Why Pun-Pun Doesn't Work

[Radar]

I can reveal why Pun-Pun doesn't work.

It doesn't work because of a number of faulty assumptions. Beginning with the assumption that npc's (Pazuzu, for instance, or the mentioned efreeti) are under player control. Further the assumption that wishes and magic items are under player control. And finally with the assumption that no one was clever enough to attempt this before in the entire multiverse and fail - after which the gods built in fail-safes of the order 'anyone who would ever try this later in life, dies at birth'.

You likely want to call that DM fiat. Fine by me. There's reasons for DM fiat to be desirable. There's really no reasoning in the world that could make player fiat so.

Yes, no sane DM would ever allow Pun-Pun. Still Pun-Pun doesn't require any sort of fiat to work. Pazuzu and infinite Wish exploits are just the fastest possible way of aquiring Manipulate Form, but not the only one. The most straightforward are Shapechange spell and Assume Supernatural Ability feat from Savage Species. It's that simple and can't be circumvented without a fiat.

edit: nasty typo.

[Grail]

{Scrubbed}

[ScionoftheVoid]

{Scrubbed}

Your players would try to play something that says in the build at least once that it is not meant to be played, in addition to it being TO and therefore a thought experiment only by default?

As a nitpick, powergamers wouldn't play Pun-Pun. Munchkins try to play Pun-Pun.

[sofawall]

In this equation, LoP would be the power gamer. The guy who tries to use it at the table? He is most definitely a munchkin, and a fool of a Took to boot.

[lesser_minion]

I can reveal why Pun-Pun doesn't work.

Because it was never meant to?

It doesn't work because of a number of faulty assumptions. Beginning with the assumption that npc's (Pazuzu, for instance, or the mentioned efreeti) are under player control. Further the assumption that wishes and magic items are under player control. And finally with the assumption that no one was clever enough to attempt this before in the entire multiverse and fail - after which the gods built in fail-safes of the order 'anyone who would ever try this later in life, dies at birth'.

All of these are things that are supposed to be the case, but nothing is done that's outside of the guidelines the rules suggest for those items.

You likely want to call that DM fiat. Fine by me. There's reasons for DM fiat to be desirable. There's really no reasoning in the world that could make player fiat so.

It's been said before, but you've missed the point. Nobody's trying to come up with something that works in a game -- most settings don't have Sarrukh, and in 3rd edition, there's no expectation whatsoever that the FR are part of your campaign setting.

[Acanous]

Easiest way to stop it is by having encounters happen to the player every time he tries starting things off. If you go the Pazuzu route, OK, you have your candle now, but yes, Gods know what you're up to and here's a random band of CR equivilent things they sent to stop you.

Oh, you beat them. Are you trying again? Well here's another encounter.
Repeat until player learns, dies, earns his godlike power the normal way, or gives up.

[Grail]

Your players would try to play something that says in the build at least once that it is not meant to be played, in addition to it being TO and therefore a thought experiment only by default?

Some of them (at least 2) would probably consider trying it. They overlook many, many things like that.

As a nitpick, powergamers wouldn't play Pun-Pun. Munchkins try to play Pun-Pun.

Semantics. Like the difference between a Geek and a Nerd. For all intents and purposes, they are the same.

[lesser_minion]

Easiest way to stop it is by having encounters happen to the player every time he tries starting things off. If you go the Pazuzu route, OK, you have your candle now, but yes, Gods know what you're up to and here's a random band of CR equivilent things they sent to stop you.

Oh, you beat them. Are you trying again? Well here's another encounter.
Repeat until player learns, dies, earns his godlike power the normal way, or gives up.

The entire premise behind TO is that the DM doesn't care to prevent imbalances from occurring, even when they depend on poor interpretations of unclear rules.

We don't really need to know how Pun-Pun can be stopped -- we already know that no sane DM will allow it in the first place.

Semantics. Like the difference between a Geek and a Nerd. For all intents and purposes, they are the same.

No, they aren't.

Powergamers are people who want to play powerful characters. On its own, this implies nothing about even their willingness to optimise (someone who seeks to play mechanically powerful characters is an 'optimiser').

Optimisers, or 'min-maxers' are people who try to make the most mechanically efficient characters possible, without ruining the game for other players.

Munchkins are people who try to play the game to 'win', without respecting the other players, the DM, or the spirit of the game.

[Boci]

Semantics. Like the difference between a Geek and a Nerd. For all intents and purposes, they are the same.

No they are. One very big difference is that powergamers will play a batman wizard, not Pun-Pun.

[Lord Loss]

My only comment is that the argument is void, seeing as pun-pun can be attained without use of Pazuzu.

Also, Pun-Pun is an exercise of thought, no gamer will truly play Pun-Pun.

[sofawall]

Like the difference between a Geek and a Nerd. For all intents and purposes, they are the same.

No. One is insulting, the other is a preference.

Powergamers make powerful characters for the sake of making powerful characters. They do not break the rules of the game, because then what is the point? Note the word "game" in their name?

