My current gaming group has taken on some really bad “munchkin” tendencies over the past few years, and I’m wondering if I should start getting worried about it (or maybe just “power gamers” I can’t tell yet). Our current stat system is to roll 4d6, re-roll 1’s and drop the lowest. All but 2 of us are completely opposed to a point-buy system. We also have almost every WotC 3.5 book printed excluding campaign related books. Needless to say, it’s not uncommon for a character to use 4+ books by level 6.
Our typical parties can usually take on an encounter 2 to 4 levels higher than what they should be fighting without too much issue (excluding encounters that are intended to outright kill). This is with level-appropriate gear most of the time.
However, from time to time we do get a party that pretty much implodes upon itself. This is either from great rp of opposing character alignment and principles, or someone brings it upon them self to anger the entire party. Usually when this happens the rest of the party will either go out of there way to get that one person killed/let that them die, or if they are non-good they’ll just find an excuse to attack and usually kill them. When this happens, the DM will at least make an attempt to calm everyone down unless said player got on the dm’s bad side as well.
However, I think there is a source to this issue. Years ago, when we transferred to 3.0 from 2nd Edition we had a DM that was overly strict on what we could or couldn’t do. We were only allowed core books for a very long time, and were lucky to even get masterwork items thought playing. At one time, he started a campaign starting at level 20, would not allow us to take prestige classes, and would not even let us buy any items better than masterwork quality. Many times we got railroaded into situations that someone was going to die because the DM said so. Needless to say, they no-longer DM for us (or are even in our group anymore but that’s another story that doesn’t need to be told) but at the time that was our only DM.
Anyhow, I’m wondering if I should start getting worried about the general “power gamer” mindset this group seems to have gotten. I’m also wondering if it’s time to start trying to reel them back into a more “manageable?” game environment. Also, if I were to attempt this, what would be the recommended method as to not offend all my players? I’d like to join in other gaming groups with some of my friends without them all freaking out about how they “can’t do anything” in a more normalized power level campaign.
Thanks for any tips/thoughts/opinions in advance, and I apologize for the 5am wall-o-text.
My current gaming group has taken on some really bad “munchkin” tendencies over the past few years, and I’m wondering if I should start getting worried about it (or maybe just “power gamers” I can’t tell yet).
\
It sounds like you game with children. Adult children, perhaps, but still children. Children who can't play well together.
I say this because, in effect, they got all their toys taken away and then threw a temper tantrum. Now, I'm not excusing your previous DM's behavior. It was childish, too. But you're playing on the extremes, and neither is good.
What's a good way to correct this? Good question.
I don't think the problem lies in the type of game you play. I think the personalities are the problem. No amount of limitations or freedom will fix maturity issues (at least in a game).
An adult conversation needs to be held. Something like this:
"Guys, it seems like every time we game, (x) happens. I'm tired of it, the games aren't fun anymore, and I'd like to hear your thoughts."
The goal of an RPG is cooperative storytelling. Cooperation is a key ingredient. The DM can't manage it by himself. Players can't manage it by themselves.
Dude, I feel you.
I think one good way of doing something of he like is to award RP a lot more. In my groups 50% of XP is the normal XP for RP alone. That helps someone to bring a character to the table, not a Sheet.
Another way is to use a lot of DM fiat, use things that are beyond the rules and that the character will not understand and will be unnable to "beat" with their sheets alone, critical thinking and group thinking would be the only way.
Try to put a lot more of social interaction with them and beetween them. This will help form a solid group, and they may start to like each other.
The way I see it, VS. Mentality is the norm today, hell, even I have been draged to it sometimes and it's not cool. I think maybe a simple campaign or adventure in a low fantasy place can help you and them to see the simple things in RPG and enjoy them a little more.
This is your issue, or, at least the symptom of your issue. The powergaming seems to be unrelated. You need to figure out why people are choosing to go against the flow of the party and deal with that issue quickly, because this is the sort of thing that can quickly lead to players getting frustrated or burned out and quitting or drifting away.
Be careful of taking the advice you get in these replies. There's a strong undercurrent of powerful character = bad roleplayer = bad person hereabouts.
Actually, the inter-party conflict is all in character 95% of the time. Very rarely will anyone take it personally these days. While it can seem rather disruptive to game play, it is a great chance to watch them RP amongst themselves. Also, it mostly happens during random adventures outside of our normal campaigns. I just randomly put this part in to explain the #1 cause of party fail.
Also, I should note that the definition of Munchkin I've learned could be different from what these forums use, hence the "or maybe just power gamers" after the term in my main post and overall thread title.
Is it powergaming or just "new toy syndrome"?
If they weren't allowed all the things you describe for quite a while and now they are, of course you are going to see everyone grabbing them.
Most of the time its just powergaming. "New toy syndrome" has wore off a few years ago, excluding the change to pathfinder feat progression and paladins. We don't get a lot of paladins though due to the code of conduct.
|
My current gaming group has taken on some really bad “munchkin” tendencies over the past few years, and I’m wondering if I should start getting worried about it (or maybe just “power gamers” I can’t tell yet).It sounds like you game with children. Adult children, perhaps, but still children. Children who can't play well together.
I think this is dead wrong. I know the common perception is that powergamers are all munchkins and that somehow playing Bob the plumber as a paladin with no stat over 11 is somehow noble, but this is a plain silly prejudice.
It sounds like you're group enjoys playing exceptional characters. They want to be ahead of the power curve, maximized for their concept. That can be fine as long as you as a DM can adapt game play to match their abilities. For example, I ran a long running 2nd edition campaign arc for super optimized characters. Their favored tactic was scry and die. They were so mercenary they'd charge their own grandma to get rid of a haunting they inadvertently caused. They min/maxed about every aspect of their character, their henchmen, and their possessions. These guts were power games to the extreme. However, like your players, they ropeplayed well and cared deeply about their character concepts and the story.
