Question on Powergamers

[wordman]

I would contend that the problem is not with power gamers, its with all of those sitting around the power gamers who are jealous; and with a GM who tailors a game too much to the Munchkin's abilities, and not enough to everybody else's.

No. The problem in this example is with the group as a whole, for one and only one reason: they came together to play a game, but they ended up all playing different games. This is the most basic mistake that a group can make, and it has nothing to do with powergamers, per se. It has everything to do with a small group of people who didn't decide what kind of game they were playing beforehand.

 

[Ophion]

I would contend that the problem is not with power gamers, its with all of those sitting around the power gamers who are jealous; and with a GM who tailors a game too much to the Munchkin's abilities, and not enough to everybody else's.

No. The problem in this example is with the group as a whole, for one and only one reason: they came together to play a game, but they ended up all playing different games. This is the most basic mistake that a group can make, and it has nothing to do with powergamers, per se. It has everything to do with a small group of people who didn't decide what kind of game they were playing beforehand.

QFT. It's a bit sad, because often we play with out-of-games friends, but we should try to understand exactly WHAT everyone around the table want, and if is possible have it all together or not.

 

[Ker'ion]

Said munchkins tend to only be outshone in areas that are rather difficult to make integral to an adventure (crafting, for instance). When said difficult redirection does happen, they tend to either complain or simply do their best to throw the campaign off (and when it takes a Deathlord to stop them, you can be damn sure they'll manage it). I have played with these munchkins, and they are rarely stopped by social encounters. Their social stats are usually also quite impressive (I've also met social munchkins who also have impressive combat stats).
Why should these people change? For two reasons. One is that they tend to be the minority. If they can't cooperate with the majority to make the game more fun, they shouldn't be in the game. The second is that it's not even a little difficult for them to scale back, but quite a lot of people would find it incredibly difficult to keep up with them.


Powergamers are a problem. Not always a big one, but it can and does get nasty. If they could all play with each other and not make roleplayers' gaming experiences difficult (and, conversely, the roleplayers would not join powergaming groups and slow them down), then we'd be fine. But that sort of thing isn't exactly possible to organize. Better to fix the people who have the easy adjustment.

The problem here lies in the mental stability of all of those concerned.
Most of the munchkins and powergamers I've run into actually have problems which, when reflected into a gaming environment, tend to cause any character that they find to be even mildly enjoyable to play to come up as a serious powergaming character. Heck, some of the concepts that EM comes up with are pretty friggin' weird.*


Powergaming characters can actually be tollerable in an appropriate setting, but a munchkin running a power-character is something that seems to require quite a bit of skill to handle without having it blow up in your face.


It's like trying to mediate a discussion between the GLA and the Young Republicans. It can work, but it's a tricky proposition to begin with.


___________________________________________________________________________


*EM's current character is a First Age Beastman with a hidden form that makes him look human and a second form that makes him look like a tiger, but due to his race's longevity he lived during the First Age for about 40 years before fleeing during the Usurapation and being sealed in a stasis chamber that was opened by the Fair Folk on the edge of Halta. His race has Berserker, so he frenzied on them when woke up, Exalted as an Eclipse Caste Solar and now lives in the forest of Halta, eeking out a living as the head of a village and by running an Orichalcum mining operation. Said character believes he is a Lunar, has the Silver Pact keeping his Lunar mate away to keep up the ruse (and keep his little brain from cracking like an egg if he found out) and wears Moonsilver Artifacts.

 

[Mr. S]

I'm sorry, I've never heard of the GLA

 

[Ker'ion]

Gay and Lesbian Alliance.

 

[Gylthinel]

I don't know the technical difference between power-gamers and munchkins, but so far ya'll seem to think that they're bad, and have "problems", and you're also attributing other attributes to them, such as "complaining" or the tendency to derail the game. None of these are intrinsic to the definition of power gaming. If you have a player that complains and de-rails the game, that is a problem. I know I had one (he doesn't play with us anymore). But, he wasn't a power-gamer. My power gamer is perfectly emotionally balanced, nice, and works hard to play the game we have laid out. He just doesn't participate in any facet other than the one his character can do. He stands on the sidelines rooting for the other players. It works out dandy.


