Hey guys,

I've been running a few sessions of DW and, players be min-maxing, everytime I rule that something cannot be stacked unto something elses, they qq about it and invoque the all-mighty reason that, if I'd thinked about it, I would find my ruling to be "illogical".

To which, I always ironically replies that players incarnating a bunch of genetically altered, hypno-indoctrinated super soldier serving a God-Emperor that, altough not alive, is not technically quite dead, equiped with weapons animated by Machine-Spirits appeased by applying holy oil and reciting cantics, tapping into another dimension to fuel warp-based "magic", all in order to fight a losing war (even tho I cannot seem to hurt them one bit) defending a galaxy-wide Imperium of Man that lasted for no less than 10,000 years !! cannot possibly believe that I will pause for even a fraction of a second, to remotely consider "logic" as a receivable argument in this debate.

And you, fellow storytellers of the grim and dark future, have you had any ludacris reasons evoqued by your players to justify absurd things ? It's time to vent out a bit and crack a smile into the face of a fellow victim of munchinism.

Generally if my views and those of my players are that far apart, I either conform, or I find myself another gaming group.

That said, in Shadowrun 4, we had someone start with a full android body and 0,1 essence once, no investment in physical stats whatsoever and full whammy into the mental ones, using machines to substitute the physical. Sounds good, in theory, yes?

In practise, not so much. One die to roll vs diseases, poisons etc. was very, very amusing.

Lesson here: Munchkins make hilarious mistakes.

My favourite instance of this came during a rather epic tank battle. I'd given the KT a bunch of tanks and sent them on their way at the spearhead of an enemy advance. I'd given the librarian a special custom brew relic sword capable of opening mini gates of infinity, big enough only for the wielder, as and when they required it without the daily cap of the main power as well as also make a small vortex of doom at impact point (long story).

During this epic tank battle then, he came up with an idea of pure madness which was to use said sword to make a small gate in their own tank and step out of the other side into the enemy tank. In fairness I hadn't seen it coming and I couldn't think fast enough to stop it or come up with a credible reason why. He spent a good few rounds using it to teleport into a tank (as the rules say nothing to restrict where the exit gate is), massacre the crew to neutralise it and then use it to attack the enemy side causing friendly fire. Rinse and repeat.

I'd say thats a bit of munchkin to me...

That just sounds like smart use of a homebrew relic you didn't realize could be used in that way. He didn't use it to make his character invicible, he just used it tactically. What you should have done was secretly give him a corruption point for every use of the gates.

Lesson here: Munchkins make hilarious mistakes.

Munchkin: that wasn't a mistake, that was done deliberatly to ballance my character, because you always complain i make OP characters and don't roleplay. Now for my next character, i can be cyborg, decker, street shaman because all suficient advanced technology apears as magic, right? also i want to dual wield chainguns, and ...

That just sounds like smart use of a homebrew relic you didn't realize could be used in that way. He didn't use it to make his character invicible, he just used it tactically. What you should have done was secretly give him a corruption point for every use of the gates.

Agreed, thats what i would have used it for to. Hell, even the ork shock attack gun worked like that...

Lesson here: Munchkins make hilarious mistakes.

Munchkin: that wasn't a mistake, that was done deliberatly to ballance my character, because you always complain i make OP characters and don't roleplay. Now for my next character, i can be cyborg, decker, street shaman because all suficient advanced technology apears as magic, right? also i want to dual wield chainguns, and ...

Honestly, I know shadowrun in and out. I can deal with that. The easiest way is reminding a player when their body is worth more sold to a corporation than they are as a runner, their team has to consider them a liability and potential paycheck

There is his other cyberpunk rpg called (well) Cyberpunk.

If you got to much cyberware you ran the risk of becoming a cyber psycho. Not a problem and more of a goal for your average munchkin.

But the thing is the cops in that game had a special devision called psycho squad, who specialise in taking down insane murderous overpowered cyborgs. Think of a SWAT team filled with cops armed with stuff that would make a grenade firing chaingun look like a water pistol and rehabiltated (at gun point!) cyber-psychos with more gear and upgrades than anything the pc's have even heard of. I always pictured these guys as the cast of Dominion Tank Police crossed with Ghost in the shell and Apple seed.