The best part was that I never let them feel comfortable. I used their own tactics against them, and kept them feeling hunted and insecure. No matter how powerful they got, the opposition kept pace. I would typically let the more intelligent enemies learn from their tactics after one or two uses, and even the dimmest would adapt after several of the party's assaults. Yes they could cut down fire giants by the dozen, and that was fun for them, but it was even more entertaining when the fire giants hired drow to fortify their base (with dimensional lock, hell hounds to hunt by scent, and several antimagic zones at key choke points.). Munchkin or not, they barely survived and still talk about that adventure almost a decade later.
Essentially, power gamers are only a problem when they don't roleplay (which doesn't seem like a problem for you) or when the DM can't adapt to handle them. Look at their tactics, look at your villains, and ask yourself if the bad guys were really too dumb to figure out how to handle the party. if they aren't your own party will give you the tools to keep them challenged and keep your game balanced.
You're talking about two unrelated topics, I think. In inverse order:
1} Lack of player/party cohesion. This is something you'll need to talk to your players about. It may not be a problem. In real life, if you took four strangers and brought them together in a tavern to meet a strange man who gives them a job, it's likely they won't stick together forever. As much as we might like our campaigns to turn into novels where the heroic foursome are inseparable, people aren't really like that. You could just be looking at valid role-play and the party implosions are a consequence of personality clash. As long as your players are okay with the way things are, let it go. If they're not, try to get to the heart of why they think it happens. Do you have a trouble player? Are they bored? Is it a matter of interpretation of rules like the paladin code of conduct? Is it a misunderstanding of the alignment system? Ask them.
2} Power-creep. Well, I can tell you with personal experience that player talent has a far greater impact on balance than a few splat books. I've got two campaigns... one with me as a player, one with me as a DM. I'm not as tactically and strategically brilliant as my player. So my no-less-optimized characters tend to get fed to the shredder frequently. I have yet to successfully kill one of his characters.
Simply inclusion of a bunch of books isn't necessarily a problem. We tend to dip heavily. A particular spell in a wizard's book may come from Spell Compendium while a feat may come from Complete Mage while a staff comes from Magic Item Compendium. Usually this is more about building an interesting character/statblock. Look: this wizard isn't the same as my previous seven wizards! Variety is the spice of life. We tend not to multiclass much, and we've never used prestige classes in years of play. Beyond that, mix & match seems to work.
What I'm saying is that again you may not have a problem. Discuss it with your players. Taking away books they enjoy having access to because it enables more variety might be a mistake, especially if you're just trying to even out two arbitrary numbers. APL and EL don't have to be equal. It's not a big deal to adjust things. Lower the XP and treasure a bit and it works.
Bottom line here is that I know I'd be bored easily if I had to regularly play core-only. Every once in a while you want to build a wizard who can smite with the melee touch spells he specializes in, or a rogue who doesn't use weapons but instead uses wands and UMD.
|
There's been a lot of good advice so far, but I'm going to throw out a potential middle ground for your next campaign. A friend of mine has a group that plays this way. It prevents massive power creep, but it allows people to be flexible anyway.
Everybody is allowed access to the core rulebook.
At level one you may choose ONE other non-core book (PHB and DMG count as core) to assist in making your character.
At level six you are provided access to a second non-core rulebook.
At level 12 you are provided access to a third non-core rulebook.
And finally at level 18 you are provided access to your fourth and final non-core rulebook.
The non-core rulebooks chosen are the player's choice and should reflect the kind of character they want to make. They do; however, need to figure out how to use this limited resource as it does mean things are limited at least a little.
For example, I want to make a human bard who I plan on turning into a Lyric Thamaturge as well as a Scout (non-core class).
Level 1: Everybody automatically gets the core rulebook (plus one book).
Bard - I decide that I really want to make sure that the bonus feats I need to take the PrC are available to me so I can take it at level 6, so I chose "Complete Mage" as my first non-core rulebook.
Scout - Well this is a no-brainer, I need to take the Complete Adventurer to get access to the non-core class.
Level 6:
Bard - At level 6 when I take the PrC I decide I really need to get access to some better spells than what core offers me, so I take the Spell Compendium as my second bonus book.
Scout - I'm getting to the point I'd like some non-core magic items available to me so I take the Magic Item Compendium.
Level 12:
Bard - I realize that I'm missing out on some good arcane feats from Complete Arcane, so I chose this as my third book.
Scout - I'm not as hungry as the bard for additional resources, but I know there are a couple very useful feats in the PHB II, so I chose that before I run out of feats.
Level 18:
Bard - I decide that I'm jealous of my scout friend and his cool stuff so in an effort to expand my magic item list I take the Magic Item Compendium.
Scout - I want to do a bit more than I currently do with my huge skill list, and skill tricks seem cool, so I pick The Complete Scoundrel as my final book.
It still lets these players chose the 4 books they want, but it broadens out the power creep a bit so you're really not dipping too far out of core until you're well into the high levels. He's told me that the system has worked fantastically for his group and they highly suggest it to anybody who wants to allow for some of the very cool information. As kind of an added benefit, the casting classes (those that typically overpower the non-casters at higher level) typically want to use one for the Spell Compendium, which limits them a bit more over the non-caster types (which helps even things out a bit between the classes). It's not perfect, but if you're looking for a way to meet half-way, this might be something to consider.
My advice is simply lower de XP progression and give them thougther encounters. This would even the game a lit bit without skyrocketing the advancement.
About banning/reducing splatbooks just don't, ask the players about their builds and talk to the players if theirs a game breaker. This doesn't seem to be necessary in your group because; it seems like the players are balanced with each other, so balanced the encounters not the players.
