Your forum makes me confused

[Artemician]

<Snip>


Why are we arguing semantics again? Regardless of what the official definition (which may or may not be true, given Wikipedia's reliability...) of the terms Powergamer and Munchkin, what's important in discussion is what people mean when they use them.

It's been clarified that the way some people use the terms Powergamer and Munchkin are different from Wikipedia definitions, and it has been clarified many times over.

Let us stop this meaningless debate over what terms should mean and get back to the discussion.

[Tormsskull]

Why are we arguing semantics again? Regardless of what the official definition (which may or may not be true, given Wikipedia's reliability...) of the terms Powergamer and Munchkin, what's important in discussion is what people mean when they use them.


Which is why I pointed to our very own Terms and Abbreviations thread here on GITP Gaming (d20 and General RPG) thread. If you're on the GITP forums, in the d20 and General RPG thread, and there is a thread specifically for terms, then that would seem to be the default when discussing such terms.

Meaning is very important behind words, but if people choose to use words in a way that it not clearly defined, they are the ones that are creating the confusion.



It's been clarified that the way some people use the terms Powergamer and Munchkin are different from Wikipedia definitions, and it has been clarified many times over.


Perhaps then you should submit a different definition to the Terms and Abbreviations thread?



Let us stop this meaningless debate over what terms should mean and get back to the discussion.

I disagree. If such a huge section of the GITP community thinks that "powergamer" = makes strong characters while reinforcing the integrity of their character concept, then perhaps the Terms and Abbreviations thread should be changed?

Or, if it is like I suspect, just a vocal minority that thinks that, perhaps they should stop identifying themselves as powergamers when they don't want to accept the given definition.

If, as tainsouvra suggests, there are Powergaming communities and Roleplaying communities which each use their own definitions of the word, maybe here, on the Giant in the Playground community we could use the Giant in the Playground definition?

[Indon]

You know, we aren't remotely discussing the original topic of the thread. Perhaps a new thread should be made about this specifically?

[horseboy]

Meaning is very important behind words, but if people choose to use words in a way that it not clearly defined, they are the ones that are creating the confusion.




Interesting theory. IMO it would be more likely that a skilled powergamer who enjoys roleplaying would take backstory, fluff, etc. into consideration in his quest for ultimate mechanical power. If he does, and chooses not to acquire certain mechanical power(s) in order to ensure the integrity of his backstory, fluff, etc., then it begs the question, is he really a powergamer?
This, from my understanding, is the crux of the arguments on this debate. What do we call this type of player? Do we change the definition of powergamer to be this player? Or do we build consensus around the term "optimizer" or a hereto unknown word?

These types of players are common enough that the do need a term, if for no other reason than just so when someone responds to the topic obviously thinking he's under attack because that's how he plays, we could just deflect them with "No, you're not a powergamer you're a _________. We're not discussing you." It seems like it would help put out a lot of those types of arguments. Course, that would cut down on all the drama here, and without the drama, what would amuse us? :smalltongue:

[Tormsskull]

This, from my understanding, is the crux of the arguments on this debate. What do we call this type of player? Do we change the definition of powergamer to be this player? Or do we build consensus around the term "optimizer" or a hereto unknown word?


I think you've hit the nail on the head, and I think that's a really good idea. I'm going to suggest it to the Terms and Abbreviations thread.

[hyperfreak497]

If you want to divert the argument, you need to ask some more of those questions.

I don't have any more. If I think of more, I'll post them.

[Kaelik]

I don't think so, but maybe I am not describing it clearly. If we assume for a moment that Wizards are the most powerful class, then based on your assumptions of the definition of powergamer that I am using, only the people at the table that pick Wizards are real powergamers. That's not what I am saying.

A powergamer generally picks a powerful class, but even if they don't their goal is still to aquire the most mechanical power as possible with whatever they have to work with.

And I'm still trying to explain that "acquiring the most possible character power" is a goal that doesn't exist for anyone, and that no one has. If you use a better weapon, you are not a "powergamer" you are doing what your character should do. If you make smart class or feat choices then you are doing what any character who is trying to accomplish a goal should do. Characters have goals, and they should try to accomplish them.



A powergamer would be the kind of person who, when their character's NPC father gave them a sword on his death bed and said "Use this.", would say "How much damage does it do, what's its crit range, any special powers?" If not, they'd just use a different weapon that was better. It wouldn't matter if their character was good or evil, loved or hated his father, because all of that doesn't matter to a powergamer.

More and more I take exception to your roleplaying style. What kind of father gives them an inferior weapon? If the character has a better weapon, then the father (unless he is evil or stupid) should not try to have him use an inferior weapon. When my son who has trained exclusively in the art of wielding a spike chain is standing over my death bed I'm sure as hell not going to give him a rapier unless it's an artifact rapier that is the only weapon that can truly kill the demon that poisoned me. (Note that everyone uses the weapon at that point, "powergamer" or "roleplayer")


I do know someone who does these things. This is the kind of player who will borrow a Monster Manual and study it for days so he has a good idea of the strengths and weakness' of monsters. This is the kind of player that always wants his character to be the strongest in the party, and actually retired a character once when his character was defeated in a duel by another PC.

Well guess what, this person you know is not a "powergamer" and he/she is not a "roleplayer" he/she is an idiot. If you see a shiny at the bottom of a river and your character is afraid of water, you don't jump in, ever! There are 3-5 people standing right next to you that you tell to jump in instead. Because that's what your character does, and because that's the best path to power and because that's the smart thing to do. (Not smart like Int 18, smart like Wis greater then 6.)

