Accusations of MinMaxing and Munchkinery

[zornwil]

Warning - mild rant mode...

 

It seems to me that way too often there's a rejection of powers and/or tactics as presumed munchkinery or being "out of character" and only for efficiency. Rejections like "your VPP couldn't possibly have a desolidify, you're making that up just to win the battle" or "you wouldn't know to run around and flank that guy, you're just a regular joe, not a tactician" are what I'm referring to. Yes, I readily acknowledge these can be valid and I don't enjoy non-roleplaying win-oriented play in my RPGs. But let's remember it IS a game and part of the fun for people is making the right decision and having the right tool just at the required moment. Part of the heroic fiction we enjoy includes this providential break-making for the protagonist(s); we should expect at least some of our players to emulate that.

 

Yes, balance is important so that everyone has a good time, and flagrant anti-roleplaying decreases others' fun (typically, anyway) so these things require GM oversight. But the way some people sound on the boards I think we set too weighty an example. I understand that we do strive, correctly, for examples that can stand up to the rules. But it is important to grant that heroic fiction certainly allows for heroes with often unexpected tactical or other such skills, and that a VPP-based character isn't being necessarily bad - or even out of character - in coming up with the right power for the moment.

 

Just my 2 cents for the day.

[Southern Cross]

I agree.If you specify that you "Cannot change an object's mass or volume" on your VPP,for example you could justify Desolidification with the SFX "Moves to fast to be hit".However,I'd require the Desolidification to be bought with Invisible power Effects (Sight) and the -1/2 Limitation "Cannot Pass Through Solid Objects".

(The Desolification would not protect against characters with equal or better DEX & SPD or against Area Effect attacks).

[austenandrews]

Only on a Hero board could we expect such accusations, and Hallelujiah for that. I agree, fun is the ultimate goal. I've played out battles that essentially amounted to board games using Hero rules. Know what? They were a blast! As long as everyone involved enjoys the game, it's all good.

 

-AA

[BNakagawa]

My take?

 

De-stigmatize losing. If there is an upside to losing (like getting extra roleplay time whilst captured) then perhaps people would be less tempted to use their munchkin-fu to avoid getting captured.

 

This of course requires villains that don't kill everyone they defeat, or villains that don't vivisect them for data or disassemble their foci or whatever. This isn't likely to happen in a dark champions sort of game.

 

This also requires the PCs to treat defeated enemies with similar regard. If your players regard stashing defeated villains in stronhold, never to return as the only possible winning scenario and everything else is some sort of loss, then this isn't going to work well.

 

$0.02

[Fenixcrest]

Re: Accusations of MinMaxing and Munchkinery

 

Originally posted by zornwil

"you wouldn't know to run around and flank that guy, you're just a regular joe, not a tactician"

 

Honestly, if it was me? I'd rule in that case that the character should make a Tactics skill check, or an INT check with a -3 penalty. If the roll was successful, the maneuver would go off without a hitch. If it failed, then the guy would nerf up. Not critical fumble nerf up, but "no particular bonus" nerf up, anyway. Unless of course the roll was an 18

[zornwil]

Re: Re: Accusations of MinMaxing and Munchkinery

 

Originally posted by Fenixcrest

Honestly, if it was me? I'd rule in that case that the character should make a Tactics skill check, or an INT check with a -3 penalty. If the roll was successful, the maneuver would go off without a hitch. If it failed, then the guy would nerf up. Not critical fumble nerf up, but "no particular bonus" nerf up, anyway. Unless of course the roll was an 18

 

Under what circumstances? What would a player do that you'd feel would be out of bounds for an adventuring PC? Is it a matter of disparity between what you perceive as a higher INT (real-life) for the player than the PC?

[zornwil]

Originally posted by BNakagawa

My take?

 

De-stigmatize losing. If there is an upside to losing (like getting extra roleplay time whilst captured) then perhaps people would be less tempted to use their munchkin-fu to avoid getting captured.

