PDA

View Full Version : Issues with dnd member and pun pun



nysisobli
2009-05-21, 08:02 AM
I started a campaign several months ago and they have advanced quite far, i informed them i didn't want any meta gaming and the group was all for it. Well i noticed around level 5 my kobold player began using a build that looked like pun- pun, i continued to play and act like i didn't know what he was doing, he continued to advance as pun pun, we reached level 12 and he said i want to change forms into a Sarruhk, i just smiled and said those creatures don't exist in my campaign world, was this a fair judge? Also he got up and stormed out red in the face and angry.

ocato
2009-05-21, 08:04 AM
Probably would've been easier to confront him before he put 12 levels into a character.

nysisobli
2009-05-21, 08:06 AM
well i dropped hints the entire time i didn't want anything like that in my game, they all know i activally troll multiple gaming forums, and know all the latest cheese

Frog Dragon
2009-05-21, 08:07 AM
Well props to you. This kind of cheese should be stopped at all costs and he didn't relly have any right to get mad when the build is just theoretical char-op and he woul've destroyed the game with that one. Still it would have gone smoother if you told him from the start.

Yuki Akuma
2009-05-21, 08:07 AM
If dropping hints doesn't work before he reaches level twelve, start beating him over the head with a clue until he gets one.

Alternatively, flat-out disallow the build. You're the DM. You can do that. If he complains, well, do you really want to be spending hours preparing entertainment for a guy like that?

TheCountAlucard
2009-05-21, 08:11 AM
Wow... I'm surprised someone actually tried to pull Pun-pun on his DM. Also, you probably shouldn't have even needed to state that a setting-specific monster doesn't exist in your setting; that makes it obvious what the player was trying to do, as if his reaction to it didn't give it away.

Power to you, I say.

Tiki Snakes
2009-05-21, 08:13 AM
Heh. Level 12? It's not like he's even used the better Pun-Pun. (I don't recall the specifics, but if he'd gone for the level 1 build he'd have gotten his dissapointment out of the way much quicker, eh?)


You flat out said no meta-gaming, no cheese. If he's pissy about it, then you're better off shot of him frankly, because he was deliberately trying to 'get one over on the dm'.


*shrug*

I'm sure it'll work out. Kobolds are a great laugh, it's not like his current character build is otherwise unworkable...right?

kamikasei
2009-05-21, 08:14 AM
If he was seriously trying to build and play Pun-Pun in a real game, he's a jackass. That said, it would certainly have been better to ask him earlier what he was aiming for with his character and to make clear to him that you weren't going to allow absurd theoretical cheese. If it were something other than Pun-Pun I'd criticize you for letting him build up to level 12 without nipping this foolishness in the bud, but I can't work up any sympathy for this guy to motivate me.

shadzar
2009-05-21, 08:15 AM
Some games or systems force the DM/GM to allow any and everything a player game find in a book in the game.

Thankfully D&D is not one of the and the DM has a right to say "No", to any additions to the game that the world was not designed for, to maintain balance of the world for all playes and the DM alike.

I see no problem with stating a certain race/species of creature doesn't exist in your world, and if a player cannot accept that, then maybe D&D is not for them.

You may find a game where the world has no gods, and no clerics. May sound strange, but it can work and can be very fun; let me tell you!

So not allowing something from the game is not a bad thing to begin with.

Preventing a player from abusing char-ops boards is never a bad thing.

Removing munchkin players form your game to prevent it from deteriorating into a crap fest that the other players do not want, is also a good thing.

I see no reason for a question here to be asked of fairness, and the group comes before the individual, and you clearly did what was right for the group.

nysisobli
2009-05-21, 08:15 AM
i dont like to limit my characters, but when i start talking about an article on pun pun, and how much i hated the concept of it lol at level 8 you think he would stop. Hes always been sensible before now

Yuki Akuma
2009-05-21, 08:17 AM
i dont like to limit my characters, but when i start talking about an article on pun pun, and how much i hated the concept of it lol at level 8 you think he would stop. Hes always been sensible before now

You really should just be upfront and tell people no. If they're the type of people to get pissy when you say "no, you can't break the game and make it no fun for everyone else"... well, see my earlier comment about wanting to spend hours preparing entertainment for people like him.

nysisobli
2009-05-21, 08:21 AM
well ive never had a problem with him before this hes just being a jackass

Yuki Akuma
2009-05-21, 08:23 AM
Again, hours preparing entertainment, people like this (namely people who suddenly act like jackasses out of nowhere), et cetera. :smallwink:

Yes, yes, I get it, seriously. He's your friend and he's never pulled something like this before. Okay. Tell him to stop if you actually value your friendship.

Faleldir
2009-05-21, 08:24 AM
Let the characters discover in-game that if an infinite loop ever occurs, all of Mechanus will transform into one big Inevitable and destroy the offending plane. That's much cooler than just saying no.

Yuki Akuma
2009-05-21, 08:25 AM
Let the characters discover in-game that if an infinite loop ever occurs, all of Mechanus will transform into one big Inevitable and destroy the offending plane. That's much cooler than just saying no.

Alternatively, have Pun-Pun, God of Munchkins, tell him in no uncertain terms "No, you can't do that, but here's a nifty magic item for trying, good effort".

And then deduct the cost of the magic item from the treasure of the next encounter without telling anyone. >.>

nysisobli
2009-05-21, 08:26 AM
i spend probably 3 days a week making sure everyone gets the fair share of the treasure putting balance in between the characters and making my own monsters just to keep in game and out of game knowledge separate, =) i also am offering him a chance to completely remake his character as long as he writes a background long enough to please me =) i like reading lol

Shadowbane
2009-05-21, 08:52 AM
The moment you saw it, you should have stopped him, imho. That's what I would have done. And politely, of course.

Curmudgeon
2009-05-21, 08:53 AM
i also am offering him a chance to completely remake his character as long as he writes a background long enough to please me =) i like reading lol
You seem to be doing a good job using the game rules as intended. I recommend using the Players Handbook II retraining/rebuilding options to keep going on this path. It's nice to have official rules that you can point to so the player won't think you're being arbitrary.

shadzar
2009-05-21, 08:55 AM
It's nice to have official rules that you can point to so the player won't think you're being arbitrary.

Wasn't it official rules that created Pun-pun and his divine squirrels to begin with?

Jayabalard
2009-05-21, 09:03 AM
Some games or systems force the DM/GM to allow any and everything a player game find in a book in the game.I don't think that this is actually a true statement. At best they'd have a rule that says that the GM has to allow the players free reign, but there's nothing to stop the GM from just ignoring that rule.

I mean really... do a bunch of cartoon character men in black suits with white on white ties armed with guns walk through the door and make the GM follow that particular rule?

Kaiyanwang
2009-05-21, 09:03 AM
You seem to be doing a good job using the game rules as intended. I recommend using the Players Handbook II retraining/rebuilding options to keep going on this path. It's nice to have official rules that you can point to so the player won't think you're being arbitrary.

Actually, you are very generous. I seriously can't say what I could do seeing a PC trying this.

