Yes and no.
Combat is the GM choosing a challenge the players are a) likely to win in front of the players and b) Are challenging to the players.
Min/Maxing only works in groups where the challenges are consistently against the max and never against the min.
Ah, I can't see how we're disagreeing.
Monsters work on the same mechanics as PCs so you can optimize the hell out of monsters just like you can PCs and classes are you used in conjunction with monsters and using classes as an enemy. What happens is you have players that powergame their characters which blow through an encounter. Well the DM then starts making his encounters harder by applying the same tactics. Well the next encounter isn't an easy slam dunk so the PCs enhance their characters even more so we basically have a tit for tat situation.
Why? Does it matter?
Let's suppose an hypothetical party, with 4 players that like to optimize for combat, and being overpowered compared to encounters. Let's suppose they blow most encounters in two rounds, taking no damage. Let's suppose they enjoy it. They like crushing the enemies. Why should the DM make the encounter harder? What's the enjoy there? RPG aren't a competitive game GM vs PC. The whole point of the thing is making the game fun. If that hypothetical party is having fun destroying encounters, then why should the GM do something detrimental to their fun, by upgrading the encounter?| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've been gaming for 28 years now and in all those years min/maxing almost always leads to DM vs Players. This happens because each side keeps upgrading their optimization to keep up with one another.
I know there is no wrong way to play but at the end of the day, it is a role playing game and not purely a mechanical one.
Not in my case. I've played under GMs where that has happened, but when I host games, if the players optimize and cake walk encounters, I let them.
Why? Because I'm smart enough to know that, if they are optimizing for that purpose, then that is obviously what they want.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not in my case. I've played under GMs where that has happened, but when I host games, if the players optimize and cake walk encounters, I let them.
Why? Because I'm smart enough to know that, if they are optimizing for that purpose, then that is obviously what they want.
This may definitely be the case, but it's not always the case. Take me for example. I enjoy optimizing not because I want every encounter to be a cakewalk, but because I enjoy system mastery and using that mastery to put together a character build. But I also enjoy challenging combats.
The two are not mutually exclusive.
I recognize that this can mean more work for my DMs, particularly if they're using pre-made encounters. Luckily for me, my DM has been willing to put in the extra effort, and I enjoy his games (and appreciate him) all the more for it.
For those DMs who might consider it, he often handles the need for increased challenges by simply adding more bad guys. An encounter that might have been a cakewalk can be anything but if you just double the standard amount of dudes. :p
|
I've been gaming for 28 years now and in all those years min/maxing almost always leads to DM vs Players. This happens because each side keeps upgrading their optimization to keep up with one another.
I know there is no wrong way to play but at the end of the day, it is a role playing game and not purely a mechanical one.
Not in my case. I've played under GMs where that has happened, but when I host games, if the players optimize and cake walk encounters, I let them.
Why? Because I'm smart enough to know that, if they are optimizing for that purpose, then that is obviously what they want.
I don't run cake walk games, period. If I am not having fun in a game then I won't bother running. It's as simple as that.
I don't run games, but I've always thought that one good answer to over-done combat builds might be more intellectual challenges.
Ludicrous skill bonuses may be more difficult.
the difficulty with that is, you have players who are optimized for combat, and you focus on a game they aren't optimized for, they complain at you that your are metagaming toward their weaknesses, and/or they get bored and dont play.
Who can always find something the character can't do. When you do that it's the "no fair" cry you need to expect coming..... "youre trying to kill my character"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't recommend puzzles to the exclusion of combat. Just give them opportunities to think "maybe I should be more diversified from now on".
One argument here that seems to come up again and again is to how the system itself "punishes" "odd" or "off" builds. Let me put that BS in its proper perspective:
COMPARED TO WHAT?
Really. Define "punish." If by "punish" you mean "increased challenge," then so what? The point of the game is challenge and there is no real world comparison you can make to create a universal standard by which to "prove" any "punishment" is taking place. If a particular build takes a specific type of character to play well, that is just another aspect of the system. Just another choice.
I get around the issue of optimizing vs not optimizing by making it NOT AN ISSUE. Because by itself it's really not. And that is the trap players and GMs (and mostly people on Internet forums) tend to fall into.
The real issue is not whether optimization exists, it's to what level it can be applied to the sort of game you are playing, and how players should be applying themselves in order to fulfill the vision of that world.