If a physical power gamer beats up somebody in the middle of a social scene, that's a role-playing choice, and will have consequences. That's not him de-railing the game because he's a power gamer. If he's made a bully, let him play a bully. This could easily be the case for a non power-gamer that just likes to fight instead of talk. I don't believe in "intent" of a scene, scenes are designed for players to operate in, they aren't designed for force players to operate in a specific way. If you put a door in a dungeon, and a guy chooses to hack it down with his sword, he's not a power-gamer simply because you wanted the thief to pick the lock instead. He just made a choice based on the predilections of his character. That's called role-playing, not power-gaming.


I agree with Wordman's assessment. The issue really is that the players have different concepts of the game at hand. So, maybe the pitfal is just communication.

 

[The zombie cat]

If a physical power gamer beats up somebody in the middle of a social scene, that's a role-playing choice, and will have consequences. That's not him de-railing the game because he's a power gamer. If he's made a bully, let him play a bully. This could easily be the case for a non power-gamer that just likes to fight instead of talk. I don't believe in "intent" of a scene, scenes are designed for players to operate in, they aren't designed for force players to operate in a specific way. If you put a door in a dungeon, and a guy chooses to hack it down with his sword, he's not a power-gamer simply because you wanted the thief to pick the lock instead. He just made a choice based on the predilections of his character. That's called role-playing, not power-gaming.
I agree with Wordman's assessment. The issue really is that the players have different concepts of the game at hand. So, maybe the pitfal is just communication.

While deciding to beat up the social encounter is something I would allow as a group, I dislike it from an individual I say this not primarily as a GM but as a player as I am usually the one that was trying to sort things out rationally, and affect the world in subtle ways beyond the reach of my sword when a munchkin decides my negotiations aren’t fun and kills the person I was negotiating with. Thankfully that happens only very rarely to me but considering that we declare to new players that we like to negotiate as often as fight (sometimes as a player group disagreeing with the GMs plans on which we will do with a given NPC, forcing a quick evaluation of NPC motivations not fully detailed because they where expected to die).


While happening occasionally can be treated as an RP challenge happening all the time just makes the game un fun. Also the players that do it and say it was in character tend to be even more upset when I respond with ‘ok, in character then “YOU STUPID IDIOT, WHAT DID YOU DO THAT FOR, I ALMOST HAD HIM CONVINCED TO HELP US, YOU IDIOT, NOW HOW WILL WE BEAT 3 REALM LEGIONS WITHOUT CREATING THE BIGGEST SHADOW LAND IN THE SCAVENGER LANDSâ€â€™, the typical munchkin will respond with ‘but I was only playing in character’ and requests that he defend his actions in character draw only blank looks.


Edward

 

[cyl]

Aaah how many times have I heard "Whaaaaat ?... I'm just playing my character !" from my friend greg.


The guy litterally blew a Star Wars campaign with only 1 session... a thermal detonator in the reactor of a space ship helps feeling better about people who insulted you... :lol:

 

[Gylthinel]

Again, you are attributing gameplay behavior to powergamers. The way a player conducts a character is different from how he mechanically builds a character. Your problem is really not with power gamers, its with people who aren't good at/interested in RPGs, but are more interested in combat games. That these may seem to go hand in hand with your groups is probably only because the reasonable players that have extremely powerful characters tend to fly under the radar. It's possible, even probable that you have completely tweaked-out heroes in your group, who are reasonable and don't derail the game, they just play the way you like them to play, so you don't give them grief about their aberant level of power.