Also, notice how in your initial river example both types jumped in and one did it "to become more powerful" and another did it "for story reasons." Hate to burst your bubble, (not really) but no one did it for story reasons. If either of them cared about the story they would have had someone else get it, or they would have left it there. They both just have very poor rationalizations for what they did.

But take another look at those rationalizations,
1)Surge of Bravery.
2)I have overcome my fear for the good of everyone/me
Neither of those is even close to roleplaying. You just base your opinions on some nebulous "motivations" that you will never know. You choose to see some people as "doing things for power" and others as "doing things for story" but they do the same thing. Guess what you are using to judge people.

My opinion in short, is that you are judging people based on how powerful their character is, and then deciding that their motives are powergamerish if they have powerful characters.


He's the kind of player that will look through the DMG and try to find the most optimal magical items for his character, then of course his character has somewhere heard of these magic items, has detailed knowledge of them, and will try to seek them out.

Really, He'll look through the DMG? Wow, he's really going out there looking at the only place in core where magic items are mentioned. I bet he even looks in the PHB for feats. What a powergamer he must be.

As to the actual issue, character knowledge of specific Magic Items, why is that a bad thing? I usually like to play high Int with lots of knowledge rank characters because that gives me an excuse for my encyclopedic knowledge of D&D, and gives a real reason that my character would sit around giving everyone advice on what they should buy/learn to do/tactical play. But when I don't have that I generally tell people what I think there characters should know, and honestly, that includes for the vast majority of characters knowledge of useful DMG magic items. (More rare or custom items usually only get mentioned when a smart character is looking to do something specific, or when a certain weakness becomes apparent, eg when the "caster killer" (who of course can't kill casters) has a couple run-ins with invisible wizards.)

[Starbuck_II]

A powergamer generally picks a powerful class, but even if they don't their goal is still to aquire the most mechanical power as possible with whatever they have to work with.

A powergamer would be the kind of person who, when their character's NPC father gave them a sword on his death bed and said "Use this.", would say "How much damage does it do, what's its crit range, any special powers?" If not, they'd just use a different weapon that was better. It wouldn't matter if their character was good or evil, loved or hated his father, because all of that doesn't matter to a powergamer.

Did they even like their father?
See, you never stated it. If my dad gave me an inferior weapon in real life: I'd use something better.

In real life I optimize and roleplay since one must exist in real life.
Same as when I play. I optomize to the best of my abilities: Soctrates though we should all gain Arete in optimizing: excellence.

He believed poor optimization was due to ignorance. (okay not those words exactly).


I play a Wu Jen: And I play it good. Are Wizards better 9/10? You betcha.
But I don't mind because it allows me to act foreign, cast foreign spells (no one prepares versus for Snake Darts), and be treated foriegn. Okay the treated part is more the DM, but eh you get used to it.

At first, I sucked. The Wu Jen list was weird. The class had Taboos that did nothing. But eventually I warmed up to the the class. Sparking my inner optimizer.



I think that you (and others) are trying to move the definition of powergamer from what it is (as listed on GITP or wikipedia) to "Tries to achieve as much mechanical power as possible while still keeping a character's backstory, personality, fluff in consideration." Then you would call someone who doesn't keep backstory, personality, and fluff in consideration a munchkin.

But the definition of a munchkin is:
Munchkin*: Sometimes a synonym for power gaming, especially when the desire for power overrides all other concerns and is a detriment to the game, more often refers to someone who has the same goals as a power gamer but violates or ignores rules in order to achieve his goals. Also someone who ignores issues of suspension of disbelief, ability to fit into a campaign in a role-play sense, and common sense in their quest for power in game. Can also refer to the process of doing things the way a munchkin would. Munchkinism refers to the mindset that leads to this, or the practice itself.

That because people don't agree with terms that others create. People create new ones by consensus that mean jack & squat and jack left town.

A Munchkin is one who optimizing while breaking rules, breaking logical sense, etc. That pretty much covers it. This is why they are seen in company and confused: both optimize, but one goes too far.

People think aplogy means saying I'm sorry. That is false. The real definition is to defend one's actions. See Socrate's Apology.


Seems to me that the definitions are already pretty well known. So what I am gathering is that people don't like to be thought of as the listed definition of powergamer because they don't believe powergamers are like that, but want to call themselves powergamers.

Doesn't that just seem utterly confusing?

These definitions are well known, but wrong. Lots of real life things are like that.


I do know someone who does these things. This is the kind of player who will borrow a Monster Manual and study it for days so he has a good idea of the strengths and weakness' of monsters. This is the kind of player that always wants his character to be the strongest in the party, and actually retired a character once when his character was defeated in a duel by another PC.


So, he has knowledge skills? Because other than meeting these, you ca'nt know that without the skills.

[tainsouvra]

If, as tainsouvra suggests, there are Powergaming communities and Roleplaying communities which each use their own definitions of the word, maybe here, on the Giant in the Playground community we could use the Giant in the Playground definition? The problem is that the definitions thread here doesn't seem to have been made for what you're using it for. I'm not saying you're willfully misusing it, only that you're expecting far too much out of what is essentially an online copy of "RPG-Gamer Terms for Dummies"--it's only supposed to give you a general idea of what's being discussed so that you can figure out what a thread is about, not be capable of actually addressing the various connotations and social identities that each term encompasses in a thorough manner. If it were intended to do that, it would be several times as long and would have consulted prominent members of each relevant community during its creation. It's fine for its intended use, but you're stretching it far beyond that use.

Tormskull, if you want to know what optimizer/powergamer/min-maxer/munchkin really mean, ask on a Powergamer/Optimization board and they'll tell you. Then you have it right from the horse's mouth, no need for this "outsider looking in" approach. You can, in the span of five minutes, have a definitive answer from the experts--why keep playing telephone for your answers?