Maybe something involving a tons of inevitables.

nysisobli
2009-05-21, 09:05 AM
i love my group, and i usually do allow free reign, but pun-pun honestly......i am ashamed, i even allowed a group member to play a monk who used int rather then wis, do determine his monk abilities, also using a custom made vulcan race. lol

Cheesegear
2009-05-21, 09:11 AM
Yep. You're the DM, you're well within your rights to ban anything you want (although it's good to have a reason anyway so your players don't get angry).

But, IMO, if you saw what he was doing (building a Pun-Pun), dropping hints is not the way to go. You should've flat-out told him. Right there.
"Are you trying to build Pun-Pun? No."
Player's don't get clues all that often.

The way you've done it, you've just wasted both his time and yours. He could've spent all this time working on a workable/allowable build/character.

Still...I'm...Surprised that somebody actually thought that Pun-Pun would be allowed in the first place.


I even allowed a group member to play a monk who used int rather then wis, do determine his monk abilities

There's a feat (two, in fact) that lets you do exactly that.

FMArthur
2009-05-21, 09:11 AM
I have about as much sympathy for a denied Pun-pun ascension as I do for a chessboard upheaval. Why are you even trying to let such a player back into the group?

Kaiyanwang
2009-05-21, 09:11 AM
i am ashamed, i even allowed a group member to play a monk who used int rather then wis,

Well a feat exist for it! Kung fu Genius, from Dragon Magazine :smalltongue:

nysisobli
2009-05-21, 09:11 AM
sometimes you have to do what you have to do =(

nysisobli
2009-05-21, 09:12 AM
lol it was in the race description, and everytime he uses stunning fist he yells vulcan nerve pinch!

strawberryman
2009-05-21, 09:15 AM
I mean really... do a bunch of cartoon character men in black suits with white on white ties armed with guns walk through the door and make the GM follow that particular rule?

...That gives me a hilarious idea for some new Inevitables.

Curmudgeon
2009-05-21, 09:18 AM
Wasn't it official rules that created Pun-pun and his divine squirrels to begin with?
Only partly. Pun-Pun can't exist without huge amounts of metaknowledge. Any sane DM would clamp down on that. How is a PC going to change forms into a Sarruhk when there's never been one in that character's experience? Remember, all those Monster Manuals are player equipment, not character equipment.

shadzar
2009-05-21, 09:34 AM
Only partly. Pun-Pun can't exist without huge amounts of metaknowledge. Any sane DM would clamp down on that. How is a PC going to change forms into a Sarruhk when there's never been one in that character's experience? Remember, all those Monster Manuals are player equipment, not character equipment.

True, but just saying those official rules is what got people into this situation in the first place, so override them like was done.

Say the Slavisek race just doesn't exist in your world for those natural abilities to be used.

Yuki Akuma
2009-05-21, 09:36 AM
Say the Slavisek race just doesn't exist in your world for those natural abilities to be used.

Well they only exist in the Forgotten Realms campaign setting anyway - so unless it's set there it's really the default assumption.

(They're the local explanation of how dragons exist. They made them.)

Kornaki
2009-05-21, 09:47 AM
The only thing you did wrong was let a knowing smile slip across your face as you told him they didn't exist. If you had schooled yourself to appear completely naive to his plan while destroying it utterly, he would have argued for a while without telling you why he was arguing, then given up and gotten back to the game

Theodoriph
2009-05-21, 09:53 AM
You didn't do anything wrong. Actually I find the way you handled it more than satisfactory.

Honestly, it serves him right for not discussing his plan with you earlier. He was obviously trying to mess with the campaign.

In my group, we use cheesy builds every so often. They're fun. But before we begin the campaign, if we're looking to do something that might hurt the campaign, we go to the DM, explain what we want to do and he'll either say no, or he'll find a way to accommadate us so we can have our fun and not ruin/take over the campaign.

And that is what your pun-pun player should have done. The fact that he knew how powerful pun-pun is and that he knew it would break the campaign and didn't inform you says something about his intent going into the campaign.

And thus, I take great satisfaction in your solution =D Let him get all the way there, and then pull the rug.




This isn't an example of cheese per se but,


For instance once I wanted to play a centaur cleric. I asked my DM and he said fine. So me and the party fighter get to talking, and I don't know how it happened, but eventually we decided that the party fighter should specialize in mounted combat and ride me. He would always be touching me, so I could easily heal him. He could use a ride check to help me avoid attacks if anyone targetted me and got past my AC. We could both wield lances at times and charge in together. It was all very amusing to the two of us.

But, being of sound mind, we decided to ask the DM before beginning the campaign since it would likely complicate his campaign. He unfortunately said no, so our mounted duo never occurred. :smallfrown:


And that...is what your player should have done.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-05-21, 09:58 AM
I like powerful builds. I've pulled a Gestalt Druid once. I view ToB as the best thing to ever happen to melee classes. But really. Pun-Pun? If he'd brought in Cindy, or stacked Wizard and Ur-Priest, it would be forgivable. A Beholder Mage or Cheeter of Mystra would be stupid, but not worth kicking from the group. Pun-Pun, though? Seriously? He tried to play that? Kick him from the group, never let him return, and pass a warning on to other GMs in the area.

shadzar
2009-05-21, 10:01 AM
Well they only exist in the Forgotten Realms campaign setting anyway - so unless it's set there it's really the default assumption.

(They're the local explanation of how dragons exist. They made them.)

:smallconfused: Is that one of the 4th edition retcons to FR?

Yuki Akuma
2009-05-21, 10:03 AM
:smallconfused: Is that one of the 4th edition retcons to FR?

Third.

Only seven characters bah.

shadzar
2009-05-21, 10:12 AM
Third.

Only seven characters bah.

So Savage Species retconned FR to force in a broken mechanic to allow pun-pun to begin with? I haven't read the full book/species, just researched pun-pun bits from it.

Yuki Akuma
2009-05-21, 10:14 AM
So Savage Species retconned FR to force in a broken mechanic to allow pun-pun to begin with? I haven't read the full book/species, just researched pun-pun bits from it.

Savage Species? No no no, it's from...

Guh I don't remember. It is a Forgotten Realms book, though.

kamikasei
2009-05-21, 10:17 AM
Serpent Kingdoms.

Kylarra
2009-05-21, 10:17 AM
Savage Species? No no no, it's from...

Guh I don't remember. It is a Forgotten Realms book, though.
Serpent Kingdoms.


edit: Bah ninja'd

lesser_minion
2009-05-21, 10:39 AM
So Savage Species retconned FR to force in a broken mechanic to allow pun-pun to begin with? I haven't read the full book/species, just researched pun-pun bits from it.

It's just another of those WotC "didn't do the research" moments. They create monsters, give them abilities, and completely forget that players can turn into those monsters and get those abilities.

My advice, however, would have been to wait until he tried to give Manipulate Form to his familiar and then ask "Is that a scaled one native to Toril?".

However, there is no possible way that player could have expected not to be kicked if he tried to pull one over on the DM anyway.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-05-21, 10:45 AM
It's just another of those WotC "didn't do the research" moments. They create monsters, give them abilities, and completely forget that players can turn into those monsters and get those abilities.It's not even like it needs a supplement besides SK to work. It's doable level 17, core+SK only. 13 only requires either CAdv or XPH(IIRC). It's only getting it earlier that starts needing multiple splats and the web enhancement.

shadzar
2009-05-21, 10:53 AM
It's just another of those WotC "didn't do the research" moments.