 

This of course requires villains that don't kill everyone they defeat, or villains that don't vivisect them for data or disassemble their foci or whatever. This isn't likely to happen in a dark champions sort of game.

 

This also requires the PCs to treat defeated enemies with similar regard. If your players regard stashing defeated villains in stronhold, never to return as the only possible winning scenario and everything else is some sort of loss, then this isn't going to work well.

 

$0.02

 

That's a good point as to what fuels some of the legitimate concern, but what I'm concerned about isn't the players, it's the GMs. Southern Cross points out an example where the attitude of some would be "no, you can't do that because you'd never have thought of moving too fast to go Desol, it's not your regular routine", but he (Southern Cross) points out where he can see the rationale and would allow for it.

 

I think the implication of many here is that they presume shennanigans on the PC's part when in fact it may be nothing more than good heroic fiction writing on the part of the player.

[austenandrews]

Originally posted by BNakagawa

De-stigmatize losing. If there is an upside to losing (like getting extra roleplay time whilst captured) then perhaps people would be less tempted to use their munchkin-fu to avoid getting captured.

 

That's a laudable goal in general. Unfortunately when I try this with my players, I start to see some real-life frustration if the battle goes south for even a Turn. I begin to think I should pull out some overwhelming odds against them, simply to bash home the point that a loss is as much of a plot beat as a win. But then I feel like I'm railroading.

 

Anyway.

 

-AA

[Killer Shrike]

It can be frustrating trying to break players of the "PC" Syndrome.

 

Ultimately, if the players are not cooperating with the game you are trying to run, you might have to recognize that what you as the GM want and what they as the players want may not be reconcilable. Either one party or the other must compromise, or the group will break apart.

 

As far as playing intelligently, in my opinion there's a line. On one side the player is trying to interact with the setting and help tell a good story (and this includes in combat), and on the otherside the player is just trying to "win". As the GM, you just need to be able to tell the difference and take appropriate action.

[Trebuchet]

It seems likely very few players have the benefit of actual tactical training in real life. So if a player thinks of a clever tactical trick to pull during a Champions fight, I generally regard it as something any halfway intelligent and experienced character could likely come up with. We do this as role-playing, the heroes do it "in real life." Only if a character were particularly stupid or had a Disad that forbids clever tactics (Always attacks By Most Direct Route, Total Overconfidence, Unfamiliar with Powers, etc.) would I as GM prevent them from doing a tactical trick.

 

Furthermore, the last thing I want to discourage amongst my players is cleverness. Clever tactics are good, sheer brute force is not always the solution to any situation.

[Bengal]

Trebuchet nailed it this time... which is hard for such an innacurate siege weapon (pause for groans). If a player can figure out how to do it, and it's in character for that particular character, then really you oughtta let them do it, even if it's going to mess up a perfectly-planned strategy on the part of the NPC enemies. Doing clever and unexpected things should be encouraged- it makes for some of the most memorable times around the table.

 

I was running an adaptation of an old Dragonlance adventure for my group, and the group came upon an old long-dead warrior, frozen and preserved nicely for centuries in a glacier. Because the adventure was for a larger number of lower-level characters than we had, there was no contingency for a Speak With Dead spell... which the cleric cleverly cast! It was a boon for the party, and required a ton of extra planning for me. They were able to disrupt a large part of the adventure simply by (legitimately) learning some things that the module didn't want the players to know yet. But to this day, enarly 3 years on, it's one of the best-remembered moments in our campaign.

[Toadmaster]

I've run into this too. Some people think that just because "game stats" partially play into a decision that it is munchkinism failing to recognize that sometimes the reason you are choosing something is because the rules reflect reality to some degree, a rifle is a better weapon for shooting a target at long range, that is why it has a RMod bonus, choosing a rifle to shoot a long range target is not metagaming (well it could be, but typically not), it is roleplaying, it is the right weapon for the job.