When we are gearing up for something gritty, centered around the grunts fighting in the trenches, I advise my players they will be building with more standard ability scores, and why that matters to the setting. When we are going into the Tomb of Horrors, I advise them to min-max to their hearts' content, since we all know they're gonna die. When I am looking for something more historical, we all know it is time for a low-powered game. If we are on the trail of Cthulhu in some detective yarn, they expect to be playing "normal-ish" people. If we're gonna go for 20 levels and a battle with some Dragon God, they know the characters will need more meat to them.
It's not rocket science. We all want to play, and they trust my vision for the campaign, so we all work together accordingly.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A social encounter encounter should be more than "I attempt to diplomacy them into giving up, I rolled a 40". There should be a real conversation going on. The rolls help, but shouldn't determine the outcome by themselves.
I think you have things in the wrong order : you roleplay the encounter and THEN you roll the dice, with a bonus or malus according to how the GM liked your roleplay. But in the end, the rolls decide.
Same as in combat really.
Doing otherwise is unfairly punishing the PC who specialized in non-combat situation in favor of the one who specialized in combat.
Thus making combat-optimization even more attractive :-/
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've been gaming for 28 years now and in all those years min/maxing almost always leads to DM vs Players. This happens because each side keeps upgrading their optimization to keep up with one another.
I know there is no wrong way to play but at the end of the day, it is a role playing game and not purely a mechanical one.
Not in my case. I've played under GMs where that has happened, but when I host games, if the players optimize and cake walk encounters, I let them.
Why? Because I'm smart enough to know that, if they are optimizing for that purpose, then that is obviously what they want.
I don't run cake walk games, period. If I am not having fun in a game then I won't bother running. It's as simple as that.
Do you need the NPC doing a certain amount of damage to have fun as a GM?
the difficulty with that is, you have players who are optimized for combat, and you focus on a game they aren't optimized for, they complain at you that your are metagaming toward their weaknesses, and/or they get bored and dont play
Who can always find something the character can't do. When you do that it's the "no fair" cry you need to expect coming..... "youre trying to kill my character"
I'm curious about this.
Do you focus on things your group isn't optimized for as a punishment because they are good at combat? Or it's just that you have the adventure, and if they can't handle some part (like social interaction or investigation), you consider it its fault? Because this two stances, although they have the same conclusion, make for completely different GM behaviour.
In case you focus on the combat-oriented PC's weaknesses as a punishment... do you also focus on combat because that's what they aren't good at when your group make a party of characters focused on social skills?
the difficulty with that is, you have players who are optimized for combat, and you focus on a game they aren't optimized for, they complain at you that your are metagaming toward their weaknesses, and/or they get bored and dont play
Who can always find something the character can't do. When you do that it's the "no fair" cry you need to expect coming..... "youre trying to kill my character"
I'm curious about this.
Do you focus on things your group isn't optimized for as a punishment because they are good at combat? Or it's just that you have the adventure, and if they can't handle some part (like social interaction or investigation), you consider it its fault? Because this two stances, although they have the same conclusion, make for completely different GM behaviour.
In case you focus on the combat-oriented PC's weaknesses as a punishment... do you also focus on combat because that's what they aren't good at when your group make a party of characters focused on social skills?
Nope. I was commenting specifically on the other posters point of view on how just making things more intellectual is the answer, and pointing out that it doesn't work, because then the players feel 'tricked' it taken advantage of.
In my own games, we had one optimizer, whom we havent played with in a few years now. Who pretty much spoiled everything for anyone else, because by level 9-13 he would squash everything too fast and no one was having fun. which prompted us to play the way we do today.
In Serpents Skull I played an optimized gunslinger, which caused my wife to outlaw the class, she wont play with gunslingers (I didnt really know that I was deliberately optimizing, it was during the play test and I was just running with something made around what everyone was saying were weaknesses and major issues).
We dont have these kinds of issues at my table, so they largely are things that I have seen in the past. Everyone, more or less wants to play the same-ish way. We want to play swords and sorcery, not Demi Gods and Mega monsters.
