PDA

View Full Version : Should the DM have ingame consequences for breaking the system?



Talakeal
2011-05-03, 01:14 PM
A slightly different take on my thread about protecting PCs from their own actions.

Several times I have had a player (usually the same problem player) find either a loophole in the rules which he can exploit for near infinite power. Rather than just make an arbitrary ruling and tell him no I try and find an in character pressure to stop him.

For example, wall of iron + fabricate and I have local merchants or armorers guilds tell him to stop or else.
One time he was going to every store in town, dominating the shop keeper, and taking ordering them to give him all of their money / stock. I had the local with hunters tell him to stop or else.
One time he was abusing the gate line for infinite SLAs and an infinite army of elemental minions, and I had the divine masters of the beings he was summoning en masse to tell him to stop or else.
One time he had a + ridiculous bluff score and was going around claiming that every cursed item he found was actually an insanely powerful artifact and selling it for massive amounts of money, only to have the buyer killed by the curse before they could get revenge. One time he sold a powerful fighter a cursed sword of berserking, and when he used it he slaughtered the townsfolk he was trying to protect, and the authorities tracked it back to the PC.

And so on. Usually he keeps on doing it, telling me he is CN and no one can tell him what to do. So then I throw an over CR encounter at him and he accuses me of being a killer DM, and of pulling grudge monsters out of my butt, even when he had advance warning and they are an established part of the setting.

Am I doing this wrong? Should I stick to OOC reasons why mages can't break the world rather than in character ones? Or should I, as usual, ditch the player and it won't come up in future games.

The Glyphstone
2011-05-03, 01:16 PM
Drop him like a hot potato. He's obviously not learning his lesson.

Nero24200
2011-05-03, 01:29 PM
I agree, ditch him.

If for some reason you decide not to make him play a straight fighter or something until he learns not to abuse magic.

I'd also add a houserule saying that you lose 100xp per level every time you use "I'm X alignment" as your only excuse for doing something.

Ravens_cry
2011-05-03, 01:43 PM
I am going to say no. This is an out of character problem, solve it in a out-of-character way. Making bad things happen to a character because you are having issues with the player just feels petty.

Morghen
2011-05-03, 01:44 PM
Several times I have had a player (usually the same problem player) find either a loophole in the rules which he can exploit for near infinite power. Rather than just make an arbitrary ruling and tell him no I try and find an in character pressure to stop him.It depends on the specific situation, but I'd recommend giving him an in-game consequence for his actions. Don't punish him for his creativity. Just make his actions have repercussions. I'll give examples below.


For example, wall of iron + fabricate and I have local merchants or armorers guilds tell him to stop or else.I don't really see what the problem is. Why don't you want him doing this? Accepting that you find this to be bad: This actually sounds like a decent in-game consequence. If he keeps doing it, the government may take notice and tell him that he works for them now. Or if the government/powerful merchant guild runs the mining industry, they may not ask him to stop. They'll tell him to stop and when he doesn't (because he's CN) they'll just grease him.


One time he was going to every store in town, dominating the shop keeper, and taking ordering them to give him all of their money / stock. I had the local with hunters tell him to stop or else.That's stealing. Law enforcement should deal with that. Arrest him.


One time he was abusing the gate line for infinite SLAs and an infinite army of elemental minions, and I had the divine masters of the beings he was summoning en masse to tell him to stop or else.I don't know what this is. Has it gotten an errata? If not, house-rule it.


One time he had a + ridiculous bluff score and was going around claiming that every cursed item he found was actually an insanely powerful artifact and selling it for massive amounts of money, only to have the buyer killed by the curse before they could get revenge.Your NPCs should be smarter. Before I spend a ton of money on anything, I'm getting that whatever-it-is Identified. Also, those suckers will have families. Or patrons.


One time he sold a powerful fighter a cursed sword of berserking, and when he used it he slaughtered the townsfolk he was trying to protect, and the authorities tracked it back to the PC.And what did those authorities do?


Or should I, as usual, ditch the player and it won't come up in future games.Yes. And tell him why. Recommend that he look around for another GM. He's going to pitch a fit, but try to avoid getting emotional when he freaks out. Stay calm and things will go much better.

Talakeal
2011-05-03, 01:45 PM
I am going to say no. This is an out of character problem, solve it in a out-of-character way. Making bad things happen to a character because you are having issues with the player just feels petty.

No no no, you misunderstand me. He is finding IC ways to break the world, and I am trying to find IC ways to keep the world whole. The problem is he keeps on pushing and it ends up coming back on him.


Your NPCs should be smarter. Before I spend a ton of money on anything, I'm getting that whatever-it-is Identified. Also, those suckers will have families. Or patrons.


He has like a + 1 billion to bluff. What he did was tell them that he had already identified it for them as a free service to his clients, which, as a wizard, isn't that improbable. If you looke at the examples of beating someones sense motive by 20+ that is actually a rather time lie.

Morghen
2011-05-03, 01:48 PM
The problem is he keeps on pushing and it ends up coming back on him.Then the only problem is that you feel bad presenting him with the consequences of his actions.

valadil
2011-05-03, 01:49 PM
And so on. Usually he keeps on doing it, telling me he is CN and no one can tell him what to do. So then I throw an over CR encounter at him and he accuses me of being a killer DM, and of pulling grudge monsters out of my butt, even when he had advance warning and they are an established part of the setting.


I think you need to turn up the heat slowly. If he abuses all the shopkeepers in town, have the guards run him out. They should be a normal or even weak encounter. Maybe he runs, maybe he kills them.

After he's done this in several towns, something bigger notices. Maybe a roving band of paladins who take care of things beyond what the town guard is capable of.

When they're disposed of, kick it up another notch. A mage tower takes exception to how he's been exploiting magic. The elders at the tower don't like that people mistrust all the mages because of what this guy has been doing. Send him a cease and desist. If he's below level 9, send it as a Nightmare. Why? To communicate that something more powerful than him has noticed. If he fails to cease, send that something after him.

If he defeats that, try a different approach. Something big and evil notices what he's done and likes it. Let's go with Bane. A priest of Bane shows up and thanks the PC for all he's done. Then demands service. And maybe a tribute.

Etc.

The point I'm getting at is that you can't go from no consequences to over CR encounter in one blow. You need to fire a warning shot at the PC. Basically you need to get him to think "I barely got away from that one, maybe I should quit while I'm ahead." Give him the chance to quit too. But if he keeps going, he needs to know it'll kill him.


He has like a + 1 billion to bluff. What he did was tell them that he had already identified it for them as a free service to his clients, which, as a wizard, isn't that improbable. If you looke at the examples of beating someones sense motive by 20+ that is actually a rather time lie.

Seriously? He shouldn't be a PC anymore. Tell him you can't handle a PC with that much bluff and that his character has graduated from PC-dom and is going to wreak havoc elsewhere in the world, but don't worry, you'll get to deal with him again sooner or later. I've seen this used before. If done correctly it can come across as complimentary. If he really just wants to run around with +1000000000 to bluff, he isn't mature enough to roleplay with other people and should be dropped.

Tyndmyr
2011-05-03, 01:50 PM
Just flat out ban any infinite combo. If it, by RAW, leads to infinite x, it is banned.

This takes care of many of the truly stupid things. It's also a rule that most players will tend to take for granted, and does not usually cause a great deal of objecting from your players. If a player looks at this and says things like "arbitrarily high stats aren't technically infinite", run. Run now.

Morghen
2011-05-03, 01:52 PM
He has like a + 1 billion to bluff.How did he get +1,000,000,000 to Bluff?


What he did was tell them that he had already identified it for them as a free service to his clients, which, as a wizard, isn't that improbable.1. If I'm buying an artifact, I'm bringing my own dude to Identify it. 2. Does he have a tower/base? Then that's the place where the guy sells cursed items and nobody ever buys from him again.

Talakeal
2011-05-03, 01:53 PM
I always do warn him, usually repeatedly. He just rarely listens.

Also, if I just slowly scale up the CR while he keeps doing it, doesn't that make his hijinx the new focus of the campaign? In that regard it would seem like I am encouraging him, because it keeps the game running, and causes nice convenient chunks of XP and treasure to show up at his door.

By the time I work my way up to the really big guns he will likely have already achieved Pun Pun levels of power and can't be stopped anyway.

For example, one time he learned to cast shape shift into an elemental wyrd. At will an elemental wyrd can summon an elemental servant with no duration, and he was literally summoning thousands per day. Really, how long can you keep that going before his elemental horde takes over the universe?


How did he get +1,000,000,000 to Bluff?

1. If I'm buying an artifact, I'm bringing my own dude to Identify it. .

He doesn't really have a billion, but it is high enough that he can beat most any NPCs sense motive by 20 or more on a roll of a 1.
Yes, logically you would bring your own guy to identify it, however because of his bluff you trust him completely and have no reason to believe his offer isn't genuine, so you would just be throwing your 100 gp pearl away.

druid91
2011-05-03, 01:55 PM
Just flat out ban any infinite combo. If it, by RAW, leads to infinite x, it is banned.

This takes care of many of the truly stupid things. It's also a rule that most players will tend to take for granted, and does not usually cause a great deal of objecting from your players. If a player looks at this and says things like "arbitrarily high stats aren't technically infinite", run. Run now.