If nothing else, find out why the "Character Optimization" boards on the WotC forum had its name changed to that from "Powergamer"--you'll find out something surprising that will probably change your perspective.

[tainsouvra]

If we assume for a moment that Wizards are the most powerful class, then based on your assumptions of the definition of powergamer that I am using, only the people at the table that pick Wizards are real powergamers. That's not what I am saying. That's not what he said, either. You read it backwards--he's asking you why there would be an optimized-but-inferior build if powergamers only wanted to play the most powerful options and didn't care about the story behind it. By the (very flawed) definition of "powergamer" that you have been using, there would never be a powergamer playing a Samurai, because no matter what he does to it the character is going to be mechanically weaker. A cursory glance through a powergamer forum would prove that to not be the case--they do play inferior options, they just try to do so in the most effective way that their restrictions give--and those restrictions include background for roleplayers.
A powergamer generally picks a powerful class, False. They can but this is not strictly related to being a powergamer. I'm probably a powergamer by most standards, but in the past I've favored things like 3.0 Rangers, 3.0-MAD-hell Psions, etc. The difference is that, when I play one of those, it doesn't look as weak as the class would normally be--but my class choice is not, and has not been, dictated by which is the easiest to optimize. In fact, many optimizers have an attraction to reputedly-weak classes due to a desire to find the optimum way of playing them.
but even if they don't their goal is still to aquire the most mechanical power as possible with whatever they have to work with. Again, I reiterate that "whatever they have to work with" is the reason why roleplaying is not mutually-exclusive. If you stop to look at a powergamer forum, when someone asks for an optimized build with a certain background, the background is not permitted to be changed and that's often even written into the forum guidelines! There are literally rules against what you are saying is commonplace.

[Devils_Advocate]

A powergamer generally picks a powerful class, but even if they don't their goal is still to aquire the most mechanical power as possible with whatever they have to work with.
But aren't you contradicting yourself here? Before one even begins creating a character, one has the set of all avaliable classes "to work with". So if a powergamer's goal is to choose whichever options will allow him to "aquire the most mechanical power as possible", then surely he'll pick whichever class he thinks will allow him to make the most powerful character!

It's hard for me to tell what you might really mean, but you seem to be suggesting that at some point, a powergamer will be unwilling to make mechanically suboptimal choices. If so, where is that point? Anything after a very general concept? Class? Class features? Skills? Feats? Equipment? Character behavior?

Is it the last one? Are you... are you suggesting that someone might be willing to build a weak character, but totally unwilling to make any suboptimal choice during gameplay, even if such a choice would be in-character? :smallconfused: Do players like that actually exist? I would think that someone that concerned with his character's power would try to build a powerful character to start with.

[Foeofthelance]

Am I to understand that all the people in the above thread have DMs who don't require players to OK their characters? Who won't act to control disparate power levels in a game? Who will allow players to just go out and buy a book of kewl powerz and use them without checking for appropriateness first?

Actually, I do run my games like this. For one thing, I think it provides more interesting characters for my players, and I get to face more interesting challenges. A DM who seeks to kill his players is going to fail at the game, but I enjoy coming up with new and unique situations to make them in turn think. Granted, if something seems a bit wonky (like when they tried to pass of a regenerating undead) I object, and they go back and fix it. (Its now become some sort of demented Warforged)

As for the powergamer debate, I willfully admit to being one myself. I seek to maximize all aspects of my character, no matter what the character is. I create an idea, I implement it, and then I see what makes it tick the best. Character identity, history, etc. take a back seat to that. If I have to combine aspects from seven different books, I will.

This does not, in any way, however, affect my ability to roleplay. I write as a hobby, and I am quite capable of doing a decent job of acting. My level 12 fighter might have managed to acquire a fortune capable of rivaling a level 20, using no more then two feats and simple arithmatic, but that doesn't prevent me from sweet talking the Duke of Ambrosia so well the DM doesn't even bother to ask for a roll, because I already talked him out of it!

A powergamer can be a roleplayer can be a min/maxer can be a munchkin. These are simply traits exhibited by players, and they are in no way exlcusive of one another. Personally, I think the players who accuse one of being worse than the other are simply trying to make up for their inability to succeed in that area. I base this on a personal experience, where a player with a weak grasp of game mechanics accused us of simply not liking the way he roleplayed his character after we had cracked down on him in game for his previous disruptions of the same. This is my theory, and my opinion.

[Skjaldbakka]

but that doesn't prevent me from sweet talking the Duke of Ambrosia so well the DM doesn't even bother to ask for a roll, because I already talked him out of it!

Way to roleplay that charisma as a dump stat with no ranks in diplomacy!

[Kyeudo]

Not every optimized Fighter dumpstats Charisma first. I tend to dump Int first, as I like to have good-looking fighter types, and the Int dump is easier to roleplay. What Fighter needs skill points anyway?

[Dervag]

Not every optimized Fighter dumpstats Charisma first. I tend to dump Int first, as I like to have good-looking fighter types, and the Int dump is easier to roleplay. What Fighter needs skill points anyway?One that doesn't like getting snuck up on?

[Nowhere Girl]

Is it wrong to be a powergamer, a minmaxer, and a dead-serious roleplayer all at the same time? I put the same energy into writing a character's history and (especially) personality as I do into building the character mechanically ... and yet, also, vice-versa. (And I've learned a lot from this forum, and I use my newly acquired knowledge shamelessly.)

Is that wrong?

[Leon]

Is it wrong to be a powergamer, a minmaxer, and a dead-serious roleplayer all at the same time? I put the same energy into writing a character's history and (especially) personality as I do into building the character mechanically ... and yet, also, vice-versa. (And I've learned a lot from this forum, and I use my newly acquired knowledge shamelessly.)

