Quote from: Kord's Boon;506228On 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.

It depends....
If the GM didn't think of the idea it maybe isn't obvious.
Are the PCs exceptional individuals who are supposed to defy the normalities of the game world or are they typical.
If your world has magic shops and adventure guilds and a small town has a 10th level wizard in his tower and the captain of the guards is 9th level then yes.
In my games that is not the game I am playing. Yes a very smart and rich and clever NPC might enploy a famous mage to protect his treasure room from magical intrusion but that still means there is a famous mage the party can have a little chat with....

Take a typical PC plot to steal a mcguffin. enter in gaseous form, shrink the object replace it with an illusionary copy and then escape.

Quote from: Kord's Boon;506228On 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.

Here's how I see it.  Once the player comes up with this tactic and you haven't predicted it, then it has highlighted an inconsistency in the world.  The question becomes:  Why hasn't anyone done this in the many years (or centuries) prior to this PC?  

There is no "pure" simulation answer to this question.  The real answer is probably that the GM / world designer failed to take into account how magic worked in setting up the world.  So if I made happened on this error, I would have to change my background to explain the inconsistency of what I had previously come up with.  

However, the answer is not necessarily to shut down the player and prevent it.  One answer might be finding a reason why his PC is new and different.  For example, maybe key spells he is using were newly invented within the last generation.  I might write in how, say, teleport was a long-hidden secret that the PC gained when he got the spell a few adventures ago.  The backstory of that spell might lay groundwork for future adventure.  

The thing is, that many GMs act very defensively about their world.  So if a PC comes up with a successful tactic for defeating monsters, the GM gets angry and resentful that the player is "ruining" the world.  They might show this by having all sorts of NPCs act surly or worse towards the PC.  

My reaction would probably be to give the players their win.  Most people celebrate the disappearance of the known elder dragons of the world, and they are flush with vast treasure making them lords of the land.  Meanwhile, there are probably many people going on about the mystery of what happened to these dragons - and they will probably run into some of those would-be detectives, but not all of them.  The meat of new adventures would probably be on a higher level, like dealing with whole enemy empires and such.

Quote from: Benoist;506100I think a huge part of it has to do with the nature of the medium.

That... makes a lot of sense.

Someone needs to write a similar article on the inherent media strengths of RPGs as compared to movies, books, MMORPGS, etc. Because while it seems obvious, I don't think it is.

Quote from: jeff37923;506187Then you have missed it because I am talking about the Players while you seem to be talking about the Characters.

o_o

The characters don't exist. The players are the ones making the decisions, so they're the ones that need to know what the hell the GM is thinking.

Quote from: jeff37923;506187You 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?

Well, I do now

Quote from: jeff37923;506187So your best advice is to throw away the games I enjoy? Unacceptable. Better to throw away the disruptive munchkin Player.

Fair enough, better to throw away a disruptive player period. But different rules give players (and GMs) different ways to be disruptive.

Quote from: Rincewind1;506188Rules won't solve people's problems

Depends on the problem. I've seen rules create or exacerbate problems that would otherwise not exist as often as I've seen the reverse.

Perhaps it's a matter of different problems.

Quote from: jhkim;506272The thing is, "making play suck" isn't an objective fact.

No, but the OP proposes that optimizations in this case DOES make play suck, and the GM should be smart enough to know when this is the case and preempt or put a stop to it.

Quote from: jhkim;506272Some 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.

The problem is that this kind of play depends on GMs knowing the rules better than the players. It's an arms race, and the GM's control of the game depends on how well they understand the rules.

See, if a player enjoys this kind of play, and they are able to create more optimal builds than the GM, then the GM will either have to be able to out think them (a perfectly fine basis I wish systems provided more support for), or they will have to undermine the player's fun, apply rules the player has no authority over, and veto/restrain that character in order to maintain the game's balance. And because smart players know this, they don't draw attention to their techniques in an attempt to get past the GM.

