The thing with countering PCs with magic is that it warps the setting too much from baseline fantasy.

If the spellcaster can cast Silence 15 Radius and Invisibility then what's the point of the rogue or ranger with stealth?

Sure I could put in counter magic, give guards rings of detect invisibility or something like that, but then I have a setting where magic is becoming increasingly mundane and I have to play a constant arms race with the players.

At this point D&D ceases to become a fantasy game where I can reference and be inspired by fantasy literature and instead becomes it's own constantly self-referential thing.

Quote from: Dog Quixote;505922The thing with countering PCs with magic is that it warps the setting too much from baseline fantasy.

If the spellcaster can cast Silence 15 Radius and Invisibility then what's the point of the rogue or ranger with stealth?

Sure I could put in counter magic, give guards rings of detect invisibility or something like that, but then I have a setting where magic is becoming increasingly mundane and I have to play a constant arms race with the players.

At this point D&D ceases to become a fantasy game where I can reference and be inspired by fantasy literature and instead becomes it's own constantly self-referential thing.

Well, to me, D&D is already it's own thing distinct from the kinds of fantasy literature that I prefer.  

However, I agree that balance *among* the PCs can be an issue - where a player can feel bad if they are overshadowed by another player's PC.  However, it's an issue that is tied up a huge amount with player dynamics and personalities.  Sometimes players are OK with one PC being Gandalf and one PC being Pippin.  However, sometimes it can cause problems.  

My usual solution is that if the Pippin character is being overshadowed, to give him some personalized benefit - rather than trying to drag down the more powerful character.  The fixes are individual, though, not just to the character but also to the player.  i.e. The questions is, what will make this player happy?  There is no need to universally balance the two PC builds.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;505153No, it wouldn't be reasonable to want that.

Then what is it reasonable to want the set of rules to enable you to DO?

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;505153And when players are being creative, they will find a way to break things

Define 'break' things, because so far the definition I'm seeing in this thread = making play suck, and at least with my group this is not what happens when they are being creative.

Though perhaps you're using a different definition for 'creative' too

Quote from: jeff37923;505171This whole paragraph would make sense if I wasn't referring to the common sense of Gamemasters. You know, those guys and gals who exist in the Real World?

No shit. Also, that's the ENTIRE FUCKING POINT!

What's one common sense assumption when facing a Dragon?

Quote from: jeff37923;505171Go Google Pun-Pun and then tell me how many places that build can be found as a reference. The Internet has become a grand equalizer in this.

In other words, the internet has made the game of character optimization a non-game. Wonderful. Now perhaps we can remove such systems entirely since they're redundant

On the other hand, GMs without internet access, or who lack the cognitive ability to spot that the synonym for 'broken character' is 'Pun-Pun', are at a disadvantage against the players who do.

Quote from: jeff37923;505171Face it, the same type of Player who would pull this munchkin bullshit in a 3.x game would also pull this in any other RPG system available to them that they were playing if given the chance.

First, they're likely not going to enjoy the games I run if their primary source of fun is in optimizing character generation, and I will not play in games with people who do this. So the nature of the game filters this kind of shit out.

Secondly, I'd like to see them TRY to munchkin in Apocalypse World, Dogs in the Vineyard, Smallville, Leverage, Don't Rest Your Head, Sorcerer, Marvel Heroic Roleplay, Amber, FATE, and (I think) Legends of the Wulin (which is still too new to be sure).

Can't. Be. Done.

In running/playing these I have eliminated a major headache both in analyzing potentially broken characters, and avoiding players who make it a fucking game to try and sneak a broken combination past me.

Quote from: soltakss;505190If it breaks the game to such an extent that it is unplayable, then I throw a few more powerful NPCs at them with the same, or similar, setup and see how they like it. If they still think it's a good idea then I use my GM-Munchkinery to optimise a few more NPCs and throw them in the mix. Normally they get the point and we house-rule to prevent game-breaking side-effects.

Is that really a better idea than just asking the player in question to please stop being a massive dick?