Is that wrong?

No, only when its pushed for that others should do it rather than making their own way in the game

[Tormsskull]

But aren't you contradicting yourself here? Before one even begins creating a character, one has the set of all avaliable classes "to work with". So if a powergamer's goal is to choose whichever options will allow him to "aquire the most mechanical power as possible", then surely he'll pick whichever class he thinks will allow him to make the most powerful character!


With a straight reading of my definition, I can see where you are coming from. And I understood the past 2 posters who brought up the same line of question. A player can be a powergamer and be a fighter. Fighters are generally considered to be one of the least powerful classes in a standard setting, but a powergaming player could still be one.

Once again, I'll try hopelessly to explain: A powergamer's goal is mechanical power. Generally speaking this has a heavy influence on class/race selection. Once gameplay starts, a powergamer looks for ways to increase his mechanical power. If an option presents its self where he could increase his mechanical power but in doing so he would not be playing the role of his character, the powergaming player will choose to obtain the mechanical power.



It's hard for me to tell what you might really mean, but you seem to be suggesting that at some point, a powergamer will be unwilling to make mechanically suboptimal choices. If so, where is that point? Anything after a very general concept? Class? Class features? Skills? Feats? Equipment? Character behavior?


Generally speaking, a powergamer will aim for a powerful class, possibly multiclass to obtain other powerful class abilities with no regard to the in-character ramifications that may cause.

As far as character behavior goes, the player himself crafts his or her own backstory, sometimes with help from the DM. Once that story is decided and the player chooses to use it, it becomes a very integral part of that character. It (or is supposed to) impacts a character's choices, views, and goals.

The problem is that when the player creates that backstory, it often comes with elements that could be viewed as being negative for the character. Maybe the player wrote his character's backstory with an archnemesis in mind. Maybe the character is afraid of water. Maybe the character hates orcs.

Whatever it is, those elements help to make a more realistic character inside of the world. A backstory of "My character wants to be the strongest person in the world, and trains night and day to become so" is so unrealistic and boring that I don't care to have a character like that in any campaign I'm involved in.

So when a player chooses not to enforce the integrity of his character, he starts to look more and more like one of those types of characters. I personally see this behavior occur in powergamers (using the definition of powergamer as I've listed).



Is it the last one? Are you... are you suggesting that someone might be willing to build a weak character, but totally unwilling to make any suboptimal choice during gameplay, even if such a choice would be in-character? :smallconfused: Do players like that actually exist? I would think that someone that concerned with his character's power would try to build a powerful character to start with.

I'm suggesting that Powergaming is an attitude. If we were playing a campaign where I created all of the characters and handed them to the players, there can still be powergamers present. They would be the type of players who don't really care about the story, could care less when they are chatting with NPCs unless the discussion is directly relevant to helping them aquire more mechanical power, etc.

I've given several example throughout the thread of times when I have witnessed powergamers in play.

Now, some people are saying that I am not defining powergamer correctly, and although the definition I am using is the most prevalent one, that it is actually wrong depending on who you ask. If that's the case, then fine. What I call powergamer you can feel free to call whatever you want, its the attitude that I think creates a problem at game sessions (well, in groups that roleplay).



As for the powergamer debate, I willfully admit to being one myself. I seek to maximize all aspects of my character, no matter what the character is. I create an idea, I implement it, and then I see what makes it tick the best. Character identity, history, etc. take a back seat to that. If I have to combine aspects from seven different books, I will.
emphasis mine

Finally, someone not afraid to say that. Thank you.

[Scotty]

Shock trooper is a feat in Complete Warrior. It allows you to drop your AC to add to damage, when combined with a couple of other feats, it allows a barbarian/fighter to do several hundred points of damage in one hit.
Any full caster, namely Cleric, Druid Wizard


When you say "combined with a couple of other feats"; which feats are you referring to specifically?

*edit* I took the time to read some more of the thread and found the answer I was looking for.

[Jayabalard]

Tormskull, if you want to know what optimizer/powergamer/min-maxer/munchkin really mean, ask on a Powergamer/Optimization board and they'll tell you. Then you have it right from the horse's mouth, no need for this "outsider looking in" approach. You can, in the span of five minutes, have a definitive answer from the experts--why keep playing telephone for your answers?Considering that those are terms that were come up with by people other than the powergamers/min-maxers/munchkins to describe that sort of behavior, and they're generally meant as a less than flattering name, that seems like it would be the worst place to ask.


Is that wrong?If you put the same time and effort into backstory and roleplaying that you do into min-maxing, you're not really a powergamer, nor are you a hardcore roleplayer. A better description would be a "balanced gamer"


So my answer to your question would be "yes"

[OneWinged4ngel]

Considering that those are terms that were come up with by people other than the powergamers/min-maxers/munchkins to describe that sort of behavior, and they're generally meant as a less than flattering name, that seems like it would be the worst place to ask. Completely false, really. "Optimizer" doesn't really have any unflatterring connotations except those lavished on it by raving hordes of people who somehow think they're better at roleplaying because they chose to make their characters suck (or, at least as commonly, aren't smart or knowledgeable enough to build effective characters themselves). In fact, the word itself has a pretty positive meaning. You optimize things. You make them the best they can be. By the same token, min/maxing refers to giving the minimum amount of input (least resources expended) for the maximum output (maximum use out of those expended resources). Essentially, being efficient. Only the terms powergamer and munchkin seems likely to have spawned from more hateful tongues. And munchkin usually refers to some manner of cheater, not an optimizer.


