"Power gamer" hate?

[kyoryu]

Basically, we have people saying that people who drive faster than them are maniacs

I think this is super relevant.

Because the full statement is really "anyone driving faster than me is a maniac, and anyone driving slower than me is a moron."

We all think we're doing it "right". I mean, kinda by definition, because if we didn't think so we'd do something else.

And just like with driving, it's not the absolute speed that matters, but relative speed. What matters is that you fairly closely match the speed of the other drivers. If, on a given stretch of road everyone is doing about 50mph, then you should do about 50mph. 55? Sure. 60? Maybe. 80? No.

But if everyone else is doing 70 on that same stretch of road, then 50 mph is the wrong speed, and 60 is borderline too slow. Outside of extremes, as long as the overall speed is generally safe, neither speed is "right". But deviating too much from what everyone is doing is dangerous, for one reason or another.

Same with optimization.

[Lord Raziere]

Lord Raziere, if my Dragonfire Adept is overshadowing your character, you built a very bad character, or the DM is intentionally screwing you over/favoring me.

Again, I'm a mechanics first gamer. I can be called a powergamer, and I won't object to the label, because it's accurate. But I still stick to a theme.

Moreover, when I do want to go balls to the wall OP, I tend to optimize for SUPPORT. Being a buffmaster Wizard or something. So yes, if you bother to break down technical contributions, I might overshadow everyone because they all got my buffs. But in play, they have a great time, because they're kicking ass and taking names, and they don't mind that they're receiving help from their buddy.

ah yes, the common protest "but I don't do that! its your or the GMs fault!"

how unbiased.

but lets assume that you don't as you say. I can't assume your representative of them. the munchkin stereotype has to come from SOMEWHERE. and I've had my experiences with people who were munchkins and powergamers, given the opportunity they make invincible characters that cannot die, ridiculous overlords who stomp on everything just so they can have their own kingdom where they can say kills anyone who steps into it, gods who can kill people then resurrect them seconds later constant play and counterplay, all the while filled with OOC arguments about this and that, that only bog everything down. regardless of the mechanics, its a poisonous toxic mindset that makes it difficult to near impossible to arbitrate anything and makes everyone involved angry at each other. without anyone or anything to hold them back, they turn good settings into ridiculous fluff-killing experiments and turn good adventures into a test to see how much they can sequence break and render someone else's work utterly pointless. all the while no empathy for the people of the things they ruin, and no respect for the fluff they break by trying to extrapolate into something completely different that destroys the entire rest of the setting as a result. make no mistake: to do such extrapolations and exploitations IS to destroy the fluff, as the setting is meant to be as it is: unextrapolated, unexploited.

It is not my fault when someone tries to turn an action/adventure fantasy into a pseudo-sci-fi game out of nowhere, nor is it my fault when all tensions drains out of a game, or when the game descends into ridiculous endless counterplays only possible if both beings were paranoid hyper-geniuses who do nothing but set up traps and counter traps all day for highly specific scenarios. the more power and optimization, the harder it is to have the things I value. especially because I like playing at high levels of power- but not OPTIMIZED ones. I am the Anime Nonsense Player, not the Super-Logical Mastermind Player- And I'm proud of it.

[JNAProductions]

Why does the stereotype have to come from factual events? Is that true of all stereotypes, then?

[Lord Raziere]

Why does the stereotype have to come from factual events? Is that true of all stereotypes, then?

No, but why does have to be completely untrue? why are you so dead set on trying to make me think how powergamers do things is not true, when I know it is. because I experienced it, its toxic, it only made things worse, and it isn't worth the trouble. I've never experienced a GM being unfair or incompetent, but I've experienced players being powergaming jerks, and I can tell which one ruined my enjoyment more.

[JNAProductions]

No, but why does have to be completely untrue? why are you so dead set on trying to make me think how powergamers do things is not true, when I know it is. because I experienced it, its toxic, it only made things worse, and it isn't worth the trouble. I've never experienced a GM being unfair or incompetent, but I've experienced players being powergaming jerks, and I can tell which one ruined my enjoyment more.

The point is, it's not POWERGAMING that's bad. It's being a toxic player. You're effectively saying "Anyone who optimizes their character is a horrible toxic gamer," which is not a fair stance to hold.

I'm not going to say your experiences are wrong, but I am going to say that they don't tell the whole truth. Does that make sense?