This is an attitude I dislike.

In particular 3.5 is stingy with wealth by default.
If a mage wants to devote some time to making the party money than let them.

Talakeal
2011-05-03, 01:56 PM
Just flat out ban any infinite combo. If it, by RAW, leads to infinite x, it is banned.

This takes care of many of the truly stupid things. It's also a rule that most players will tend to take for granted, and does not usually cause a great deal of objecting from your players. If a player looks at this and says things like "arbitrarily high stats aren't technically infinite", run. Run now.

Weren't you the one who says that DM's shouldn't be allowed to make calls like that in the "There is no rule zero" thread?


This is an attitude I dislike.

In particular 3.5 is stingy with wealth by default.
If a mage wants to devote some time to making the party money than let them.

Normally I agree, and in my home brew system where you only get spells back at certain points I fully allow this. However, in D&D all your spells come back every eight hours, and if you aren't on a time sensitive mission you can just take a month off adventuring, devote all your spells to making money, and have 10x your WBL.

Yukitsu
2011-05-03, 01:58 PM
Weren't you the one who says that DM's shouldn't be allowed to make calls like that in the "There is no rule zero" thread?

A lot of them require the guy trying to ignore the "bonuses don't stack" rule in the books, so it's usually not necessary. The infinite con one for example requieres you ignore the rule "nameless bonuses from the same source don't stack".

valadil
2011-05-03, 01:58 PM
Also, if I just slowly scale up the CR while he keeps doing it, doesn't that make his hijinx the new focus of the campaign? In that regard it would seem like I am encouraging him, because it keeps the game running, and causes nice convenient chunks of XP and treasure to show up at his door.


I see two ways to do this. Let him be the real focus of the game. I like highly motivated PCs. While he's being disruptive, you definitely can run a game around the shenanigans. Maybe you could even get the rest of the group into it too. Run the game for a party of con men trying not to get caught. I'd play that.

The other way is to let his punishments ruin other plots. If the players are trying to make allies for an important intrigue plot, have someone that the PC screwed over make a public accusation. Or even just have the reputation be public. What if the group can't enter a certain city because the guards have all been warned that this one PC will grift all the merchants. Maybe then the other players will try and keep him honest. Or just throw his character out of the group.

Belobog
2011-05-03, 02:01 PM
Change the game. Run an E6 campaign, switch the system, do something other than what you're doing now. You'll just wear each other with this war of attrition and will both end up hating the game.

Knaight
2011-05-03, 02:04 PM
A lot of them require the guy trying to ignore the "bonuses don't stack" rule in the books, so it's usually not necessary. The infinite con one for example requieres you ignore the rule "nameless bonuses from the same source don't stack".

There are a fair few where one simply increases the one bonus over and over, without using stacking. Still, its unreasonable to take advantage of these in a game, pointing that out is reasonable.

Traab
2011-05-03, 02:04 PM
You could try this.

"Look Jimmy, (im calling him jimmy for this post) I get that you enjoy finding loopholes, really, I do, but all it is doing is breaking the game. Id appreciate it if you stopped doing that as it just ends badly no matter what. How about this? Instead of exploiting the hell out of the game, when you spot a new one, you let me know for future reference, and in return ill give your character X as a reward."

Then you just have to come up with a decent reward that doesnt break the game but is still nice, you can slowly amass a list of interesting loopholes that you can plug in future games, and everybody wins.

Talakeal
2011-05-03, 02:09 PM
You could try this.

"Look Jimmy, (im calling him jimmy for this post) .

Its funny, because Jimmy was actually the name of his wizard who had the dominate shop keepers idea.

When we are playtesting my homebrew rules I actually do encourage him to find loopholes, which he excels at, and was the main reason I kept him around. I had a standing agreement that if he finds a loophole for me he can use it for one session before I fix it, or if it is simply too broken for the session to continue I give him some other reward.

However, when playing D&D I don't care about finding their loopholes, I just want to get on with the game as intended.

Traab
2011-05-03, 02:16 PM
Ah but thats the best part! You dont HAVE to find them, your annoying buddy will! Give him, i dunno, a cash reward, a handy random trinket with an interesting effect, whatever. Then write down the exploit so you can have it banned for next time. Eventually he is going to run out.

druid91
2011-05-03, 02:20 PM
Normally I agree, and in my home brew system where you only get spells back at certain points I fully allow this. However, in D&D all your spells come back every eight hours, and if you aren't on a time sensitive mission you can just take a month off adventuring, devote all your spells to making money, and have 10x your WBL.

And This has to be distributed, as a business the local lord is going to be interested in getting his taxes...

You can't just show up at the docks with a pile of iron and sell it. Because that trick only works once if you do it and sneak off.

And if you stay there long enough the lords tax collectors are there. And you just lost 15% of your income to the local lord.

NichG
2011-05-03, 02:23 PM
In-game consequences are good for when what the player is doing is only mildly exploitive and has the potential to make for interesting plot. This is when you want to say 'okay, I appreciate your ingenuity, and so you're going to get rewarded for it, but before that happens you have to deal with the X,Y,Z things you forgot to take into account'.

If on the other hand its entirely disruptive, then trying to use in-game consequences will just make the game more and more about that character. That's rewarding the player for disruptive behavior, and its just going to lead to more disruptive behavior. In this case, I'd tell your players 'okay, in the interest of keeping this game together I'd like you all to avoid exploitive loopholes, and I'm going to ban the things they rely on if they do come up in game.' Then do a 1-warning system. If a player does something you think is explotive say 'you can get away with that once, but then I'm banning it' and give them the option to just not do it. The rest of the players will be pissed if one player causes 'Wish' or 'Bluff' or 'spellcasting' to be banned, and will pressure him to stop.

But given the other stories you've been telling about your group, I'd say just warn the player to stop doing it, and drop him if he doesn't.

Oracle_Hunter
2011-05-03, 02:35 PM
Fighting rules abuse with DM Fiat is an exhausting fight. I wouldn't recommend it, if for no other reason than you will soon find 90% of your world-building devoted to resolving rules abuse. It takes up a lot of game time and isn't much fun for the other Players at the table.

Additionally, a truly clever Player is going to force you to come up with increasingly ridiculous ways to stymie rules abuse in order to keep your world from becoming an outright farce. For example, not every town can have a character capable of taking care of a high-level mage, or the question is raised as to why your PCs have been asked to take care of anything at all.

Also: Five Geek Social Fallacies (http://www.plausiblydeniable.com/opinion/gsf.html). You don't have to invite every Player to every game - particularly games that they tend to disrupt. It's nice to have a Troubleshooter available to fix homebrew systems, but when you want to deliver a nice railroad plot you don't want him along blowing up the tracks.

Odin the Ignoble
2011-05-03, 02:39 PM
I'd separate game breaking into to categories. Ones that abuse the rules and ones that abuse the setting.

If the player wants to something that breaks or abuses the rules of the game, like getting infinite stat boosts or wishes. Simply tell them no.

If they try something like dominating every shop keeper in town, which is within the rules of the system, and might even be a practical solution to some actual problem. Then the consequences for the action should be in game. It's not hard to discover that someone's being dominated, especially if they start acting out to the ordinary, like giving all their belongings to a perfect stranger.

Knaight
2011-05-03, 02:51 PM
Also: Five Geek Social Fallacies (http://www.plausiblydeniable.com/opinion/gsf.html). You don't have to invite every Player to every game - particularly games that they tend to disrupt. It's nice to have a Troubleshooter available to fix homebrew systems, but when you want to deliver a nice railroad plot you don't want him along blowing up the tracks.

Looks like the usual baseless criticism of geeks having no social skills. All that is missing is serious accusations of the mother's basement as a viable and common habitation choice for geeks. They do manage to include assumptions that all geeks were ostracized and don't fit into society as a whole at all, so they managed most of the stereotype, which is unfortunate.

Oracle_Hunter
2011-05-03, 03:24 PM
Looks like the usual baseless criticism of geeks having no social skills. All that is missing is serious accusations of the mother's basement as a viable and common habitation choice for geeks. They do manage to include assumptions that all geeks were ostracized and don't fit into society as a whole at all, so they managed most of the stereotype, which is unfortunate.
It's actually quite the helpful page.

Y'see, the point isn't that "all geeks are homely nobodies" the point is that "many geeks assume certain things about social interaction that simply aren't so" and then explains about them.

It also explains why these particular fallacies can great problems. From the "interactions" section:

Each fallacy has its own set of unfortunate consequences, but frequently they become worse in interaction. GSF4 often develops into its more extreme form when paired with GSF5; if everyone does everything together, it's much harder to maintain two friends who don't get along. One will usually fall by the wayside.

Similarly, GSF1 and GSF5 can combine regrettably: when a failure to invite someone is equivalent to excluding them, you can't even get away with not inviting Captain Halitosis along on the road trip. GSF3 can combine disastrously with the other "friendship test" fallacies; carriers may insist that their friends join them in snubbing someone who fails the test, which occasionally leads to a chain reaction which causes the carrier to eventually reject all of their friends. This is not healthy; fortunately, severe versions of GSF3 are rare.
The page isn't about "geeks," it's for geeks.

Tyndmyr
2011-05-03, 03:40 PM
This is an attitude I dislike.