 

[The zombie cat]

Again, you are attributing gameplay behavior to powergamers. The way a player conducts a character is different from how he mechanically builds a character. Your problem is really not with power gamers, its with people who aren't good at/interested in RPGs, but are more interested in combat games. That these may seem to go hand in hand with your groups is probably only because the reasonable players that have extremely powerful characters tend to fly under the radar. It's possible, even probable that you have completely tweaked-out heroes in your group, who are reasonable and don't derail the game, they just play the way you like them to play, so you don't give them grief about their aberant level of power.

This is ofcaus why we make the distinction between power gamers and munchkins,


A power gamer being somebody that builds powerful characters with minimal weaknesses, (or frequently weaknesses that will never come up because the rest of the party will protect him in that aria, eg the dawn that knows to allow the eclipse to negotiate and the eclipse that relies on the dawn to kill his opponents).


A munchkin is any of a dozen variations on the power hungry disruptive player. Frequently designed to prevail in all situations (often by defaulting social skills to melee) and usually characterized by short sightedness.


Power gamers are considered a good thing at our table, to the extent that if somebody produces a weak character and refuses to take advice on how to strengthen it we consider that character deserving of its fait, when I GM I throw situations at my players with no idea how they could possibly prevail, confident in the knowledge that every PC in the party is a powerful build with diverse options available and my players will devise a solution where I saw none. In fact working out how they might defeat any particular threat long ago proved pointless as no matter the length of my list of solutions they /always/ come up with something different.


Munchkins are considered bad as they disrupt the game fail to work with the rest of the party and reduce enjoyment for all.


Edward

 

[Ker'ion]

Q_o


I concur.


Powergamers are normal enough in my games that anyone insisting on making a PC that is weak tends to get griped at and usually ends up with a dead character very quicky (usually followed quickly by the player leaving the game because they are unwilling to evolve).


Munchkins also tend to leave the game after a few sessions, mainly due to the rest of the gamers threatening the 'pitchforks and torches' routine if they don't cut it out and actually work with the group and stop trying to disrupt the storyline. EM just generally keeps his antics to a dull roar to keep from being mobbed by the other players.


The worst munchkins are the ones who will intentionally cause chaos in the game and overtly try to ruin the game for their own amusement. Such problems include declaring war on the Prince of the City during the introduction or bring their army of retainers, cultists and henchmen off with them when we go into Nexus ("but they're not an official army, so Nexus rules don't apply").

 

[Ledaal Kajiri]

The worst munchkins are the ones who will intentionally cause chaos in the game and overtly try to ruin the game for their own amusement. Such problems include declaring war on the Prince of the City during the introduction or bring their army of retainers' date=' cultists and henchmen off with them when we go into Nexus ("but they're not an official army, so Nexus rules don't apply").[/quote']
Good for them. Too bad that the Council of Entities is who decides whether you are an army or not...and brining such without their approval tends to end in quick, horrific, painful and quite, quite public death.

 

[The zombie cat]

The worst munchkins are the ones who will intentionally cause chaos in the game and overtly try to ruin the game for their own amusement. Such problems include declaring war on the Prince of the City during the introduction or bring their army of retainers' date=' cultists and henchmen off with them when we go into Nexus ("but they're not an official army, so Nexus rules don't apply").[/quote']
Good for them. Too bad that the Council of Entities is who decides whether you are an army or not...and brining such without their approval tends to end in quick, horrific, painful and quite, quite public death.

The council of entities is not without mercy, if a group they consider an army is present but it is plausible that others might not, and the army in question is not actively causing problems then one of the mercenary companies will show up with a declaration that the unauthorized army is to withdraw from nexus within 12 hours or further action will be taken.


I always like to give the PCs enough rope to hang themselves properly, a munchkin will insult the authority and deny that he has an army, adding a charge of contradicting the council on a matter of law and probably assaulting or killing a messenger of the council, then have the council tap Dace to keep the PCs busy while the army is slapped in irons and marched out of the city limits, once out of the city limits they may lawfully be enslaved so they are marched right back in.


Any attempt to free the sudo army in nexis naturally counts as disruption of trade, so they will need to wait until they have been sold and are being transported to free them.