A munchinkin will hold his own against an npc thats basically an exact copy of him, but against 20 of those guys? nope, they are a gonner....

That just sounds like smart use of a homebrew relic you didn't realize could be used in that way. He didn't use it to make his character invicible, he just used it tactically. What you should have done was secretly give him a corruption point for every use of the gates.

Agreed, thats what i would have used it for to. Hell, even the ork shock attack gun worked like that...

awww c'mon! it's only a lil grendade launcher, probably one shot and all. (an M203 only weighs 3lbs/ 1.30 kg) I would have allowed a wrist mounted combi bolter atleast. But this made me think: people who aren't wearing power armor equiped with a power fist. thats 13 kg you got hanging at the end of one arm. how does a sergeantt with a power fist even swing that at an enemy? turns out a stormbolter (9) with forearm weapon mount (1) and auxillary grenade launchers (2.5) weighs about the same as a power fist. But hey, it's your game.

My group once came up with a belt fed combat shotgun with a chain-knife bayonet.

As long as it's under the encumberance then why not? He might need a cybernetic arm to wield it properly.

However to me that's a rules lawyer, completely different thing than a munchkin which is a min maxer to me.

I'd rather be a min maxer than a rules lawyer:

Rules lawyers point out all the rules everybody already knows except the one that states the GM is alowed to alter the game as he sees fit.

Min-maxing is an art form

Ofcourse my usual answer still holds true: All (well most) player based problems can be solved by playing Paranoia...

During the course of a mission, the Kill-Team discovers an artifact from the Dark Age of Technology: a box with a big red button on it which, if pushed, causes the Kill-Team's mission to be instantly successful, then and there.

How fun and exciting is your campaign now? Because that's pretty much what MinMaxing Munchkin PowerGamers are working toward...

The GM has three options to deal with this situation:

1) Let the Munchkins have their way, and just accept the fact that everyone will get bored with the campaign shortly and want to move on to something else (-which the Munchkins are already planning on screwing up, of course).

2) Spend hours upon hours carefully calculating elaborate challenges that are fully as MinMaxxed as the PCs, thus resulting in the game playing much as it does without MinMaxing, but with a buttload of tedious maths layered on, slowing it down to a snail's pace.

3) Make it clear that the whole point of the game is to have fun , and thus as GM you reserve the right to veto anything that will obviously work contrary to that goal.

I choose 3, but your results may vary...

What the players don't realise is that as GM I am the ultimate munchkin. Sure they can have their petty combi weapons, and goodness knows what else but soon I will have sufficiently lured them into a false sense of security that I will unleash the munchkinist NPC big boss of all time MWHAHAHAH!.........

You mean the dreaded "pedantic administratum scribe"? That's just cruel, man...

During the course of a mission, the Kill-Team discovers an artifact from the Dark Age of Technology: a box with a big red button on it which, if pushed, causes the Kill-Team's mission to be instantly successful, then and there.

How fun and exciting is your campaign now? Because that's pretty much what MinMaxing Munchkin PowerGamers are working toward...

The GM has three options to deal with this situation:

1) Let the Munchkins have their way, and just accept the fact that everyone will get bored with the campaign shortly and want to move on to something else (-which the Munchkins are already planning on screwing up, of course).

2) Spend hours upon hours carefully calculating elaborate challenges that are fully as MinMaxxed as the PCs, thus resulting in the game playing much as it does without MinMaxing, but with a buttload of tedious maths layered on, slowing it down to a snail's pace.

3) Make it clear that the whole point of the game is to have fun , and thus as GM you reserve the right to veto anything that will obviously work contrary to that goal.

I choose 3, but your results may vary...

I don't think that's quite accurate. At least, not in my experience/view.