In particular 3.5 is stingy with wealth by default.
If a mage wants to devote some time to making the party money than let them.

I have no problem with non-standard wealth amounts. The WBL table is explicitly listed as a guideline, yes.

But if the word "infinite" comes up, well...it's clearly not going to work out well.


Weren't you the one who says that DM's shouldn't be allowed to make calls like that in the "There is no rule zero" thread?

If you'll reread my thread, that was one of the house rules I make sure all players know. My 3.5 house rules for most games could fit on a 3x5 card. No infinite combos is not contentious by any means among my fellow players, who prefer such an attitude to playing in general. Finding ways to break the game is considered interesting by some, but actually using them in game is considered to be in poor taste.


A lot of them require the guy trying to ignore the "bonuses don't stack" rule in the books, so it's usually not necessary. The infinite con one for example requieres you ignore the rule "nameless bonuses from the same source don't stack".

Yeah. Most of them are stopped by pure RAW. I only include it for certain things like wish loops that do work by RAW. And in case there's an infinite combo out there I've missed. It's easier than listing them individually, and it makes the spirit of the rule plain.

I enjoy optimization and players who like to be effective, creative, and find unique solutions to things. This should be encouraged. But, not every single addition to the game is a good one. So, before the game starts, go over what you're comfortable with. Talk with your players to see what they want. Then, set hard limits. Anything within them is kosher, anything outside of them is not. When you know the rules in advance, everyone can feel comfortable that the character they're building is ok. If you have a person that once he knows the rules, immediately tries to break them...that person is likely to be problematic.

Don't rely on ad-hoc fiat afterward. That never ends. Set expectations with your group beforehand, preferably mutually.

Edit: Holy god, yes, have I seen people that exhibit one or more of those behaviors. #1, in particular. I'm usually the person who has to say "look guys, nobody likes him. I know you don't want me to kick him out, but it's that, or I'm going to light you all on fire. And I KNOW you guys don't like being lit on fire."

nyarlathotep
2011-05-03, 03:50 PM
Change the game. Run an E6 campaign, switch the system, do something other than what you're doing now. You'll just wear each other with this war of attrition and will both end up hating the game.

This is silly the system is not the problem. The problem is the player's attitude. E6 can be broken just as well, as can GURPs, or Exalted, or Dark Heresay, or even Risus. If the player is going to continue to be an ass then the problem will persist.

Kaun
2011-05-03, 05:28 PM
I would make up an inter-planer police group who spend their time investigating and preventing this sort of abuse so it doesnt destroy the verse or end up in a type P anomaly. Bonus points for those who got the Pun Pun joke

I would have them aproach and warn him off his actions once and if he keeps doing them have them jump him when he is at his weakest, bend him over their metaphorical knee and give him a spanking. Then for good measures throw him in their interplaner super prison for a decade or so.

If he complains about "killer DM" bs tell him that when you play with world changing/plane changing power you should expect consequences to match!.

Personally tho i would show his ass the door and tell him to come back when he is ready to stop being a douche bag.

Heatwizard
2011-05-03, 06:39 PM
If he seems like a reasonable chap, just find a spare moment to talk to him and say "look, dude, this loophole business. When we're debugging a homebrew system it's a valuable skill, but in a plain D&D game it's just giving me a headache. Do me a favor and stop, alright?"

Either he'll stop and the problem will be solved, or he won't and you kick him for being a jerk.

kieza
2011-05-03, 11:04 PM
Although it's not quite what the OP asked, I did once find a good solution to infinite-loop cheese.

Somebody tried the chain-gating solar trick. Shortly after he starts the chain, he feels a disorienting sensation, and finds that most of the solars have vanished, save the first, which is just stepping out of the gate like he remembers happening a few seconds ago. He also finds that he is holding an envelope. Inside is a sheet of paper which says "Stop weakening the fabric of space-time. It makes me grumpy and tired, and if you do it again I'll divide you by zero. Sincerely, the god of time and causality."

Telling a player that their idea doesn't work is a bad idea, as it discourages creativity. Telling them that it works so well that it annoys gods gives them a fun story to tell, provides an in-story explanation, and still gets across the point that they shouldn't be doing that.

Kalirren
2011-05-04, 12:20 AM
+1 above post.

Seriously, Talakael, you and your problem player may be playing under the same rules system, but you're definitely not playing the same game. Judging from the amount of difficulty you've reported already, I think you need tell him, as GM, to shape up or ship out. You are clearly interested in running a different game from the one he is currently playing, and it shows. This player clearly has the intellectual ability to pull purely gamist crap like this. You need to beat him into devoting more of that mental energy which he brings to the table to being a better roleplayer.

A change of system might do you good. In my experience, such problem people often bring out much better sides of their roleplaying selves when you switch systems on them. More of their actual roleplaying experience transfers, and they end up using it more than their inapplicable system-specific, gamist-game-breaking knowledge. (Not to say that they won't still break campaigns, but they'll at least do it in a more interesting way...)

Talakeal
2011-05-04, 01:01 AM
He tells me that he isn't interested in RPing a character, telling a story, or even tactical combat. All he is interested in is making the most powerful character is possible. He has told me flat out that when it comes to characters "Personalities are boring, only powers are interesting", and he does the exact same thing in every RPG and video game he plays.

Conners
2011-05-04, 10:46 AM
......O_O........ So, he wants to play a game where he can destroy the world. Katamari maybe? Honestly, it's fine to want that every once in a while... but why the heck did he learn that huge DnD rule book well enough to abuse it if he has no interest in characters or roleplaying...?

There is something wrong with the player you have there. Still, he is useful for finding loopholes.

Tyndmyr
2011-05-04, 10:50 AM
Somebody tried the chain-gating solar trick. Shortly after he starts the chain, he feels a disorienting sensation, and finds that most of the solars have vanished, save the first, which is just stepping out of the gate like he remembers happening a few seconds ago. He also finds that he is holding an envelope. Inside is a sheet of paper which says "Stop weakening the fabric of space-time. It makes me grumpy and tired, and if you do it again I'll divide you by zero. Sincerely, the god of time and causality."

I find that the best of messages from time are the one's written in your own handwriting.

valadil
2011-05-04, 11:11 AM
He tells me that he isn't interested in RPing a character, telling a story, or even tactical combat. All he is interested in is making the most powerful character is possible. He has told me flat out that when it comes to characters "Personalities are boring, only powers are interesting", and he does the exact same thing in every RPG and video game he plays.

I would not play with that person. Period. End of discussion. His D&D and my D&D intersect in name only and we'd just make each other miserable by trying to coexist in the same game.

Tiki Snakes
2011-05-04, 11:22 AM
I'd like to suggest the Test of Spite's way of handling unexpected, exploitative and/or infinate tricks.

It works. Once.
Then you are eaten by the Hounds of Tindalos.

dsmiles
2011-05-04, 11:23 AM
I would not play with that person. Period. End of discussion. His D&D and my D&D intersect in name only and we'd just make each other miserable by trying to coexist in the same game.
Ditto. That child should find a new group.

The Glyphstone
2011-05-04, 11:28 AM
Ditto. That child should find a new group.

Sadly, I know children who are more mature than this man appears to be.

dsmiles
2011-05-04, 11:31 AM
Sadly, I know children who are more mature than this man appears to be.You can add 4 more to that list. Even my kids are more mature than that. Even my (now 6) year old built a character that follows the rules and plays well with others. :smallamused:

Tyndmyr
2011-05-04, 11:53 AM
He tells me that he isn't interested in RPing a character, telling a story, or even tactical combat. All he is interested in is making the most powerful character is possible. He has told me flat out that when it comes to characters "Personalities are boring, only powers are interesting", and he does the exact same thing in every RPG and video game he plays.

This is unfortunate, really. I mean, you can make a great tale of an individual's quest for power, sure...but ask him why he wants power. What is the purpose of the power?

Is it so you can win, and stop playing the game? If that is your only goal...why start in the first place?

The character-making game is part of D&D, but it is merely the beginning of the game, not the entire thing. If all you want to do is make broken characters, that's fine. But there's little point in bringing them to the table afterward.

Sir_Wulf
2011-05-04, 11:55 AM
Its funny, because Jimmy was actually the name of his wizard who had the dominate shop keepers idea.

When we are playtesting my homebrew rules I actually do encourage him to find loopholes, which he excels at, and was the main reason I kept him around. I had a standing agreement that if he finds a loophole for me he can use it for one session before I fix it, or if it is simply too broken for the session to continue I give him some other reward.

However, when playing D&D I don't care about finding their loopholes, I just want to get on with the game as intended.
This guy needs a serious reality check. Every one of the "loopholes" mentioned has obvious in-game counters.

If goes into the iron wall business, the price of iron plummets. Mines lose business. No one will buy from him. Literally hundreds of unemployed goons blame him and slander his name through the region. He's accused of practicing "black magic".

He maxed out bluff? Get real and let go of the game mechanics. If you ruled a region and knew someone was a dangeous, silver-tongued swindler, you'd send some hyper-anal, "letter of the law" type to haul him in: Someone who would obey an order not to let the man talk. He would be warned that the suspect apparently has magical powers of persuasion, so he'd carry a closed-face helm with permanent silence on it and lock it onto the suspect's head.