Finally, the players killing others players, if justified in game and there are no harsh feelings, then there´s no problem. Also, if this is a tendency the 'damnified' player had see it coming and was probably looking for a challenge of some sort or ¨doing it for the lulz¨.
Just my 2 coppers.
Humbly,
Yawar
There's nothing wrong with playing overly powerul characters. You'll want to increase the CR of the group though to avoid the situation where they level up super fast. If they can easily take an encounter two, three, four levels higher than they are then that should be the CR of the group, not their character level.
I think every group ends up falling into the back stabbing mentallity at some point unless it is absolutely forbidden by the DM. You can do just that, strongly discourage against it or just let them get bored with it. Eventually they'll tire of having every campaign end prematurely because everyone turns on each other.
My current gaming group has taken on some really bad “munchkin” tendencies over the past few years, and I’m wondering if I should start getting worried about it (or maybe just “power gamers” I can’t tell yet). Our current stat system is to roll 4d6, re-roll 1’s and drop the lowest. All but 2 of us are completely opposed to a point-buy system. We also have almost every WotC 3.5 book printed excluding campaign related books. Needless to say, it’s not uncommon for a character to use 4+ books by level 6.
(snip)
I'd say before you "do" anything, have a talk with your group. Bring the issue, expose how this is becoming a problem, tell them what kind of game you would ideally like to run and ESPECIALLY, listen to what their expectations are. You are there to have fun as a group, come with a compromise as a group.
Your old DM railroad his own intentions onto you and it wasn't fun. Doing the same to your group is the worst you could do (I expect you wouldn't do the SAME, but it may be interpreted as such if the players don't clearly see your intentions).
Other than that, I agree with what most of the previous posters said. I wouldn't eliminate splats completely, but perhaps they could be narrowed down to a few that are pertinent to the campaign.
'findel
|
|
Level 6:
Bard - At level 6 when I take the PrC I decide I really need to get access to some better spells than what core offers me, so I take the Spell Compendium as my second bonus book.Scout - I'm getting to the point I'd like some non-core magic items available to me so I take the Magic Item Compendium.
While I understand the concept behind his method (don't necessarily agree, but I understand his thinking), this part puzzles me.
Classes, feats, etc can be restricted, but I can't see how a book of equipment can be 'in' for one PC, and 'out' for everyone else.Maybe I'm a mad simulationist, but surely, what's available for purchase in the next town is what's available; the crafters and merchants aren't going to scurry around, pulling stock off the shelves, and hiding it, when the 'wrong type of customer' comes down the street?
If the DM is going to take a hard-line on this, then he's going to fail. All I forsee happening is one player of the group taking MIC as one of his picks, and everyone getting the benefit. They'll browse through it, then give Mr Scout a shopping list for the whole party.
Or, a PC will swap items he no longer needs.
Or, a PC will die, and the others will strip his body.
Will these items cease functioning, once touched by 'the unworthy'?
It's a meaningless restriction, since it has no teeth, and no way of being enforced.
|
|
While I understand the concept behind his method (don't necessarily agree, but I understand his thinking), this part puzzles me.
Classes, feats, etc can be restricted, but I can't see how a book of equipment can be 'in' for one PC, and 'out' for everyone else.Maybe I'm a mad simulationist, but surely, what's available for purchase in the next town is what's available; the crafters and merchants aren't going to scurry around, pulling stock off the shelves, and hiding it, when the 'wrong type of customer' comes down the street?
It is a tough one to mitigate (mind you, this isn't my campaign, so I might handle things a bit differently if I were running this system), but the purchase of items themselves can be envisioned in the simulationist vein by simply stating, "I have contacts you don't." You walk into a town without the book and am forced to shop at The Big Weapon Emporium, I on the other hand know of a hedge mage that sits in a hut on the edge of town and is willing to make a less common item for a "friend of a friend".
It doesn't mitigate the issue of stripping one's corpse, but from what I undersand the DM pulls his core treasure out of the DMG, not the Magic Item Compendium. Keep in mind, it works for their campaign (I believe they're level 15ish) and nobody complains; in fact every one of them raves about the system.
First, take a moment to remember that this is a social issue (like the majority of game-table issues). Just remembering to communicate with the other players instead of tweaking the game neatly solves 99% of trouble.
Munchkin is sort of pejorative term, but we can all agree on what it means. It sounds like your group enjoys a style of play focused on accruing individual power. In many ways, pathfinder is an ideal game for this play style.
If you can, give yourself over to this play style and try to have as much fun as possible. If you're a GM, don't fight what your players want (don't be a pushover either). It's one thing to be a good, mean GM who is running the same style of play, and it's another thing to try and inflict a different style of play than is being sought.
Our typical parties can usually take on an encounter 2 to 4 levels higher than what they should be fighting without too much issue (excluding encounters that are intended to outright kill). This is with level-appropriate gear most of the time.
This doesn't strike me as out of the ordinary. The encounters I run average CR+2. CR can't account for player skill, and it sounds like over the years your players have grown quite competent. Just keep adjusting CR to keep them challenged — put them on the slow XP track if necessary.
|
The power gaming aspect is fine. Players from time to time get hung up on power. After all, these games have stats, and looking at them long enough makes you want bigger and better stats. This is especially fine if they aren't fudging rolls and following rules. This is a great opportunity for you to really use high powered monsters, tactics, and items.
The party conflict COULD be an issue. Although often times it's only the party, we are humans, we can take it the wrong way. A bit of conflict is good anyways. Buddy cop movies often show 2 or more characters arguing all the time, but in the end they like each other and can trust each other because of the tight bond over life and death situations. However, if the characters and players are making snide little comments everywhere, in character or not, this is a sign of actual friction that needs to be monitored.
|
|
There's been a lot of good advice so far, but I'm going to throw out a potential middle ground for your next campaign. A friend of mine has a group that plays this way. It prevents massive power creep, but it allows people to be flexible anyway.
