Shiva13

In the original Strike Force book, and in Champions 4th edition, Aaron Allston pointed out a type of player called the Rules Rapist. I am simply harkening back to illustrations made by one of the Hero System's greatest acknowledged authors.

I find "gaming the system" to the equivilent to someone masturbating in front of a captive audience that can't turn away. Players "gaming the system" are trying to force their methodology on the rest of the game group. Regardless of whether that group agrees with it or not. It's the height of bad behavior. And comparing it to a sex crime I believe is pretty apt.

Only to someone who is "gaming the system".

All levels of characteristics are supposed to matter. All of them are supposed to meaningfully represent something. And not simply because of what is "mechanically advantageous". "Mechanically advantageous" should not even be on the table. As character concept is supposed to be the guilding point above all else in character generation. "Gaming the system" in any form I view as utterly unacceptable. Turning character generation into a "mini-game" ignores the original purpose of it. So yes, I consider it wrong.

The quest for mechanical "efficiency" and seeking mechanical advantage has nothing to do with supporting a character concept. And it has everything to do with a player trying to take advantage of flaws in the system for their own benefit. Which makes it absolutely unequivocally wrong. And something that a GM should absolutely put the thumbs down upon. And it was absolutely wrong when the spectre of mechanical break points in the primary characteristics appeared in Champions II.

I think removing Figured Characteristics created more problems than it solved, It opened up a whole new level of abuse that didn't previously exist.

Players who engage in such behavior are ultimately selfish. They don't approach the game as a group activity. In fact. They don't look beyond themselves for a second. Such players lack the maturity to truly participate in any type of group activity at all. And their presence can't help but be a disruption. It all comes down to knowing the people you game with. Their maturity. Their capability. Their fitness for group activities. And even more importantly. That you can trust them.

That's not a character concept. That's a metagame reason based on unfounded opinion. And it's also completely unacceptable. Nobody can anticipate what a GM will throw into a campaign. Or how the characters will be effected over the course of the campaign. But the tools need to be there in case they are needed. And not for what the player immediately perceives to be beneficial or not. I tried to point something out earlier in the thread. That the base assumption the Hero System assumes is that people will be playing characters that are in some interation a hero. And that heroes are expected to be more than just a flat normal human in some way to make them stand out. Many package deals representing various careers have characteristics requirements. From police, to agents of whatever campaign organization the GM thinks up. This leaves you with two basic assumptions. That characters will be some kind of heroic stature. And that they will need to meet the characteristic requirements of any required package deals that covers their career or organizational membership. People wash out of the military all of the time due to medical problems or being in insufficient condition for the job. Even police have minimum physical and mental requirements for their jobs. A character whose player shorts their MCV or any of their other characteristics below the minimums would be a washout of any such fields on the spot. Simply because they would be seen as putting their fellows in danger because they weren't up to rigors they would be exposed to regularly. Navy SEAL training is an example I will refer to. They have to be able to withstand torture and various types of mental coersion and manipulation. If they cannot withstand it or hold their own at a certain threshold, they wash out of the program before they hardly get started. I know people say you can play campaigns of just pure normals. However. That is not the basic design assumption of the Hero System. The people who do so are stretching the system into territory beyond the game's basic intended design. And in my opinion. Taking that into account is going way, way off topic.

That depends entirely on how those 9 points are spent. If a player has molested a Multipower enough so that their slots cost 1 point each. Those 9 points represent a potential 9 more slots the player can add. I've had players in the past that literally made me dread every experience point to be given to them.

Exactly! Munchkinism is a violation of the very environment of trust that's necessary for the game group to properly operate. It's nothing but disruptive.

I've had some rotten luck with game groups over my history with the Hero System. Munchkinism being only one of the things I faced as a GM that made me feel utterly miserable. At default, I have been a very trusting person.in gaming. As I believe trust is something that is essential to making a game group work. So I had a habit of putting myself completely on the line to do the GM role. Generally expecting players to approach the system and the campaigns with the same sort of honesty and I would give as a basic assumption. So when a player violates that trust. I admit. I take it pretty personally.