Those have existed since Richard Garfield left the company, and even when they tried to make Primal Order. :smallsigh:

grautry
2009-05-21, 10:56 AM
Honestly?

This is a game-ruining move. There are no ifs, no buts, Pun-Pun spits in the face of story, gameplay and common sense. It's a declaration of "I don't give a **** if you spent dozens of hours of your life creating realistic characters, interesting locations and fun stuff for us to do. I don't care because I intend to completely and utterly ruin your campaign".

I think that if anyone tried to seriously pull a Pun-Pun in my game then I'd probably pleasantly thank him for the game so far and tell him to go find another group, thank you very much.

I have nothing against optimization. I even don't mind cheese too much. I mean, hell, I played IotSV last game and now I'm playing with an Incantatrix. But Pun Pun? Come on.


If he'd brought in Cindy

As a side note, what's Cindy? I'm having trouble finding that build via google.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-05-21, 11:02 AM
As a side note, what's Cindy? I'm having trouble finding that build via google.Tippy made her to show that a Blaster Wizard is still optimizable. There have been various updates, but the essence is Orbs, metamagic reducers, Incantrix, and Persisted buffs.

lesser_minion
2009-05-21, 11:08 AM
It's not even like it needs a supplement besides SK to work. It's doable level 17, core+SK only. 13 only requires either CAdv or XPH(IIRC). It's only getting it earlier that starts needing multiple splats and the web enhancement.

SRD + SK works - just play a Wilder.

Basically, the ability should have been written a lot better (it's so broken that the creators of Pun-Pun didn't milk it for all it was worth).

But this was really a point where the writers could have got away with taking a leaf out of 4e's book and just not writing the ability into the entry. How did they think it would be used? Just say that they created dragons, but now they're a lot weaker.

Oh, and alternative route that depends on finding a sarrukh - play a bard and diplomance it.

nysisobli
2009-05-21, 11:11 AM
Ah un pun destroyer of worlds meet nysisobli destroyer of pun pun =)

eepop
2009-05-21, 11:43 AM
I want to preface by saying that I do not 100% know your situation, and by the sounds of it, you sound completely right in what you did.

But I feel compelled to play devil's advocate here:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Is it possible that you may have been too strong initially with the "I don't want any meta-gaming/power-gaming" stuff? Could he have gotten the impression that you were banning even practical optimization?

In D&D, your character is supposed to be an adventurer and a hero. They are putting their lives on the line, it is completely sensible that those people would have some optimization.

A common over-reaction to an optimization ban is to make a protest character, usually one of two things:
1) Go past practical optimization, and go to the theoretical optimization just for spite. Pun Pun is probably the best for this, since he can appear seemingly innocuous until the build "goes off".
2) Extremely de-optimize to the point there is not a single thing the character is useful for, and by all rights should die with 3 seconds of trying to do any adventuring.

Its not a very mature thing to do, but its entirely possible for something like this to happen:
DM: I don't want any meta-gaming/power-gaming in this campaign.
Player: Okay, I think I want to play a druid that focuses on wildshaping into a dinosaur. (In his head, he knows some of the dinosaurs are pretty good, but isn't going to do anything ridiculous, and he only really plans to prep heal spells)
DM: You can only wild shape into creatures you have seen, and you've never seen any dinosaurs. Besides, (DM thinks back to retarded fleshraker builds) thats a little too optimizy for my tastes.
Player: Fine. (Upset with the DM, he pulls the Pun Pun wildcard) I guess I'll just play a kobold, they are kinda dinosaury.


Again, just playing devil's advocate here. If this isn't how it went down, then, as I prefaced, you were probably in the right here.


But if you think this might have been an issue, I would suggest listening to some of the Brilliant Gameologists (http://brilliantgameologists.com) podcasts on optimization and why it doesn't in itself have to be a bad thing.


Sometimes these situations are just one guy being a jackass for no reason, but I don't like to make that conclusion until the other possibilities have been ruled out.

EDIT to clarify: Thats all just to give a possible explanation of why, and is in no way meant to be an excuse for such jackassery as trying to play Pun Pun.

Tengu_temp
2009-05-21, 12:09 PM
Some games or systems force the DM/GM to allow any and everything a player game find in a book in the game.

Thankfully D&D is not one of the and the DM has a right to say "No", to any additions to the game that the world was not designed for, to maintain balance of the world for all playes and the DM alike.


Actually, judging by some many threads I read here and on other forums, DND is the system that's actually closest to this approach.

Haven
2009-05-21, 12:43 PM
I started a campaign several months ago and they have advanced quite far, i informed them i didn't want any meta gaming and the group was all for it. Well i noticed around level 5 my kobold player began using a build that looked like pun- pun, i continued to play and act like i didn't know what he was doing, he continued to advance as pun pun, we reached level 12 and he said i want to change forms into a Sarruhk, i just smiled and said those creatures don't exist in my campaign world, was this a fair judge? Also he got up and stormed out red in the face and angry.

Well...you probably should have told him when you noticed, but really, I can't sympathize with someone who tries to get away with Pun-Pun.

Mystic Muse
2009-05-21, 12:49 PM
I want to preface by saying that I do not 100% know your situation, and by the sounds of it, you sound completely right in what you did.

But I feel compelled to play devil's advocate here:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Is it possible that you may have been too strong initially with the "I don't want any meta-gaming/power-gaming" stuff? Could he have gotten the impression that you were banning even practical optimization?

In D&D, your character is supposed to be an adventurer and a hero. They are putting their lives on the line, it is completely sensible that those people would have some optimization.

A common over-reaction to an optimization ban is to make a protest character, usually one of two things:
1) Go past practical optimization, and go to the theoretical optimization just for spite. Pun Pun is probably the best for this, since he can appear seemingly innocuous until the build "goes off".
2) Extremely de-optimize to the point there is not a single thing the character is useful for, and by all rights should die with 3 seconds of trying to do any adventuring.

Its not a very mature thing to do, but its entirely possible for something like this to happen:
DM: I don't want any meta-gaming/power-gaming in this campaign.
Player: Okay, I think I want to play a druid that focuses on wildshaping into a dinosaur. (In his head, he knows some of the dinosaurs are pretty good, but isn't going to do anything ridiculous, and he only really plans to prep heal spells)
DM: You can only wild shape into creatures you have seen, and you've never seen any dinosaurs. Besides, (DM thinks back to retarded fleshraker builds) thats a little too optimizy for my tastes.
Player: Fine. (Upset with the DM, he pulls the Pun Pun wildcard) I guess I'll just play a kobold, they are kinda dinosaury.


Again, just playing devil's advocate here. If this isn't how it went down, then, as I prefaced, you were probably in the right here.


But if you think this might have been an issue, I would suggest listening to some of the Brilliant Gameologists (http://brilliantgameologists.com) podcasts on optimization and why it doesn't in itself have to be a bad thing.


Sometimes these situations are just one guy being a jackass for no reason, but I don't like to make that conclusion until the other possibilities have been ruled out.

