I have a player whom I gave - for free - a Long-Las, Pump-Action Shotgun, Autopistol, Mono-Sword, full Guard Flak Armour, Frag Grenades, and a backpack with an Medical Kit plus numerous other items here and there. I also gave him an Elite Advance for making custom modified Frag Grenades. Every conversation with him has been him asking me to give him better armour.

I have another player who wanted to get his hands on a .54 Trantor with a single modified Psycannon Bolt, wrote a short-story to justify it, and still offered to pay the regular amount of Thrones for the whole lot even though the short story has him getting it for free as a gift.

Who do you think I am more likely to say yes to?

BYE

As for the "why?" in the title of the thread, it's simple: Effectiveness.
I (like a lot of players) don't like playing a character who is "Joe Average." I want to be able to do something that the average guy on the street couldn't do. So yes, I look at what it "optimal" and (as I often play with the same people) adjust that to fit the style of campaign I know the GM is fond of running. If I know a GM simply cannot stop talking about Tzeentch, getting Resistance (Psychic Powers) seems a lot more tempting than the guy who loves Orks is GMing.

I know bad roleplayers who can't optimize, good optimizers who can't roleplay and I count myself as lying somewhere between those two extremes. I'm not a professional actor and I simply don't care enough to spot every loophole in a ruleset (although I remember them FOREVER when someone points them out for some reason), but I focus on the following things:
1) What would I enjoy playing? In the current campaign I'm in, I'm playing an Adept. I enjoy figuring things out, I like reading (and thus, I've read a substantial amount of 40k fluff) and pure "combat monsters" aren't fun to play in anything but a one-shot.
2) What type of campaign is this? In the current campaign, it's investigative/mystery for Ordo Xeno.
3) What is the rest of the group doing? Male Tech-priest, female cleric, female guardsman, female psyker.
4) What would be most useful? Female adept, focusing on Lore skills (Especially Forbidden Lore: Xeno) and with some social skills.
(We roll our gender as well. Even is female, odds are male)

As for the part about clerics clearly being superior in D&D, that is quite untrue. Whether he's focusing on damage-dealing, buffing, healing, melee, ranged or utility he can be out-classed without much effort. With a properly-built Artificer he'll be outclassed in all of those.
Of course, in Core only, druid and wizard (as well as certain ranger-builds) can give him a run for his money as well.

Old timer said:

To be honest, you sound like a pretty bad GM. By browsing the forum, you conclude that everyone who has an interest in optimizing their characters are bad for the game. I'm pretty curious how you managed to come to this interpretation. Like lots of others have said by now, there are lots of power gamers who are also good roleplayers.

I like to min/max my character to a certain degree as well, but this doesn't come at the cost of roleplaying at all. Playing a cleric in DH makes it hard to be uberpowerful anyway...

On the other hand, I think characters that are decidedly underpowered because their players show no interest in reading the rules of the game they're playing more disruptive. This largely depends on the game, power gamers can obviously be a much bigger problem in D&D than DH. If the GM can't handle a player choosing optimized skills/talents in DH, you pretty much suck at GMing.

I do agree that it is relatively hard to actually properly break a character in dark heresy. Compared to the nigh-on godlike levels of power one can achieve in games like dnd, an optimized dark heresy character is not that gamebreaking.

Arguably the strongest builds are melee psykers and they have a built in "the warp eats you eventually" clause.

LeBlanc13 said:

LeBlanc13 said:

Some players like to min/max while, others like to take the middle road (me) and then others like to role play. A group with all of these types of players is the best, simply because there is more variety in the game.

In the end what makes role players better than power-gamers? Nothing, absolutely nothing. There's nothing worse for gaming and gamers than elitist attitudes.

Dan.

Nihilius

Thanks for the attack on my skills as a GM, such a nice way to open a comment. If you had read my second post on this topic, i explained i have no problem with players creating characters who are good at what they do, and become powerful through role playing the character and making the right choices with the spending of their experience. This thread was to find ouy how other players/GMs felt about this, and the posts have been very interesting to read.

Shrug I stand by my post. LeBlanc and CptCaine's posts are to the point as to why.

I also find it humorous that you criticize my attitude considering your sweeping characterizations of board members in your initial post.