[Talakeal]

Here's the thing:

If people actually followed the decisionmaking process that certain haters have ascribed to them in this thread (e.g. "choose character building options only on the basis of what's most powerful, with complete disregard for anything else") then the output of that algorithm would simply be "Pun-Pun." The fact that nobody wants to play Pun-Pun suggests that nobody is actually using that decisionmaking algorithm to construct characters.

Basically, we have people saying that people who drive faster than them are maniacs, and then claiming that the reason anyone drives faster than them is because they only choose cars based on which one is faster with disregard for any other features of the car. But the fact of the matter is that the fastest cars in existence are all left unsold at the dealerships, because there is no market for those cars. This suggests that their theory about car-buying behavior is false.

Agreed.

However I think there are plenty of people who have the mind set of playing the most powerful character that they can get away with or the most powerful character of a certain type.

[JNAProductions]

Agreed.

However I think there are plenty of people who have the mind set of playing the most powerful character that they can get away with or the most powerful character of a certain type.

The first bit is not good, in general. The second bit is fine.

If the thought is "How far can I push the boundaries of power without the DM/other players calling me out?" that's no good.
If the thought is "How powerful can I make my Samurai/Monk/whatever?" that's fine, assuming you still pay attention to relative power in the table.

[Lord Raziere]

The point is, it's not POWERGAMING that's bad. It's being a toxic player. You're effectively saying "Anyone who optimizes their character is a horrible toxic gamer," which is not a fair stance to hold.

I'm not going to say your experiences are wrong, but I am going to say that they don't tell the whole truth. Does that make sense?

Ok, but I haven't seen any toxic gamer that didn't try to optimize their character beyond all reason. doesn't change the fact that when I want to play a setting, the last thing I want is someone finding some inevitable flaw or exploit and using it to turn the setting into something else that I didn't come in to play. and I must remark: the "roleplay-heavy toxic gamers" you speak of (which I have never seen myself) are probably far easier spotted because they don't have a ruleset supporting their abuses/bad gaming. such people are easily spotted by making these incompetent characters you speak of, anyone could probably spot that, but the toxic ones who DO optimize.....well, you'd have to be another optimizer to spot it, how convenient that only someone else with the same level of skill can spot the exploit and judge whether its appropriate or not, and everyone just has to trust them both. see what I mean?

[JNAProductions]

I didn't say anything about toxic roleplayers. They exist, but they're not really what's at hand here.

And it's pretty simple to see someone who optimized too far. Ask them "Hey, what does your character do? And can you be specific?" And if your Fighter has three attacks at +8, for 2d6+5 damage each, while standing still, while their Fighter/Ranger/Barbarian has five attacks at +34 for 4d8+20 damage each on the move... They're too powerful. Likewise, if they're playing Angel Summoner and you're playing BMX Bandit, it should be pretty easy to spot the discrepancy.

[Talakeal]

The first bit is not good, in general. The second bit is fine.

If the thought is "How far can I push the boundaries of power without the DM/other players calling me out?" that's no good.
If the thought is "How powerful can I make my Samurai/Monk/whatever?" that's fine, assuming you still pay attention to relative power in the table.

Note that "get away with" and "overshadow the rest of the party" are not necessarily the same thing.

Also, making a character the most powerful within a role may not be appropriate to the game for thematic reasons or because it trivializes the content, and it still might overshadow the rest of the party.


I have also had problems where someone would make a character so focused in one area that it turns the game into a binary; they sit their bored when out of their area, and they can handle areas within their domain so well the rest of the party can't really contribute and just sits there bored.

We had this a lot when we first moved from D&D to point buy games, people would make a warrior who maxed out all of their physical stats and combat skills and left everything else at the minimum value, making a sort of Lenny from Of Mice and Men who was really tough but normally did nothing while his handler did all the talking and investigating, not exactly stimulating gameplay.

[JNAProductions]

Note that "get away with" and "overshadow the rest of the party" are not necessarily the same thing.

Also, making a character the most powerful within a role may not be appropriate to the game for thematic reasons or because it trivializes the content, and it still might overshadow the rest of the party.

I have also had problems where someone would make a character so focused in one area that it turns the game into a binary; they sit their bored when out of their area, and they can handle areas within their domain so well the rest of the party can't really contribute and just sits there bored.