Optimized characters also require optimized challenges, and most of those kinds of challenges/counters will seem like 'cheating' because by their very nature they are typically specific to the optimized tactic in question. Regardless again, the GM has to be smart enough to construct such challenges/counters in the first place.

Quote from: jhkim;506272It'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.

In most RPGs, the only thing that is (and often can be) optimized for is kill factor, though I guess there are Exalted builds designed for social manipulation, never really had the nerve to look into it. So my question is: What is actually being optimized for in Dogs in the Vineyard?

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)

On a related note, a lot of the bullshit swirling around RPGs and Storygames would be solved if people asked the same "What question is being answered?" question that the author uses to explain how "Why Wasn't I Consulted?" is what the medium of the Internet in general solves for us.

"How can I go to places or periods other than where I am or when I am, and interact with them?" is answered by playing a traditional RPG.  As John Morrow put it, TRPGs are about you--the user--experiencing events that otherwise cannot or are unlikely to happen.

"How can I create a story, in collaboration with others, that all of us will be okay with?"  That's what the Storygame answers.

Since I have no desire to turn Writing-By-Committee into a game, Storygames are worthless to me.  I'm all about the experience, so proper TRPGs are what I'm after.

Quote from: jeff37923;506187So your best advice is to throw away the games I enjoy? Unacceptable. Better to throw away the disruptive munchkin Player.

+1.

It's worked well for my campaigns since 1975. Players are warned in the house rules that I have no use for munchkin powergaming/charop, rules lawyers, players who target other players, or the like. If they insist on doing so anyway, after a couple of warnings they are shown the door. Some my think it rude, but the other players in the my games seldom think it rude. Often they thing I am too nice to game-ruining jerks by giving them multiple chances.

Quote from: chaosvoyager;506339The problem is that this kind of play depends on GMs knowing the rules better than the players. It's an arms race, and the GM's control of the game depends on how well they understand the rules.

See, if a player enjoys this kind of play, and they are able to create more optimal builds than the GM, then the GM will either have to be able to out think them (a perfectly fine basis I wish systems provided more support for), or they will have to undermine the player's fun, apply rules the player has no authority over, and veto/restrain that character in order to maintain the game's balance. And because smart players know this, they don't draw attention to their techniques in an attempt to get past the GM.

Optimized characters also require optimized challenges, and most of those kinds of challenges/counters will seem like 'cheating' because by their very nature they are typically specific to the optimized tactic in question. Regardless again, the GM has to be smart enough to construct such challenges/counters in the first place.

I am confused by this.  As GM, I see absolutely zero need to be tactically superior or smarter than the players in order to challenge them.  Since I am GM, I can just throw vastly more powerful monsters at them.  If they are really good at building and using their 4th level characters, I can just let them fight CR 8 monsters (or CR 12, or 15).  

I've played in and GMed a considerable amount of Champions and other mechanically intricate games with a lot of character optimization.  I can remember a long time back when I threatened my players with super-optimized villains built on only 50 points each.  However, in retrospect, I realize that trying to "outsmart" them had absolutely nothing to do with balancing the game - since I could just as easily have used 900-point villains instead.  Instead, I was trying to prove I was smarter than the players for reasons that had nothing to do with game balance.  

Quote from: chaosvoyager;506339In most RPGs, the only thing that is (and often can be) optimized for is kill factor, though I guess there are Exalted builds designed for social manipulation, never really had the nerve to look into it. So my question is: What is actually being optimized for in Dogs in the Vineyard?

I've seen plenty of optimizations not related to killing.  I described my longest-run Burning Wheel character as a "lean, mean Duel-of-Wits machine" for example - and I similarly had economic and social optimizations in GURPS.  In Dogs in the Vineyard, the mechanics are all fairly unified, so I'm generally optimizing for winning conflicts - specifically winning conflicts in the context of the standard DitV formula of coming into a town beset with problems.  Basically, I want to have as many traits to pull into conflicts as I can, and have those traits be as high as possible - with the exception that I'll always want to take a social blow because that fuels my power-ups.

Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;506344On a related note, a lot of the bullshit swirling around RPGs and Storygames would be solved if people asked the same "What question is being answered?" question that the author uses to explain how "Why Wasn't I Consulted?" is what the medium of the Internet in general solves for us.

"How can I go to places or periods other than where I am or when I am, and interact with them?" is answered by playing a traditional RPG.  As John Morrow put it, TRPGs are about you--the user--experiencing events that otherwise cannot or are unlikely to happen.

"How can I create a story, in collaboration with others, that all of us will be okay with?"  That's what the Storygame answers.

Since I have no desire to turn Writing-By-Committee into a game, Storygames are worthless to me.  I'm all about the experience, so proper TRPGs are what I'm after.

If the line were so clear, those questions might be easier to answer.

Quote from: chaosvoyager;506339o_o

The characters don't exist. The players are the ones making the decisions, so they're the ones that need to know what the hell the GM is thinking.

Hmmm, I think I see the problem here. For me the Character and the Player are seperate with the Character being the device used to interact with the RPG medium. Now because of this, the Character may not think like or think as well as the Player. So there may very well be information that the Player knows that the Character would not as well as there may be common sense that the Player has that the Character doesn't.

That sounds really, almost dumbly, thespian - but that is how I approach that part of RPGs.

So, the Characters do exist, even if only within the framework of the RPG.

I have to agree with the "avoid systems that enable problems" argument and disagree with the "just say no or throw the player out if they argue" argument.

Because real life is rarely that simple.  Just saying no can lead to tantrums and literally hours of arguing that completely destroys the gaming session.  And as someone else said, that can happen with people who have been playing for 20 years and are in their 40's or older.

I've sat and listened to players in our 3e campaign argue with the DM for over 3 hours about how the Wall of Force spell worked.  I've had a player nearly quit my Rifts campaign because I wouldn't let him use his full dodge bonus while piloting a vehicle; that same player nearly derailed my 4e campaign over a disagreement over how movement and jumping worked.

The only way the "just chuck the player when they become annoying" issue works is if you are playing with a group of complete strangers who all don't know each other and the player you are throwing out offers nothing of value at all.

But that's rarely ever the case.  You may like the player.  The player may add quite a lot to the game (role-playing, planning, etc) but just be bad at exploiting rules and believes strongly they should be able to build a character RAW without you interfering.  

And the biggest problem is that if you aren't all a group of complete strangers, trying to kick a player out is playing with fire.  Other players may get really pissed if they are friends with that player.  Before you know it, you have no group.

RPG campaigns require a certain amount of social relationship between players to work.  And like all relationships (romantic, familial, professional, etc), that means sometimes you just have to put up with annoying crap and sometimes the best thing to do is try and avoid potential conflict.

So far I kicked out 2 players in my life, and both were actually rather close friends of mine.

One dropped contact with me, one did not. I survived.

Quote from: Rincewind1;506498So far I kicked out 2 players in my life, and both were actually rather close friends of mine.

One dropped contact with me, one did not. I survived.

Yeah, you kicked two "rather close friends" to the curb over a fucking game of make believe.

Quote from: Sommerjon;506526Yeah, you kicked two "rather close friends" to the curb over a fucking game of make believe.

You are obviously just trolling, but I love the look of my words enough that I will answer you.

Funny, one of them just texted me if I have time on Friday, or we reschedule the meeting the next day.

The other obviously was not as close as I thought he was, if he disappeared over being removed from the game.

If someone does not have fun in a gaming group, and destroys that fun for others, and talking about it and trying to perhaps adjust one's playstyle a bit did not help - the weakest link should be removed.

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

Read my comment again and show me where it has anything to do with your link.

The irony here is you.

I hope Somerjon picks up - we miss a good monkey since Darwinism slit his wrists.

Quote from: Rincewind1;506530I hope Somerjon picks up - we miss a good monkey since Darwinism slit his wrists.

He's not banned, is he?