A munchkin, on the other hand, is someone who is perfectly willing to break the rules of the game and impose himself on everyone's fun just to have a powerful character.

So a power gamer would be the one who comes up with Pun-Pun, and goes "Hey, look, cool build". A munchkin is the one who goes "Real Ultimate Power?!?! I must bring that to the table! Screw the rest of the party, who needs them, I'm invincible!"

Also, the mere fact that someone corrected you means that someone feels there is a real and legitimate difference.

[Grail]

No they are. One very big difference is that powergamers will play a batman wizard, not Pun-Pun.

Some of the time, not necessarily all of the time.

[Zen Master]

It's been said before, but you've missed the point.

Absolutely not.

[Boci]

Some of the time, not necessarily all of the time.

No, power gamers will never play Pun-Pun, because there is now challange in Pun-Pun's build, since it already been done, and no challange in playing it because well, there just isn't. Whoever came up with Pun-Pun may very well have been a powergamer, but anyone who tries to play it is something else.

[Grail]

Also, the mere fact that someone corrected you means that someone feels there is a real and legitimate difference.

That is an irrelevant argument.

Sure, you can disagree with me like I am disagreeing with you. But at the end of the day, it's irrelevant. I've been roleplaying for many many years, whilst most of you were probably still in nappies. The terms Min-Maxer then Power Gamers have been used in my groups for over 25 and 20 years. Munchkin is a newer term, but has been bandied around in my groups for over 15. They are all interchangeable and simply one term has come along to replace the other.

You can define them how you like. I say you are arguing semantics.

You will have another chip in, I'm sure... it's the internet, and you will have to get the final word in. So, enjoy.

[lesser_minion]

Absolutely not.

There is nothing wrong with houseruling or making a sensible interpretation of a rule.

But Theoretical optimisation exercises like this are about what happens when you don't. Don't confuse them with something people actually might try to play.

[Boci]

That is an irrelevant argument.

Sure, you can disagree with me like I am disagreeing with you. But at the end of the day, it's irrelevant. I've been roleplaying for many many years, whilst most of you were probably still in nappies. The terms Min-Maxer then Power Gamers have been used in my groups for over 25 and 20 years. Munchkin is a newer term, but has been bandied around in my groups for over 15. They are all interchangeable and simply one term has come along to replace the other.

You can define them how you like. I say you are arguing semantics.

You will have another chip in, I'm sure... it's the internet, and you will have to get the final word in. So, enjoy.

Languages changes, even in the community of a single role playing game. It is now generally accepted that those terms are not interchangable, but no one is forcing you to keep up with newer gaming specific vocabulary.

[sofawall]

The terms Min-Maxer then Power Gamers have been used in my groups for over 25 and 20 years.

They have been used for 20-25 years, eh? You're right, I haven't even been alive that long.

Guess what, though? Popular language has changed drastically in the last 2 years. 2. That is less than a tenth of your 25. I'd like to bring your attention to, for example, the recent trend of High School students to say something that is bad or displeases them is "Gay". Homophobia aside, this phrase was simply not used in the same way as little as 4 years ago. Why do you think something like this would be different, especially with the popular advent of the internet and gaming culture?

EDIT: Another example being the word "noob".

[Zen Master]

But Theoretical optimisation exercises like this are about what happens when you don't. Don't confuse them with something people actually might try to play.

I'm not confused.

You have this little mind exercise: How badly can I break the game. I have mine: How simply can I fix it.

I'm not at all confused. I know exactly what Pun-Pun is about.

[Optimystik]

You can define them how you like. I say you are arguing semantics.

Few terms are perfectly interchangeable. There is such a thing as connotation.

Surely you realize that the term "Power Gamer" is less negative than "Munchkin."

[The Glyphstone]

That is an irrelevant argument.

Sure, you can disagree with me like I am disagreeing with you. But at the end of the day, it's irrelevant. I've been roleplaying for many many years, whilst most of you were probably still in nappies. The terms Min-Maxer then Power Gamers have been used in my groups for over 25 and 20 years. Munchkin is a newer term, but has been bandied around in my groups for over 15. They are all interchangeable and simply one term has come along to replace the other.

You can define them how you like. I say you are arguing semantics.

You will have another chip in, I'm sure... it's the internet, and you will have to get the final word in. So, enjoy.

Should we also get off your lawn, while you wave that stick at us?

Though it is likely but not guaranteed, based on your statement, that to you and your group, powergaming and munchkinry are the same. AD&D/older edition players are much more likely than 3.X-trained players to consider anything significantly different than S+B fighters/healbot clerics/blaster wizards to be cheesy munchkinry, because that's what their paradigm of 'normal' was learning the game*. Characters who don't mesh into those archtypes, either because they function differently than 'intended' or simply more powerful offend their sensibilities.

So to you and your group, with your background, it's entirely reasonable that building mechanically powerful/optimized characters goes hand-in-hand with munchkins. But to others, who had their D&D foundation based on the plethora of options that 3.X is capable of with all its glory and tarnish, there's a very distinct non-semantical difference.