Quote from: Kaldric;505277I'd argue that reasonable assumptions that seem reasonable because of shared experience is the very definition of 'common sense'.

Yes, yes it is.

Quote from: Kaldric;505277The idea that what a sane and reasonable GM thinks is 'common sense' and what any particular sane and reasonable player thinks is 'common sense' is somehow entirely arbitrary is false, in my experience. Minor differences are moderated through effective communication - major differences, assuming two people from the same culture and neither is intentionally unreasonable or mentally ill, probably don't exist.

A sane and reasonable GM? What are those?

I kid

The thing is that every major problem that arises in play (short of someone deliberately being a dick) can be attributed to a conflict of expectations or a breakdown in communication. And considering these problems still pop up, even with groups of friends, I can only conclude that a lack of common sense is still an issue.

And while gamers of a particular RPG may share a lot of common experience, people who have never played, or played a different enough RPG, will not only be in danger of making different assumptions in play, but potentially contradictory ones.

Finally, the reason the kind of optimization being discussed in this thread is a problem is because most of the players who do this in my experience do not tell the GM what it means in play! As I said, they try and just sneak it past like a bad patent application. They are NOT COMMUNICATING with the GM on the level necessary for a good game. And the only ways for the GM to spot this breach is to understand the rules better than the player, or encounter it in play.

So yes, I agree that at heart this is a social issue, but the game rules play a fundamental part in giving this particular issue form. Chekhov's Rules if you will.

Quote from: Benoist;505288Honestly, I do think that common sense is really underrated on RPG message boards.

Considering the size of the community, and the level of shared experience between its members, why is this still the case?

Quote from: chaosvoyager;506088Considering the size of the community, and the level of shared experience between its members, why is this still the case?

I think a huge part of it has to do with the nature of the medium. The question the internet as a medium answers best for its users is: "Why Wasn't I Consulted?" (if you haven't read this column before, do yourself a favor and read it - you'll understand the internet, the way people post, and why they get so mad in particular when they see someone disagreeing with them, or us, much better)

Then, I think this has to do with who, amongst gamers, is more likely to come to a message board to basically complain that he wasn't consulted. That will be the whiners, the rules lawyers, all the people that blame the games for their own failings, or who want to bitch at their mean GMs, which then the would-be designers read and take to heart by designing games that "fix" the GMs, and so on, so forth. That comes down to a simple social rule: people who are generally satisfied have no particular reason to open their mouth, whereas unsatisfied people will grab the bullhorn to yell their miscontent to whoever wants to hear. Same with politics, religion, etc etc.

I also think there's something to be said about the timing of it all, and how the internet boom coincided with the release of 3.0 D&D, how from then the 3rd ed rules became interpreted as hard-coded and static affairs, rather than you know, the advice and explanations they really were (the obvious example here being the EL/CR system of 3.0. D&D, the outrage that took over the internet when some 3PPs used them as mere guidelines and how that was "bad design" and "unfair to the players" blah blah blah, which then basically sealed the deal in the minds of the publishers that a module HAS to be designed following these guidelines in a mathematical, anal way, otherwise it's "Bad"...).

There's certainly more to it than that, but this is a start.

Quote from: Benoist;506100I also think there's something to be said about the timing of it all, and how the internet boom coincided with the release of 3.0 D&D, how from then the 3rd ed rules became interpreted as hard-coded and static affairs, rather than you know, the advice and explanations they really were.

In one the the "legends & lore" articles they talked about the transition from 3.0 to 3.5 in the 'hard coding' of rules as arbiters. Specifically the cover chart. In 3.0 it was a rather clever illustration showing what 9/10 to 1/2 cover looked like with the assumption that players and DMs would be comfortable comparing and making decisions on there own. Whereas in 3.5 there was an absolute standard for if you had cover or not (involving lots of imaginary lines).

Now I personally liked that there was now fewer 'categories' of cover, but not 'the rules' resting the more imaginative aspects from me, and more importantly from my DM.

Quote from: chaosvoyager;506088No shit. Also, that's the ENTIRE FUCKING POINT!