EDIT to clarify: Thats all just to give a possible explanation of why, and is in no way meant to be an excuse for such jackassery as trying to play Pun Pun.

some optimization outside of builds like punpun can still kill a campaign. all it has to do is be greatly more powerful than the other players and then nobody besides the guy with the one hit KO moves get to have any fun.

and I thought Tiamat and Bahamut or Io created dragons? or was that only in 4th edition? of course I don't really know what sarrukh or whatever are.

shadzar
2009-05-21, 12:51 PM
Actually, judging by some many threads I read here and on other forums, DND is the system that's actually closest to this approach.

??? :smallconfused:

Are you agreing D&D the DM has the right to say NO, or the DM must do what the players want and include anything printed in a book because it is printed in a book?

Telonius
2009-05-21, 12:55 PM
My preferred method of dealing with Pun-Pun: it's already happened. Some time ago, a young Kobold managed to get his hands on a candle of Invocation, and the rest is history. He gave himself an arbitrary amount of Wisdom. In so doing, he was able to grasp the ultimate nature of his reality: a make-believe character in a roleplaying game. Because he was now arbitrarily wise, he decided that the best use of his time would be to help the game along instead of trying to break it. So, he became the Deity of Cheese, Exploits, and Metagaming.

Whenever a character attempts to do something game-breakingly wrong, he shows up with a smile on his face. "Hey, that's a clever one," he will tell the offender, "but that's reserved for me. Tell you what, though. I'll warp reality for you, give you a reset. Because really, there's no reason for you to have taken all that stuff, unless you really want to be a Sarrukh. One-time offer, though. Can't have newcomers muscling in on my territory." He then hands the character an acorn attached to a chain. "Take this Phylactery of Broken-ness. If you're ever not sure about something, consult it; it'll let you know. But if I have to show up again, they'll be scraping pieces of you off of each layer of the Abyss. Got it?"

Tengu_temp
2009-05-21, 01:04 PM
??? :smallconfused:

Are you agreing D&D the DM has the right to say NO, or the DM must do what the players want and include anything printed in a book because it is printed in a book?

I'm saying that the "if it's in a book/works by RAW, the DM must allow it" approach seems to be much more common among DND players than among people who play other RPGs.

Theodoriph
2009-05-21, 01:06 PM
I'm saying that the "if it's in a book/works by RAW, the DM must allow it" approach seems to be much more common among DND players than among people who play other RPGs.

Errr....not at all. I doubt most DMs allow everything. Almost every one sets limits. And almost every players knows almost all DMs set limits.

Whether said limits are imposed by access to splat, or houserules, or whatever, limits are almost always the first thing discussed. It's one of the first questions asked.

"What level are we?
How much gold do we have?
What resources can we use?"

(or what resouces can't we use if you have an experienced and permissive GM)

lesser_minion
2009-05-21, 01:08 PM
Actually, judging by some many threads I read here and on other forums, DND is the system that's actually closest to this approach.

I remember hearing at some point that there was a system which actually told players that if they found that the DM had used house rules then they should award themselves bonus XP.

I'm still looking for the source though.

Twilight Jack
2009-05-21, 01:11 PM
My preferred method of dealing with Pun-Pun: it's already happened. Some time ago, a young Kobold managed to get his hands on a candle of Invocation, and the rest is history. He gave himself an arbitrary amount of Wisdom. In so doing, he was able to grasp the ultimate nature of his reality: a make-believe character in a roleplaying game. Because he was now arbitrarily wise, he decided that the best use of his time would be to help the game along instead of trying to break it. So, he became the Deity of Cheese, Exploits, and Metagaming.

Whenever a character attempts to do something game-breakingly wrong, he shows up with a smile on his face. "Hey, that's a clever one," he will tell the offender, "but that's reserved for me. Tell you what, though. I'll warp reality for you, give you a reset. Because really, there's no reason for you to have taken all that stuff, unless you really want to be a Sarrukh. One-time offer, though. Can't have newcomers muscling in on my territory." He then hands the character an acorn attached to a chain. "Take this Phylactery of Broken-ness. If you're ever not sure about something, consult it; it'll let you know. But if I have to show up again, they'll be scraping pieces of you off of each layer of the Abyss. Got it?"

That reminds me of an old DM I had in the 2ndEd days, who used to have a "DM's Gnome". The DM's Gnome would show up whenever the players were about to get utterly ridiculous, wielding a belt fed sci-fi contraption that fired spheres of annihilation (this was a pure fantasy D&D game, by the way). He would just pop in, look at the party, and say, "Are you sure about that?" and brandish the weapon lovingly. Then he'd exit the scene through some completely absurd form of locomotion, such as attaching a grappling hook to a random low-flying dragon and being carried away.

Quellian-dyrae
2009-05-21, 01:13 PM
You're completely in the right, in my opinion. I don't even think you should have said no earlier. A DM should no more have to say no to pun pun than the rulebooks should have to say that you can't heal someone by drowning them or that you can't take actions while dead. And even if not, the whole "no excessive optimizing" you said at the beginning includes "no playing pun pun" the same way saying no full-casting characters includes "no playing wizards".

Kylarra
2009-05-21, 01:14 PM
It just tends to be that in theoretical optimization you assume that the DM will allow things by RAW. That's where the whole "if it's in the book, then the DM will allow it." mentality comes from.

shadzar
2009-05-21, 01:20 PM
I'm saying that the "if it's in a book/works by RAW, the DM must allow it" approach seems to be much more common among DND players than among people who play other RPGs.

Ah, well that is a WotC thing and problem with the boom 3rd edition created in new players and DMs afraid to say no for fear of losing players. I saw plenty of that, and the players thinking they could use anything because neither had proper guidance due to lack of older/more experienced players to tell them otherwise.

Not all bad, but the bad part comes form when WotC didn't step in and try to solve the problem, but created 4th edition with that "Say yes to everything" concept for allowing anything in it.

It isn't really a D&D players fault, but a WotC editions' fault.

This is an observation, not and into to a flamewar, edition war, or accusation about players of any edition. Just new players can get confused and did with 3rd edition when starting on their own from personal experience, and what I have heard other places where people had players join their games from trying it in an all new player group.

So pun-pun was a creation of char-ops boards, and it spread, and people not knowing took it to think it was ok because it was doable by RAW, even though the creator said it was done as a joke to point out some flaws in 3.x edition. (see OOTS comic strip #1-#655 for more jokes about the flawed rules of 3.5 edition D&D)

If you sat down at a game table prior to 1995 to play D&D there was a 100% chance you would be told, "just cause it is in book X, doesn't mean it is allowed in this game."

Even now the newest RPGA rules has many things that are simply not allowed, for example templated characters from the 4th edition monster manual as player character IF they were not also presented in on of the PHB series (:smallyuk: what a bad term) of books.

It is a problem of the playerbase of the biggest played game that some things just won't get to all the people and fear on some sides of saying "no".

VtM in LARP form you can be told no about things up and down the road and peple usually don't complain.

Maybe a generation/era or age thing. But I never heard a good result of a pun-pun type player being played, and can't recall hearing any DM actually allowing such in 3rd, because after Pun-pun I heard that many DMs, did check a character after each level for approval of things, just as they would when a character brings a "used" character from an outside game to the table.

A problem with WotC definition of "core", but that is best for another thread, as was half of what I said in this post probably....BUT...

As done here, saying no to something that doesn't fit in your world, or you fel would break the game for the collection of players you have is OK for D&D, and the players just have to accept it when one player wants something that would negatively affect the game for all the other players including but not limited to Pin-Pun.