 

As far as tactics etc that is nit picking, using that logic you would need to have a list of skills the size of Fred. The way I've always played it is a skill like tactics is used to get extra info from the GM or get a bonus. For example I'm setting up an ambush and want some insight into where and when I think the enemy will come, on a successful role the GM will help me pick the time and place (and conveniently this will be where the enemy does infact appear). Where I would draw the line is a situation where the player is clearly using personal knowledge like looking up the weakness of a monster encountered in another game that the character would not have any way of knowing, or a player with a chemistry degree having his character with no chemistry skill create a chemical compound by describing the method to do it. Requiring a character to make a tactics roll not to march in formation head on across an open battlefield against machineguns does not require any tactics roll unless the character has zero knowledge of WW1.

[Ghost who Walks]

I concur with the Crazy Reptilian Conqueror.

 

For me, the action, the setting, is more important than the mechanics of gameplay. I've run entire scenarios in Champions without a single power being used. Others had players running around in their secret ID the entire time...usually the players loved the idea.

 

The nice thing about our hobby is that it appeals to a fairly diversified group of people, from all sorts of backgrounds. If they all played the same way, all built the same characters, it would be rather boring.

 

I agree about the "winning is the only solution problem". I am lucky to have a good bunch of players right now, and they have lost on several occasions. In one case, they actually ran away, in another they called for support from outside, and they dealt with it.

 

In both cases however, they were roleplaying their characters properly! The first one had them fight the villain "Fearmonger" (guess what his power was), and the second had them going up against Eurostar. (They called Interpol, who happened to have files on all the members) After reading Eurostar's Interpol files, they used their contacts with other superheroes, and assembled a group of NPC heroes to help them fight Eurostar. It took several sessions to get all the other heroes together, and the final battle was memorable.

[CrosshairCollie]

Attacking someone from the flank (aka 'behind') hardly requires a tactical mind. Any idiot with more common sense than Foxbat knows that attacking someone from behind, when they can't see you, improves the likelihood that they won't dodge. It also doesn't do anything for your good-guy rep, but hey, sometimes, you gotta (*pause to drool as Howler pic comes up in the sidebar ... *slobber**) put honor aside and go for the win.

 

If I were pressed for any kind of reason why a character of mine would think to attack from the back, I'd just shrug and say something on the order of, "I watch westerns ... someone ALWAYS gets shot in the back in westerns, so it seemed like a good idea."

 

If the GM says, however, that your justification for having your character desolidifying with his VPP doesn't fly, though, then it doesn't fly. On the other hand, the GM needs to make sure HE'S not saying that it's impossible just 'cause it'll screw up his plot/fight/battle plan. I've had some pretty ludicrous game calls made because of a power the GM didn't take into account ... and, as a side note, more than a few really stupid D&D game rulings because I play inventive spellcasters and tactical fighters, but that's another story.

[austenandrews]

I tend to agree with Treb. However my philosophy takes it one step further.

 

As a GM, for the most part I tend to run NPCs in a relatively straightforward fashion. Let's face it, if I've got fifteen henchmen charging the PCs, I can't "metagame" every one of them to maximum efficiency. Not only is that against most genres, but my memory's just not that good.

 

However, I do "metagame" really savvy or dangerous NPCs. "Gaming the system" is my way of separating them from the masses, of representing an opponent who's very smart in combat.

 

As Treb said I don't have any combat training, nor does the system really allow many applications of real-world knowledge (without significant on-the-fly tweaking). But I do know Hero. That's how I differentiate levels of skill and experience. (And as every video gamer knows, it can make all the difference in the world.)

 

And of course the players are welcome to do likewise. For the most part, mine stick with what their characters know or are quick enough to deduce.

 

-AA

[zornwil]

Originally posted by CrosshairCollie

(snip)

If the GM says, however, that your justification for having your character desolidifying with his VPP doesn't fly, though, then it doesn't fly. On the other hand, the GM needs to make sure HE'S not saying that it's impossible just 'cause it'll screw up his plot/fight/battle plan. I've had some pretty ludicrous game calls made because of a power the GM didn't take into account ... and, as a side note, more than a few really stupid D&D game rulings because I play inventive spellcasters and tactical fighters, but that's another story.