Edit: we have mostly played APs since 2008, with some occasional tweaking (specifically in SD) so I don't really changed much thats written there, with the exception of leaving something out (which is usually due to the party just missing something or having no interest) and/or not running a magi-mart game. They pretty much use what they find as written, sell some and if they are really lacking, do a great deal of RP to find something.
Occasionally I may slip something in the need, like potions, or a magic weapon or something. I rarely take anything out or make something harder, but I do add occasional treasure, since we don't magi mart. The PCs like rolling for random treasure like in the olden days..."ah what? who uses that? well apparently the dead guy who lost this"
I was commenting specifically on the other posters point of view on how just making things more intellectual is the answer, and pointing out that it doesn't work, because then the players feel 'tricked' it taken advantage of.
That wasn't what I said, of course.
I was commenting specifically on the other posters point of view on how just making things more intellectual is the answer, and pointing out that it doesn't work, because then the players feel 'tricked' it taken advantage of.
That wasn't what I said, of course.
and whats I said is the standard reaction of optimizers is "how dare you do something Im not optimized for"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We want to play swords and sorcery
So your characters are like Conan and Elric, kicking everybody's asses?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've been gaming for 28 years now and in all those years min/maxing almost always leads to DM vs Players. This happens because each side keeps upgrading their optimization to keep up with one another.
I know there is no wrong way to play but at the end of the day, it is a role playing game and not purely a mechanical one.
So in 28 years of gaming, you NEVER managed to find a group of mature adults who can discuss things reasonably?!? Because you know what stops what you just said? TALKING LIKE MATURE ADULTS.
So you say there is no wrongbadfun...except there is if you like a purely mechanical crunch games (and yes I do play in such games and they can be quite fun)?!? WTF...seriously dude?
The game wasn't actually designed for that kind of play in mind, it just happens to be a way you can play. It is still a role playing game in the end.
Its not about sitting down as mature adults. Also, you cant assume that all groups that play arr groups that play on a regular basis. You could be playing with one group one week and a totally different one the next.
Actually, the game WAS designed for that kind of play. This game is based of a tactical game (which is why elves have immunity to ghouls FYI). The roleplay aspects were tact on top of that system actually. But at the core...it is a tactical miniature game.
So you can't have a regular group...boo hoo. So what. What does that have to do with your lack of having mature players who can talk and discuss and come to reasonable conclusions? I fail to see how a lack of regular meet up = there is a lack of maturity that causes almost all my games to become adversarial...unless YOUR the immature person that causes this to happen. In which case, the issue is not the other players or their play style or the system...it's YOU. And if your almost always having such issues...it maybe...just MAYBE YOU that is the issue. Because I can tell you, I certainly don't have this issue after the age of 14 when I learned to discuss things like a reasonable person.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've been gaming for 28 years now and in all those years min/maxing almost always leads to DM vs Players. This happens because each side keeps upgrading their optimization to keep up with one another.
I know there is no wrong way to play but at the end of the day, it is a role playing game and not purely a mechanical one.
Not in my case. I've played under GMs where that has happened, but when I host games, if the players optimize and cake walk encounters, I let them.
Why? Because I'm smart enough to know that, if they are optimizing for that purpose, then that is obviously what they want.
I don't run cake walk games, period. If I am not having fun in a game then I won't bother running. It's as simple as that.
Ah...nevermind about my previous post...so it IS YOU. That view right there shows that the issue you have had for the past 28 years isn't those nasty min/maxers...it's your ego that can't take that your encounters are getting cake walked. You can not have a proper adult discussion with such an attitude.
Necroing a thread to continue an argument doesn't seem the most mature thing to do, just saying.
and whats I said is the standard reaction of optimizers is "how dare you do something Im not optimized for"
I was commenting specifically on the other posters point of view on how just making things more intellectual is the answer, and pointing out that it doesn't work, because then the players feel 'tricked' it taken advantage of.
That wasn't what I said, of course.
I've never encountered a gaming culture that felt so strongly entitled. Isn't that perhaps a bit of hyperbole?
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Necroing a thread to continue an argument doesn't seem the most mature thing to do, just saying.
When is a reply to something said just ONE DAY ago considered necroing a thread?!? Seriously? Hell this whole things only started three freaking days ago. Or do you just assume that everyone has time to be on the smart phone 24/7 to reply to everything just as it happens and one day...OMG that is just ages ago and so irrelevant? Get real. Some of us have a life and don't consider one day to be ages ago.
