allowing us to start planning for our inevitable residency of City Hall (if we live that long...). So at 5th level, we're haggling over how many acolytes and men-at-arms we get for our (proposed) temple to Heironeous...The DM (quite rightly, in my view) considered that we had far more fame, reputation and clout than would be the norm for characters of our level, since all our tasks had been high-profile cases, for important patrons, within a small area.
It also happened that 2 players couldn't make it, so he ruled that while 'BA' and 'Murdoch' were getting their new armour fitted, 'Hannibal' and 'Face' could do their thing...
|
|
This might not be entirely on topic, but I've never had a problem with players who come up with sick feat and ability combinations as long as they legitimately follow the rules of the game. These "powergamers" are welcome to play their characters that way if they wish.
What I absolutely despise are players who actually cheat while they play. I mean, cheat at D&D?! How freakin' sad is that?
You've all met them. They never have an ability score less than 15; they seem to have amazingly rolled maximum hit points on every level increase. They sit at the corner of the table furthest from the DM and roll a highly-improbable number of nat 20's from a position that no other player can visually verify.
I know there are some folks on this forum who decry the use of the term "munchkin," but to my mind, THESE are the munchkins. It is the behavior of the most infuriatingly juvenille gamers.
Sometimes, you have to declare Live Table, that is that the rules can not be quotes since your character wouldn't be doing that, and having them pass notes after the game, if they are forced to do alot of work usually the subject will drop.
As for trying to make something out of the ordinary like said crossbow, while they can imagine it, the person they are talking too may not have the K. Arcitecture and Engineering to actually do it themselves.
It was said earlier in this thread, something that expensive, would take a looonnngg while to make and an even longer while to enchant.
If they keep being power gamers, you might have to take them aside a explain to them that, this is not that other players game and that if there making it so the game is not enjoyable for the other players, it has to stop.
Or consiquently you can do something with a powerful item like that, like give it its own sentience, and make them make ego checks against it.
Trust me I play a character in a Eberron game, that got ahold of an artifact, and it is NOT all roses to have powerful items, especially when they drain Attributes. (mine takes Con when activated. ).
It might make them think twice.
I dont penalize my power gamer players, I just alter the game and keep it enjoyable for everyone; tuff fights for them; good plot threads for others. Lots of various and homegrown magic devices; its all good.
I guess by manipulating I mean things like getting enchantments on hand x-bows to fire 10 shots per round and firing one in each hand, things like that they have done in other peoples games.
Play by the book. If the rules let them do something, they can do it. If they're trying to invent some dumb thing like a Mac-10, they can't.