We had this a lot when we first moved from D&D to point buy games, people would make a warrior who maxed out all of their physical stats and combat skills and left everything else at the minimum value, making a sort of Lenny from Of Mice and Men who was really tough but normally did nothing while his handler did all the talking and investigating, not exactly stimulating gameplay.

Yeah, that's fair. There is a reason I added the "assuming you still pay attention to the relative power in the table," though.

But I'll definitely agree that binary characters are bad. While specializing is fine, you should be able to do SOMETHING at most points in a game.

[Guizonde]

Has anyone ever met this mythical powergamer who exclusively picks what's most powerful, even following the strictures of the table?

Because, again, I'm a mechanics first kind of guy. I'll often play a DFA in 3.5, which is FAR from the most powerful class available, but I just love the idea of being a fire breathing mofo.

i play with one at my pf table, actually. the guy is... special to hang around with, to put it mildly, but he's friendly enough. when he rolls characters, he finds a concept, optimizes it to its fullest, and finally struggles to make sure the fluff is coherent so he's not called out for power-gaming. once his character is done, he moves on to fully optimize the group so that the group can have fun. he's kind of the unseen team support if you just look at the table without playing at the table. i say x, he takes it into account, and optimizes the other member to y so that we balance each other out. that said, once it becomes truly game-breaking (such as my secondary pf campaign), he goes whole hog and is currently playing a construct that breaks the sound barrier on a charge (and hits for a ludicrous amount of damage, like 6d12+40 or some such nonsense). in the main table, he's playing an oracle/witch multiclass and his build is coming online in the next few levels. so far, his weakness has been supported by the group. by level 10 iirc (i've seen his build. broken) he'll carry the table alone if we let him.

i don't mind it one bit. he's a team player first, a power gamer second, and a rules-lawyer third. he's gruff, brash, and uncouth but what he lacks in social graces he makes up in the fun we have at the table so long as we all sing from the same book. i guess you could call him the "this guy" of power-gaming.

[LudicSavant]

i play with one at my pf table, actually. the guy is... special to hang around with, to put it mildly, but he's friendly enough. when he rolls characters, he finds a concept, optimizes it to its fullest, and finally struggles to make sure the fluff is coherent so he's not called out for power-gaming. once his character is done, he moves on to fully optimize the group so that the group can have fun. he's kind of the unseen team support if you just look at the table without playing at the table. i say x, he takes it into account, and optimizes the other member to y so that we balance each other out. that said, once it becomes truly game-breaking (such as my secondary pf campaign), he goes whole hog and is currently playing a construct that breaks the sound barrier on a charge (and hits for a ludicrous amount of damage, like 6d12+40 or some such nonsense). in the main table, he's playing an oracle/witch multiclass and his build is coming online in the next few levels. so far, his weakness has been supported by the group. by level 10 iirc (i've seen his build. broken) he'll carry the table alone if we let him.

i don't mind it one bit. he's a team player first, a power gamer second, and a rules-lawyer third. he's gruff, brash, and uncouth but what he lacks in social graces he makes up in the fun we have at the table so long as we all sing from the same book. i guess you could call him the "this guy" of power-gaming.

Despite not expressing anger at the "powergamer" in this case, I think this is actually a good example of how a myth is made.

6d12+40 damage isn't necessarily all that much, especially for a charge, unless we're talking about low levels. But here it's just stated matter of factly to be "broken" and "ludicrous," without even any mention of level, as if 6d12+40 was an unconscionable number for any level. But monsters in the manual do damage in that range at lower mid-levels on a fairly regular basis.

What's clear is that 6d12+40 looks like a car that's driving faster than you. But I wouldn't be surprised if your optimizer friend isn't actually driving as fast as he can. And after all, you noted that he picks a concept and optimizes within the bounds of that concept, struggles to make sure the fluff is coherent, and helps empower other players at the table. That behavior isn't really consistent with the idea of someone trying to make themselves the strongest they can get away with and outshine everyone else.

[Guizonde]

Despite not expressing anger at the "powergamer" in this case, I think this is actually a good example of how a myth is made.

6d12+40 damage isn't necessarily all that much, especially for a charge, unless we're talking about low levels. But here it's just stated matter of factly to be "broken" and "ludicrous," without even any mention of level, as if 6d12+40 was an unconscionable number for any level. But monsters in the manual do damage in that range at lower mid-levels on a fairly regular basis.