*Disclaimer: Anecdotes are not data. But an overwhelming majority of the people I know who consider BC wizards, trip-fighters, or battle clerics to be 'cheese' were also long-term oldschool gamers. Thus, I've built up at least my own personal associations that such people are more likely to hold such opinions.

[lesser_minion]

... the recent trend of High School students to say something that is bad or displeases them is "Gay". Homophobia aside, this phrase was simply not used in the same way as little as 4 years ago....

The words 'lame' and 'gay' were used interchangeably like that for most of the time I was in primary or secondary school, actually. They aren't an example, although your point is sound.

[sofawall]

The words 'lame' and 'gay' were used interchangeably like that for most of the time I was in primary or secondary school, actually. They aren't an example, although your point is sound.

This I did not know. In my area, it wasn't until fairly recently it was used that way. In that case, I stand by Noob.

[Myth]

Unless someone can disprove my previous statement I'm still saying Pun Pun can't gain Divine Ranks legally by RAW via the stupid porxy exploit, a flaw of which everyone has been conveniently overlooking for years now. A proxy making a proxy is still a DR0 Quasi-Deity and a proxy itself, and thus can't be raised to proxy status and gain DR1 AGAIN. It can either recall it's DR from it's own proxy and become DR1, or stay DR0 forever.

So guess what - Supreme Initative + Salient Life and Death = no Pun Pun, even if he has 20 bajillion to all stats via manipulate cheese form.

[kamikasei]

So to you and your group, with your background, it's entirely reasonable that building mechanically powerful/optimized characters goes hand-in-hand with munchkins. But to others, who had their D&D foundation based on the plethora of options that 3.X is capable of with all its glory and tarnish, there's a very distinct non-semantical difference.

Perhaps more importantly: when speaking to people who will self-describe as power-gamers (as many here do) and regard "munchkin" as a derogative that does not apply to them, to insist that the terms are interchangeable in your own group's usage is basically saying that you're choosing to attribute behaviours to them that they abhor based on your understanding of the term even after they define their usage of it for you. That's kind of rude.

[sofawall]

Unless someone can disprove my previous statement...

I think we're still waiting for you to prove it. We cannot disprove anything until you've proven it to us. So just go grab that text that says a creature can only be a proxy of one god, and we'll get back to you.

[OracleofWuffing]

I'm not sure how many wishes you need, but it's worth giving yourself a backup plan, so the infinite loop option is more useful in real terms.

Well, in ideal circumstances, you only need two wishes, so the backup plan's built in to the third wish, I suppose. Guess it never hurts to have the option of receiving a 25,000 gp sandwich.

[lesser_minion]

Well, in ideal circumstances, you only need two wishes, so the backup plan's built in to the third wish, I suppose. Guess it never hurts to have the option of receiving a 25,000 gp sandwich.

What kind of sandwich would that actually be?

[Mercenary Pen]

What kind of sandwich would that actually be?

I'm thinking char-grilled fillet of Tarrasque with green leaf salad made from extinct species of vegetation would be at least that price...

Also, if I ever DM'ed 3.5e, my simple house-rules to prevent those forms of rules-abuse would be as follows:

1- players get a moderately high- but still finite- number of free actions per round (say 6-8 somewhere). Also, free actions will be re-named moderately-priced actions.

2- no infinite loops of anything under any circumstances.

These rules would apply to myself as well as the players, and I would make that clear up front... Seems simple enough- do players really need sufficient free actions per round to recite an entire norse saga before the dragon attacks?

[DragoonWraith]

I can reveal why Pun-Pun doesn't work.

It doesn't work because of a number of faulty assumptions. Beginning with the assumption that npc's (Pazuzu, for instance, or the mentioned efreeti) are under player control. Further the assumption that wishes and magic items are under player control. And finally with the assumption that no one was clever enough to attempt this before in the entire multiverse and fail - after which the gods built in fail-safes of the order 'anyone who would ever try this later in life, dies at birth'.

You likely want to call that DM fiat. Fine by me. There's reasons for DM fiat to be desirable. There's really no reasoning in the world that could make player fiat so.

:headdesk:

Some of this is incorrect (Pun-Pun ascension does not require any NPC involvement, Pazuzu is just one of the easier ways to do it), some of it flies in the face of the rules (that Wishes for things listed in the Wish spell description as safe won't be), and some of it assumes that this is anything other than strict, pure TO never intended for a game.

What is so difficult to understand about something being a simple RAW shenanigan? It's something for people to chuckle at, shake their heads at the silliness of WotC's rules, and get on with. Why on earth do people feel the need to disprove it?!

This infuriates me, it really does. From the very beginning of this thread, it was just... I mean, it's insulting for someone to come along and say, "No, you're all wrong, every single one of the char-op'ers with thousands of hours worth of familiarity with the rules, and dozens of hours experience with various Pun-Pun builds, they're all wrong, because they all missed this obvious detail that only I can see!" No, no one missed that detail: you are just wrong.

For the purposes and system it was constructed (RAW TO), Pun-Pun works. Why can't people just accept that and move on?