They are one and the same thing. Selling off MCV 99.99% of the time is done as an exploit. And is not done in represent any reason justified by the character's concept.

cptpatriot is right. Munchkins rarely stop at just one vector of munchinism. Usually they throw everything they can at the GM. Leaving the GM to make sense of their mess, Having been on the receiving end. I can honestly say it is not any fun to deal with.

SInce my last campaign detonated because of constant munchkin behavior by a couple of players, I have become very choosey about who I game with. Unless I have known the players in question a long time. And have great communication with them, I wouldn't even consider GMing again. At this stage of my life. I believe I have every right to be extremely picky about who I game with.

In your opinion. But frankly that doesn't matter a hill of beans unless the GM agrees with you. Trying to force your opinion on a GM that doesn't agree with you is completely out of line. It's being argumentative and disruptive to the campaign in question. And that GM has every right to send you packing. As a GM, I have the right to define the rules as I see fit. That means making my own interpretations based on the rules as written and how I want them to work for my campaign. The rulebook NEVER overrules the GM. Read Rule 0. Burn that into your memory. Everything else in the rulebooks are merely suggestions.

The GM is the final arbiter of the rules. Nothing "overrules" the GM. If a GM catches you doing something cheesey, they have every right and obligation to say "no". And that "no" is the final word. I'm not going to sit here and continue to argue with people who seem to ignore that centerpiece of the Hero System rules. The GM is the law. They override the rulebook. You don't like it? Find another group. But I will say this one thing: No GM has to sit and just suck whatever exploit a player thinks is "clever". No GM should ever be brow-beaten and bullied by players looking to be exploitive of "imperfections" in the rules. A GM has a right to have fun too. And that behavior by players kills the fun of the game for GMs.

It was. When there were still Figured Characteristics. Now? Its former functions are divided between multiple characteristics.

I'm misunderstanding nothing. Mechanics were made to represent special effect from the outset. That's their intended design. I've been a Hero Gamer since 1987. Most of the time since, I was a GM. So yes, I know the game and its core concepts pretty intimately. I've also shared a table on numerous occasions with many of the game's contributing authors. So I'd appreciate not being treated like an idiot by the pseudo-intellectual set around here.

Far from it. It's just the latest in a long line of annoying things players have tried to pull in my decades of dealing with the Hero System. Some things have been worse than others. But they all add up to increasing my stress level. Instead of contributing to the relaxation I seek in gaming. And 6 points can make a huge difference in play balance. Especially if you have a player prone to pulling the "one point Multipower slot" trick. Meaning, every spare point can be converted into a separate Multipower slot.

Forgetting something in a stressful situation is not a measure of someone's intelligence. Anyone can fail an INT roll.

You are forgetting Army Of Darkness. Where he brought out books on engineering, chemistry, and others the create the crazy machinery he ultimately made. Those books also were used in Evil Dead 2, when he modified the chainsaw and his boom stick. So I disagree. There was nothing wrong with his INT. But there was plenty wrong with his sanity.

I assume that because the Hero System has displayed it as the basic assumption for all levels of protagonists since the 1st edition. So I think I have a pretty good basis. I also have to point out the Evil Dead movies. Ash was in no way a "normal" when he entered the fray.

When you are talking about action heroes. You are not talking about normal people. Normal people don't have to fit any kind of characteristics requirements to do their jobs. Action heroes do. Police academies, agencies, and the military run their students through a battery of tests. Including tests of willpower. To make sure they fit the requirements of the jobs they are to preform. Agent level characters are Protagonists. They are not "normals".

SInce OMCV and DMCV themselves became flat characteristics. They carry just as much weight regarding the representation of a character's motivational force as EGO. EGO only represents the basis of what one can do with EGO based skills now. Nothing else. It doesn't count for offensive or defensive actions. Nor does it reflect decision making. And it does not represent a character's innate Mental Defense. Decision making is an act of will. Acts of will are actions.

Given that game groups I have been in have self-destructed because of the dominance of such cheese moves by careless players. No, I don't think it's being overly dramatic at all. A GM has only so much energy and resources to give to running a game. When they become exhausted and decide the game is no fun for them, then the game ends. Garbage like this wastes a GM's valuable time and energy. Time and energy which can and should be focused on creating storylines for the characters. And anything that compromises that, I absolutely do feel runs contrary to the very existence of the campaign in the first place.