:smallsmile:

Eldariel
2009-05-21, 01:32 PM
I'm saying that the "if it's in a book/works by RAW, the DM must allow it" approach seems to be much more common among DND players than among people who play other RPGs.

This really mostly comes up in online discussion in two major cases:

1) Someone asks help on a character, but fails to mention what is or isn't allowed, expecting helpers to psychically read it somehow. As this doesn't happen, the most logical thing is to assume (one that's like to get closest to the allowed stuff) that everything is allowed as written in books.

2) A theoretical argument (such as "can a level 20 Fighter kill a level 20 Wizard") is brought up. In this case, as the argument doesn't concern any particular game, the only relevant framework is the framework of the rules themselves, as there is no such thing as a DM in the discussion. Therefore, the only arbiter are the rules as written in the books and those are what are abided to.


Practically all cases of "everything is allowed"-discussions come down to one or the other. When someone asks for help and specifies what is or isn't allowed, of course people discuss over those paths.

afroakuma
2009-05-21, 01:41 PM
2) A theoretical argument (such as "can a level 20 Fighter kill a level 20 Wizard") is brought up.

My ears are burning. :smallwink:

Tsotha-lanti
2009-05-21, 02:15 PM
I started a campaign several months ago and they have advanced quite far, i informed them i didn't want any meta gaming and the group was all for it. Well i noticed around level 5 my kobold player began using a build that looked like pun- pun, i continued to play and act like i didn't know what he was doing, he continued to advance as pun pun, we reached level 12 and he said i want to change forms into a Sarruhk, i just smiled and said those creatures don't exist in my campaign world, was this a fair judge? Also he got up and stormed out red in the face and angry.


Probably would've been easier to confront him before he put 12 levels into a character.

The player was at fault. Not discussing your build plants with your DM is both a player's privilege and a player's own mistake.

nysisobli, you did the right thing. Only *******s try to pull theoretical endless-loop-optimization builds like that.


Some games or systems force the DM/GM to allow any and everything a player game find in a book in the game.

No, they don't. It is physically impossible for a book to force you to do anything. (That, and the complaint about "the books say anything goes!" is almost always leveled at 3.X or 4E.)

Dode
2009-05-21, 02:36 PM
I started a campaign several months ago and they have advanced quite far, i informed them i didn't want any meta gaming and the group was all for it. Well i noticed around level 5 my kobold player began using a build that looked like pun- pun, i continued to play and act like i didn't know what he was doing, he continued to advance as pun pun, we reached level 12 and he said i want to change forms into a Sarruhk, i just smiled and said those creatures don't exist in my campaign world, was this a fair judge? Also he got up and stormed out red in the face and angry.
That was a perfect call, good work. Reminds me of a Persistant Metamagic-Incantrix twink I played with who stepped into a wall of dispel magic. At first he was suspicious so he cast a buff on his familiar and sent it through first, and it made it's save so clearly the wall was safe and... hahahahahahahahaa.

Devils_Advocate
2009-05-21, 04:35 PM
Let me get this straight.

You explained from the get-go that you didn't want any meta-gaming. Yet this player gets all set up to engage in, basically, the most abusive meta-gaming yet thought of. Possibly the one thing that the highest possible percentage of D&D players familiar with it would agree should never be done in any normal D&D game.

When the time comes, you stop him, not even by just saying "no", but via a perfectly valid ruling that would have been reasonable -- the standard, default ruling, even -- even if you weren't using it to prevent rules abuse.

And, after you have to effectively say "No, you can't make your character an omnipotent god-king", the player gets mad.

...

And now you're asking whether you were fair?

...

Um, yes. Yes, you were fair.

Waspinator
2009-05-21, 04:51 PM
My preferred method of dealing with Pun-Pun: it's already happened. Some time ago, a young Kobold managed to get his hands on a candle of Invocation, and the rest is history. He gave himself an arbitrary amount of Wisdom. In so doing, he was able to grasp the ultimate nature of his reality: a make-believe character in a roleplaying game. Because he was now arbitrarily wise, he decided that the best use of his time would be to help the game along instead of trying to break it. So, he became the Deity of Cheese, Exploits, and Metagaming.

Whenever a character attempts to do something game-breakingly wrong, he shows up with a smile on his face. "Hey, that's a clever one," he will tell the offender, "but that's reserved for me. Tell you what, though. I'll warp reality for you, give you a reset. Because really, there's no reason for you to have taken all that stuff, unless you really want to be a Sarrukh. One-time offer, though. Can't have newcomers muscling in on my territory." He then hands the character an acorn attached to a chain. "Take this Phylactery of Broken-ness. If you're ever not sure about something, consult it; it'll let you know. But if I have to show up again, they'll be scraping pieces of you off of each layer of the Abyss. Got it?"

I like this. Basically, Pun Pun already happened once and now he's stopping anyone else from pulling it off.

Or just decide the some of the required parts (the Sarrukh, Pazuzu) do not exist. That's well within DM jurisdiction by any standard. There's no requirement that every Wizards of the Coast entity, god, or species exists in every campaign setting whether its official, third-party, or homebrew.

eepop
2009-05-21, 05:20 PM
some optimization outside of builds like punpun can still kill a campaign. all it has to do is be greatly more powerful than the other players and then nobody besides the guy with the one hit KO moves get to have any fun.

and I thought Tiamat and Bahamut or Io created dragons? or was that only in 4th edition? of course I don't really know what sarrukh or whatever are.

Maybe you've only had experiences with overly permissive DMs that allowed PunPuns to run rampant and destroy games. But there are also DMs that are so restrictive, and so anti-optimization of any kind that the players feel utterly closed off from the game.

I repeatedly said that nothing JUSTIFIES him playing pun pun. But I was trying to help find the reason why he did it, not write him an excuse. The OP specifically said that this guy usually isn't a jackass like this, so logic says that there is probably some reason that this time he felt the need to do so.

It may be an over-restrictive DM who assumes every little optimization he makes is too much*, or it may just be that his girlfriend banged someone else, or maybe he indeed did just feel like being a jackass.

But whatever caused him to do it, he is still one of the OP's friends. I like to believe that my friends would have some reason to be such a jerk if something like this happened. It doesn't excuse the behavior, but knowing and addressing the source can stop it from happening again and keep you from losing a friend. And if the source is something about the game itself, like over restriction on optimization, other players may think its a problem too but have just been living with it instead of taking the jerky way out.

Before we assume this guy did this just to be an ass, lets eliminate any possibility to the contrary.


Optimization should be kept to a reasonable level, but so should regulation of optimization be kept to a reasonable level. Pun Pun is never called for, but neither is banning everything that might make a character an able adventurer.


* - Something like "You can't play a wildshaping druid that turns into dinosaurs, because Fleshrakers are OP. I know you said you didn't want to do fleshrakers, but it all still stinks of optimization.".

Zergrusheddie
2009-05-21, 05:35 PM
Yeah, can't blame you for stopping Pun-Pun.