LordMunchkin said:

Best....line....ever!

The powergamer in my group could roleplay pretty well when he actually put thought into it... The pained expressions he made during the first threat breifing I put the PCs through whenever I mentioned the Chaos gods were pretty hilarious, and totally in keeping with his Psyker's background and conditioning.

It's just that, as I said, he tended to think in terms of numbers most of the time.

EDIT: And I second the nomination by LeBlanc13 of that line as the best ever.

LeBlanc13 said:

Actually my players have A LOT of freedom in my games. Been doing this for 25+ years myself and have lots of experience with different styles of games but I enjoy the more character development/cinematic story driven model. So to say my players have no room to grow is silly...they are the focus of my games. But if a person attempts to be disruptive and Munchkin I will shut them down if it becomes a distraction to the rest of the overall gaming experience for my players. I don't have a problem with powerful characters just power gamers.

Again, I'd like to reiterate that the issue with munchkins is most likely an attitude problem, not a power level problem. Pretty much most, if not all GMs who have responded in this thread at least has stated to one degree or another that they don't mind powerful characters, but that they do mind munchkins. What's going on is that we tend to see what the character does, not necessarily what the player behind it does, and hence the apparent bias against powerful characters.

An addendum to my own post above: I'm thinking that there may be an element of arrogance involved with some munchkins as well. The "put you in your place" mentality that some GMs (including myself) express is likely a response against that arrogance. The munchkin certainly often thinks that his min/maxed-to-high-heaven character is the most powerful around and that he'll crush everything in his path, and that no matter what anybody does (including, foolishly enough, the GM) will be able to stop him. It would also explain why it is often the case where, the GM having found a clever way to neutralize the munchkin's character, the munchkin throws a temper tantrum or otherwise expresses some kind of childish behavior. Apparently, the munchkin can't abide the thought of being less-than-perfect, and will accuse the GM of "cheesing the system" even though the GM may have used a mechanic well within the rules. At least, this is what I've seen in the past.

-Kirov

CptCaine said:

I would say that was incorrect. The GM puts in the work for the story, and dictates the themes and styles of the game. It is also up to the GM what sort of characters work in the game, whether it's an investigation based game, social, lots of combat, whatever. A GM saying "I'm running a heavy investigation game", and being handed a hardcore min/maxed combat character is well within his rights to hand a clean sheet back to that player and telling them to try again.

The GM isn't solely at the whim of the players, he is the focal point of the story, given it is provided by him. Saying that a GM has no right to say what sort of characters they want in the game they are running is entirely incorrect.

You would honestly expect a GM to be told by a group of players who wanted lots of combat to make a combat-heavy game, even if he hated combat? According to you he would be, given it's not his job, from what you said, to say anything negative to the players.

If a player tried making a "Combat Gumby" character (a term a friend of mine used for someone who is utterly horrifying in combat, but has the social skills of a pet rock) in a hard-boiled investigation game, I'd inform them of the broad themes of the game and ask them if they were sure they wanted to play that kind of character. If they were dead-set on playing that character, I'd allow it, but definitely have them run into trouble based on their lack of social skills.

Maybe the Slaaneshi cult they're investigating gets tipped off by the pathetic attempt at social engineering by the monosyllabic face-smasher in their midst. Maybe they don't immediately attack the PCs... Maybe they aim to get Grunty McPsycho all by himself and have a few words with him, with the help of drugs, torture, sorcery, etc.

Then again, combat-centric characters can have pretty effective covers, if their cover is "Grizzled Mercenary", or something similar.

When I started out playing table-top RPG's I cut my teeth on a very old TSR title called Gangbusters. In the game you had to solve mysteries and bust criminals in a 40's type setting. In an RP sense there really wasn't much to the game. So you pretty much were expected to min/max and power game based on your class. So that's how I was introduced.

From there I moved to DnD 2e. I read through the book and asked the DM if I could pick my class (in that edition you couldn't choose any class you had to have the correct stats). My reason for choosing this was it seemed to be 'more powerful'. I didn't think about anything other than cool powers and good stats. I was lucky since the DM pretty much ran a hack and slash munchkin-friendly campaign. At this point, after my first year of gaming, my munchkin mindset was norm for me.