 

Yeah, I definitely am not advocating for in-game arguments - the GM's word needs to be law. Just thought I'd add that to be clear. You did identify my concern (as others have) quite correctly.

[Solomon]

As I already said elsewhere, I define "munchkinism" as "min/maxing until it hurts", ie until it stops being fun. As long as everybody's having a good time, however, I have no problem with min/maxing. Besides, I find it easier to cope with min/maxers in HERO than in most other RPG systems.

[MarioTani]

The real problem in such cases it's were the munchkinism begins, at least for me.

 

If a speedster has a VPP and want to use it on desolify, it's OK for me but it has to be coherent with the rest of the character concept.

 

So probably he'll have some limitations on it.

 

Suppose a mage buys it's spell trough a multpower, limited by RSR a Variable limitation, and Charge applied to the reserve (maximum of spells in a day)

 

If the same mage wants to build a simple detect, it's more usefull to build it as a stand alone power, not to have it limited in that way, but if it has to be a spell it must have that same limittations!

After all that's the way the character casts the spells, if he want to cast them in some other way it has to research a new casting method...

but that is an in game problem, not a rules one.

 

So if a player need using a skill, and it has reasonable chance of knowing something about it, maybe from its BG, maybe from it's Culture, you can entitle him to a Char Roll or a Familiarity Roll (the worst of the two).

 

Surely it can became a way to go around the rules, but if the player start abusing it you can start imposing penaltys or neglectign the rolls for later occasion. Or maybe do not give them for something too difficult.

 

To say it all I often use KS and PS to make PC pay for this kind of things.

 

Even a PS: Soldier, if the BG says the PC has gone in battle a couple of time, could be enough for a roll like the above on tactics. It can be justified as personal experience, or as something the PC has learned chatting with other veterans.

 

Surely it does not confer the ability of a good general, but can help solve some simple situations, or lead to dangerous error in dealing with something.

 

For example the enemy general has left the flank uncovered to lure the cavalry in a trap, there are some giveaways but not being prepared to notice them. or even to search for them, the PC go for the bait and so wordten his side situation.

 

It's the character concept the guide for these rulings, at least for me. If it fits the character's idea, it's good for me.

[Sylevus]

Munchkinism is a two edge sword. On one hand the munchkin player can show how the concept is great and fun for HIM, and on the other hand the GM can show from his experience how it can make the storyline NOT fun.

 

I.e. the "if you are always going to win", what's the point syndrome.

 

There is a place in Champions where it talks about min-max player choices and the consequences of them. I think the one thats the best example is when a player is so tough defensively that the GM has to bring out guns so big that they end up harming the group more than intended....

 

So while I am all for individual creativity, you also need to make sure that you discuss with the player WHY you think the combination is gamebreaking, then offer alternatives that will get close to what he wanted without breaking the bank.

 

And the attitude about winning is a huge point. If you create Mr Wonderful (tank) and his opponent is another tank, players will usually be happy. On the other hand, if he is constantly being manipulated by Dr Sneeky (PSI), players will call foul and get upset.

 

To avoid that you have to build trust with your players, an interesting story, and most importantly you have to give him that wonderful moment when he comes up on Dr Sneeky unanwares!

[Vanderbilt_Grad]

I think that most experienced Hero players min-max to an extent. It’s only natural to want to build strong, powerful, or well thought out characters and the more you understand the game the easier it becomes to use the various break-points and other structures to your advantage in character creation. I don’t really mind min-maxing a long as the whole leads to an interesting character who can fit in a given game well.