In general, the stereotypical munchkin/powergamer/minmaxer builds characters that are really good at a handful of things that they're built around. However, in order to get that good at their specialties, they tend to forego a lot of versatility/ability to handle things they're not built to excel in. Usually, they're good at combat, but not so good at handling things that can't be solved by piling up bodies. Piling up bodies, admittedly, is a largish chunk of what Deathwatch does/is about, so it may be more pronounced/noticeable and their weaknesses less so.

As a player, I want to build the best character that I can, including combat capability, because not being able to be effective isn't fun for me. However, I am also more than willing to help other players tweak their builds, so that all characters can be more effective.

Personally, I'm a bit of two minds about it. On the one hand, there's a difficult balance to be drawn as a player, between building the best character you can and building a character that will invite special attention from the GM. On the other, it often does mean more work for the GM.

What the players don't realise is that as GM I am the ultimate munchkin. Sure they can have their petty combi weapons, and goodness knows what else but soon I will have sufficiently lured them into a false sense of security that I will unleash the munchkinist NPC big boss of all time MWHAHAHAH!.........

This is very important to remember - No matter what the players do, the GM can do the same or better.

Also, enemies aren't going to be stupid all the time. They can and will adapt and adjust their plans to compensate for the players. There is no way to build a character who cannot be challenged.

Have somebody who's superdurable? He's either going to be targeted last, or focus-fired (possibly with anti-tank weaponry, though the anti-tank weapons will likely have limited ammo, so they can't/won't be used against the less durable characters), depending on his apparent (and then actual) threat level. Have somebody who's a melee boss? There's going to be a mobility challenge between him and the shooters.

Also, any problems are likely to be most apparent when using pregenerated/official adventures/npcs, because, frankly, bad npc builds (or at least, inferior ones) are pretty endemic in the tabletop rpg business.

There is no way to build a character who cannot be challenged in Deathwatch .

That's unfortunately not true for all systems. It's even less true when you add "a character who cannot be challenged without completely flatlining the rest of the group". The problem with munchkins is less "power" and more "power GAP".

You mean the dreaded "pedantic administratum scribe"? That's just cruel, man...

My group used to play Paranoia, they are used to labyrithine bureuacracy and getting talked down to by superiors of a higher security clearance.

Theres nothing like not getting the weapons and equipment you need because you filled out all the paperwork in triplet when it should have been quadruple, only for friend Computer to send a carepackage to his loyal troubleshooters. Except the package contained whifflebats and not the requisted tac-nuke launchers. And ofcourse the Computer demands the completly harmless wifflebats be used and were up to the task of defeating the traitor mutant communists in close combat... Ahhh good times

What the players don't realise is that as GM I am the ultimate munchkin. Sure they can have their petty combi weapons, and goodness knows what else but soon I will have sufficiently lured them into a false sense of security that I will unleash the munchkinist NPC big boss of all time MWHAHAHAH!.........

If you are the GM u really have all the power. Our old GM once made that point in D&D. Everybody gets to min max the hell out of a lvl 20 character to see how long they can last against the GM. Game starts: "you all meet in a tavern" -and before anyone of us even get a turn the GM declares "rocks fall everyone dies" (always good to start with a classic) then COLLAPSES the MULTIVERSE, sais that all our characters are now reduced to just numbers on a piece of paper for a game, wich is now over. and closes the book ending the game session.

So we sit there, all four of us, jaws on the floor, untill my buddy sais:

"and I didn't even got to roll for initiative!"

After that we got back to our usual game. Well played GM. Well played.

Yeah, for me that joke'd only be funny once. Even then I'd take severe issue with it. GM Player relationships aren't supposed to be antagonistic. It's not you vs them.

'swhy he only did it once. That whole "min max vs gm experiment" thing came after a discussion about gm vs players. And our Gm (who never realy played against us) remarked that there be no point in playing against the players because a gm would always win. So my pal (let's call him Bruce) sais," i Doubt that"- and thats how we spent a month making the most broken characters ever, only for our gm to colapse the multiverse to prove a point

I find with munchkins you need to give them something they can smash through with their strengths, something to smash at their weaknesses, and something that looks like their strengths but really isn't.