Until...

The next time I played DnD it was with a different GM and a different group with different ways of doing things. Again I asked to play a druid. He was happy. Then he asked me why. My answer was 'they're powerful'. His smile vanished. But for the next year I learned how to actually RP. I found out that RP'ing was (for me) way more rewarding than simply having 'the best stats'. But, right out of the box I wasn't a good RP'er. I was stuck in my munchkin mindset and really never actually thought about motivations or story. Just numbers and stats.

I learned something from this when I began to GM. I tolerated munchkins and power gamers because that's how I started. I didn't punish them for doing what they did and I didn't set things up purposely against them. I simply bombarded them with situations and encounters that they couldn't just roll their way out of. I also always asked them 'why'. If they bluffed and they rolled successfully I would ask them what they said. If they succeeded in hiding or moving silently I would ask them to describe to me how they did it. With every success I'd ask them to explain it to me. I started rewarding my players with a little bonus XP if I thought their answers were really interesting or creative. Soon I didn't need to ask, they'd offer descriptions with out prompt. I guess I used the carrot approach. I also gave out measured amounts of bonuses for various RP related things. I let their power gaming mindset work for me (everyone wants more XP ).

Admittedly it required patience and I found that some were just impossible for me to reach. But that doesn't mean they are impossible for anyone. My best guess as to the reason why these types are tolerated (if they aren't friends... That's a given to me. ) is because most people remember how they used to be when they began and sometimes these people can change into some of the best role players.

Note: I ran a sandbox campaign so it was much easier to deal with these types for me. Other GM playing styles differ. I have found some GM's very very strict about RP'ing and others who actually didn't like it (weird, huh?). Also, the situation changes drastically if the player is disruptive or problematic (all psycho-babble aside ).

Yeech... Sorry for the TL;DR.

CanadianPittbull said:

Where did I say they have no room to grow? I just personally don't like being dictated to by a GM or another player. I have as much right to enjoy playing in my style as others in my group do with theirs. I still give my GM a hard time about some of the rules he's put out there. I respect them, but if they were over the top, I'd speak out about it and possibly leave. Sometimes, RAW is okay. Why do we as GM's need to dictate to players how they play their characters any way. As long as they aren't affecting anyone else negatively there are no issues. If they are, then pull them aside and explain it. If they don't like it they can leave, but I've found that most players are reasonable.

LeBlanc13 said:

Hey LeBlanc, think we can get our Psyker to pull that one off on this "train heist" we find ourselves in?

And just so's you all know, our Psyker has a non-standard Force Sword. His is a Lathe-forged masterpiece crafted in collaboration with our Tech-Priest (my recommendation ). Six months of DT work on that little wonder. Almost makes me want to go the route of the Lexographer for the Ps y so I can play with it, instead of Comptroller .

So for on topic. Is my character; an Adept, a munchkin because he carries a Combi-Armageddon/Pump Shotgun, a MkVII Thollos Autopistol, a Bolt Pistol, and a concealed compact laspistol as his ultimate fallback? When I put it like that, I expect a few people to say "yes." But I am not the best combatant in the group. I am, however, likely the most knowledgeable character with a total of 9 lore skills. And I've advanced my intelligence. Does that make me a "knowledge" twink? A "knows everything" munchkin player?

-=Brother Praetus=-

EDITED for less confusing sentence structure and content

MILLANDSON said:

If a GM has a lot of players to choose from (say, a local gaming club or whatever), then I think your line is fine. If you play with a group of regular friends however, I personally think that everyone, GM and players alike, should have a say in what type of campaign should be run. To flip your combat statement around: do you think a combat-eager group of players would enjoy a campaign filled with interpersonal intrigue and political powerplaying? Obviously the GM should have a big say in the style chosen, but going against the players' express wishes is probably not a good idea. It all comes down to the specific people involved imo; some can play any sort of campaign, others hate political intrigue etc.

The golden rule should always be for everyone to have fun.

I've always felt it was part of the gm's job to adjust to players, it might just be because i'm from a smaller city and want to play with my friends. I can't afford to just 'kick' a friend out of a game, and I won't turn away a friend that wants to play no matter if they've never played an rpg or they are a hardcore munchkin. If I didn't want to hang out with them in a game because it might make me do things a little different then i want do I really have a right to call them a friend?