Edward

 

[Ledaal Kajiri]

Remember, slavery is also outlawed in Nexus.

 

[The zombie cat]

Remember' date=' slavery is also outlawed in Nexus.[/quote']
The law in nexus on slavery is convoluted, you can have slaves in nexus, you can traid slaves at one specific place in nexus but nobody above a certain age (5 I think) can be made a slave, this is why they where imprisoned for being an army in nexus without permission and marched past the city limits so nexus law no longer applies, there they are enslaved before being marched back in, or conceivably enslaved and marched somewhere else.


Edward

 

[Ledaal Kajiri]

Actually, it's more complicated. No one can be made a slave in Nexus, nor bring a slave into Nexus, technically. However, there is no law against indentured servitude, nor against trading the work of such servants. So any slave is forced to sign a contract saying they are willingly serving so and so for such and such time, and then are sold or traded there, and taken outside the city, and go right back to being a slave. Of course, if a slave can escape during their time in Nexus, without disrupting trade, eating fish on the wrong day of the week, not eating with companions after dark, and remembering to wear orange on the 7th day of the 2nd week of Resplendant Water...or whatever idiocy is the law today...then they're off the hook. It's just usually rather hard to make that escape reality.

 

[Gylthinel]

Power gamers are considered a good thing at our table' date=' to the extent that if somebody produces a weak character and refuses to take advice on how to strengthen it we consider that character deserving of its fait, when I GM I throw situations at my players with no idea how they could possibly prevail, confident in the knowledge that every PC in the party is a powerful build with diverse options available and my players will devise a solution where I saw none. In fact working out how they might defeat any particular threat long ago proved pointless as no matter the length of my list of solutions they /always/ come up with something different.[/quote']
That's EXACTLY how I operate as GM too. It's fun in Exalted. It often ends in disaster for heroes in DND. Hehe.

A munchkin is any of a dozen variations on the power hungry disruptive player.

Powergamers are normal enough in my games that anyone insisting on making a PC that is weak tends to get griped at and usually ends up with a dead character very quicky (usually followed quickly by the player leaving the game because they are unwilling to evolve).

So, you're disruptive if you're powerful, and disruptive if you aren't. That's a rock and a hard place to cram some poor player into.


Really, this thread shouldn't be titled "Question on Powergamers", it should be something more along the lines of "Question on Disruptive players." Cuz, per your definitions, you don't have to have a powerful character to be disruptive, and it's the ones who are disruptive --not powerful-- that cause problems.

 

[Ker'ion]

Eh. True enough on the root problem.


But I wanted to know how someone can play Exalted and convince themselves that they are, in fact, not a powergamer.


Hell, it seems to be harder to create a weak PC in Exalted than a badass.


It kinda makes me wonder if someone who constantly makes average characters in Exalted is trying to show off just as much as a d20 powergamer.

 

[Brickwall]

I am perfectly capable of creating an extremely sucky Solar with 500 XP. Perhaps not "average", but a starting Exalt could exceed them without too much trouble.

 

[Ker'ion]

But it would take a specific concerted effort to keep your character that weak, ESPECIALLY after 500 XP.

 

[Brickwall]

Nope. Just focusing on the wrong things, going up the trees the wrong way. Trust me.


It also helps if you forget to make combos, but that's not necessary. Wasteful combos are rather easy to slip into.

 

[Ker'ion]

Um...


To me, being an idiot has to be intentional, because I don't want to have to lay claim to a genetic relationship with something that could lose a game of chess to a chimp.


Sorry, nature versus nurture.


Nurture whipped nature's ass.

 

[Brickwall]

Um...
To me, being an idiot has to be intentional, because I don't want to have to lay claim to a genetic relationship with something that could lose a game of chess to a chimp.

1. Nobody intends to be stupid. You're stupid for thinking that.


2. You are genetically related to chimps, you know. And I think they can lose games of chess to each other.