If you put the same time and effort into backstory and roleplaying that you do into min-maxing, you're not really a powergamer, nor are you a hardcore roleplayer. A better description would be a "balanced gamer" Ah, so if you build an effective character, you're not a hardcore roleplayer. It doesn't actually matter if you put in MORE effort and quality into your roleplaying than that guy over there. He put less effort, relatively, into his optimization than you! Therefore, he's somehow more hardcore, because only the ratios matter to you! It doesn't matter that he's actually totally bland and uninspired by comparison, because his character can't hit the broad side of a barn with his attack rolls, and that makes him more hardcore! ...See a problem with that logic? It doesn't make a lick of sense.

The problem here is that you're still committing the Stormwind Fallacy in your thought process. You have some embedded idea that there's actually some sort of tradeoff, and that's a false dilemma. The aspects of roleplaying and optimizing are completely independent from each other. Adding more to one side doesn't make the other side tip its scale, because the scales aren't balanced against each other. They're entirely separate.

[Indon]

You optimize things. You make them the best they can be.

But optimizing is generally limited by an objective; one can optimize a roleplaying concept, and that's not powergaming. Generally optimization is only considered powergaming when it is done with the sole objective of being more powerful; gaming for power, or power-gaming.

So I'd say that optimizing describes something that is actually distinct from powergaming. In fact, I'd say that powergaming is only a subset of optimization.


The aspects of roleplaying and optimizing are completely independent from each other. Adding more to one side doesn't make the other side tip its scale, because the scales aren't balanced against each other. They're entirely separate.

But they aren't; since some concepts can be optimized more than others, optimization can restrict the number of concepts that one would play, and playing such concepts prevents you from optimizing to a significant degree.

[Ralfarius]

But they aren't; since some concepts can be optimized more than others, optimization can restrict the number of concepts that one would play, and playing such concepts prevents you from optimizing to a significant degree.
I thought the point of optimization is to do the best within any given concept, not to only take the best concepts. I'm pretty sure that's what people have been trying to explain for a few pages, now. It's not about always being "The game-winning best" but rather being "the best you that you can be". That's why there are optimized fighters, monks, bards, and rogues. If optimizing was really about just always being the best in a game, then all optimizers would be CoDZillas and Batman-wizards.

[Indon]

I thought the point of optimization is to do the best within any given concept, not to only take the best concepts. I'm pretty sure that's what people have been trying to explain for a few pages, now. It's not about always being "The game-winning best" but rather being "the best you that you can be". That's why there are optimized fighters, monks, bards, and rogues. If optimizing was really about just always being the best in a game, then all optimizers would be CoDZillas and Batman-wizards.

And that's why powergaming is a subset of optimization; all powergaming is optimization, but not all optimization is powergaming.

[tainsouvra]

Generally speaking, a powergamer will aim for a powerful class, possibly multiclass to obtain other powerful class abilities with no regard to the in-character ramifications that may cause. I reiterate that this is very often not the case. Many powergamers are drawn to suboptimal race/class choices because they present an opportunity to optimize in new ways and allow they to optimize as much as they like without derailing a campaign. Once again, peruse a powergamer board, you'll discover this for yourself--threads like "How to make a Samurai borderline useful" are actually quite popular and entertaining in practice, and I've already given my own experiences as a powergamer.

Considering that those are terms that were come up with by people other than the powergamers/min-maxers/munchkins to describe that sort of behavior, and they're generally meant as a less than flattering name, that seems like it would be the worst place to ask. I understand how you would get that opinion, but I've seen threads that ask that very question (in a civil manner) and get responses that are both helpful and accurate. While you're right that the terms have a negative history, they don't draw the amount of ire you might expect.

In short, no, that's not what happens. Starting a thread calling out a specific person as a munchkin would, but that's for a different reason.

But optimizing is generally limited by an objective; one can optimize a roleplaying concept, and that's not powergaming. Generally optimization is only considered powergaming when it is done with the sole objective of being more powerful; gaming for power, or power-gaming.

So I'd say that optimizing describes something that is actually distinct from powergaming. In fact, I'd say that powergaming is only a subset of optimization. This falls flat primarily because the history of the term "optimizer" completely contradicts your interpretation. Check out the WotC boards and look up one of the threads that explains why the "character optimization" board got its name...you'll see.

[Indon]

This falls flat primarily because the history of the term "optimizer" completely contradicts your interpretation. Check out the WotC boards and look up one of the threads that explains why the "character optimization" board got its name...you'll see.

Usage is important in language; history, when it contradicts with usage, is not.

Edit: It is at best a curiousity regarding how the word came to be used the way it is now.

[Emperor Demonking]

I always thought I powergamer was someone who can create stupidly good builds or make a brilliant character from bad classes or races whether or not they do so as a theoretical excercise or to play.

[tainsouvra]

Usage is important in language; history, when it contradicts with usage, is not.

Edit: It is at best a curiousity regarding how the word came to be used the way it is now. The meaning of the word never changed. As Ackbar said, "it's a trap!"

[Indon]

The meaning of the word never changed. As Ackbar said, "it's a trap!"

The word clearly isn't used as a synonym for powergamer here.

[Yuki Akuma]

If you put the same time and effort into backstory and roleplaying that you do into min-maxing, you're not really a powergamer, nor are you a hardcore roleplayer. A better description would be a "balanced gamer"

I have less apples than you do, so I must have more oranges. You have more apples, so therefore, logically, you must have less oranges!

And that guy over there has absolutely no apples, so he must have more oranges than either of us!

[Deepblue706]

Oranges suck. Bananas are better.

[Dervag]

I have less apples than you do, so I must have more oranges. You have more apples, so therefore, logically, you must have less oranges!