And players knowing when to be 'uber' and when not to be is an important skill for people with the min/max approach. I remember back in a DnD game where I played a psion, I realized how powerful I became and simply lowered what I did to be more in line with the group, only going 'full-power' when I felt I really needed to. My DM didn't really realize how powerful I was because I limited my abilities to the situation, I could have just one-shotted every enemy we faced but I wanted the other players to feel useful and have fun too, It's no fun for the fighter when he's happy he took a monster down in one round and then you follow up by killing 5-6 of the same kind every round without breaking a sweat. When the group (and GM) finally realized how much I had been holding back it was kind of a jaw dropping situation, we were in Epic level's and a demigod with like 2k hp showed up, I had to go to work IRL soon and really wanted to get to the BBEG he was guarding so I killed it in one round.....doing enough damage to kill a demigod in one round then pointing out I still had enough powerpoints to do that to 3-4 more kinda shocked everyone. But until then I had no need to take off the safety, I only let myself shine when the situation demanded it. Plus had I done that earlier, to challenge us the GM would have needed to throw 6 demigods at us and the others would have been screwed.

Just because you have the talent (or weapon) Uber-Pwn-OMG-WTF kill everything in sight doesn't mean use it in every fight, you save it for times when its really needed and it then becomes much more awesome. Using your meltagun on every single little cultist instead of just the big bad asses makes the gm need to make every little cultist now become a big bad ass....which will then suck for the player that still just wants to use his laspistol.

Powergamers work...if they have mastered the true power....knowing when not to use it.

sloth said:

We downright stink early on. It doesn't matter what you do really, in the lower ranks. That's why I recommend swarming all of your enemies early on to get the bonuses for multiple attackers.

This game is pretty strong actually because of the fact that you have to work as a team to be good. Sure, later on someone may get a force sword or start wielding the meat-hammer shotgun, but overall, there's a lot out there to be scared of in the DH universe. Frankly, if you don't have a minmax attitude in this game you're going to have a tough time living very long.

THE FUTURE IS GRIM AND DARK PEOPLE!!!

LeBlanc13 said:

Well, not really. it all depends on how the game is run and the group as a whole whether one needs a min/max attitude to live for long or not. My group most definitly dose NOT have the min/max attitude. These are the same folks that have forgotten they have beneficial talents until after the fact, one player doesn't really want to know how the mechanics work (especially for combat) as she simply wants to respond to situations as her character would without knowing what's going on behind the curtain, useful weapons and equipment have been passed up because it didn't go with the evening attire being currently worn, and the groups original psyker never felt the need for things like Power well and only half into rank 7 did she pick up Favored by the Warp... mostly on account of having to burn a Fate point to avoid a nasty Daemon Host incident. Despite all of that, the scum of the group has lived from rank 1 to rank 8 and is still somehow alive despite that he's been out of Fate Points for the past year of gaming. The groups adept, also in his 8th rank has managed to hold onto a whopping 3 fate Points (one he actually earned, in over two years of running this game, only the third FP I've ever awarded) and is on his way to making Inquisitor as he's got the mental know-how to effectively use resources at his disposal (be it bullets or those-guys-over-there) to achieve his means and, more importantly as his 3 fate Points (and the fact that the scum hadn't died even though he was running scared with this adept for almost a year) would attest, he knows better then to get himself into a bad no-win situation in the first place or, at the very least, how to get the hell out of them very quickly dragging (and fireman carrying in a few cases... buff little schola-medicae that one) everyone else out with him.

Whether you need to min/max to survive and what actually constitutes intolerable munchkinism is all simply a matter of style and a group expectations. Each group is different as is each of their games. What it takes to survive in one won't be what it takes to survive in anouther just as what it takes to have fun in one might not be hat it takes in anouther.