What's clear is that 6d12+40 looks like a car that's driving faster than you. But I wouldn't be surprised if your optimizer friend isn't actually driving as fast as he can. And after all, you noted that he picks a concept and optimizes within the bounds of that concept, struggles to make sure the fluff is coherent, and helps empower other players at the table. That behavior isn't really consistent with the idea of someone trying to make themselves the strongest they can get away with and outshine everyone else.

that's for a level 7 without boosts and using a one-handed weapon, i forgot to put everything in context. truly, without that it's banal. most of the hard-hitters of the party hit around the 2d6+8 mark (although they hit 3 times). my character hits at 2d8 once per turn (but i play support). as usual this guy showed me the builds, and he went full-on exponential in his damage dealing. good thing too, since he's meant to hit as hard as he can tank. iirc, his ac's somewhere in the low 60's in defensive fighting, he's got 270hp (rest of the group has low 30's ac and 100 hp for the hitters).

why i consider this guy a "this guy" and not "that guy" is precisely because he doesn't want to outshine anyone outside his role. hell, at that table, i'm abusing the leadership feats and cohort rules (with a whopping 301 followers), another is abusing domination spells (with dd 87 minimum), and one is straight-up a mirror-mage (casts 3 levels above his cl). this time around this guy is the beatstick, and he coached us how to become the most broken team that the dm would allow for this "high-op" campaign. it's a particular example, since the dm wanted us to use broken mechanics (and yes, he veto'd pun-pun. i asked because nothing is funnier than drop-kicking planets). the team composition is like this, all ecl 7:

the tank (ubercharging construct more akin to a locomotive)
the support (alchemist-gunslinger with positive feedback loops for cash, item creation, and non-essentials)
the battlefield control (half-fiend half-snakeman vampire kineticist)
the bait (some kind of crusader that won't die, also the face of the group)
the bait's backup (were-tiger grappler with cmb in the low 60's)
the sneak (werewolf skill-monkey. i forgot the classes)

the usual plan is to throw the tank in melee, the rest circle and destroy hordes, and the support flies around dropping potions and aoo's. in combat, that's straightforward. in social-fu, the bait and control take the lead, the support pays for bribes and collects infinite money for items.

now obviously, this is less "high-op" and more "cheesy", but just playing math, the tank, control and backup have values really above the realm of normal play for level 7's. i mean, what kind of tank has a running speed of 182km/h? or what kind of grappler routinely arm-locks giants before level 5?

the problem with power-gaming is when it's done in inappropriate places. it's a sore eye. here's a musical example of what i'm talking about. just replace the loony chicagoan with a power-gamer. appropriate at a metal show, less so at the dentist's. power-gaming when asked to? fine, awesome. power-gaming when it's not wanted, necessary, or called for? big ol' bag of nope!

Spoiler: humorous analogy

Show

edit for clarity: when i say "broken" i mean "broken", not just "game-breaking", i'm talking "the game is not meant to handle such silliness or such niche examples".

[Cluedrew]

You know, when I was learning to drive there was a highway near where I lived that I was told "Don't drive at the speed limit, it is too slow to be safe." I don't know how wide spread that is, but it turns out that moving at the same speed as everyone else is more important that the legal speed limit, especially on a road where you don't interact with things passing by very often.

So yes, "Faster than the rest of the group is too fast" and "Slower than the rest of the group is too slow", with some variation depending on the group.

[PhoenixPhyre]

You know, when I was learning to drive there was a highway near where I lived that I was told "Don't drive at the speed limit, it is too slow to be safe." I don't know how wide spread that is, but it turns out that moving at the same speed as everyone else is more important that the legal speed limit, especially on a road where you don't interact with things passing by very often.

So yes, "Faster than the rest of the group is too fast" and "Slower than the rest of the group is too slow", with some variation depending on the group.

This exactly. As long as you're in the design limits for the roadway (usually speed limit + 20 mph or so), the thing that causes accidents is differences in speed. Everybody going SL + 10 is fine. Everybody going SL + 10 except for that one moron doing SL - 10 is not fine.

Same goes here. Power isn't bad. Drastic differences in power can be bad (there are exceptions, like with just about everything).