Wow, I must say that this entire thread has become asinine. Having dealt with optimizers, both as a player and as a GM, my hatred for them stems from the player, not the build, but that was due to the fact that the GM wasn't giving my less-than-optimized character a chance to shine. He was too busy stomping a mudhole in the optimized character. Digressing, I GM a group now who, when I asked them not to Monty Haul, they all said. "Sure man, no problem". The one powergamer I had hated it, but it was mostly because he just wants to "win" the game. He builds characters and doesn't roleplay them. He wanted to play a Paladin beatstick, but got to rifling through UM and saw the Eldrich Heritage feat tree. I gave him the Skill Focus feat he needed for free, which the other players didn't mind. Now, he roleplays a paladin who is a distant son of a demon lord. He's not completely optimized, but he's decided to step out of his comfort zone to try something new. I rewarded him by designing an adventure just for him. He now has carries a redeemed unholy blade. He's become more confident in his roleplaying. Meanwhile, another player asked him for help with "optimizing" his illusionist. All in all, I feel satisfied as a GM. Yeah, having a group of min/maxers can be a bit troublesome, and we often forget that the GM is a player too. The GM has been removed to the position of a simple entertainer, which I believe is bad. Reiterating what has already been said, you simply need to be mature adults about it. Don't be sneaky and attempt to sabotage the character. Be upfront. I know not everyone is as lucky as I, so maybe my ramble here is completely moot, but at the very least I hope my perspective has been helpful.
The big thing imo is balance
players optimized for combat often fail miserably in the RP department, and characters optimized for RP get stomped on easily
if you have one character optimized on either end of the spectrum in a group i say who cares?
ive played in a group where i OPed my chracter for damage, and we had other people max out their skills, in the end I killed everything and the other guy did all the talking
just because every character doesnt do everything doesnt make for a bad experience
if ALL your PCs are optimizing for either end of the spectrum, then you as GM need to give them more challenges of the other kind, let them know about your concerns, and compensate
if all your campaigns are just combat, and hard combat at that, you can't blame your guys for wanting to deal out more damage
As a player my level optimization depends on the GM. The more difficult the encounter the more I optimize. I would suggest telling the players that they dont need the best possible character just to survive.
Being good in combat also has to do with tactics. You have have to ask them to "play down" also.
Last time my DM told us that, we almost TPK. We play APs so the encounters are mostly written.
If the GM is going to suggest that the party be less optimal then he should adjust the combats to match. Otherwise he should not complain when everyone brings super-character to the table. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like to make a distinction between 'play' and 'challenge'.
A challenging game might be 'I know you're all competent players. I'm going to run a campaign where everything is a CR or two above what you'd expect. I will run the enemies as tactically as I can. You'd better think carefully when you make your characters or you will all die.'
But you can also have a playful game where the PCs are more than capable of defeating all their enemies and they can still survive even if the players make sub-optimal decisions. 'My duelist has become a pacifist and will be using non-lethal attacks only from now on.' 'I'm leaving you to be swallowed whole because you refused to lend me money.' In a challenging game, that kind of thing will lead swiftly to a TPK.
Neither approach is wrong, but it works a lot better if everyone is after the same type of game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Whatever happened to playing Pathfinder, as a player, for the story? Whatever happened to GMing because you wanted to tell one? Sheesh.
Many people (not all, but quite a few) build powerful characters because they consider everything before the boss battle as busy work. That's not to say that they don't want there to be other battles, of course. It usually means two things: 1)they don't want to spend so much time in combat that they don't have time to advance the plot, and/or 2) that they'd rather not have every battle along the way be such a challenge that their resources have dwindled before they even reach the Big Bad of the dungeon.
My advice to GMs is not to worry too much about the in-between fights. If you build up an encounter that was meant to be a fair challenge, but they found a way to breeze through it don't sweat it. Let them have their fun, just make sure that one epic battle at the end is as tough as it needs to be (and that any sub-bosses are also built up to compete, though not as much of course). Every battle doesn't need to be an epic one. By definition, if everything is "epic" then nothing is.
I find that this strategy gives people the best of both worlds. The people who want to breeze through fights get to do so enough times to be happy. The people who want a challenge get their big reward when the boss shows up. In the meantime, how about some story?