The crown's agent would probably be a paladin, who would detect the powerful evil radiating from the PC. He is evil, no matter what he claims: "Chaotic" doesn't cover the range of his malicious actions. Selling cursed weapons to unsuspecting people? That isn't neutral.

The PC summons elemental servants? Just because he can summon them at will, it does not follow that he can summon infinite numbers of them. Allow him to summon a few, then have a powerful extraplanar being appear to negotiate what he needs to summon more (The recommended currency is something he doesn't have much of, such as human souls). If he beefs, ask him to show the rule that says you can't.

Really, this guy is poison to any reasonable group. After the first couple of shenanigans, I'd show him the door. No group benefits from a narcissistic uber-munchkin.

TheOasysMaster
2011-05-04, 12:01 PM
I agree with lots of the stuff in this thread...
I also admire the dedication to using in-character game mechanics to hold him in check.

I suggest having someone do the same thing to him.
Perhaps another wizard attacks him with the 'infinite elemental minions"?
Force him to counter his own tricks.
Have him get terribly bluffed by a character who's also selling cursed items.

Kalirren
2011-05-04, 12:08 PM
He tells me that he isn't interested in RPing a character, telling a story, or even tactical combat. All he is interested in is making the most powerful character is possible. He has told me flat out that when it comes to characters "Personalities are boring, only powers are interesting", and he does the exact same thing in every RPG and video game he plays.

At that point I would tell him to stick to NWN2 or DDO if he wants to play 3.5, or go hang out on the CharOp boards, or go run his own darned game with that explicit focus. My money is that he's bored with those things already, though, and that what he really wants is a human DM to validate his own fetish for system exploration. He doesn't have the right to demand that of you, or of anyone else who wants to run a game.

I would refuse, and I would advise that you do as well if you want to explore deeper intellectual content in your games with the presumably more functional remainder of your group. Were I in your position as this group's DM, I would assert your primary right and responsibility to creative agency, and use this as an opportunity to bring out the better roleplaying sides of your other players.

Talakeal
2011-05-04, 12:10 PM
It's just the way he is about games. He likes making characters and powering them up, I don't know why, but he does.
I have seen him sit there farming XP for hours on end in various JRPGs that he doesn't really enjoy playing just so he can say he got to level 99.
In World of Warcraft he just zooms to level cap and jumps straight into raids to get the best gear, never caring to actually experience all the content the game has.

He actually doesn't like third edition D&D as a game all that much, probably because it is so unbalanced and there isn't much art to power gaming. We usually play another RPG, in which is behavior, well, isn't all that much better. One of the reasons I keep him around is that he generally enjoys playing my home brew system which I hope to get published, and he always provides lots of good feedback as a byproduct of always trying to break the game.

Also, he does seem to enjoy wacky shenanigans. I have had a lot of players tell me in not so polite terms that the worst part of my DMing is that I take the game to seriously and don't make the game entertaining by allowing and reacting strongly to wacky in character shenanigans, but that is another thread.

valadil
2011-05-04, 12:15 PM
Its just the way he is about games. He likes making characters and powering them up, I don't know why, but he does.


Optimization can be a fun intellectual challenge. But it doesn't have to take place in games. I come up with crazy overpowered builds all the time, but I don't play them as characters. It's a pretty fun activity for people who like math puzzles. Your friend needs to realize that his math puzzles are getting in the way of other people's roleplaying when he brings them to game though.

Here's another idea. Would he consider Iron Chef optimization? By that I mean you lay out a very suboptimal premise and see how far he can go with it? Giving him Kobold monk as a starting point and see what he does with it. I've found this to be a decent compromise between players who like optimizing and GMs who like maintaining sane power levels in their games.

Threeshades
2011-05-04, 12:33 PM
I would make up an inter-planer police group who spend their time investigating and preventing this sort of abuse [...]

And call it Team Arcadia


Arcadia! F*** yeah!
We're coming again to save the multiverse yeah!

dsmiles
2011-05-04, 01:17 PM
It's just the way he is about games. He likes making characters and powering them up, I don't know why, but he does.
I have seen him sit there farming XP for hours on end in various JRPGs that he doesn't really enjoy playing just so he can say he got to level 99.
In World of Warcraft he just zooms to level cap and jumps straight into raids to get the best gear, never caring to actually experience all the content the game has.

He actually doesn't like third edition D&D as a game all that much, probably because it is so unbalanced and there isn't much art to power gaming. We usually play another RPG, in which is behavior, well, isn't all that much better. One of the reasons I keep him around is that he generally enjoys playing my home brew system which I hope to get published, and he always provides lots of good feedback as a byproduct of always trying to break the game.

Also, he does seem to enjoy wacky shenanigans. I have had a lot of players tell me in not so polite terms that the worst part of my DMing is that I take the game to seriously and don't make the game entertaining by allowing and reacting strongly to wacky in character shenanigans, but that is another thread.

Honestly, switch to a game like Mouse Guard. Really difficult to powergame in Mouse Guard. Possible, but very difficult.

Threeshades
2011-05-04, 01:21 PM
Honestly, switch to a game like Mouse Guard. Really difficult to powergame in Mouse Guard. Possible, but very difficult.

There's a Mouse Guard RPG?! :smalleek: Do want!


Okay, I noticed I'm beginning to spam this topic. So sorry about that, and here is some advice:

Broken mechanics are up to the GM to fix one way or another.

If it comes to in-character world breaking, most of the things listed there are simply things that someone in the world will want to hold the PC in question responsible for. You shouldnt feel bad for doing so. Sure they want to have fun, but there are limits to that, and you can well have fun with a roleplaying game without messing the game up to gain unlimited power/wealth, and if this particular player can't he isnt really fit for a roleplaying game.

BlackestOfMages
2011-05-04, 01:38 PM
Although it's not quite what the OP asked, I did once find a good solution to infinite-loop cheese.

Somebody tried the chain-gating solar trick. Shortly after he starts the chain, he feels a disorienting sensation, and finds that most of the solars have vanished, save the first, which is just stepping out of the gate like he remembers happening a few seconds ago. He also finds that he is holding an envelope. Inside is a sheet of paper which says "Stop weakening the fabric of space-time. It makes me grumpy and tired, and if you do it again I'll divide you by zero. Sincerely, the god of time and causality."

Telling a player that their idea doesn't work is a bad idea, as it discourages creativity. Telling them that it works so well that it annoys gods gives them a fun story to tell, provides an in-story explanation, and still gets across the point that they shouldn't be doing that.

the problem here is I'm guessing this is the anti-god character from your previous concern - the very same charachter who's respone to please don't kill the only source of life for miles around, sencerely, natrue goddess was destory the whole place.

if it is him, he seems like an rredemable jerk, and I can't see anyone RPing with him is fun

Kalirren
2011-05-04, 01:39 PM
He actually doesn't like third edition D&D as a game all that much, probably because it is so unbalanced and there isn't much art to power gaming. We usually play another RPG, in which is behavior, well, isn't all that much better. One of the reasons I keep him around is that he generally enjoys playing my home brew system which I hope to get published, and he always provides lots of good feedback as a byproduct of always trying to break the game.

Also, he does seem to enjoy wacky shenanigans. I have had a lot of players tell me in not so polite terms that the worst part of my DMing is that I take the game to seriously and don't make the game entertaining by allowing and reacting strongly to wacky in character shenanigans, but that is another thread.

Ah, I see why you keep him around, then. Fair enough. It does seem like a rather tension-filled arrangement, but I see why you accept his behavior. As narrow as it is, it's functional in its own way.

My view is still that your response to his actions is too narrow, even given the function you impute to his powergaming. Even if he's just using IC powers to twist the IC world, the use of system to break the creative focus of a game is an issue that straddles IC and OOC dimensions of that game, and I don't believe it should be dealt with in a purely IC fashion as you propose. I feel that to do so is far too accomodationist. I think that as the DM, you assume the position of chief author, and you bear that burden of leadership. You have a greater responsibility to your players than to allow your primary creative agency to be compromised.

Exactly how to assert that right and responsibility depends upon the rest of the group, though. Have any of your other players voiced concerns that it detracts from their playing experience when he pulls the shenanigans he does? Or do they enjoy it? The way you've described it, he may be the only one who enjoys pulling this particular -kind- of game-breaking shenanigan, but the other members of your group also exert a fair amount of pressure upon your improvisatory faculties. How do you think they would like to see you react to his pressure?

nyarlathotep
2011-05-04, 03:11 PM
Honestly, switch to a game like Mouse Guard. Really difficult to powergame in Mouse Guard. Possible, but very difficult.

Difficult? I found it exceedingly easy. The problem is that this player is disruptive and with Mouse Guards far more collaborative story telling form that would just result in more problems.

Jay R
2011-05-04, 03:16 PM
Have you talked to the other players yet? Either they like it, in which case you should leave and find a new game, or they don't like it and he should leave.

Yes, there are in-game responses, but only if you want to play the game of dealing with his outrageous nonsense.

What you want to do is incompatible with what he wants to do. You can continually play his way (his game is to be outrageous), or stop playing with him.

valadil
2011-05-04, 03:18 PM
Difficult? I found it exceedingly easy. The problem is that this player is disruptive and with Mouse Guards far more collaborative story telling form that would just result in more problems.