In my experience the issue with munchkins is not that they try to pile on with personal skill and power levels, the issue is that they gleefully go to absurd extremes to make their lopsided but ultimately useless characters. They likewise will base their characters on something from a comic book or movie without bothering to think about the game setting they are about to torture. When asked to describe their character you will not hear about how they were a math professor who always had the weirdest feeling in the back of his head whenever they calculated complex equations mentally, only to find out that probability has been 2.4% off of expected... Oh no. This player will describe their new character as "He is like Wolverine, but he... uh... has a leather jacket. Yeah." GM: "You DO realize we are playing Pixies and Ponies, right?" This is the mark of a munchkin, and the constant groans of your other players is their true hallmark. The other major annoying trait of a munchkin is that their bloated and lopsided character is such a critical piece of their fragile psyche that it would be simply devastating to their very soul for this character to fail at ANYTHING, EVER, regardless of how extreme and out of the character's professed specialty areas... So they CHEAT! "So your character has a 30 Int and is rolling a basic untrained skill with a -20 situational modifier and you have three degrees of success?" *rolls dice behind obstruction and immediately ****** them up* "Wow, fourty-three confirmed Emperor's Fury rolls in a row, what are the odds?!"

The best (worst?) example of the kind I have ever gamed with did exactly this sort of crap with EVERY character in every game he was allowed to play. It was a given that he would find some flimsy excuse to make some variation of Wolverine (almost always!) or possibly some weird cross between Indiana Jones and the popular WWE wrestler of the week. Cyberpunk, Mage, Changeling, Trinity, Abberant, D&D, Shadowrun, GURPS, Champions..... Same **** character!

One of the more memorable moments with our sample munchkin came in a Trinity game (a sci-fi game by White Wolf) where mister munch asked if he could have a certain coil cannon with a pistol grip as his personal weapon. The problem here is the weapon in question was a 10 metric ton (not counting ammo) CAPITAL SHIP weapon system! Grumbling, he "settled" for an experimental plasma pistol that required strength tests to keep the thing under control... Later in the same game he had "no idea" why security officers on a Lunar habitat took issue with him casually striding through customs with ANTI-TANK weaponry casually slung over his shoulders.... At a CIVILIAN docking platform! The amusing part of this is that every single other character in the game was more effective at combat, problem solving, detective work, piloting and darn near everything else. Even more fun was that the team leader (played by me) HATED the organization that mister munch's character served and would deliberately use him as bait to lure out our foes and draw fire. This guy went through replacement characters (all more or less variants of the same stupid thing) the way a stoner goes through value menu burgers.

The reason people hate munchkins is not for the min/maxing per se.... That usually takes care of itself. Perfect example: any of the "Living" campaigns for D&D. Every character that was not a Bard, Sorcerer (or Patrician in Arcanis) had an 8 charisma, except the dwarf, who has a 6. Now describe what you say and do to the noble standing before you and then give me a Diplomacy skill roll... What, you all suck at that? Bummer. No, we hate munchkins because they put powergaming above the story development, group entertainment and other people's fun in the most obnoxious and annoying way possible. Oh, plus they usually have at least three REALLY odeous personal habits that have nothing to do with the game.

Nice post Zilla, haha. Sounds like a fun guy to have in your group indeed

MILLANDSON said:

No, it's not our right as a GM to hand the player a clean sheet of paper. It's our job to provide the player (every player) a good story within a framework that the whole group agrees with, that works with the character the player wants to use. That's what a good GM does: he does not say just say no. I'm not saying the min/maxed combat ***** should have is easy in an investigation type game, but the player should be able to play what ever type of character he wants. The GM tells the min/max player: "a combat ***** is going to have a rough going most of the time and mostly likely lead to boredom". But if that is what the player wants, the GM says ok and adjusts.

However if as a group it is decided that there should be no combat whores, that’s different. After everybody agrees what the definition of a min/max combat ***** is, the player that likes nothing but combat has two choices: adapt to what the group wants or not play. The GM is part of the group that is a temporary leader; not a dictator. He is an elected leader from a democracy. Other than elitist jerk offs (i.e. "I'm a role player, so all other player types suck"), heavy handed GMs are the worst part of RPGs.

ZillaPrime said:

Are we talking about munchkins or powergamers? Because there is a difference; a big difference .

Efidm, you make a good distinction between the two, but the OP (and others) seem to me to be lumping all power gamers into the munchkins group.

I tend to use the phrase " Rocks fall, you die " to signal that I'm getting annoyed with players doing stupid things.