[kyoryu]

So yes, "Faster than the rest of the group is too fast" and "Slower than the rest of the group is too slow", with some variation depending on the group.

This exactly. As long as you're in the design limits for the roadway (usually speed limit + 20 mph or so), the thing that causes accidents is differences in speed. Everybody going SL + 10 is fine. Everybody going SL + 10 except for that one moron doing SL - 10 is not fine.

Same goes here. Power isn't bad. Drastic differences in power can be bad (there are exceptions, like with just about everything).

This is the hardest I’ve ever been Warnocked.

[Thrudd]

Note that "get away with" and "overshadow the rest of the party" are not necessarily the same thing.

Also, making a character the most powerful within a role may not be appropriate to the game for thematic reasons or because it trivializes the content, and it still might overshadow the rest of the party.


I have also had problems where someone would make a character so focused in one area that it turns the game into a binary; they sit their bored when out of their area, and they can handle areas within their domain so well the rest of the party can't really contribute and just sits there bored.

We had this a lot when we first moved from D&D to point buy games, people would make a warrior who maxed out all of their physical stats and combat skills and left everything else at the minimum value, making a sort of Lenny from Of Mice and Men who was really tough but normally did nothing while his handler did all the talking and investigating, not exactly stimulating gameplay.

I think that sort of situation is a problem with the system - it's a flaw in game design. Min-maxing in such a way that it ruins the game simply shouldn't be possible. The GM should fix it before anyone even makes a character.

Maximums and minimums for starting characters need to be in a reasonable range.
Players should also not have to make a choice between investing in frequently- useless-but-character-defining traits and investing in universally applicable ones that are sure to be relevant for all characters a majority of the time.

Power Gaming/Munchkinry is much reduced in its impact when the system is designed right. It shouldn't be possible to launch one character head and shoulder above others that are meant to be at the same level by exploiting the system mechanics.

[PhoenixPhyre]

This is the hardest I’ve ever been Warnocked.

Warnocked?

I think that sort of situation is a problem with the system - it's a flaw in game design. Min-maxing in such a way that it ruins the game simply shouldn't be possible. The GM should fix it before anyone even makes a character.

Maximums and minimums for starting characters need to be in a reasonable range.
Players should also not have to make a choice between investing in frequently- useless-but-character-defining traits and investing in universally applicable ones that are sure to be relevant for all characters a majority of the time.

Power Gaming/Munchkinry is much reduced in its impact when the system is designed right. It shouldn't be possible to launch one character head and shoulder above others that are meant to be at the same level by exploiting the system mechanics.

I totally agree. The floor (not counting anti-optimization) should be "competent" and the cap should be "noticeably better, but not overwhelmingly so." Unless you're playing a competitive game, then build skill matters.

[RazorChain]

Agreed.

However I think there are plenty of people who have the mind set of playing the most powerful character that they can get away with or the most powerful character of a certain type.

I once was free forming fantasy with action hero characters, in free form you have pretty loose limits and this guy joins our session. So he's telling us about his charater, he's the strongest guy in his village because he won this strongman competition. Then he says that the region is where his village is located is famous for how strong people there are. In fact the strongest people in the country are in his village.......and the people of the country are strongest in the world. Then suddenly he says "Some of the gods are jelous of my characters strength".

And this is how you become a powerplaying ubermunchkin, you don't respect limits of the game. You bring a character that is punching the gods when the rest of the group is trying to play a game with action heroes. It's like going mountainbiking with your friends but you show up on a helecopter and then you brag about how you were first to the top.

[OldTrees1]

And this is how you become a powerplaying ubermunchkin, you don't respect limits of the game. You bring a character that is punching the gods when the rest of the group is trying to play a game with action heroes. It's like going mountainbiking with your friends but you show up on a helecopter and then you brag about how you were first to the top.

Of course this is while the "Car Diving" analogy is so apt. You see someone driving too much faster than you as a maniac. When they are driving too much faster than the traffic, they are a maniac. In one analogy we can explain why people call others powergamers and also capture the separate issue of when they are causing a problem.

Placing it next to other analogies (like in your post I quoted) draws out how well it simulates the issue and parallels these other analogies as well.