And that guy over there has absolutely no apples, so he must have more oranges than either of us!I think the reasoning is different from that, and more like this:

"People who have way more apples than oranges are appleists. People who have way more oranges than apples are orangeists. People who have roughly equal numbers of apples and oranges are fruiteans."

So a person with 10 apples and 10 oranges is a frutean, while a person with 100 apples and 20 oranges is an orangeist, even tohugh they nonetheless manage to have more oranges than the person with 10 of each.

Map 'powergamer' to 'appleist', 'hardcore roleplayer' to 'orangeist', and 'balanced player' to 'frutean', and I think you've got that classification system nailed down.

[Indon]

I have less apples than you do, so I must have more oranges. You have more apples, so therefore, logically, you must have less oranges!

And that guy over there has absolutely no apples, so he must have more oranges than either of us!

If you only have so much money, you still have to choose what kind of fruit you buy with it. So you could spend 100% of your money on Apples, 100% of your money on Oranges, or split it 50/50, for instance.

Some people, obviously, have more money to spend than others.

So while you can't judge how many apples one has based on how many oranges they have, because you don't know how much money they have to spend on fruit, you can tell how many apples or oranges they could have, if you knew how much money they had.

Edit: And as Dervag noted, by seeing how many apples or oranges someone had, you can tell how much they wanted apples over oranges or vice versa.

[Yuki Akuma]

If you only have so much money, you still have to choose what kind of fruit you buy with it. So you could spend 100% of your money on Apples, 100% of your money on Oranges, or split it 50/50, for instance.

Some people, obviously, have more money to spend than others.

So while you can't judge how many apples one has based on how many oranges they have, because you don't know how much money they have to spend on fruit, you can tell how many apples or oranges they could have, if you knew how much money they had.

Edit: And as Dervag noted, by seeing how many apples or oranges someone had, you can tell how much they wanted apples over oranges or vice versa.

What if one of them owns an orchard? :smallwink:

(It still surprises me how people seem to think that logic skills have anything to do with acting ability.)

[Jayabalard]

I understand how you would get that opinion, but I've seen threads that ask that very question (in a civil manner) and get responses that are both helpful and accurate. While you're right that the terms have a negative history, they don't draw the amount of ire you might expect. You misunderstand... it's the worst place to ask because the answer you will get is wrong, not because people will take exception to the term.


I have less apples than you do, so I must have more oranges. You have more apples, so therefore, logically, you must have less oranges!

And that guy over there has absolutely no apples, so he must have more oranges than either of us! sorry, but I fail to see any relevance in this. You seem to have missed what I was trying to say, and have mae the (incorrect) assumption that I was making statement that has something to do with the idea that someone cannot both optimization and roleplay.


I think the reasoning is different from that, and more like this:

"People who have way more apples than oranges are appleists. People who have way more oranges than apples are orangeists. People who have roughly equal numbers of apples and oranges are fruiteans."

So a person with 10 apples and 10 oranges is a frutean, while a person with 100 apples and 20 oranges is an orangeist, even tohugh they nonetheless manage to have more oranges than the person with 10 of each.

Map 'powergamer' to 'appleist', 'hardcore roleplayer' to 'orangeist', and 'balanced player' to 'frutean', and I think you've got that classification system nailed down.Ding ding ding! Correct

[Indon]

What if one of them owns an orchard? :smallwink:

(It still surprises me how people seem to think that logic skills have anything to do with acting ability.)

Then he's the guy selling you the fruit in the first place.

And even if you're a great actor, there's a world of difference between improving excuses for the most effective character behavior (Mind that this is acting; acting with parameters is what improvisation exercises are all about. There are even comedy clubs based around it.), and selecting behavior options for a character that you've created.

In fact, if you've been to too many improv clubs (or watch that one improv comedy show with Drew Carey on it), you start to notice they use a lot of stock material.

[Winterwind]

I think this belief that one can only have either one or the other (I'm talking about roleplaying and powergaming now again, not about fruits :smalltongue: ) may come to be partially due to a different trail of thoughts at character creation/advancement.

Namely, a roleplayer may look at the feat list, see one (s)he considers appropriate to reflect the character (s)he has in mind, and hence takes it - power considerations do not play a role here, only whether the feat reflects what the character is supposed to look like. From there, it's not a long way to arrive at the conclusion that anyone who chooses the feat with power considerations in mind obviously doesn't do so with only the character's background in mind, hence obviously is neglecting the part where the feat is supposed to reflect the character's personality.

This is a false assumption, though, because on the one hand a powergamer will restrict his choice of feats to the ones which fit the character generally, and on the other hand the chosen feat will be incorporated into the character's personality and roleplayed accordingly. After all, the order in which character concept and mechanical representation come to be does not influence the ability to roleplay the character afterwards.

In other words, it's not only a difference in the definition of "powergaming", it's also a difference in the definition of "roleplaying a particular character".


There may be another reason: The more points are used up to increase mechanical efficiency, the less points remain to add facettes to the character. Since I don't play D&D sufficiently I'll demonstrate what I mean via ShadowRun: You have a limited number of points to distribute amongst your skills, which are elementary for what your character can do. Sorcery, the one skill that decides how good your character can use magic, is such a skill, as would be Art(Graffiti). Now, if you had the choice whether to take Sorcery 6, but skip the Graffiti-skill, or to take Sorcery 4 (which would greatly reduce your character's magic skills) and Graffiti 2, thus adding this entire aspect to your character, possibly hooking him into the associated sub-culture, definitely adding a hobby - what would a roleplayer/a powergamer do?
That's a serious question. I am not sufficiently familiar with the other side's mindset in this regard. Would you choose the greater competence of the character in what (s)he is, ultimately, supposed to do, or the additional character aspect?