Before we started our proper Dark Heresy campaign (last weekend - went... 90% perfect), I sat everyone down and basically went over ground rules with them. They were fairly simple:

1. I am not here to ‘beat’ you; you are not here to ‘beat’ me. I am a facilitator of a story and you driving the details and influencing the events I have set up ahead of time. This is not a contest.

2. My word is final , but if there is a serious dispute, the person disputing it can debate it quickly, with no interruptions from others, and then we can all decide. Do not abuse this for every little thing.

3. Don’t talk over one another.

4. Don’t talk over one another .

5. Do not jump in and say you want to do something or demand it. I will ask you if you want to do something, and usually in a specific order – Roth, Castus, Moriendi, Arturo and then Johansson. This applies to Tests – you ask to roll a Test, as there may be modifiers to that Test, or ask what type of Test best suits your aim. Or, you can ask to do something. Declaring actions in a state of combat is a bit more straight forward, but when we’re not under the rigid system of initiative and rounds, you must ask or be asked to do things – everyone declaring everything will get very difficult to keep track of.

6. A successful test does not indicate a successful aim. That means that a successful test does not automatically mean you have achieved what you rolled the test for. For example, if you are in a weapons locker you cannot simply say ‘I roll to find a Lascannon’ and then, if successful, you find a Lascannon. Instead, you ask ‘May I roll to find a Lascannon?’, which would be a Search (Per) Test, and assuming I let you do it if there is no Lascannon in the room, success or failure is meaningless. You don’t just get whatever you want to find automatically because the dice came up right. I can disallow Tests as well, especially for people wasting time doing the same action in every room (searching every room for a Lascannon, for example).

7. Remember that you have unlimited Free Actions in every round of combat (unlimited within reason, that is) . Free Actions are used to say things, call out, shout warnings, make facial expressions – and so on. They don’t have much in the way of rules, and must be the kind’ve things done in a split second, and the amount of Free Actions you take in a round must be realistic (you cannot recite all of Hamlet as a Free Action just because talking during combat counts as a Free Action). Free Actions are an important aspect of role-playing the scenarios and encounters.

8. I will reward good role-playing. By that I mean if you do stuff awesome stuff, things that obey the ‘rule-of-cool’, things that fit with your character, when you speak like your character should speak. It’s all well and good to say that you need a 43 or less to hit – it’s far better to work out what you need first, then use a Free Action to deliver a witty one-liner (assuming it is appropriate for your character to do so) before dramatically describing your shot. Be bold, be adventurous, don’t just be a crunchy meta-player pouring over stats and statistics. That’s dull, and you won’t be rewarded for it. Out of character banter and conversations between all of us are fine, but constantly making out of context jokes and doing things that simply don’t make sense from a 40K perspective will get very old very fast.

9. Investigation is part of this game. It isn’t all running and gunning. You will find yourselves in situations where you have to talk to characters, so you should talk to them and ask logical questions that are appropriate to your objective or mission as well as the type of person you are speaking to.

10. You are not an Imperial Repossession team. You are not there to steal everything that isn’t nailed down. Don’t go around looting anything off allies and people who aren’t enemies. This isn’t Fallout where you spend half the game stealing money, ammo and stimpaks of everyone you encounter. Please try to remember what your characters are when interacting with friendly NPCs.

11. Obey your mission objectives and don’t break the game. If your objective is to search an abandoned tank factory for signs of warp-spirits then the only things you should be doing are actions that help you search the abandoned tank factory for signs of warp-spirits. You should not decide to not do what your objective is by, say, not searching the tank factory for signs of warp-spirits. My point is, if you say ‘No’ to your objective, you stall the game, and things break down. Play the game.

12. Very little of what I do is unintentional. If something stands out on the map, then chances are I put it there for a reason.

13. Trying to solve everything with violence doesn’t work. If your default response to everyone you meet is to shove a gun in their face, things will get boring and nonsensical very quickly. Please don’t threaten everyone you meet or insult everyone you meet. If you’ve been told to meet a Commissar to get more information, don’t walk in there, point your gun at him, and demand he help you personally.

14. DON’T TALK OVER ONE ANOTHER.

We're still working on getting rules 3, 4, 6 and 14 right.

BYE