Every DM has their own acceptable level of cheese. Some DM's allow Divine Metamagic and Nightsticks that don't stack even though they know the Cleric will still be really powerful. Some allow powerful charger builds that deal hundreds of damage a round and just find ways so that charging is difficult. Some DM flat out ban Glitterdust because they feel it is too powerful. But I don't know of a single DM that would allow Pun-Pun. Every character tries to be as powerful as possible, but Pun-Pun is simply ridiculous and was never meant to be played.

Best of luck
-Eddie

shadzar
2009-05-21, 05:39 PM
But there are also DMs that are so restrictive, and so anti-optimization of any kind that the players feel utterly closed off from the game.

There is a difference in this I hope you mean. Being anti-optimization doesn't mean completely restrictive.

One of the things I disliked about 3.x was people calling characters builds, and anything that would prevent that I did tout suite to steer them back on course of calling and thinking about them as characters rather than just a collection of numbers and combat abilities.

Granted I only DMed 3.5 twice when the DM got called in to work early, but still.

You can't rely on the numbers for everything as a good DM should not do things that allow only the numbers to succeed, nor let the number crunching become exploits to the rest of the game.

Colmarr
2009-05-21, 06:59 PM
I did tout suite

I don't wish to be a pedant, but I think you mean "toot sweet", meaning "real quick". Until I realised that, your sentence completely lost me.

EDIT: Hmm, it appears (http://www.allwords.com/word-toot+sweet.html) that toot sweet is an anglicisation of "tout de suite". Guess I learned something today.

Fortinbras
2009-05-21, 07:08 PM
I'm going to ask the stupid question. Who is pun pun what is so terrible about him and why should everyone know not to allow him or try to play him?

AslanCross
2009-05-21, 07:12 PM
I'd say it was fair, because Pun-pun would destroy the game for everyone. However, you've got to talk to him about this. He should have seen this coming if you already said no cheese beforehand.

EDIT: Fortinbras> Basically, Pun-pun is a build that uses infinite recursive loops to achieve infinite power in game. I don't know the specifics---I don't want to know---but it's an illustration of how broken 3.5 can become if players are allowed to do their own thing.

TheCountAlucard
2009-05-21, 07:13 PM
I'm going to ask the stupid question. Who is pun pun what is so terrible about him and why should everyone know not to allow him or try to play him?

Pun-pun is an exercise in theoretical optimization, in which a kobold ascends to godhood and omnipotence through use of the poor wording in the Sarrukh's special ability to alter scaly creatures. Thanks to contribution from other optimizers, it's now possible to attain at level one.

As I inferred by saying "omnipotence," Pun-pun can do anything, and that kinda ruins the game.

OzymandiasVolt
2009-05-21, 09:16 PM
The OP's decision was the correct one. The player was actively and selfishly trying to take advantage of a massive loophole to break the game. He had no right to get all pissy over getting shot down by the DM.

Colmarr
2009-05-21, 09:39 PM
Pun-pun is an exercise in theoretical optimization, in which a kobold ascends to godhood and omnipotence through use of the poor wording in the Sarrukh's special ability to alter scaly creatures.

More specifically, the kobold in question gains - among other things - the power to increase his own attributes without limit (effectively giving him infinity Str, Dex, Con, Int, Wis and Cha) and therefore invulnerability and ultimate power.


As I inferred by saying "omnipotence," Pun-pun can do anything, and that kinda ruins the game.

I'm not sure this is technically correct. IIRC, Pun-Pun is still limited by his level and the powers and abilities he has. Correct me if I'm wrong, but a level 12 Pun-Pun (while able to defeat any opponent in combat), might still have no way of knowing where the BBEG is or what he is doing.

That's a bit moot, though, because (1) D&D as a social hobby breaks down if challenges are made irrelevant and (2) in theoretical optimisation, Pun-Pun can use his infinity attributes to go out and beat up however many/whichever opponents he needs to gain the xp to attain the relevant level.

TheCountAlucard
2009-05-21, 09:55 PM
Pun-Pun is still limited by his level and the powers and abilities he has.Ah, but Pun-pun can give himself any ability, including all of them. There's no reason that he couldn't give himself spellcasting as though from each casting class, epic casting, immunity to magic, immunity to weapon damage, regeneration that only treats acid damage as lethal, and the clay golem's ability to heal from acid damage.

The Glyphstone
2009-05-21, 09:56 PM
More specifically, the kobold in question gains - among other things - the power to increase his own attributes without limit (effectively giving him infinity Str, Dex, Con, Int, Wis and Cha) and therefore invulnerability and ultimate power.



I'm not sure this is technically correct. IIRC, Pun-Pun is still limited by his level and the powers and abilities he has. Correct me if I'm wrong, but a level 12 Pun-Pun (while able to defeat any opponent in combat), might still have no way of knowing where the BBEG is or what he is doing.

That's a bit moot, though, because (1) D&D as a social hobby breaks down if challenges are made irrelevant and (2) in theoretical optimisation, Pun-Pun can use his infinity attributes to go out and beat up however many/whichever opponents he needs to gain the xp to attain the relevant level.


Pun-pun can also, if I remember right, arbitrarily grant himself levels, abilities, feats, divine ranks, or whatever he feels like.

Waspinator
2009-05-21, 09:59 PM
Well, technically nothing Pun-Pun does makes his stats literally infinite. They can certainly be as arbitrarily high as he wants, though. For people who don't know what we are talking about:
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=491801

Chronos
2009-05-21, 10:02 PM
Pun-Pun can give himself any ability he wants. So, yeah, he has stats in the millions, but he also has Wish and Miracle as at-will spell-like abilities, no chance to fail any saving throw, no chance to suffer any effects on a successful saving throw, spell immunity to all spells, etc.


To the OP, I would say that you are not, in fact, being fair to this character. "Fair" would not allow him to rebuild his character or create a new one. He knew right from the start that Pun-Pun wouldn't be allowed (no matter how much or little you hinted that you didn't like gaming, he should have known this even without you saying a word), and yet he tried it anyway. Basically, he spent the entire campaign up to this point working up to a single joke, and not even a very funny one, at that. This is the character he built himself, and this is the character he now has.

The rebuilding rules are intended for use by players who didn't realize something important about their build, or who have just added new books or resources that they would have liked to use in the first place. Neither applies in this case: He knew everything he needed to know about Pun-Pun right from the start, and if you allow enough materials to let him get even within shouting distance of achieving Pun-Pun, then you probably allowed whatever else he would have built in the first place.

ChaosDefender24
2009-05-21, 10:19 PM
I almost wonder what this guy's thinking

He knows you don't allow Pun-Pun
He knows that Pun-Pun does absolutely nothing in terms of gameplay other than give the player a small twinge of empowerment before the PC conquers the multiverse
He's probably just messing with you, and I really hope he was only feigning anger when he stormed out of the room...

Tequila Sunrise
2009-05-21, 10:54 PM
...i just smiled and said those creatures don't exist in my campaign world...
The only thing that you maybe did wrong was say this instead of "no, the Pun-Pun trick just doesn't work in real games." By denying him Pun-Pun via a technicality, you've implied that other cheesy combos might be okay if he avoids similar technicalities. A simple "no" really is enough in this situation, but I have to admit, your solution is much funnier. :smallsmile:

Stormageddon
2009-05-21, 10:54 PM
Wow I just read the pun pun build. I think I would be kicked out of my group if I even had a passing thought of trying to do that. Your player really should have know better.