[LudicSavant]

Warnocked?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warnock%27s_dilemma

[MeimuHakurei]

I personally think a big issue here is also a wrong perception in what constitutes a character that is "too powerful" or "too weak" - many people only see one metric (damage dealt) which can fall short if you have, say, an ubercharger who deals thousand (or even millions) of damage against one target and then immediately gets mopped up by the other enemies in the encounter. Tracking locations, bypassing physical obstacles, gathering key information etc. is generally never considered important. This along with bad math is the reason why classes like Fighter and Monk in 3.5 are called overpowered when they're far from that.

This whole discussion also disregards that not all such high/low-powered characters are made with the expectation to over-/underperform - beginners may very well stumble together a build that's extremely solid all around without intent just as much as they can make a useless character without meaning to. Quertus here also highlights that it's not just the character, having both played a powerful character with low performance and a weak character with high performance extensively.

PS: I like the MMO version of that analogy more - "everyone with a lower level is a noob, everyone with a higher level has no life"

[Knaight]

Its kind of a weird one-way thing.

Sort of like how the Marvel movies are canon to the TV series, but the TV series are not canon to the movies.

If I am playing Planescape I can travel to Toril because it exists in the setting. If I am playing Forgotten Realms I cannot travel to Sigil.

The cosmologies and metaphysics of the settings are just incompatible as written. For example The Great Wheel does not exist in Forgotten Realms or Eberron, and those planes contain the realms of setting specific deities who, in Planescape, have been moved to the Great Wheel.

It's really not that weird - I brought up the actual planet Earth earlier as an example of this, where this happens all the time. In the actual planet Earth, there is no portal to Narnia. Bringing a Narnian character for a game set on Earth would be completely ridiculous - and the same thing applies to every other portal fantasy involving Earth. Bringing in one of those portal fantasy settings also doesn't bring in all of them - you can set a campaign in Narnia without making Jon-Tom and friends viable character concepts.

Settings work on their own internal rules. These don't get somehow overwritten just because somebody else writes a different setting such that it would include an extant setting. Planescape doesn't have any bearing on what's possible in Forgotten Realms. Dresden Files doesn't have any bearing on what's possible in fiction set in the actual city of Chicago.

As for the status of these settings which have the temerity to not be overridden by the first hack fantasy author to come up with the idea of a setting which is primarily links between other settings, they're just normal settings. They certainly aren't "special snowflake settings".

To be very honest, Quertus as described seems to me to be an utterly toxic character. The worst combination of the Load and the Mary Sue DMPC. You're either useless (since you've described him as utterly tactically inept and non-participatory) or overpowering (when you have the right spell). That concept would get an instant, peremptory ban at any table I'm DMing, and I would rebel as a player. Depending on how its played, it likely comes across as patronizing. You sit back, do next to nothing while everyone else is risking their lives, and then solve everything with a wave of your wand.

I've been dancing around this point all thread, but as it's out there already: This is pretty much where I stand as well. I don't think I've ever banned a character before in any game I've run, but I'd make an exception for any character which doubles as a Trojan horse for completely killing my setting by handing it off to some implicit super setting that nobody else at the table agreed to play in. Quertus, the character, is merely a particularly obnoxious example of the form.

Given that I also recognize that name by now, said ban would be quickly followed by one of Quertus, the player. I've also never banned a player before, but then, I've never had a player try to hijack a game everyone else is enjoying to explore their ill fitting character, then complain about the GM's snowflake setting getting in the way with its existence.

[Guizonde]

I once was free forming fantasy with action hero characters, in free form you have pretty loose limits and this guy joins our session. So he's telling us about his charater, he's the strongest guy in his village because he won this strongman competition. Then he says that the region is where his village is located is famous for how strong people there are. In fact the strongest people in the country are in his village.......and the people of the country are strongest in the world. Then suddenly he says "Some of the gods are jelous of my characters strength".