 

As for VPPs, I have to admit that without them it is nearly impossible to do some concepts nearly as well any other way. I don’t really have a problem with someone wanting to play with a VPP or with building one into a character myself. Even cosmic VPPs are perfect on some characters. However as a GM I understand all too well how a VPP can break campaign limits all too easily. I generally don’t have problems with stop sign powers but in a way I regard the VPP as a double stop sign. I would have to really trust someone before I let them play with a VPP. I don’t know what the answer is but in my gut I feel like something in the VPP structure itself seems broken but fixing it is beyond me at this point.

 

Reading some of the other comments here I am reminded how some GM’s I’ve played under seem to regard gaming as a them vs. me affair. These are the sorts who are most likely to get upset at a clever application of a power or a tactic that they didn’t anticipate. I don’t like playing that way at all and I strive to not run my games that way. To me roll-playing is all about building a shared experience that *everyone* enjoys and you don’t have to compete with your players to do that. In fact I really like it when my players are clever, it forces me to think on my feet and enhances my enjoyment as well as theirs.

 

Balance is a big part of this shared enjoyment in that everyone likes for their character to shine from time to time (both in and out of combat). If Joe Fighting man outshines the other characters in combat *every* time then eventually the others are going to have a problem with this and fun will not be had by all. Similarly if one PC has offensive and defensive powers far and above the others then it becomes supremely difficult for the GM to find foes that can be a challenge to the power-guy while simultaneously not being able to wipe the floor with the other PCs. It’s up to the GM to build an environment where everyone has fun and keeping characters reasonably balanced are part of this. If a player repeatedly breaks campaign limits or builds characters in such a way that the others don’t have fun then it becomes a real problem for everyone.

 

In many other games loosing means dieing and few players like to loose a character that they enjoy. However in Champs loosing usually doesn’t involve death. It’s a learning curve for both players and GMs new to the system to use this to their advantage. I’ve rarely had more fun as a player than when my team is getting ‘payback’ on a team that beat us previously. It generates a much bigger sense of accomplishment than just beating up on some poor Joe that we’ve never met before.

 

I would like to note that it’s not only munchkins that destroy fun, but that some role-playing concepts can do the same thing. I’ve seen character concepts that work mechanically & are balanced but that annoy the heck out of the other players in a very bad way. Similarly I’ve seen role-playing taken to such an extreme that the group ceases to have fun. In a shared environment everyone has to give a little and be prepared to compromise so that everyone can have fun and that covers a lot more than just munchkinism.

[Tech]

Wide coverage of thoughts

 

I'm going to jump from points to point. Thinking of the original post where a GM says, "You wouldn't have thought of that" can be greatly argued. Unless it's very obvious a character couldn't have thought of something in particular, such as a player recognizing a villain's modus operanti but he's playing a new hero - that new hero will not recognize it, unless it's obvious, the GM should let the player be creative. A GM has to be careful not to be subjective on what a character will or will not do/know. After all, the players are creating in their head the world the GM's built and creativity/fun is the game's goal.

 

I believe Champions II (correct me if I'm wrong) said that if in a game the chandelier looked too weak to swing on it and a player wants to try to swing on it anyways, if it adds flavor to the game, let the character swing on it! Don't nitpick or have an argument on such a little thing. It detracts from the game as well as game time.

 

I want to avoid getting on munchkinism in game but I did say I'd jump around. I run a campaign with seasoned players (and multiple GM's). As someone mentioned, seasoned players might do some munkining simply to create more thorough characters, or something to that train of thought. I did that with one character when I created a power called "Ulimate Healing". It comes out over 200 active pts. The GM's had no problem with it. I've used the power twice and neither time did it cause any problems, either. There are other cases where a power is blatantly going to hurt the game, such as a hero having a 20d6 EB, Armor Piercing x2, Affects Desolid, etc., or Invisibility with Invisible Ego Attack, blah blah.

It really depends on the players and the GM to work together and trust each other. If the GM is too strict, the game will die. I was in one of those once. On the other hand, a little overhandedness in a power, if carefully handled, can add spice and not hurt game balance.