Where's the like button on this damnable forum?!
Where's the like button on this damnable forum?!
The "+" on the right hand side, underneath "reply".
Here is my optimization,...
Deep down inside, I don't trust other gamers. I build my characters to be as self sufficient as possible. This means that I miss out on uber awesome "I win at dnd in a round" type builds. What I get is, the uber awesome " I win at surviving most encounters". From a role play aspect, surviving and contributing means more than roll playing and getting the most damage to my character.
I can't bring myself to "dump" stats... Just can't do it. I have found after years of playing, that ever über optimized build has a drawback, flaw, kryptonite if you will. Sconce we are using that analogy, batman is a survivor, not an optimizer... Batman dont have dump stats. And while he can't do all the cool stuff that superman can, batman will win any fight with supes... Bats will pick the setting, select his tools, and if he doesn't have the advantage then he doesn't fight... Batman wins, because he is optimized to survive.
Batman dont have dump stats. And while he can't do all the cool stuff that superman can, batman will win any fight with supes... Bats will pick the setting, select his tools, and if he doesn't have the advantage then he doesn't fight... Batman wins, because he is optimized to survive.
1. Batman has a point buy that's most certainly higher than 25; there's no need to take a 7 when you can afford a good everything.
2. Batman isn't a team player, so much as someone playing a solo campaign.3. Telling the DM and your party that you won't go on the adventure because the conditions are suboptimal and you don't have the time and resources to plan usually ends with an out of character talk or you re-rolling because your guy left the party.
4. Optimizing for survival is much less useful than optimizing to help your party; the wizard cowering in back buffing himself and the 50 AC full defense monk that enemies walk by don't help the party.
I've never encountered a gaming culture that felt so strongly entitled. Isn't that perhaps a bit of hyperbole?and whats I said is the standard reaction of optimizers is "how dare you do something Im not optimized for"
I was commenting specifically on the other posters point of view on how just making things more intellectual is the answer, and pointing out that it doesn't work, because then the players feel 'tricked' it taken advantage of.
That wasn't what I said, of course.
This board has tons of that
I've never encountered a gaming culture that felt so strongly entitled. Isn't that perhaps a bit of hyperbole?This board has tons of that
But aren't we talking about the real world, and not hyper-inflated affectation that is a character of internet culture? :P I can't imagine people behaving as extremely as you're suggesting when sitting at the same table playing a game together. I'm not saying it can't happen, I just can't imagine how those groups survive social selection.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To me this thread seems to be a bunch of min/maxers trying to claim that they are not in fact "optimizing" and a few who even say there is no such thing as optimizing. I've been burned by optimizers in the past as a DM, to the point that I don't allow custom classes or monstrous classes of any kind.
Custom classes?!? WTF? That is so far outside the realm of optimizing or even min/maxing to be an entirely different discussion.
I'm less than half way through reading this thread... And my brain hurts! :-D
I think what's being talked about here (and ignoring the elephant in the room) is: playing style. You want the best character the rules allow at whatever level? No problem. Just find a group who has the same style. You want a character who has obscure skills and doesn't follow the best progression for the class(es) and wants to talk in 'funny' voices? Great! Find a group that also wants that style. Something between those examples? Seek out the right group!
It's all about what the group as a whole (GM and players) want from the game. Personally I don't like power gaming, therefore I don't play with power gamers. Simple. However, I do not view my preference(s) as 'How It Should Be'. It's just my opinion! So... Find a group that shares as similar an opinion to your gamin style as possible.
(Another challenge, IMO, if you are the GM: Don't be afraid to NOT invite players back who are incompatible with your preferred gaming style. Although if you can, connect them with GMs who have a style that player is looking for...)
Batman beats Superman because Batman keeps kryptonite in his utility belt just in case he has to fight Superman.
Reading a bit further...
Why do 'you' as a player expect NPC X to have the spell that you really want your character to know? To me that snaps my reality suspenders for world creation. For example: why would the local 'weather mage' your character encountered (and hopes to gain knowledge from), know anything about magic affecting social interactions? Or even lighting blasts? Okay, you could make an argument for summoning lightning. :-) But I'd still be inclined to think such a weather mage would be better at deflecting lightning (lightning starts fires after all) than casting it.