I dunno. Some people react well to the responsibility of owning their own little slice of the world. I respect a system that trusts its players not to exploit the obvious breakable bits. Or maybe I just respect players who can handle such a game maturely.

Tyndmyr
2011-05-04, 04:02 PM
Difficult? I found it exceedingly easy. The problem is that this player is disruptive and with Mouse Guards far more collaborative story telling form that would just result in more problems.

That's it in a nutshell.

You have different desires from the game. If he's not terribly big on compromise, then the best solution is different games.

Hell, point him to the internets if he's a real fan of char-op. You can get a char-op fix without ever playing a game.

oxybe
2011-05-04, 05:13 PM
2 things:

first and foremost you don't solve out of game problems with an in-game solution. this is an issue with the player, pure and simple. the same with people acting Chaotic Stupid or Lawful Asinine: if a player wants to be disruptive you can't stop him with rules alone and if someone wants to be disruptive they ARE going to be disruptive, regardless if he's playing the Evil Duke Vorpal von Hackenslash or Saint Jesus McOrphanedkittenkisser.

****s are ****s. i've yet to see any game system who's rules that can stop that.

all you can do is talk to him. bring him aside and tell him that these constant loophole abuse is making it harder to run the game enough as is. do it before the game while everyone is still getting ready or after the game as everyone is leaving.

if he's someone you meet outside of the game (a co-worker, family member or whatever) then simply talk to him then.

just don't call him out in the middle of the group/game on it. that's kinda rude and bad manners. discuss with him if possible why he's doing these things and explain your point of view to him.

work with him from there to see if you can meet somewhere in a middle ground.

now i have 2 very important rules in my game:
1) the rule of fun : if X will add to the gaming experience in a positive manner, i have no problem allowing it with the group consent.
2) the rule of cool : if X will add to the gaming experience in a positive manner, i have no problem allowing it with the group consent.

i do add this one corollary to the rule of fun: "don't be a ****" . i warn a disruptive player the first time. the second time tell them that they're on the watch list. third time that they're no longer welcome and their shenanigans are being too disruptive.

i have better things to do then police an adult who can't play nicely with others and i'm not going to babysit someone's kid because they think they can unload a brat on me.

if you're going to be disruptive after i've asked to stop, i see no reason to continue inviting you to my games, plain and simple.

dsmiles
2011-05-04, 05:46 PM
Hell, point him to the internets if he's a real fan of char-op. You can get a char-op fix without ever playing a game.Go tell it on the mountain, brother! :smallwink:

Doug Lampert
2011-05-04, 05:47 PM
Then the only problem is that you feel bad presenting him with the consequences of his actions.

Yep. SEVERAL of the presented actions have a logical in-game consequence.

SPLAT!!!

Not an over CR-ed encounter that warns you off, or tells you "stop that", but an over CR-ed encounter of the worst kind with people out to KILL you and unconcerned with your alignment, or rights, or with innocent bystanders, and very definitely not concerned with accomplices (AKA the other PCs).

Why are his character's being warned rather than going SPLAT!


I think you need to turn up the heat slowly. If he abuses all the shopkeepers in town, have the guards run him out. They should be a normal or even weak encounter. Maybe he runs, maybe he kills them.

After he's done this in several towns, something bigger notices. Maybe a roving band of paladins who take care of things beyond what the town guard is capable of.

Why slowly? He KNOWS he's being disruptive.

Nor would anyone ELSE turn the heat up slowly. The natural real world consequence of the "dominating shopkeeper's" strategy is that YOU are now the VILLIAN.

We KNOW what happens to LONE villians or small groups of villians in D&D land.

They are a STANDARD PATROL ENCOUNTER for the HEROES. Who have them outgunned 4-1 or more and use SBT tactics to up their odds even further so they won't have to actually risk getting a fingernail broken or some other horrid injury.

You should in fact have the character go SPLAT, and inform him that he can make no more characters in your game, because Pun-Pun the god of munkins is annoyed by his incompetence. He has dominate person and is robbing shop-keepers. BORING.

Jay R
2011-05-04, 07:00 PM
Why slowly? He KNOWS he's being disruptive.
...
He has dominate person and is robbing shop-keepers. BORING.

Oh, well said. You have hit the nail squarely on the thumb.

Codenpeg
2011-05-04, 08:56 PM
He tells me that he isn't interested in RPing a character, telling a story, or even tactical combat. All he is interested in is making the most powerful character is possible. He has told me flat out that when it comes to characters "Personalities are boring, only powers are interesting", and he does the exact same thing in every RPG and video game he plays.

He's a super munchkin who only wants you to be a VICTIM while he trashes your game.

Also he says he's CN? Why haven't you made him CE yet? You know you have the power to do that. I know the type of gamer that he is (I should know I used to have a friend just like him, we don't talk anymore and I'm better for it) and you should get rid of him.

Talakeal
2011-05-04, 11:38 PM
Also he says he's CN? Why haven't you made him CE yet? You know you have the power to do that. I know the type of gamer that he is (I should know I used to have a friend just like him, we don't talk anymore and I'm better for it) and you should get rid of him.

I don't like forcing alignment change, although I have threatened a few times. I have had my alignment changed many times simply because I have a different opinion on the right thing to do than the DM, and it always leads to fighting and hurt feelings ooc.

Also, are gaming group kind of broke up recently. Said players wife life him and they can't game together, one member got busted for drugs and moved in with his parents cross country, and I have been spending the last three months going to state out of school. And I was kind of pissed at said problem player when we last spoke.

Right now I am at a position where it would be almost as easy for me to start a new group as it would to get the group together again over the summer, and I am trying to decide what would be the better approach, it's the main reason I have been airing so much dirty laundry on the forums as of late (that and no one to talk to about gaming in person while I have been at school).

Haarkla
2011-05-05, 05:49 AM
Fighting rules abuse with DM Fiat is an exhausting fight. I wouldn't recommend it, if for no other reason than you will soon find 90% of your world-building devoted to resolving rules abuse. It takes up a lot of game time and isn't much fun for the other Players at the table.

Not really. It takes a lot more effort for a player to find a rules loophole than it does for me as DM to ban it.

I would explain to your player that he is too clever for the rules, and a lot of loopholes he finds are inconsistant with your fantasy setting, and the atmosphere you wish to build, so you are going to have to limit some of his more powerful and unrealistic exploits.

Also keep your players at a sensible level, low-medium level play is a lot more realistic.

Conners
2011-05-05, 07:43 AM
I don't like forcing alignment change, although I have threatened a few times. I have had my alignment changed many times simply because I have a different opinion on the right thing to do than the DM, and it always leads to fighting and hurt feelings ooc.

Also, are gaming group kind of broke up recently. Said players wife life him and they can't game together, one member got busted for drugs and moved in with his parents cross country, and I have been spending the last three months going to state out of school. And I was kind of pissed at said problem player when we last spoke.

Right now I am at a position where it would be almost as easy for me to start a new group as it would to get the group together again over the summer, and I am trying to decide what would be the better approach, it's the main reason I have been airing so much dirty laundry on the forums as of late (that and no one to talk to about gaming in person while I have been at school). Definitely try a new group, I suggest. From what I understand, you had at least one good player from your previous group. If he wasn't the one busted for drugs, I suggest inviting him to your new group and not the rest of them.

Of course, I don't know the actual situation. If there is another player or two which was good in your group (from the sounds of it, I doubt it, honestly), you could invite them also. If the good-egg also has proper faults... well, you could decide after you see how the new group is going.

Either way, you could start the new group as a "one time thing with a potential for continuation". If you like them, you call them back (or some of them back). If not... you could always try to start a new new group :smallconfused:?


I think most of the forum would agree with that advice, just based off posts I've been reading lately.

Noneoyabizzness
2011-05-05, 08:02 AM
if he keeps trying to break the earth, have him swallowed into ravenloft

Tyndmyr
2011-05-05, 08:05 AM
****s are ****s. i've yet to see any game system who's rules that can stop that.

Technically, page...12, was it? of the 3.5 phb has a solution for disruptive players. It explicitly lists behaviors including being disruptive to the team/game. It says you shouldn't invite them to play with you in the future.

Kicking disruptive rules lawyers out with the power of RAW is always amusing.

Quietus
2011-05-05, 08:51 AM
He tells me that he isn't interested in RPing a character, telling a story, or even tactical combat. All he is interested in is making the most powerful character is possible. He has told me flat out that when it comes to characters "Personalities are boring, only powers are interesting", and he does the exact same thing in every RPG and video game he plays.

This tells me that no matter what you do, he'll be a disruptive component of your game. Let me ask you : Why do you want him to game with you when you're playing 3.5, keeping the above in mind?

Saintheart
2011-05-05, 09:29 AM
He tells me that he isn't interested in RPing a character, telling a story, or even tactical combat. All he is interested in is making the most powerful character is possible. He has told me flat out that when it comes to characters "Personalities are boring, only powers are interesting", and he does the exact same thing in every RPG and video game he plays.

...Probably the point's been made already, but this kind of defeats the purpose of it being a Role. Playing. Game. Even Stormwind Fallacy doesn't cover being an Icehole.

(By "ice", of course, I mean another three letter word which sometimes also doubles as the common descriptor for the noble steed Equus africanus asinus.)