What's one common sense assumption when facing a Dragon?

Then you have missed it because I am talking about the Players while you seem to be talking about the Characters.

Quote from: chaosvoyager;506088In other words, the internet has made the game of character optimization a non-game. Wonderful. Now perhaps we can remove such systems entirely since they're redundant

On the other hand, GMs without internet access, or who lack the cognitive ability to spot that the synonym for 'broken character' is 'Pun-Pun', are at a disadvantage against the players who do.

You do understand that there is an entire subforum called "Character Optimization" on the WotC forums, right? That Players can just look up to find out some of the best ways to munchkinize their characters?

Quote from: chaosvoyager;506088First, they're likely not going to enjoy the games I run if their primary source of fun is in optimizing character generation, and I will not play in games with people who do this. So the nature of the game filters this kind of shit out.

Secondly, I'd like to see them TRY to munchkin in Apocalypse World, Dogs in the Vineyard, Smallville, Leverage, Don't Rest Your Head, Sorcerer, Marvel Heroic Roleplay, Amber, FATE, and (I think) Legends of the Wulin (which is still too new to be sure).

Can't. Be. Done.

In running/playing these I have eliminated a major headache both in analyzing potentially broken characters, and avoiding players who make it a fucking game to try and sneak a broken combination past me.

So your best advice is to throw away the games I enjoy? Unacceptable. Better to throw away the disruptive munchkin Player.

Rules won't solve people's problems, that's what Forge and quite a bit of traditional RPGs doesn't understand. Player tries to roll up a powergamed character?

1) Deny him.
2) Send out just as powergamed opponents against him - if needed, use exactly his bloody build, if you have no other idea.
3) Do some challenges in your game that are not based on mechanic.

I know that point 3 is all gasp and such, as it requires some imagination on GM's side, but hey - you knew this wouldn't be easy when you signed for the job.

Of course, alternatively, you can just go ahead and get a copy of AW, and pretend that you are now a fully - fledged GM, as you are guided by careful hand of Vinnie so you don't break his precious game.

Quote from: jhkim;505841Note that I never said that the GM is not allowed to get better at playing the game.  I'm fine with the GM getting better on his own, or learning broad principles from the players.  My problem was with the PCs' enemies using specific tactics only after the PCs have tried them.  

As GM, I don't have to be tactically clever with my NPCs -- because I can always just give them more levels/points/etc.  RPGs are not like chess games, because there is no such thing as fair competition between me and the players.  

If the campaign has gone on for a while and my understanding of tactics has gone up significantly, I might introduce a new bunch of NPCs who are more tactically skilled who use some tactics including ones the PCs have used.  However, that wouldn't be a general thing, and it wouldn't be done as a "counter" or "solution" to the PCs using an effective tactic.  In general, if the PCs come up with an effective tactic, then that tactic will continue to be effective, and I won't try to find a "solution" so that tactic is no longer effective.

Agreed. Unless the opponents have observed or heard about the tactic then they won't build a counter. In actual fact preserving the secrecy of their tactics migh become a PC goal. Leave no one living, never explain how you did it etc.
If I was a PC and I built a legal character that the DM had okayed and then when I used my trinket of trapping in combination with my glove of grasping the DM when hold on you can't do that I would be mighty pissed off. Likewise if our party divised a way to teleport uneringly into a treasure room and steal everything based arround some clever combo with mirrors and polymorphed rodents and then the third time we tried it there were loads of cats on guard but our methods had never been revealed or discovered i would call bullshit.

When the game is put into play the NPCs are 'real' they exist in the same way the PCs and everything else exists. You can't give them knowledge they wouldn't gain through actually interacting with the world. There are thousands of way to achive that which you wish without breaking the rules of "immersion".

Quote from: jibbajibba;506219Likewise if our party divised a way to teleport uneringly into a treasure room and steal everything based arround some clever combo with mirrors and polymorphed rodents and then the third time we tried it there were loads of cats on guard but our methods had never been revealed or discovered i would call bullshit.