Snipped for brevity.
I must say.. my family group plays 3.5, they haven't made the switch to PF. They play with just about every splatbook WotC produced, minus Tome of Battle and Tome of Magic. BoED and BoVD are rarely used, but are allowed if the DM agrees. I think this system that you play with would be GREAT for my group. It certainly would cut down on book-keeping. I just hate it when one player has a 13+ page character book and can't remember where feat X or spell Y or item Z came from or what book it's in. And it would cut 'power creep' as well. I'll have to implement this system you use.. It sounds wonderful.
However, I think there is a source to this issue. Years ago, when we transferred to 3.0 from 2nd Edition we had a DM that was overly strict on what we could or couldn’t do. We were only allowed core books for a very long time, and were lucky to even get masterwork items thought playing. At one time, he started a campaign starting at level 20, would not allow us to take prestige classes, and would not even let us buy any items better than masterwork quality. Many times we got railroaded into situations that someone was going to die because the DM said so. Needless to say, they no-longer DM for us (or are even in our group anymore but that’s another story that doesn’t need to be told) but at the time that was our...
I have a suggestion, if you want to hear it, that might take the emphasis away from 'becoming superman' and back where perhaps you might prefer it to be.
Step One: Campaign concept - provide a background for the PCs that they have to step into wherein they are all already known to each other and friends. This could be the survivors of an orc attack, or that they are all the 'young people' of a village, but they have to have a glue that binds them together built in right from the start.
Step Two: Use point buy - I know you hate it, but it can be a great leveller and it is adjustable so that you can set a moderate level of performance for characters without totally nerfing any of them. I would suggest 26-30 point buy for 3.5 or 15-20 in Pathfinder. This will help bring the power level down.
Step Three: Provide a Freebie - After taking the power level down, provide each character with an Item. It can start at Masterwork at level one, and increment each level to become more and more the Item they want ... without costing anything, something like a Legacy item. You will have to scale down financial rewards to match this, but it means your players have one MacGuffin tailored to them. With that they will be less stressed about getting their desired items.
Hopefully the PCs will feel more challenged by regular encounters, and perhaps feel less like pushing the boundaries of power and more like focussing on role play and team work ...
|
This is a social problem, not a game balance issue. If you don´t nerf yourself on purpose and play decently well, you can take on CR 2+ without too much of an issue. You can have the uberest build and still TPK to CR -2 if your players are moron (I have had this happen). You can have some very sub par build that annihilate CR +4 because the players are THAT good (had that happen as well). Since your player seem to have no issue with roleplaying and just getting along, just talk with them.
What it comes down to is: is it still fun? Nearly everything about the game is completely subjective, so don't concern yourself with "what other people are doing."
Personally I find average wealth per level, buying magical items and treasure generated specifically for the party distasteful. But I tend to the conservative in that regard.
"Ooh, +2 holy nunchaku AND a Monk's Robe! It's even got my order's symbol on the back. Aww, thanks trolls."
Zo
It sounds like you want to de-emphasize the power level of the party without going to an extreme.
First, my suggestion is that you limit the # of books. Let them choose which books are in the game besides core, but only 1 book per person. That way, right off the bat, they need to cooperate to pool the sources they will have access to.
Second, scale BACK encounters. Use more puzzles. Sounds counterintuitive, but difficult battles and money shortages only make players hungry to close the percieved gap between themselves and the opposition. With easier encounters, but more traps and puzzles, the party is less interested in beating the power curve.
Quoting these because it is good advice, you need to help focus the players perception outward more, this really goes a long way.
I get the impression the players are both enjoying and capable of good roleplay, it seems to me you as a DM might want to stimulate the aspects of the game besides hack and slash more.
This might be because of a shallow storyline and encounters that are too simple and straightforward (not just combat encounters).
Try make for encounters that are cleverly put together and allow them to use the environment and their wit to get them through encounters rather than their statchart.
I think you could just try talk to the players if you think the power of the individual players is a serious issue, but you might want to try subtly rebalancing from your side of the screen first.
First off I want to thank everyone for the responses.
From what I've read, and what I've seen from my group it would appear they are only "Moderate Power Gamers" as opposed to "munchkins".
My advice is simply lower de XP progression and give them thougther encounters. This would even the game a lit bit without skyrocketing the advancement.
I'm thinking this is what I'll most likely do.
We are still converting stuff over to pathfinder, so it shouldn't be too much of an issue to re-arrange there xp. In fact, now would actually be a good time since they are still recovering from a party implosion (short of 2 key pc's that have been here since the beginning) that happened in the middle of a fight with an Adult black dragon.Third, roll randomly for ALL magic items and treasure. Declare this before hand. What they find is what they find. This will break their focus on WBL item optimization. Remember to make things somewhat random in towns as well. Let them get all the minor items they want, but reserve the major items for treasure. This practice messes with char-op routes and, with the easier battles, will get them to invest in more utility items to bypass terrain challenges or puzzles.
Actually, I still use the 3.5 random treasure generator out of the DMG for random encounters. I'll usually let the players roll as well since most of them enjoy it (however I dont tell them what it is right away, and I freely use my right as dm to veto an item I see as unfit either because it's too powerful, doesn't fit where it came from, or I'm getting tired of handing out scrolls). For the planned encounters involving creatures that can use gear, I make it a point to give them gear that they would use, and to use it.
Otherwise, finding specific magic items they want is a simple matter of negotiating with the right people to locate it. Price and wait time to have it crafted or delivered on the other hand is another issue. Sometimes it's even a nice plot device on it's own for side quest.
I must say.. my family group plays 3.5, they haven't made the switch to PF. They play with just about every splatbook WotC produced, minus Tome of Battle and Tome of Magic. BoED and BoVD are rarely used, but are allowed if the DM agrees.