Waspinator
2009-05-22, 01:43 AM
There's actually not just one Pun-Pun build. You can pull it off several ways; you just need to get access to that "give a creature any ability" ability and you're good to go. The only reason Pun-Pun is a kobold is because that makes it easier.

Devils_Advocate
2009-05-22, 01:52 AM
I'm going to ask the stupid question. Who is pun pun what is so terrible about him and why should everyone know not to allow him or try to play him?
Let me google that for you. (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=pun-pun)

elliott20
2009-05-22, 02:03 AM
if you're still interested in having that player back, just tell him that he can rebuild his character to something a bit less outrageous.

lesser_minion
2009-05-22, 04:29 AM
Wait a second... why does he need to rebuild his character?

I'm pretty sure that most of the Pun-Pun builds lead to half-way effective characters even if they don't get to ascend. Especially in a low-optimisation campaign.

elliott20
2009-05-22, 05:29 AM
that is true. But it might not be as fun for that player. After all, I know a bunch of viable wizard builds, but I just don't have that much fun with them enough to play them beyond theoretical exercises.

Raenir Salazar
2009-05-22, 08:44 AM
I like powerful builds. I've pulled a Gestalt Druid once. I view ToB as the best thing to ever happen to melee classes. But really. Pun-Pun? If he'd brought in Cindy, or stacked Wizard and Ur-Priest, it would be forgivable. A Beholder Mage or Cheeter of Mystra would be stupid, but not worth kicking from the group. Pun-Pun, though? Seriously? He tried to play that? Kick him from the group, never let him return, and pass a warning on to other GMs in the area.

This sounds overly harsh, I agree saying no is correct but if you knew what he was doing I find it irresponsible to have made it thus far and not told him outright, for example what if he manages to trick you and pull something pun pun ish but completely differently?

Tiki Snakes
2009-05-22, 09:11 AM
Well, technically nothing Pun-Pun does makes his stats literally infinite. They can certainly be as arbitrarily high as he wants, though. For people who don't know what we are talking about:
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=491801

Except if he grants himself the ability to grant himself infinate stats? >_>

Saintheart
2009-05-22, 09:23 AM
There's actually not just one Pun-Pun build. You can pull it off several ways; you just need to get access to that "give a creature any ability" ability and you're good to go. The only reason Pun-Pun is a kobold is because that makes it easier.

I think the overall reason for Pun-Pun's existence is simply because it shows how simple it is to break the game under the literal rules as written. Somewhere in the gleemax forums it's stated more or less explicitly that it can be just about any small race, even human -- the point is just to show "Epic Brokenness" at its highest. It completely leaves out Rule 0 from the equation.

Me, I do rather like the Weis & Hickman answer to PCs who want to become Pun-Pun: sure, you can go into the Abyss, take on Tiamat Takhisis, kill her, and take her place but because you started as a mortal and have no idea how godhood actually functions, you destroy all the gods and eventually the entire universe. Nice Job Breaking It, Hero. The End.

(Ah! So that's how Raistlin got that strong!)

Raenir Salazar
2009-05-22, 09:31 AM
Raistlin had a sorta soul splice with Fisty that Fisty had partial control over at some point though Raistlin gained full control of it and eventually absorbed Fisty's past self. Jumping from say lvl 15 to 21.

Saintheart
2009-05-22, 09:33 AM
Raistlin had a sorta soul splice with Fisty that Fisty had partial control over at some point though Raistlin gained full control of it and eventually absorbed Fisty's past self. Jumping from say lvl 15 to 21.

Sploitz! Only happened because the dumb DM let the PC playing the kender actually be the subject of a time travel spell! :smallbiggrin: :smallbiggrin:

shadzar
2009-05-22, 10:00 AM
Raistlin had a sorta soul splice with Fisty that Fisty had partial control over at some point though Raistlin gained full control of it and eventually absorbed Fisty's past self. Jumping from say lvl 15 to 21.

:smalleek: Fisty just doesn't sound like a very good nickname for poor old Fistandantilus.

Don't forget Ceric in the other world too and what parallels he went through for roughly the same end.

Another_Poet
2009-05-22, 10:40 AM
was this a fair judge?

Yes. Yes. Yes.

eepop
2009-05-22, 11:58 AM
There is a difference in this I hope you mean. Being anti-optimization doesn't mean completely restrictive.

One of the things I disliked about 3.x was people calling characters builds, and anything that would prevent that I did tout suite to steer them back on course of calling and thinking about them as characters rather than just a collection of numbers and combat abilities.

Granted I only DMed 3.5 twice when the DM got called in to work early, but still.

You can't rely on the numbers for everything as a good DM should not do things that allow only the numbers to succeed, nor let the number crunching become exploits to the rest of the game.

I completely understand that allowable optimization is a spectrum. And its entirely possible that the OP had his campaign at a fair place on that spectrum. All I am saying is it is worth the time to take a deep breath and evaluate where he is at to make sure that is not a contributing factor.

Sooner or later you are going to need to sit down and discuss what happened with this player. And before that time comes you want to have taken an honest inventory of anything you might have done to contribute to it. If you do that, then when you talk to this guy he's going to react a lot better than if you go into it assuming he just did it to be a jerk.

Fortinbras
2009-05-22, 01:47 PM
Okay another question; who the h*** designed sarrukhs in the first place? What were they thinking?

shadzar
2009-05-22, 02:01 PM
Sooner or later you are going to need to sit down and discuss what happened with this player. And before that time comes you want to have taken an honest inventory of anything you might have done to contribute to it. If you do that, then when you talk to this guy he's going to react a lot better than if you go into it assuming he just did it to be a jerk.

Sadly sometimes it comes down to the person just IS a jerk.

@Fortinbras:

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=products/fracc/965660000
:smalleek: Ed Greenwood, Eric L. Boyd, Darrin Drader

I don't think, I hope he didn't...did Ed make them? :smalleek:

Darrin Drader can be found on ENWorld (I think), if someone wants to ask him, and Ed might still visit Dragonsfoot.

Volkov
2009-05-22, 02:01 PM
Pun-pun is probably the only one who can walk into the tomb of horrors with a blind fold on and live to tell the tale.

Narmoth
2009-05-22, 02:47 PM
I started a campaign several months ago and they have advanced quite far, i informed them i didn't want any meta gaming and the group was all for it. Well i noticed around level 5 my kobold player began using a build that looked like pun- pun, i continued to play and act like i didn't know what he was doing, he continued to advance as pun pun, we reached level 12 and he said i want to change forms into a Sarruhk, i just smiled and said those creatures don't exist in my campaign world, was this a fair judge? Also he got up and stormed out red in the face and angry.

Pure epic.
Really, building punpun means that the player is planning on screwing over the dm. Your solution of simply removing Sarruhks rather the pc with rocks, was the nicest way you could handle it.
Now, I would allow the player to introduce a new character in stead of the failed punpun. But he should view it as a courtesy that you'd let him play at all after trying punpun

nysisobli
2009-05-22, 03:49 PM
he decided he wanted to play a druid lol

shadzar
2009-05-22, 03:57 PM
he decided he wanted to play a druid lol

BEWARE CoDzilla!

Starbuck_II
2009-05-22, 05:31 PM
I don't agree the guy is jerk: he was nice enough to wait till he gained 11 levels.