Don't mess around with someone like this. Somebody with such a lack of social skills should really find a like-minded group of friends.
As in, other than yours.

Comet
2011-05-05, 09:34 AM
Don't mess around with someone like this. Somebody with such a lack of social skills should really find a like-minded group of friends.
As in, other than yours.

Unfair. Just because the guy has different, and admittedly kind of childish, expectations towards the game doesn't mean he's a monster of a man and socially handicapped.

I do agree that you probably shouldn't play RPGs with the guy anymore, but he could be a great guy to watch a movie with or something. Just thought I'd bring that up.

On the original topic, and I bet this has been said already but my memory is bogus at the moment, I never have ingame consequences for breaking a system in a silly way.
If you go about introducing ingame consequences for such actions, you validate said actions by making them part of the game. If, on the other hand, you just say "no, Bob, that is silly and so are you" everyone can instantly see what kind of game you are going for. Out of game discussion is, again, key.

Saintheart
2011-05-05, 09:56 AM
Unfair. Just because the guy has different, and admittedly kind of childish, expectations towards the game doesn't mean he's a monster of a man and socially handicapped.

Well, I'll concede immature. Probably fits the bill a lot closer than an emotional or neurological problem per se.

Firechanter
2011-05-05, 10:38 AM
If such a behaviour occurs just once or twice every now and then, and isn't too disruptive, I guess I could cope with it. But in the long run, and if the player _always_ does this and only this, it's getting a pain and I would part ways.

Comet also has a point, ingame consequences of the application of broken rules means that validate these rules.

That said, I like to imagine what a high-magic world and society would really look like. It certainly would be very different from "our" pre-modern history.
For one thing, they would have a whole set of laws dealing with criminal application of magic, such as Enchantments or Illusions.

Actually, at least in cities the merchant quarters, marketplaces etc. in a high magic world will be warded against certain types of magic. Successful merchants will at least possess some items that protect them from mind control and similar ruses. A struggling merchant in a backwater place may not, but then, there's not much money that can be gotten out of him anyway.

Also, stuff like Wall of Iron etc. -- well, I'd say that works. But the player is not the first PC in the world to come up with that idea. There simply won't be many iron mines in such a world. Instead, there are some mercantile casters that create as much iron as is asked. If they price it too highly, the mines become more attractive. There will be an equilibrium.

As for truly broken stuff, like chaingating or infinite wish loops in general -- well, either you fix this kind of nonsense from the beginning ("Called creatures don't use SLAs whose associated spells have an XP cost, while they are in your service"), or you find an ingame reason ("You're pissing off some really powerful beings there"). Maybe also depends a bit on the theme of the campaign.

Aquillion
2011-05-05, 11:10 AM
Never use in-game consequences for things that you object to OOCly.

When someone does something you don't want in your game -- for whatever reason -- the solution is always, always to take them aside and ask them, nicely, out-of-character not to do it.

Like Comet said, when you reply to someone's actions in-character, you are validating and accepting their actions. Worse, you're bending the game around those actions -- you're putting more focus on what they're doing, rather than less. Suddenly the game becomes a contest of wills between the DM and that player, which is less fun for everyone else.

And that player might not even know that you don't want him doing this! For all he knows, you're just trying to pose a challenge for him, but are enjoying the weird stuff he's doing. Different people have different expectations for the game -- don't assume that other people play it the same way you do. Instead, tell them, flat-out, what your expectations for the game are and how you want things to go.

Don't be afraid to OOCly put your foot down and say, flat-out, "No, you can't do that, do something else." Running a game is a lot of work; you don't have to run one that's going in a direction that doesn't interest you.

(With that said, it's usually best to figure out what your players want out of the game before anything else, then figure out if your tastes match up, then focus on that overlap. If you have to constantly say "no, you can't do that" in the game, it's probably a sign that that player wants something different from what you're currently running -- so talk to them and see if you can find some acceptable middle ground.)

Doug Lampert
2011-05-05, 11:40 AM
On the original topic, and I bet this has been said already but my memory is bogus at the moment, I never have ingame consequences for breaking a system in a silly way.
If you go about introducing ingame consequences for such actions, you validate said actions by making them part of the game. If, on the other hand, you just say "no, Bob, that is silly and so are you" everyone can instantly see what kind of game you are going for. Out of game discussion is, again, key.

The silly ones are precisely the one's you CAN deal with in character without creating problems with the setting. Chain gating has logical consequences if you treat the outsiders are real people. SPLAT. Dominate shopkeepers enmass has a logical consequence if you assume a setting with multiple adventurers and power groups. SPLAT.

Those are bad for business and largely evil. There are people in D&D land who deal with rich evil types who are bad for business. They'll do it for what they can take off the dead evil types bodies, and a group of mid-high level PCs are carrying circa an order of magnitude as much loot as you'd expect of something of their general threat level.

So you can deal with those sorts of things in game without warping anything at all. (I'd rather houserule that the chain gate doesn't work. I did so in my houserules PRIOR to the first time I ever actually played or ran 3.0 back when it first came out, it's an obvious exploit, not a clever one).

But what's silly about Wall of Iron/Fabricate? It's two spells used exactly as written. Not just as written, but EXACTLY the way any serious and intelligent person with access to such magic would use it.

It's the opposite of silly. The Tippyverse is the logical consequence of treating the rules SERIOUSLY. In a world where many people who can make infinite amounts of anything made of non-magic iron out of nothing then for non-magic iron items to still be particularly valuable is the silly part. Anywhere with a market that can absorb really large amounts of that kind of junk and is willing to pay noticable money will already have it supplied nearly for free.

The problem is that the game system itself is silly, and is being used for casual entertainment not as a simulation of reality. You can sell captured plate armor for 750 GP, you can sell it for that because that makes for a more fun game not because it makes sense.

The player is being INSUFFICIENTLY SILLY when he does WoI/Fab. He's asking "what would a real person do with these abilities". Thus that is the one that needs to be dealt with out of character. Massive conspiracies of miners and smelters stopping high level wizards from peacefully making everyone else in society richer and better off. THAT warps the setting.

The consequences of the gamerules, treated seriously, don't make for a good gameworld. So we NEED to be silly.

Comet
2011-05-05, 11:53 AM
The problem is that the game system itself is silly, and is being used for casual entertainment not as a simulation of reality. You can sell captured plate armor for 750 GP, you can sell it for that because that makes for a more fun game not because it makes sense.

The player is being INSUFFICIENTLY SILLY when he does WoI/Fab. He's asking "what would a real person do with these abilities". Thus that is the one that needs to be dealt with out of character. Massive conspiracies of miners and smelters stopping high level wizards from peacefully making everyone else in society richer and better off. THAT warps the setting.

The consequences of the gamerules, treated seriously, don't make for a good gameworld. So we NEED to be silly.

True. I tried to steer clear of D&D specific examples, being a far cry from an expert, but those tricks do seem to make sense by the book and I would happily include them in the game if a player wanted to play around with the idea. The quirks of D&D can make for interesting games, provided everyone at the table is interested in exploring those elements instead of preferring to ignore them and concentrate on more traditional stories.

Some things are worth including in the game, some are not, and it all depends on the group. For those ideas that are not fun for anyone but one player at the table, the out of game level is preferable for getting rid of the problem. Everything that happens within the game should be at least somewhat meaningful, interesting and fun for at least two people at the table, preferably without one of those people having to be the GM.

Aquillion
2011-05-05, 04:39 PM
The silly ones are precisely the one's you CAN deal with in character without creating problems with the setting. Chain gating has logical consequences if you treat the outsiders are real people. SPLAT. Dominate shopkeepers enmass has a logical consequence if you assume a setting with multiple adventurers and power groups. SPLAT.Not necessarily...

It depends how common high-level characters are in the setting. If your party consists of the first well-known 'civilized' people to go above fifth level in the past thousand years, nobody will know how to react against you.

If every barkeeper is a 20th level character, it won't work so well.

Most settings are somewhere between those. But the assumption that the setting is going to have an easy answer to Wall of Iron abuse (a 6th level spell, requiring a 11th level caster) is a big leap of logic -- the truth is, the default assumption is that anything of that level is rare and special and unique; most small towns will have never heard of anyone like that.

Maybe if you go into a big city and try to take over the world, you'll run into someone bigger (but maybe not -- in many settings, higher-level characters rapidly lose connection to day-to-day concerns, too.) But that still leaves a lot of room to screw with all those villages who haven't seen anyone above 5th level in generations and probably won't for generations after you leave.

NichG
2011-05-05, 06:28 PM
Not necessarily...

It depends how common high-level characters are in the setting. If your party consists of the first well-known 'civilized' people to go above fifth level in the past thousand years, nobody will know how to react against you.

If every barkeeper is a 20th level character, it won't work so well.

Most settings are somewhere between those. But the assumption that the setting is going to have an easy answer to Wall of Iron abuse (a 6th level spell, requiring a 11th level caster) is a big leap of logic -- the truth is, the default assumption is that anything of that level is rare and special and unique; most small towns will have never heard of anyone like that.

Maybe if you go into a big city and try to take over the world, you'll run into someone bigger (but maybe not -- in many settings, higher-level characters rapidly lose connection to day-to-day concerns, too.) But that still leaves a lot of room to screw with all those villages who haven't seen anyone above 5th level in generations and probably won't for generations after you leave.