Our group has both the Tome of Battle and Tome of Magic, as well BoED and BoVD. So far, the Tome of Battle has caused more havoc than BoED and BoVD combined. Magic of the Incarnum has also recently shown some signs of being really overpowered as well. Interestingly enough, Vow of Poverty is rather tame by our groups standards.
I have a suggestion, if you want to hear it, that might take the emphasis away from 'becoming superman' and back where perhaps you might prefer it to be.
Step One: Campaign concept - provide a background for the PCs that they have to step into wherein they are all already known to each other and friends. This could be the survivors of an orc attack, or that they are all the 'young people' of a village, but they have to have a glue that binds them together built in right from the start.
Actually, the way I started this campaign was by having there home town assaulted by lots of zombies (created by a cult) that carried a plague that turned there victims into zombies. Rather than have them get normal starting gear, I had them pick gear they would normally get based on there professions, or heirloom type items. After the zombie invasion, they had free reign of town to gather supply's as they faught there way from place to place. It was rather intense for the first 3 levels of them just trying to survive. Sadly out of those first 6 characters, only 2 of the original's are left. We also lost 2 players since then though. One to the military, and the other one to job scheduling.
Quite frankly, I fail to see any evidence of any problem at all. What, exactly is this problem supposed to be?
Our typical parties can usually take on an encounter 2 to 4 levels higher than what they should be fighting without too much issue (excluding encounters that are intended to outright kill). This is with level-appropriate gear most of the time.
This is normal and, in fact, very nearly expected, particularly if the party's pooled tactical expertise exceeds your own.
It's a little clearer in Pathfinder (in... a manner of speaking), but in 3.5, a 'challenging encounter,' an encounter at CR? It's not supposed to be difficult. In fact, it's supposed to be... kinda pathetic. If you have a party of five, and then everyone dog piles on the team Bard, those four characters just overcame a challenge at CR. A single character is supposed to stand about a 50/50 chance of overcoming an encounter at CR.
Still in 3.5, an encounter four levels above the party (after early levels) is actually supposed to be what it takes to have a foe who can meet the party on even footing. The scale is similar in Pathfinder.
Anyhow, I’m wondering if I should start getting worried about the general “power gamer” mindset this group seems to have gotten. I’m also wondering if it’s time to start trying to reel them back into a more “manageable?” game environment. Also, if I were to attempt this, what would be the recommended method as to not offend all my players? I’d like to join in other gaming groups with some of my friends without them all freaking out about how they “can’t do anything” in a more normalized power level campaign.
From the evidence presented? Absolutely not. There is nothing here to even suggest a powergamer mindset. It sounds considerably more like they're actually playing the game, which is not a crime and is, in fact, a good thing.
If you want to bring your group back down to more normal levels of play just use core rule books alone.
Bad idea. The PHB is the most broken of all splats, and Pathfinder's fixes are still extremely limited in scope. The Pathfinder core rules are still one of the more broken books out there.
And more importantly, the players like having extensive material to utilize. It's fun for them to be able to play a vast and nuanced game rather than the overly constrained and wonky core game. Stomping all over the players' fun is a Bad Thing. Feeling threatened by player power is more often a red flag on the DM's side of the screen than the players'. The party is supposed to be powerful and capable of doing amazing things, after all.
Also, I should note that the definition of Munchkin I've learned could be different from what these forums use, hence the "or maybe just power gamers" after the term in my main post and overall thread title.
Standard definitions.
Munchkin: Cheater. Pretty much an expletive.
Powergamer: One for whom the game has become entirely about power and nothing else. Also an insult. And also something I see no evidence of.
Min-Maxer/Optimizer: One who plays the game by-the-book and well, who produces mechanically effective characters. And this is a good thing.
And do note that having very powerful characters in no way hinders roleplay or the game. Particularly if everyone's on board with it.
I must say.. my family group plays 3.5, they haven't made the switch to PF. They play with just about every splatbook WotC produced, minus Tome of Battle and Tome of Magic. BoED and BoVD are rarely used, but are allowed if the DM agrees. I think this system that you play with would be GREAT for my group. It certainly would cut down on book-keeping. I just hate it when one player has a 13+ page character book and can't remember where feat X or spell Y or item Z came from or what book it's in. And it would cut 'power creep' as well. I'll have to implement this system you use.. It sounds wonderful.
Or you could just work on better documentation and organization, rather than such a draconian and arbitrary constraint.
And what the heck is up with this whole "power creep" myth, and why is it so reviled? Is it people actually getting better at the game? If so, that's a good thing and should be encouraged. Is it later books making more and more powerful options? Core is already more broken than any other splat, so curbing power creep should start at core. Later books are vastly more balanced.
'Tis a very irritating term.
On the seemingly popular book limits, I gotta say, it's extremely counterproductive. A core Wizard with Spell Compendium (heck, a core Wizard without Spell Compendium) is still going to be more powerful than a full-splat-with-web-access Binder, Warlock, Scout, or Fighter. Some classes and concepts need multiple books in order to stop being utterly pigeonholed, while other concepts can easily be unfathomably powerful with minimal sources. The 'limit books' method does nothing to curtail power and only serves to restrict both freedom and fun. It is, in all ways, a Bad Idea.
Our group has both the Tome of Battle and Tome of Magic, as well BoED and BoVD. So far, the Tome of Battle has caused more havoc than BoED and BoVD combined. Magic of the Incarnum has also recently shown some signs of being really overpowered as well. Interestingly enough, Vow of Poverty is rather tame by our groups standards.
Tome of Battle is one of the most important sourcebooks to actually fix the game. If you assume that melee is already fine, it will appear overpowered, when in fact, melee is actually hideously underpowered, while Tome of Battle is the book that ended that. It's a vital instrument in balancing the game.