I mean, he could have started at level 1 and said: Pazuzu trice.

Really, he wasn't as bad as he could have been.

Eldariel
2009-05-22, 05:36 PM
Are you sure you haven't somehow sent a message to the PCs: "Break my campaign!" or "This is gonna be really tough, so make the strongest characters you can!"? 'cause that would explain exactly whta he's doing.

Chronos
2009-05-22, 09:38 PM
I don't agree the guy is jerk: he was nice enough to wait till he gained 11 levels.

I mean, he could have started at level 1 and said: Pazuzu trice.

Really, he wasn't as bad as he could have been.No, if he had made the character and started saying "Pazuzu" immediately, then everyone could have had a laugh and he could have then moved on to do something else. As it is, he's wasted a lot of time on his silly little joke.

lisiecki
2009-05-22, 10:53 PM
Um...
Just TELL him you dont want that character in the game.
He's spent 12 levels advancing towards something you dont want
Rather than waste both your times, be honest, and let him build something he can have fun with, and that will be approprate to your game




I started a campaign several months ago and they have advanced quite far, i informed them i didn't want any meta gaming and the group was all for it. Well i noticed around level 5 my kobold player began using a build that looked like pun- pun, i continued to play and act like i didn't know what he was doing, he continued to advance as pun pun, we reached level 12 and he said i want to change forms into a Sarruhk, i just smiled and said those creatures don't exist in my campaign world, was this a fair judge? Also he got up and stormed out red in the face and angry.

Zhalath
2009-05-23, 01:12 PM
Okay another question; who the h*** designed sarrukhs in the first place? What were they thinking?

I've always wondered about this. It seems to me that many of the non-core books, especially the campaign series', do not get good enough editing. After all, Planar Shepherd and Incantatrix slipped through their books too, as well as the Divine Minion template which causes one of the Pun-Puns.

Tsotha-lanti
2009-05-23, 02:18 PM
I've always wondered about this. It seems to me that many of the non-core books, especially the campaign series', do not get good enough editing. After all, Planar Shepherd and Incantatrix slipped through their books too, as well as the Divine Minion template which causes one of the Pun-Puns.

Many of the books are awful, yes. (Not that templates should matter; those are pretty much DM-only stuff.) The sarrukhs' ability is particularly bad, and most of all completely unnecessary. So they can alter living creatures into new forms? That's a plot device power, not a listed on your stat block power.

ericgrau
2009-05-23, 06:56 PM
First off you already made it clear that you didn't want any metagaming hoo ha, and he tried to pull the worst of it. You were well within your rights to screw him over hard for trying to ruin the game in such an overwhelming and blatant matter.

That said, there might have been nicer ways to handle this, even though it's more than he deserved. You could have talked with him earlier, gave repeated warnings, told him look if you try to pull this or any cheese I'm just gonna deny it, etc. But you know him better than I do, so it's your call. Try to do whatever makes the game the most fun for everyone: him by stopping him while screwing him over as little as possible (unless needed) and the others by making sure he doesn't screw up their game.

Oh ya, I second the motion to just let him make a different character and move on, assuming he's willing and not a baby about it. In that case, see above and figure it out.

Saintheart
2009-05-24, 10:05 PM
Okay another question; who the h*** designed sarrukhs in the first place? What were they thinking?

Personally, and I might be completely wrong on this, it seems to me the Sarrukh wasn't really meant to be a viable player species across the entirety of D&D products.

First, Sarrukh were meant to be confined to the Forgotten Realms milieu, meaning if you're operating on Eberron or even in the 'default setting', you shouldn't even have access to a Sarrukh at all because they don't exist off Abeir-Toril. (Although one does have to concede the FR wikipedia suggests many "emigrated to different planes of existence", which could mean just about anything...sigh...

Second, even within Faerun, they're meant to be rare. They were a powerful race -- one of these "progenitor" style of race, but thousands of years have passed since the height of their power; these days they're meant to be much more a "hidden" sort of race devoted to preservation of their numbers rather than being out adventuring around. This even goes so far as to suggest the majority that remain are actually in thousand-year hibernations followed by short periods of activity.

It seems to me that, even if they did miss the Pun-Pun breakage factor, the makers weren't intending the Sarrukh to be used as a race except in specific campaigns, and even then they're more for flavour and viva le difference rather than actualy viability. It's similar to the mythals of the Lost Empires of Faerun rulebook -- awesomely powerful in theory, but why would you build one unless you had "that" sort of campaign going on?

Finally, if the makers did see the Pun-Pun factor (unlikely), they've also more or less explicitly said: Rule 0 = DM > any specific rule. That is, they don't necessarily intend Rules As Written to be the be-all and end-all of the game. And to some limitedextent I think the "Look how broken the RAW is!" can be akin to hacking into a bank, stealing a couple million bucks in cash, and then offering the justification that "I did it 2 show u how lax ur security iz!" Yes, it's probably a daily embarrassment to Team Greenwood et. al., but just rule on it. I don't question DM slashes to some breakable rules, mostly because I'd rather play with what rules I have left, which are more than capable of providing decent characters in any event.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-05-24, 10:58 PM
Personally, and I might be completely wrong on this, it seems to me the Sarrukh wasn't really meant to be a viable player species across the entirety of D&D products.

First, Sarrukh were meant to be confined to the Forgotten Realms milieu, meaning if you're operating on Eberron or even in the 'default setting', you shouldn't even have access to a Sarrukh at all because they don't exist off Abeir-Toril. (Although one does have to concede the FR wikipedia suggests many "emigrated to different planes of existence", which could mean just about anything...sigh...

Second, even within Faerun, they're meant to be rare. They were a powerful race -- one of these "progenitor" style of race, but thousands of years have passed since the height of their power; these days they're meant to be much more a "hidden" sort of race devoted to preservation of their numbers rather than being out adventuring around. This even goes so far as to suggest the majority that remain are actually in thousand-year hibernations followed by short periods of activity.But the thing is, it doesn't take more than the existance of Sarruks in your campaign setting and a knowlege check in order to get their abilities, SRD+SK, as soon as your level=their HD. The race has serious issues even without that, though. That ability being so ill-defined means that a Sarrukh can turn a CR 1/3 Kobold Commoner 1 into an Ikea Tarrasque. In 1+2d4(IIRC) rounds. And the Sarrukh only needs to be present for the first round. What's the CR of that encounter? They didn't even think about this thing, just slapped an ability on it and called it done.

Saintheart
2009-05-25, 08:49 PM
But the thing is, it doesn't take more than the existance of Sarruks in your campaign setting and a knowlege check in order to get their abilities, SRD+SK, as soon as your level=their HD. The race has serious issues even without that, though. That ability being so ill-defined means that a Sarrukh can turn a CR 1/3 Kobold Commoner 1 into an Ikea Tarrasque. In 1+2d4(IIRC) rounds. And the Sarrukh only needs to be present for the first round. What's the CR of that encounter? They didn't even think about this thing, just slapped an ability on it and called it done.

I don't doubt the race was designed without an overall big-picture look at how the ability could be abused; Tsotha-lanti above had it right, though, that this is much more a plot device power than a "list on your stat block" power. GM needs to proceed with discretion, always.