EDIT: Whoa... ninja'd so badly it hurt. :smalleek:

[horseboy]

What if one of them owns an orchard? :smallwink:

(It still surprises me how people seem to think that logic skills have anything to do with acting ability.)

As far as I understand it, it's not the link between the two, but how they divide their time between the two. Kinda a T=p+m. Where T=Total time, P=Personality of character and M=Mechanics focus. If you spend more time on personality, then you're a "roleplayer". You spend more time on M you're a power gamer and if you spend roughly equal amounts of time you're an optimizer. Though I still don't understand what's wrong with being an optimizer.

[Jayabalard]

Completely false, really. "Optimizer" doesn't really have any unflatterring connotations <snip>[quote]/me scans my earlier post for the word optimize

nope... didn't include that one... I said "powergamer" "min-maxer" and "munchkin". I picked those 3 of the 4 listed in that post for a reason.

[quote] Ah, so if you build an effective character, you're not a hardcore roleplayer. It doesn't actually matter if you put in MORE effort and quality into your roleplaying than that guy over there. Sorry, where exactly are you getting the idea that I said anything like this?

Being a powergamer isn't just about building an effective character... being a hardcore roleplayer isn't just about player X putting in more effort into roleplaying than player Y.

These describe the extremes; someone who splits thier time equally between roleplaying and optimization (as Nowhere Girl claims she does) isn't an extremist; they don't fall into either extreme, so neither term is appropriate.

[Yuki Akuma]

This has absolutely nothing to do with the thread, but I only just noticed how awesome Jayabalard's avatar is.

So, yeah. Woo. *high five*

[Tormsskull]

Now, if you had the choice whether to take Sorcery 6, but skip the Graffiti-skill, or to take Sorcery 4 (which would greatly reduce your character's magic skills) and Graffiti 2, thus adding this entire aspect to your character, possibly hooking him into the associated sub-culture, definitely adding a hobby - what would a roleplayer/a powergamer do?


In general, from the way I understand them, a roleplayer would ask themself "Does taking Graffiti 2 represent the character that I am trying to portray?"

Where as a powergamer would say "Does taking Graffiti 2 increase my character's mechanical power more than taking Sorcery 6 would?"

If Graffiti 2 is anything like what I think it is (A skill that allows your character to create graffiti), then this is a skill that generally speaking, a powergamer would avoid like the plague.

If they wanted a character that could draw graffiti, they'd just write that into their character's background as a "fluff" ability rather than wasting any mechanical efficiency by expending their limited number of points.

[horseboy]

In general, from the way I understand them, a roleplayer would ask themself "Does taking Graffiti 2 represent the character that I am trying to portray?"

Where as a powergamer would say "Does taking Graffiti 2 increase my character's mechanical power more than taking Sorcery 6 would?"

If Graffiti 2 is anything like what I think it is (A skill that allows your character to create graffiti), then this is a skill that generally speaking, a powergamer would avoid like the plague.

If they wanted a character that could draw graffiti, they'd just write that into their character's background as a "fluff" ability rather than wasting any mechanical efficiency by expending their limited number of points.

Unless, of course, the power gamer is planning on using his skill at graffiti to be his centering skill when he initiates, thereby giving him a boost to his magic while spray painting. :smallwink:

[Winterwind]

In general, from the way I understand them, a roleplayer would ask themself "Does taking Graffiti 2 represent the character that I am trying to portray?"

Where as a powergamer would say "Does taking Graffiti 2 increase my character's mechanical power more than taking Sorcery 6 would?"

If Graffiti 2 is anything like what I think it is (A skill that allows your character to create graffiti), then this is a skill that generally speaking, a powergamer would avoid like the plague.

If they wanted a character that could draw graffiti, they'd just write that into their character's background as a "fluff" ability rather than wasting any mechanical efficiency by expending their limited number of points.That would be my initial interpretation as well, and a possible source of the belief that powergamers make for worse roleplayers.
Now, is this truly what a powergamer would say, and does this reduce the number of different aspects of a powergamer's character, or do they rather add other aspects otherwise?


Unless, of course, the power gamer is planning on using his skill at graffiti to be his centering skill when he initiates, thereby giving him a boost to his magic while spray painting. :smallwink:You win. 'Nuff said. :smallbiggrin:

[Dr. Weasel]

If they wanted a character that could draw graffiti, they'd just write that into their character's background as a "fluff" ability rather than wasting any mechanical efficiency by expending their limited number of points
I think this really reflects the crux of the argument: how heavily a group considers the mechanical choices to impact the character.

Shifting back to D&D, the system with which I'm most familiar, one group may consider 5 ranks in Craft (Graffiti) to be an apt reflection of a character's mastery of the field so a Wilder in that group picks up Martial Study-Iron Heart Surge.

Another group may not consider the character to be an incredible Grafiti-ist unless they take Skill Focus-Craft (Grafiti) and the Public Defacer feat (+2 on Grafiti and- I don't know- Arson checks).

Both groups would play the character identically, probably with equal skill, but if the player from the first group joined the second, they'd be considered a min-maxxer/'rollplayer' while a player from the second group joining the first would be considered 'one o' dem self-gimping roleplayer wannabes.' Both probably have equal roleplaying talent and both probably try equally hard to both portray a character and be effective, contributing party members, just they have different considerations of what feats and classes represent.

[Kyeudo]

Considering that those are terms that were come up with by people other than the powergamers/min-maxers/munchkins to describe that sort of behavior, and they're generally meant as a less than flattering name, that seems like it would be the worst place to ask.