And Magic of Incarnum? Overpowered? Oi. Totemists are one of the few melee classes that don't suck, and it can provide some nifty options, but that's about it. If you put a lot of work into an incarnum character, they can be fairly solid, but you could get a lot more out of as much work by looking elsewhere. And without some significant system mastery, it tends to be mediocre at best.
It's a little clearer in Pathfinder (in... a manner of speaking), but in 3.5, a 'challenging encounter,' an encounter at CR? It's not supposed to be difficult. In fact, it's supposed to be... kinda pathetic. If you have a party of five, and then everyone dog piles on the team Bard, those four characters just overcame a challenge at CR. A single character is supposed to stand about a 50/50 chance of overcoming an encounter at CR.
Actually in 3.5 an encounter = to the party CR is suppose to drain the party of around 1/4 there resources. They are not suppose to just roll over a CR that is 2-4 higher than them with less effort than this.
If you assume that melee is already fine, it will appear overpowered, when in fact, melee is actually hideously underpowered
I'm going to have to disagree with you on this statement, however this could be skewed from seeing too many fighter-type characters running over 60 str by level 10, or dealing upwards of 100 damage a hit by level 8.
And Magic of Incarnum? Overpowered?
Like I said, it's just from what I've seen of it so far from one of my players mixing it with other caster stuff. It's probably just a few feats combined with stuff out of the PH2, as often is the case.
Actually in 3.5 an encounter = to the party CR is suppose to drain the party of around 1/4 there resources.My DMG says about 20% for encounter level equal to PCs' level.
My mistake. Still, my point is valid.
Actually in 3.5 an encounter = to the party CR is suppose to drain the party of around 1/4 there resources. They are not suppose to just roll over a CR that is 2-4 higher than them with less effort than this.
And again look at the level of power they claim is supposed to take 20% of daily resources. An encounter as powerful as a single PC is supposed to seriously hinder four PCs working in unison? I do not believe that level of power would be particularly significant.
And 'resources' tends to vary. Some classes don't even have resources to expend and can fight indefinitely. Even identifying what "20%" means can be difficult.
I'm going to have to disagree with you on this statement, however this could be skewed from seeing too many fighter-type characters running over 60 str by level 10, or dealing upwards of 100 damage a hit by level 8.
Which is what melee types had to do to stay relevant before Tome of Battle. There is a scant handful of general paths that can keep up. Frenzied Berserker, War Hulk, uberchargers. Compare a level 20 Fighter to a level 20 Wizard.
And even then, large numbers don't compare to actual options and countermeasures when it comes to actual power.
To the OP what I would do is set a few ground rules.
1: Ask the group to make a party that will get along {no single CE guy in a party of NG types}
2: Start with core only books, then if you wish allow each person to choose 1 and only 1 none core book to add to the game
3: Say upfront you will veto any item, class, PRC, feat spell or what have you you think is unbalanced or will cause an issue.
You may always slowly add more things into the mix, but if your trying to bring in munchkin gamers core only is a good start. Also don't let em buy any magic item they want just because they have the funds. If an item causes you trouble don't allow it.
Is nothing wrong with wanting to be effective at your job, some thing i do even as a player. my group and everyone i play with is against point buy, and we use same system you do its worked since 2e and it still works in our 4e games. That being said i do know where your coming from my friend and i(only DM's) hit this wall rather quickly when we started to DM years ago, and now we have started games again we decided a few ways to fix old problems.
1: first thing i do as a DM is watch what everyone is creating character wise, and ask about builds casually. If i think characters personality is gonna clash with other players i quickly discuss it with everyone, and usually its enough to make that player change an alignment or personality trait. Its ok to want to play bad guy, but when it starts to cause problems in the party its time for some OOC intervention. If party cant work as a unit and get along then is no reason to play D&D... just way it is yes party tension is fun, and can add to the experience but can also ruin a whole campaign.
2: Check there build is important! get books, read the prc's, if mention spells check the spells. see if this combo is going to be an issue in game, if its some OP combo from various source books then probably time to ban that class. I once designed a character could sneak attack for like, 100d6 damage in first round of combat, from stealth or when flanked. My point here is its EASY to make an OP combo if your trying to do it. but dont just tell them no, sometimes its better to explain WHY that class combo is being removed or banned and always option to just nerf what it does in some way so not as big a problem. I'm pretty open and i work with my players alot but also first person to say " no " get use to saying that word it'll save you alot of headaches.
3: remember this one rule, and this goes just for you... you...are...the boss... your word is law and doesnt matter how many players dont like what you said or that you banned something. Its your game take control be the boss and if players are to childish to DEAL with it then...time to find a new game group.
these rules have saved me lots of head aches, and salvaged alot of games! groups work toward one goal, get along and no munchkin power builds have made my sessions smoothe. players that whine around and cry i'm quick to call them babies and point to the door! remember rules are a guide line! are not the law!
If you want to bring your group back down to more normal levels of play just use core rule books alone. Make getting magic items challenging, but not impossible. Basically create a level of game play where the team has to work together.
The down side if cutting the non core is that you stunt creativity, and role play. I'd say try and just max out the hit points of the monsters to start things off. Keep an eye out for something that should be role play base, but they are taking just for mechanical reasons. Like the lion totem barbarian from Complete Champ. Unless they play the totem powered barbarian, then make them lose the power. Also if they are there for role play purposes, and an ability is too powerful, they shouldn't have too much a problem toning down the power to proper levels.
Now perhaps they are concerned that mechanically other powers are not proper. Allow them to change the totem flavor, like if they want the power, but change it from lion to dragon, or something like that; but again if they don't play the totem and it continues to be a problem have the ability get swapped back till they start consistently start playing it.
|
|
Deleted stuff
Those aren't standard definitions, they're highly ideosyncratic.
Deleted stuff about stuff.