On the flip side, one could always claim that the opponent understands the tactic without needing to have contact with PCs who use it. I could be that case that the guard had -already- figured out it would be easy to sneak as a polymorphed animal and then teleport in. After all they live in the same world as the PCs and ought to have access to the very knowledge that enabled the plan in the first place.

I'm reminded of a wizard build who's only strategy was to locate elder dragons via scry, then teleport to them, win initiative (via some self made item cheese), use the ray that damaged dexterity (dragons always had low dex), kill them while they were helpless, and port out with the treasure.

IIRC they could even do this several times a day.

But if the player can do this independently then an NPC figuring it out independently would not stretch my willful suspension of disbelief. In fact the Dragons may even know they are vulnerable to this tactic and try to shore up their weakness, before the wizard even attempts. One needs not even change the rules, just let the target be proactive.

Quote from: Benoist;506100I think a huge part of it has to do with the nature of the medium. The question the internet as a medium answers best for its users is: "Why Wasn't I Consulted?" (if you haven't read this column before, do yourself a favor and read it - you'll understand the internet, the way people post, and why they get so mad in particular when they see someone disagreeing with them, or us, much better)

Then, I think this has to do with who, amongst gamers, is more likely to come to a message board to basically complain that he wasn't consulted. That will be the whiners, the rules lawyers, all the people that blame the games for their own failings, or who want to bitch at their mean GMs, which then the would-be designers read and take to heart by designing games that "fix" the GMs, and so on, so forth. That comes down to a simple social rule: people who are generally satisfied have no particular reason to open their mouth, whereas unsatisfied people will grab the bullhorn to yell their miscontent to whoever wants to hear. Same with politics, religion, etc etc.

I also think there's something to be said about the timing of it all, and how the internet boom coincided with the release of 3.0 D&D, how from then the 3rd ed rules became interpreted as hard-coded and static affairs, rather than you know, the advice and explanations they really were (the obvious example here being the EL/CR system of 3.0. D&D, the outrage that took over the internet when some 3PPs used them as mere guidelines and how that was "bad design" and "unfair to the players" blah blah blah, which then basically sealed the deal in the minds of the publishers that a module HAS to be designed following these guidelines in a mathematical, anal way, otherwise it's "Bad"...).

There's certainly more to it than that, but this is a start.

Guess that explains you being on the internet.

Quote from: Sommerjon;506245Guess that explains you being on the internet.

And you posting this.

Guys guys stop, the heat is killing me.

Quote from: Rincewind1;506249Guys guys stop, the heat is killing me.

It's funny he didn't see the irony in posting his pearl on this thread.

Quote from: Benoist;506250It's funny he didn't see the irony in posting his pearl on this thread.

Oh, I am well aware.

Quote from: chaosvoyager;506088Define 'break' things, because so far the definition I'm seeing in this thread = making play suck, and at least with my group this is not what happens when they are being creative.

Though perhaps you're using a different definition for 'creative' too

The thing is, "making play suck" isn't an objective fact.  Some people think that play with optimized characters sucks, while other people enjoy it.  The issue I'm having is some people insisting that players who optimize their characters are "dicks" or "assholes" or whatever - when I enjoy that style of play.  

Quote from: chaosvoyager;506088Secondly, I'd like to see them TRY to munchkin in Apocalypse World, Dogs in the Vineyard, Smallville, Leverage, Don't Rest Your Head, Sorcerer, Marvel Heroic Roleplay, Amber, FATE, and (I think) Legends of the Wulin (which is still too new to be sure).

Can't. Be. Done.

In running/playing these I have eliminated a major headache both in analyzing potentially broken characters, and avoiding players who make it a fucking game to try and sneak a broken combination past me.

It depends what you mean by "munchkin".  It's true that optimizing in, say, Dogs in the Vineyard is very different than optimizing in 3rd edition D&D.  There is a lot more social engineering into coming up, say, with traits that one can always draw into a conflict.  However, strategies that involve a social side are still strategies.  To illustrate, I have an essay on Dogs in the Vineyard Strategy Guide.