Keep in mind that this cuts both ways. If you are the first people in 1000 years to go past level 5, you're not going to be buying any Gauntlets of Ogre Strength +2, any scrolls of >3rd level spells, any weapons or armor enchanted past +1, etc. So when you go on your shopkeeper domination binge, you get tons of gold you can spend on manor homes and classy inns, but thats about it.

Aquillion
2011-05-05, 09:09 PM
Keep in mind that this cuts both ways. If you are the first people in 1000 years to go past level 5, you're not going to be buying any Gauntlets of Ogre Strength +2, any scrolls of >3rd level spells, any weapons or armor enchanted past +1, etc. So when you go on your shopkeeper domination binge, you get tons of gold you can spend on manor homes and classy inns, but thats about it.That's why what smart adventurers do is use Plane Shift to go to some high-powered world where they buy incredibly powerful artifacts on the cheap, then warp to some low-powered backwater somewhere and live like gods.



Not that I, uh, ever did that in a game or anything. :smallcool:

Razgriez
2011-05-05, 10:06 PM
As a DM, part of your task is controlling us, the PC's power progression, the second you let us grab that power, we will snatch it, and hold on to it, via what ever means possible. If you let a player gain access to the Infinity +1 Sword, you can bet, they will use, the Infinity +1 sword.

Second off, you've let this player get away with it already. If he commits a major crime in a village, town, city, nation, plane of existence. Do not have local authorities simply say "Please stop". You might as well have drawn a line in the sand and say "If you cross this line, I'll be forced to draw another line in the sand, and tell you the same thing again"

He has essentially STOLEN goods from people by dominating them, that's pretty much evil in almost all cases. You send in team Lawful Neutral and Good Alignment, and have them kick this guy butt until he learns his lesson. Arrest him, confiscate his weapons, have the most powerful, game breaking items, sent away for safe storage somewhere they won't be abused, and toss him into a Cell that nulls his magic abilities.

Aquillion
2011-05-05, 10:24 PM
As a DM, part of your task is controlling us, the PC's power progression, the second you let us grab that power, we will snatch it, and hold on to it, via what ever means possible. If you let a player gain access to the Infinity +1 Sword, you can bet, they will use, the Infinity +1 sword.

Second off, you've let this player get away with it already. If he commits a major crime in a village, town, city, nation, plane of existence. Do not have local authorities simply say "Please stop". You might as well have drawn a line in the sand and say "If you cross this line, I'll be forced to draw another line in the sand, and tell you the same thing again"

He has essentially STOLEN goods from people by dominating them, that's pretty much evil in almost all cases. You send in team Lawful Neutral and Good Alignment, and have them kick this guy butt until he learns his lesson. Arrest him, confiscate his weapons, have the most powerful, game breaking items, sent away for safe storage somewhere they won't be abused, and toss him into a Cell that nulls his magic abilities.Is this a fun way to run the game, though?

If your problem is that you don't feel that what the player is doing will lead to a fun game, then the answer is to talk to them OOCly. IC actions are fine for IC consequences, but they should always be based purely on what's reasonable -- what you're saying here (especially based on the first paragraph) is that the DM should put his finger on the scale and adjust IC consequences to punish the PC for breaking his game by sending in an (implicitly, from your statements) mysteriously unbeatable team of Good characters to beat him up.

That just doesn't fit. I mean, yes, sure, a story where the PCs are on the run from the law could be awesome! But that's not what you seem to be advocating -- from what you're saying, you feel that the DM should use a grudge monster to auto-capture the player's character, then throw them into a situation where they're totally helpless (instead of, I don't know, an awesome jail escape storyline -- assuming you gotta capture them in the first place, I guess?) You can tell a fun story with IC consequences!

But you absolutely cannot tell a fun story where your goal is to punish the player (as opposed to their character), or where you're constantly trying to use your control over the setting like a hammer to pound players into line. That's not fun for anyone -- what you're suggesting is pointlessly adversarial.

The DM's role is to make sure that everyone has fun (including, yes, himself.) If a PC is doing something that you feel wrecks the fun of the story (by unbalancing it or whatever), the first step should always, always, always be to take them aside OOCly and talk to them.

What you suggest has another major problem, too -- what happens to the rest of the party? Do they get captured, too? Do they have to fight this (presumably arbitrarily powerful) group of Good-aligned PCs, too? The fact is, when you respond to a player's actions using IC reactions, what you're doing is validating it -- you're making it a major part of the story. Your response says "all right, now the entire story is going to be about this player's thieving efforts." How does that make things better? If you don't want the game to be about that, you're actually making things worse. The correct answer to something that you don't want in your game is to pull the player aside, talk to them OOCly (and maybe the rest of the group to see if it's a serious problem / how bad the problem is), then quietly remove the problematic stuff with as little impact on the rest of the story as possible.

What you absolutely don't want to do is suddenly have the entire story become about this. That's the main thing you're trying to avoid in the first place!

Razgriez
2011-05-06, 08:56 AM
yes, you should talk to the problem player OOC and tell him to knock it off, but the player has also done in character actions that in most typical towns, would probably be deemed as Illegal, at this point. I'm not saying "Send a Level 20 Anti-mage squad at this, right away, but start building up to that point, the worse, and more rampant one's crime, means more and more elite forces start coming into play to stop that rampage of abusing magical powers.

I mean, look at the last crime mentioned about this player:


One time he had a + ridiculous bluff score and was going around claiming that every cursed item he found was actually an insanely powerful artifact and selling it for massive amounts of money, only to have the buyer killed by the curse before they could get revenge. One time he sold a powerful fighter a cursed sword of berserking, and when he used it he slaughtered the townsfolk he was trying to protect, and the authorities tracked it back to the PC.


I think it's safe to say, the character has crossed the Moral event horizon. Unless this is a "Team Evil" Campaign, then there either A. needs to be a stern OOC convo with the player, or B. he needs to stop the character, in character. In other words, the situation seems out of control, and the DM needs to regain it, by placing some kind of Ultimatum, in game, or out of game, before the actions of this player, results in the rest of the party getting harmed by say, the infamous "Rocks fall, every one dies


To Talakeal: You're player is playing an Chaotic Evil character, Chaotic Neutral is NOT wanton destruction. While as a Chaotic Neutral character may not agree with authority, he/she does actively seek to destroy it. Avoid it, yes, but a true Chaotic Neutral character is neither a liberator, nor destructive anarchist. There comes a time where you have to understand, a Bad player is a bad player, and the only way they'll understand this, is if you let them know it. Give them a second chance, maybe on a new character, if they deserve it, but when push comes to shove, then you need to just say "Sorry, but you're hurting the game, and have taken it over, away from the rest of the party, get out."

ajkkjjk52
2011-05-06, 12:42 PM
Stop dealing with it on a case-by-case basis. Take the player aside and tell him on no uncertain terms that you won't put up with this bull**** cheese anymore.

If he continues, kick him out of the game. And throw things at him. I reccomend overripe fruit. Or bees.

Talakeal
2011-05-06, 12:45 PM
I did feel he had slipped into Evil territory, but I do not enforce changes in alignment as I feel it can only lead to fights and is insulting to people's real world beliefs.
In the cursed item example, his justification was that he did has trading was primarily black market or underworld contacts, therefore they deserved whatever they had coming to them. Of course, most of said underworld contacts were only the middle men, and they were mostly CN like himself, so I don't see how that changes anything, but...
Also, the party paladin did object to his actions. He simply told them that if they tried to stop him he would kill them. He was playing a gestalt rogue / warlock, and had so many shenanigans that the other players couldn't actually find him to attack him let alone preventing them from escaping and he could wear them down with hit and run tactics.

Also, we were playing the classic Dragonlance adventure path updated to 3.5 at the time, certainly not a bad buy game. We initially had 6 players, but for various reasons we were down to 3 and a half in an adventure designed for 4-8. I had let them take gestalt to cover for the missing players, but even so if I had just kicked the one player from the game it would have meant that it would have been impossible to finish the adventure path, and would make future gaming more difficult.

Tyndmyr
2011-05-06, 01:51 PM
I did feel he had slipped into Evil territory, but I do not enforce changes in alignment as I feel it can only lead to fights and is insulting to people's real world beliefs.

Real world beliefs and D&D beliefs should not be confused. By the D&D alignment system, I believe I'd qualify as lawful evil.

The D&D alignment system clearly places him in the evil camp. What his real life beliefs are need not matter. D&D works according to D&D rules, not how he thinks it should.

oxybe
2011-05-06, 04:11 PM
Stop dealing with it on a case-by-case basis. Take the player aside and tell him on no uncertain terms that you won't put up with this bull**** cheese anymore.

If he continues, kick him out of the game. And throw things at him. I reccomend overripe fruit. Or bees.

now now.

if you're going to recommend throwing fruit at someone, follow the Cave Johnson philosophy: have scientists invent a combustible lemon, then burn down his house.

then have them invent a proximity watermelon that explodes bees or something.