Frankly I'm in agreement to LilithsThrall here when it comes to the definitions. The connotations of the words mentioned (munchkin, powergamer, min-maxer, and optimizers) all have different meanings to different people and different gaming groups. While my definitions are more in-line with LT's, yours obviously are not. Neither are incorrect, but it just goes to show that neither are standard either.
|
|
Okay you know what, if you guys wanna nit pick what munchkin means, don´t even bother to use the word please.
Optimizers...if your a REAL one, don´t cheat. And if your even half way decent, you just need the core book to make most DM balk and come on the board and complain about munchkin players that´s gotta be cheating. However, most optimizers don´t bother because we can tone down to a campaign (unless a DM REALLY annoys us). But then again, the OP´s issue is NOT an optimization issue, it´s a social one. Just tell them that PvP is not okay...if a player is being disruptive, take them aside and talk with them...if it continues, kick them out. If they are blitzing over CR +2, then consider them level +2 when calculating xp...easy enough fix. Thats what we do when we have a more effective then normal group of players.
Frankly I'm in agreement to LilithsThrall here when it comes to the definitions. The connotations of the words mentioned (munchkin, powergamer, min-maxer, and optimizers) all have different meanings to different people and different gaming groups. While my definitions are more in-line with LT's, yours obviously are not. Neither are incorrect, but it just goes to show that neither are standard either.
Just because you don't believe a certain definition does not mean it's not the standard. As a hobby, it's important to respect the jargon rather than declare base definition of terms an opinion; otherwise, there's no point in even talking to each other when five people hear twelve different things from the same term. And if a word has seven different meanings that are all equally applicable in the exact same context, that word is absolutely useless and should never be put forth in meaningful dialogue.
Thing is, Lilith's definitions aren't even useful. Defining powergamers as anyone who enjoys Exalted? So what. And if a game goes to level 20, does everyone who made even half-way decent choices automatically become a powergamer? That's ridiculous and nonsensical. Defining munchkins as competitive players? Also useless, and in direct opposition to its standard use as well as connotation. And that definition of min-maxer is an insult, born out of utter ignorance of the min-maxing community.
Until you can find me a greater authority on the matter than the Brilliant Gameologists' standard for defining munchkin, powergamer, and min-maxer/optimizer, their definitions are the standard because they're the highest authority in the hobby that's even bothered to provide clear, meaningful, legitimately useful definitions of the term that actually assist in communication rather than yielding little more than pedantic quibbling over what the terms even mean.
On a related note, I've definitely noticed a strange sense of entitlement that has grown over the 3.x timeframe - back in 1e and 2e days, it was always the DM's prerogative to audit characters and allow/disallow any particular book, spell, option, etc. Even in early 3e, it was "you can't take a prestige class unless the DM has made it available specifically in game somehow." But now the default assumption is "I can take anything I want anytime I want - buy whatever gear I have the money for, take whatever p-class I can find" - and the DM trying to provide any oversight is seen as meddling.
On a related note, I've definitely noticed a strange sense of entitlement that has grown over the 3.x timeframe - back in 1e and 2e days, it was always the DM's prerogative to audit characters and allow/disallow any particular book, spell, option, etc. Even in early 3e, it was "you can't take a prestige class unless the DM has made it available specifically in game somehow." But now the default assumption is "I can take anything I want anytime I want - buy whatever gear I have the money for, take whatever p-class I can find" - and the DM trying to provide any oversight is seen as meddling.
Yeah I find that is the root of the issue most times. As a GM I have not issues disallowing things and for the most part players are fine with it. However you do run into so many "Stop interfering with my creativity" bunch theses days. Most time that creativity is disruptive and a try at powergaeming or pure munchkin.
I have a player once that wanted to play a drow, just would not shut up about it, even though it did not fit the game. So fainly I gave in and said he could play a Drow but use the elf stats but darkvsion in place of low light. But no that was no a drow. That let me know why he wanted to play a drow to start with, it had nothing to do with creativity and everything to do with power
When did creativity become linked to what class, or race adjustments you had? I have seen a creative player make a vastly more enjoyable and interesting human fighter then I have seen munchkin/powergamers make a interesting wizard or one of the class/class/class/PRC/PRC combos
Your class or how many books you can draw from do NOT make your PC interesting. How you choose to play them does.
On a related note, I've definitely noticed a strange sense of entitlement that has grown over the 3.x timeframe - back in 1e and 2e days, it was always the DM's prerogative to audit characters and allow/disallow any particular book, spell, option, etc. Even in early 3e, it was "you can't take a prestige class unless the DM has made it available specifically in game somehow." But now the default assumption is "I can take anything I want anytime I want - buy whatever gear I have the money for, take whatever p-class I can find" - and the DM trying to provide any oversight is seen as meddling.Yeah I find that is the root of the issue most times. As a GM I have not issues disallowing things and for the most part players are fine with it. However you do run into so many "Stop interfering with my creativity" bunch theses days. Most time that creativity is disruptive and a try at powergaeming or pure munchkin.
I have a player once that wanted to play a drow, just would not shut up about it, even though it did not fit the game. So fainly I gave in and said he could play a Drow but use the elf stats but darkvsion in place of low light. But no that was no a drow. That let me know why he wanted to play a drow to start with, it had nothing to do with creativity and everything to do with power
When did creativity become linked to what class, or race adjustments you had? I have seen a creative player make a vastly more enjoyable and interesting human fighter then I have seen munchkin/powergamers make a interesting wizard or one of the class/class/class/PRC/PRC combos
Your class or how many books you can draw from do NOT make your PC interesting. How you choose to play them does.
So true. Amen brother.
On a related note, I've definitely noticed a strange sense of entitlement that has grown over the 3.x timeframe - back in 1e and 2e days, it was always the DM's prerogative to audit characters and allow/disallow any particular book, spell, option, etc. Even in early 3e, it was "you can't take a prestige class unless the DM has made it available specifically in game somehow." But now the default assumption is "I can take anything I want anytime I want - buy whatever gear I have the money for, take whatever p-class I can find" - and the DM trying to provide any oversight is seen as meddling.