I don't know how else to describe it but there seems to be a bit of whininess here: "But the NPC doesn't have the best spell my character needs/wants at the moment." so therefore it sucks. [I refer you to my above post on gaming style. ;-) ]
Batman beats Superman because Batman keeps kryptonite in his utility belt just in case he has to fight Superman.
the "new" superman isnt actually crippled by kryptonite anymore. they made him less powerful, but also less affected by kryptonite, now it slowly drains his power... its no longer ACK Kryptonite! NOOoooooooo!
It's more like.... dang I had a bad night.... moving a lil slow... better save the world before I get a tummy ache....Got love rewrites.
(although a kryptonite arrow from green arrow would still work)
But aren't we talking about the real world, and not hyper-inflated affectation that is a character of internet culture? :P I can't imagine people behaving as extremely as you're suggesting when sitting at the same table playing a game together. I'm not saying it can't happen, I just can't imagine how those groups survive social selection.I've never encountered a gaming culture that felt so strongly entitled. Isn't that perhaps a bit of hyperbole?This board has tons of that
These people DO actually sit at tables, and yes I have met them.... probably why it's hard for me to find a good gaming group. It's not hard to meet them.
Batman beats Superman because Batman keeps kryptonite in his utility belt just in case he has to fight Superman.the "new" superman isnt actually crippled by kryptonite anymore. they made him less powerful, but also less affected by kryptonite, now it slowly drains his power... its no longer ACK Kryptonite! NOOoooooooo!
It's more like.... dang I had a bad night.... moving a lil slow... better save the world before I get a tummy ache....Got love rewrites.
(although a kryptonite arrow from green arrow would still work)
Supermans DM nerfed optimizing... Lol...
I've been gaming for 28 years now and in all those years min/maxing almost always leads to DM vs Players. This happens because each side keeps upgrading their optimization to keep up with one another.
I know there is no wrong way to play but at the end of the day, it is a role playing game and not purely a mechanical one.
Not in my case. I've played under GMs where that has happened, but when I host games, if the players optimize and cake walk encounters, I let them.
Why? Because I'm smart enough to know that, if they are optimizing for that purpose, then that is obviously what they want.
I don't run cake walk games, period. If I am not having fun in a game then I won't bother running. It's as simple as that.
And what if your fun ruins the fun for the four other guys at your table?
And what if your fun ruins the fun for the four other guys at your table?I've been gaming for 28 years now and in all those years min/maxing almost always leads to DM vs Players. This happens because each side keeps upgrading their optimization to keep up with one another.
I know there is no wrong way to play but at the end of the day, it is a role playing game and not purely a mechanical one.
Not in my case. I've played under GMs where that has happened, but when I host games, if the players optimize and cake walk encounters, I let them.
Why? Because I'm smart enough to know that, if they are optimizing for that purpose, then that is obviously what they want.
I don't run cake walk games, period. If I am not having fun in a game then I won't bother running. It's as simple as that.
simple. Play with four hot nerdy chicks instead!!!
I think they'd slap him and walk off.
Batman survives due to GM fiat.
GM: "The Joker hits you with a boxing glove gun. Take 14 damage."
Batman player: "That brings me down to -10HP."
GM: "Right... You wake up a few hours later, fully healed. You are locked in a cell dangling over a shark tank."
Batman player: "Did The Joker take my mask off?"
GM: "No... He's decided he doesn't care about your secret identity any more."
Batman player: "What about my utility belt?"
GM: "He didn't touch it in case it was booby trapped."
Robin player: "How come when my last character lost a fight with this guy he got beaten to death with a crowbar?"
GM: "Your last character sucked, that's why."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Batman survives due to GM fiat.
GM: "The Joker hits you with a boxing glove gun. Take 14 damage."
Batman player: "That brings me down to -10HP."
GM: "Right... You wake up a few hours later, fully healed. You are locked in a cell dangling over a shark tank."
Batman player: "Did The Joker take my mask off?"
GM: "No... He's decided he doesn't care about your secret identity any more."
Batman player: "What about my utility belt?"
GM: "He didn't touch it in case it was booby trapped."
Robin player: "How come when my last character lost a fight with this guy he got beaten to death with a crowbar?"
GM: "Your last character sucked, that's why."
"Why Batman always wins" in a nutshell.
No, it's not a good thing. It's why I don't like him.