And this is how you become a powerplaying ubermunchkin, you don't respect limits of the game. You bring a character that is punching the gods when the rest of the group is trying to play a game with action heroes. It's like going mountainbiking with your friends but you show up on a helecopter and then you brag about how you were first to the top.

i kinda want to create a character that's the strongest in the village now... iirc, 8 is the human average, so a character with 16 str is near-olympic levels, right? could be funny for a one-shot boisterous bruiser prone to the worf effect. but your analogy is really spot on now.

i remember a munchkin that (unbeknownst to the dm) had "roleplayed one-on-one with the dm" and all of a sudden had stats near the 90% mark for his dump stats. in a near-freeform pokemon rpg. i got the story by the dm, even if i know the munchkin personnally. like, you're straight out of pallet town and your background places you training the elite 4 at age 6?! superiority complex, much?!

worst thing is? that's not the munchkin's most overt munchkinnery ever. but according to him, "being the dm's boyfriend has its perks". the dm shot down her bf harder than a health inspector in a burger joint with an e. coli infestation.

one funny example i remember seeing of his character sheet for a halfling rogue was (dex 18 = 4 + bab 4 = to hit 44 "due to sneak attack") now, i'm no rogue player, but i'm pretty sure sneak attack doesn't confer a +40 to hit for any reason whatsoever. the dm at the time wondered how a 6th level rogue could hit an ac 35 creature by rolling a 2. it wasn't bad math, either. dude regularly "added" a zero when rolling 2's as well. as of writing this, i know that guy has been banned from play by 2 roleplaying associations, and 3/4 of my university roleplaying community, the last quarter being 1st year newbies.

[Pelle]

I've been dancing around this point all thread, but as it's out there already: This is pretty much where I stand as well. I don't think I've ever banned a character before in any game I've run, but I'd make an exception for any character which doubles as a Trojan horse for completely killing my setting by handing it off to some implicit super setting that nobody else at the table agreed to play in. Quertus, the character, is merely a particularly obnoxious example of the form.

Given that I also recognize that name by now, said ban would be quickly followed by one of Quertus, the player. I've also never banned a player before, but then, I've never had a player try to hijack a game everyone else is enjoying to explore their ill fitting character, then complain about the GM's snowflake setting getting in the way with its existence.

Although I share the feeling, a bit harsh perhaps? My impression is that Quertus the player wouldn't want to play in these settings either way, and would politely bow out. If so, no problem to have different preferences. If instead the player accepts the premise of a game, but secretly inserts his extradimensional character into a closed setting (say Game of Thrones, Star Wars or whatever homebrew) then that would be playing in bad faith and akin to illusionism.

I mean, his attitude is completely alien to me, and I would hazard a guess a bad fit for most tables, but seems to be a natural result of his legitimate preferences (exploring worlds under different GMs, not having connections to the world, wanting to play the same character for a long time etc). As long as that isn't expected of others, fine.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Although I share the feeling, a bit harsh perhaps? My impression is that Quertus the player wouldn't want to play in these settings either way, and would politely bow out. If so, no problem to have different preferences. If instead the player accepts the premise of a game, but secretly inserts his extradimensional character into a closed setting (say Game of Thrones, Star Wars or whatever homebrew) then that would be playing in bad faith and akin to illusionism.

I mean, his attitude is completely alien to me, and I would hazard a guess a bad fit for most tables, but seems to be a natural result of his legitimate preferences (exploring worlds under different GMs, not having connections to the world, wanting to play the same character for a long time etc). As long as that isn't expected of others, fine.

The problem is that it smuggles in a lot of assumptions and sets the game up for acrimony between players as expectations no longer match. Things can be a natural result of legitimate preferences and still be bad for the game.

[Pelle]

The problem is that it smuggles in a lot of assumptions and sets the game up for acrimony between players as expectations no longer match. Things can be a natural result of legitimate preferences and still be bad for the game.

Not if you play with people with same expectations as you, or don't expect others to share/accomodate your niche preferences...

[PhoenixPhyre]

Not if you play with people with same expectations as you, or don't expect others to share/accomodate your niche preferences...

If you play with like-minded people, sure. But that's a strong limiter for someone that out-there.

The second part of that is irrelevant--by playing a non-fitting character you're requiring others to accommodate your preferences. You're saying that your preferences are more important than the established meta-rules of the particular table. And that's anti-social behavior, just like "my guy"-ism, munchkinism, etc.

[Pelle]

The second part of that is irrelevant--by playing a non-fitting character you're requiring others to accommodate your preferences. You're saying that your preferences are more important than the established meta-rules of the particular table. And that's anti-social behavior, just like "my guy"-ism, munchkinism, etc.

Depends on the group what is non-fitting. Quertus wouldn't be fitting at my table. Has he said that he imposes him on tables where he don't fit, though? I don't mind Quertus stating his preferences, as long as he doesn't berate us for not sharing them.