Conners
2011-05-06, 07:40 PM
Real world beliefs and D&D beliefs should not be confused. By the D&D alignment system, I believe I'd qualify as lawful evil. What basis does it work off, exactly O.o...?

dsmiles
2011-05-06, 07:55 PM
What basis does it work off, exactly O.o...?The DnD alignment wheel (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm) works off this arbitrary objective morality that makes little to no sense outside of the context of a game.

Conners
2011-05-07, 02:54 AM
"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master. That doesn't sound like a bad way to describe evil, though o.O...?

dsmiles
2011-05-07, 06:29 AM
No, the basics of the alignment system are...OK, but when you start getting into specifics, it gets a bit hokey.

Conners
2011-05-07, 08:03 AM
Yeah, trying to categorize evil/good into 7 forms is rather limiting and awkward. Especially when you consider how evil people have good traits, sometimes, and good people have evil traits, sometimes.

StoryKeeper
2011-05-07, 12:28 PM
I'm a big fan of alignment discussions, especially about how alignment often doesn't work out so well, but this probably isn't the thread for it.

I realize that the opening poster has already mentioned that this player is no longer an issue, but I thought I'd chime in about something. A lot of posters on this thread seem to think that the problem player in question here is a horrible person for playing the way he has been. There have been a lot of comments about dropping him since he's clearly an unrepentant cheesy player. There have also been a lot of comments that seem to suggest that putting more emphasis on mechanics when you play than on role-playing is also a bad thing. I have to disagree with all this.

I tend to focus more on the role-playing part of games myself, and I'd much rather play alongside a kobold knight than a cheese wizard, but that's just me. A lot of people don't play the game for the role-playing; they play for the mechanics. In my current Pathfinder group, about half of our players are there to explore a character concept with lots of background and flavor, and the other players are mostly just there to enjoy the mechanics of the game. And that's ok. I wish a particular buddy of mine would roleplay a little more often, but he's very fun to play alongside despite his character being designed solely to be a damage dealing death dweomer (had to go for the quadruple alliteration.) He made the character to do as much damage in a single swing as possible, and that's ok. That's what he wanted to do with the game.

Now that's not to say that there aren't disruptive players or that players with differing playstyles aren't necessarily the best people to have in your group, but that doesn't necessarily mean you should instantly kick someone out of a game just because the like to make broken characters sometimes.

A couple of people (but not many) in this thread have suggested simply talking to the player, asking him to stop, and then taking harsher action if he won't. I approve of this. There's no need to kick someone out of a game just because they like to rock the boat with powerful characters and game-exploiting... er... exploits.

Of course, there is a fine line between between enjoying the mechanical side of a game, being a munchkin, and just being a jerk at the table. Plus, it sounds like this guy just wants a test room for his rules-exploiting characters, and that probably doesn't mesh well with the game the opening poster is trying to run.

And now I'll get off my soap box. :)

Roderick_BR
2011-05-07, 01:42 PM
It depends on the specific situation, but I'd recommend giving him an in-game consequence for his actions. Don't punish him for his creativity. Just make his actions have repercussions. I'll give examples below.

I don't really see what the problem is. Why don't you want him doing this? Accepting that you find this to be bad: This actually sounds like a decent in-game consequence. If he keeps doing it, the government may take notice and tell him that he works for them now. Or if the government/powerful merchant guild runs the mining industry, they may not ask him to stop. They'll tell him to stop and when he doesn't (because he's CN) they'll just grease him.

That's stealing. Law enforcement should deal with that. Arrest him.

I don't know what this is. Has it gotten an errata? If not, house-rule it.

Your NPCs should be smarter. Before I spend a ton of money on anything, I'm getting that whatever-it-is Identified. Also, those suckers will have families. Or patrons.

And what did those authorities do?

Yes. And tell him why. Recommend that he look around for another GM. He's going to pitch a fit, but try to avoid getting emotional when he freaks out. Stay calm and things will go much better.

Fully agreed. Loopholes should be treated off the game. Acting as a villain in game should have you tracked down by groups of good aligned adventurers. Some players forget they are not the only adventurers in a campaing world. If he keeps acting as a BBeG, he should be treated as a BBeG. You don't even need overpowered NPCs, just a small average group, if the other players get the hint and get out of the way ("hey guys, we can take them on, right? right? Hey, where are you going?" "we will not give cover for a criminial, we'll continue on our quest")

Doug Lampert
2011-05-08, 03:32 PM
Not necessarily...

It depends how common high-level characters are in the setting. If your party consists of the first well-known 'civilized' people to go above fifth level in the past thousand years, nobody will know how to react against you.

If every barkeeper is a 20th level character, it won't work so well.

Most settings are somewhere between those. But the assumption that the setting is going to have an easy answer to Wall of Iron abuse (a 6th level spell, requiring a 11th level caster) is a big leap of logic -- the truth is, the default assumption is that anything of that level is rare and special and unique; most small towns will have never heard of anyone like that.

I in fact explicitely assume the setting WON'T have a solution for WoI abuse, because there's no good reason anyone would want to stop you. Seriously, it inconvenences a few miners, and makes the entire society an order of magnitude richer. The oposition will be slightly less relevant than the buggy whip manufacturing lobiests are today in the real world.

You need to deal with this out of game precisely because it is un-fun stuff that should work.

But most of the abuses can be dealt with by the setting, and the setting is in fact heavily defined in the DMG. Fully 1% of ALL settlements are of 25,000+ adults and have 4 very high level wizards present. Probably an OUTRIGHT MAJORITY of the population lives in a town with at least one high level wizard.

Even the smallest hamlets have a 10% chance of a high level ranger or druid, the technical name for a D&D land settlement with NO high level protection available is "lunch".

You can homebrew a setting of course, but there is a setting in RAW and if level 6 is spectacular in your homebrew setting, then where do you learn higher level spells? Who trains ANYONE in just about ANY prestige class? Who held off ANY adult or older dragons from totally dominating the setting? The existence of high level items and monsters implies the existence of high level NPCs or other protectors.

And those protectors can and will deal with PCs who abuse relatively low level powers like 4th level dominate person spells.


That's why what smart adventurers do is use Plane Shift to go to some high-powered world where they buy incredibly powerful artifacts on the cheap, then warp to some low-powered backwater somewhere and live like gods.

All planes accessibly via plane-shift are the same setting. Any adventuring party of level 14+ can reasonably be assumed to have access (even if they have no cleric or wizard), and the spell is available at the same time as Raise Dead.

Good adventurers DON'T CARE if you stole and murdered to get your money in East Podunk Nowhere. They've STILL got an excuse to masacre you and take your stuff, which is STILL roughly 10x what would be expected of an encounter of your party's EL even before you stole a copper. They'll be lining up to kill you and take your stuff. And there's no reason they should be level approprate (even by the DMG fully 5% of all encounters should be overwhelming, it only takes ONE overwhelming encounter that actually has reason to want the PCs dead to kill them all).

dsmiles
2011-05-08, 05:06 PM
Ok, here's another alternative:

No. Provide no in-game consequences. Let him kill all the monsters, take all the phat lewtz, dominate all the shopkeepers, and become emperor of the known world. Then (and here's the kicker) don't end the campaign. Make his royal douchebagginess deal with the campaign world as is. No monsters to kill, no phat lewtz to take, no shopkeepers to dominate, just the everyday trials and tribulations of running a world-spanning empire. I'm pretty sure he'll either get the point or quit.

Chess435
2011-05-08, 10:14 PM
Ok, here's another alternative:

No. Provide no in-game consequences. Let him kill all the monsters, take all the phat lewtz, dominate all the shopkeepers, and become emperor of the known world. Then (and here's the kicker) don't end the campaign. Make his royal douchebagginess deal with the campaign world as is. No monsters to kill, no phat lewtz to take, no shopkeepers to dominate, just the everyday trials and tribulations of running a world-spanning empire. I'm pretty sure he'll either get the point or quit.

For bonus points, the plot of the next campaign will be an attempt to overthrow this tyrant, with the DM playing the previous PC as the BBEG, using the exact tactic that they used. :smallwink:

Alleran
2011-05-09, 06:54 PM
My players don't try and break the game, usually. They know that if they attempt to abuse the system, I will abuse it right back at them tenfold.

When I'm a player, I consciously avoid breaking it out of choice - often, I have a themed concept that I'm going for and so a game-breaker build wouldn't really do much for it.

Aquillion
2011-05-09, 08:44 PM
Ok, here's another alternative:

No. Provide no in-game consequences. Let him kill all the monsters, take all the phat lewtz, dominate all the shopkeepers, and become emperor of the known world. Then (and here's the kicker) don't end the campaign. Make his royal douchebagginess deal with the campaign world as is. No monsters to kill, no phat lewtz to take, no shopkeepers to dominate, just the everyday trials and tribulations of running a world-spanning empire. I'm pretty sure he'll either get the point or quit.Am I the only one who thinks that that could actually be a pretty fun campaign if done right? I mean, you'd need to be a pretty skilled DM to come up with interesting challenges, and the main issue I'd be concerned with is that it could make the other players at the table bored (unless they're all equally committed to taking over the world by abusing their powers), but the basic premise of a "we take over the world!" game could be fun.

(Actually, this is basically the backstory to the Malazan Book of the Fallen series -- the main empire pretty much got founded when an adventuring party decided to do exactly that. The full backstory doesn't become obvious for a while, though.)