It's funny, I've seen this too but more on message-boards than in games. I see on message-boards "Tell my DM he has to let me have XYZ!" but seldom meet it in real life. The advice was always the same: talk to you DM, be reasonable, but be prepared for him to still say 'no'.
Thing is, the players can turn up at the game with any kind of sense of entitlement that they like. If the DM says "no, you can't have it," they and the DM are in the same boat as they were back in 1st edition: no player has to play with you if they don't want to. It all comes down to how badly the player and the DM want to play with one another, and whoever wants to play the most has to yield.
|
|
This sounds a lot like how I felt while running my last campaign. All of my players (including me) have 5+ books excluding the core rules. They would exchange books looking for the most powerful progression they could get. Most encounters saw them defeating creatures 3+ their CR without even batting an eye. It was difficult for me as the DM because I simply couldn't gauge their power level to make the encounters challenging.
I tried everything from banning certain spells and feats to whole classes and races. The process of nerfing was annoying for both me and my players. One day I just sat down and talked to them, only to find that they were thoroughly enjoying the campaign. I realized that I had been taking the idea of "Fun" too seriously and had made the experience less enjoyable simply by trying too hard.
When I stepped back from the rules I realized that all of their choices fit perfectly with their backstories and the way they were developing their characters in-game. Unfortunately, it took me so long to realize this that the only encounter left was the boss fight. I let them do what they wanted with their characters (within the limits of the rules, of course) and let them have it, pulling out all the stoppers. It was one of the most epic fights in my gaming career.
Lesson: It's a game. Even if it may not seem like it, you are probably having fun. (i.e. Gamers: Dorkness Rising)
On a related note, I've definitely noticed a strange sense of entitlement that has grown over the 3.x timeframe - back in 1e and 2e days, it was always the DM's prerogative to audit characters and allow/disallow any particular book, spell, option, etc. Even in early 3e, it was "you can't take a prestige class unless the DM has made it available specifically in game somehow." But now the default assumption is "I can take anything I want anytime I want - buy whatever gear I have the money for, take whatever p-class I can find" - and the DM trying to provide any oversight is seen as meddling.
On a related note, I've noticed a lot of DMs' senses of entitlement really flare up as systems start shying away from the, "DMs are unquestionable gods with the right to treat their players like crap," mentality. Too many DMs seem to forget that their friends are their equals, and that their power comes from the players.
And yes, the default assumption is, "I can take whatever class I please within the rules," because only a total dick DM would remove your ability to utilize those options without a valid reason. And if a player asks why something isn't available, they're entitled to a valid explanation.
DM entitlement is every bit as much an issue as player entitlement. More so, even, since the DM has more room to abuse.
Your class or how many books you can draw from do NOT make your PC interesting. How you choose to play them does.
You forget. This is a game. A game that is meant to be played. We're not talking about freeform, we're talking about a roleplaying game. Roleplaying plus game. Roleplaying? Good thing. Game? Good thing.
Fiddling with character builds is a part of that game, a good thing, and to deny players the right to play that game without is wrong.
So, calling them "powergamers" tells you the kind of players they are.
So the benefit of your definition is that it's a lie? That's not very useful, considering there are plenty of folks who enjoy Exalted with its over-the-top ridiculousness just as much as they enjoy dying repeatedly in Call of Cthulhu. That definition only serves to provide fundamentally irrational lines in the sand that mean nothing.
Also, the term "powergamer" is supposed to be system-independent. To say, "People who enjoy Game X are powergamers, and people who enjoy Game Y are not," makes it useless in that regard as well.
Are you looking for a term to pass judgement on people (you used the term "cheaters" before)? Why?
"Munchkin" is an expletive. It is a very bad word, and it is inherently judgmental. That it's not a bad thing; we need the jargon to communicate bad things. That's what terms like "munchkin" and "powergamer" are for. Communicating a specific type of problem.
I agree. Fortunately, I didn't say it did. I said that a powergamer is someone who enjoys playing the game on the high power scale. If the players started low and worked their way to high level, clearly they aren't showing a preference as they've spent as much time playing at low level as they have at high level.
Except... unless they suddenly stop enjoying the game once it gets high-level, they enjoy games at the high-end of the power scale.
And how do you even define the high end of the power scale? Heck, even a level 1 elite array Fighter is pretty darn tough compared to the average 1HD commoner with 10's and 11's in everything.
"And that definition of min-maxer is an insult" Note that I'm not the one who used the term "cheater". That was you. I made no value judgement whatsoever about being a munchkin, a powergamer, or a min-maxer. That was you. So accusing me of throwing around insults is just flame baiting.
I defined "munchkin" as "cheater" because that's what the term means. That's the definition.
This statement is like saying I'm being insulting for saying, "Nincompoop means idiot," when you're saying, "Vegetarian means pretentious prick." It's an insult because it gets the definition of 'vegetarian' wrong and replaces it with 'pretentious prick.'
"Munchkin" is a value judgment and an insult. "Min-maxer" is an entire community and an approach to gaming. One whose definition you mangled in an extremely insulting manner.
What? All you have to do is put up a podcast for two years and you become "the highest authority in the hobby"??? Ludicrous. These guys are just another blip on the radar - a tiny blip at that. Hell, Eric Noah's web site has been out about five times longer than these guys and the EN board is a newcomer.
I never said they were the highest authority in the hobby. I said they were the highest authority that's actually put together clear, meaningful, legitimately useful definitions for the terms. Big difference. That the highest authority that's even bothered putting forth solid, working definitions that actually assist in communication is a podcast is a sad state of affairs, but that's the way it stands.