Powergamers call themselves powergamers these days. The community of people who are not powergamers and optimizers work only off of what they hear and see, falsely labling munchkinism as powergaming. The best people to ask for definitions of those terms are powergamers, since we are the ones who know what we are talking about. The "true roleplayer" communities couldn't find real powergaming with a map and compass.



If you put the same time and effort into backstory and roleplaying that you do into min-maxing, you're not really a powergamer, nor are you a hardcore roleplayer. A better description would be a "balanced gamer"


So my answer to your question would be "yes"

I take offense to this. I build the character I want to play from at least 4 different splatbooks, spend my time comparing oppourtunity costs, decide that Paladin 2/Cleric 3/Bone Knight 10/Divine Oracle 5 would fit my concept the best while giving me the most mechanical power I can have, pick my feats out with care, and you have the gall to call me NOT a powergamer!

I may pour just as much time or more into creating my backstory, but that does not mean that I am not a powergamer. It just means I know my stuff and can cut my time spent optimizing down. Background fluff is infinately mutable, so it takes more work to churn out a backstory that explains why a paladin who never fell is working with the undead and has visions of the future while fitting in with the DMs world and not compromising the personality I want to play.



Why does no one get it? Roleplay skill, Optimizing skill, and Jerkishness are on three seperate axi (axis's? axii?). Powergamers are just those with alot of optimization skill. Munchkins have too much jerkishness for anybody's good.

I'm sure you've met people who can't roleplay worth a dime and couldn't optimize their way out of a paper bag. I have. Some are jerks and some are not. Met someone who was a great roleplayer who you just couldn't stand? I have. He's permanently uninvited to most groups I know of.

Munchkins are just powergamer jerks. Don't disparage powergamers just because of the few jerks that are found in our ranks. We don't hate the roleplayers because of their jerks, so please return the favor.

[Dr. Weasel]

I'm having a hard time tracking these labels. They seem to be the biggest stumbling block in communication here, even if we claim to have set-in-stone definitions for all of them. If you feel the need to use a term like min-maxxer, roleplayer, powergamer, munchkin or rollplayer, stop and take a couple extra seconds to write out what's sure to be a blockier explination of what you mean.


I have a hard time tracking everybody on these boards' individual connotations for the terms (beside 'optimizer'; its meaning seems to be fairly universal) and the last few pages of this thread seem to be evidence that I'm not the only one.

[Winterwind]

Why does no one get it? Roleplay skill, Optimizing skill, and Jerkishness are on three seperate axi (axis's? axii?). Powergamers are just those with alot of optimization skill. Munchkins have too much jerkishness for anybody's good.Because currently the debate has somewhat shifted from "Is it possible to be a good roleplayer while also being a powergamer?" - I'm not sure whether this was ever actually questioned in this thread - to "Are there situations where one is forced to choose between the two?"

Because skill doesn't matter if you don't use it, and you might not use it if it was against your primary interest.

I, for one, am unsure yet whether roleplaying and powergaming interests can conflict or not, and I am eager to find that out, plus what others think about it.

For instance, I would very much like to hear your response to this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3291738&postcount=287) post of mine.


At the moment I think that Dr.Weasel got the closest to the truth in his second-last post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3291959&postcount=294).

[tainsouvra]

The word clearly isn't used as a synonym for powergamer here. This was explained earlier, in a discussion of different group/forum types and how they establish labels and identities, however. To go forward, take a look where we've already been. :smallsmile:
You misunderstand... it's the worst place to ask because the answer you will get is wrong, not because people will take exception to the term. In essence, you are saying that powergamers don't know what powergamers are, and that it should be people who aren't powergamers who decide what their terminology means.

Bull. That just plain doesn't work in practice, and it barely even makes sense in theory.

[Ulzgoroth]

How good a character actor or powergamer someone is is the wrong way to look at it. Those don't really tell you anything about the person's interests. Unless you genuinely want to assert that a gift for mental math, a photographic memory, and a good conception of how mechanics work are all things that make you less of a roleplayer.

If you want to talk about what people are interested in doing, don't substitute talking about what they're good at. They aren't the same thing.



A key issue that relates to this whole business is bounds on character concept. When people are drawing the line, both sides seem to agree: 'powergamers' limit their character concepts more. Of course, from one side this becomes 'always plays a sociopathic loner obsessed with perfecting their specialty' and from the other 'wants to play a blind, deaf, quadriplegic kobold'. And then go on about group powerlevel, side-track into Batman + CoDzilla vs. the world, and get lost.

I think the real issue there is who your characters are supposed to be. Are they average folks, or at least people previously living average lives? Are they local champions? Are they hard-bitten professional adventurers (or planning to be)?

If your entire life is devoted to this business, then as is often argued by people on the powergaming side of things, 'flavor skills' aren't in character. You don't make your life's work killing things in holes in the ground, and be a concert pianist on the side. It doesn't make sense. Your hobby is more likely to be knife-throwing. If your father passes down the sword borne by his father before him and it's a rusty, non-masterwork longsword, you're probably not going to use it instead of the glowing +2 greatsword you were already packing. It can have a nice place of honor over the fireplace in the house you don't really use either. This sort of character is uncommon in fantasy fiction, but quite common (even standard) in some D&D games.

On the other hand, if you're a local champion of some sort...which covers pretty much any normal career applicable to adventuring, really...most of the time you're not actually out questing and such. You very likely have civilian hobbies, may well have a craft/profession you live on normally, and are a lot more likely to have mental/cultural/personal hangups that lead to less than optimal behavior when you do go climbing down holes to kill things, because your real life isn't out in the field where the time you spent learning the traditional Bastard Sword of your knightly order might well get you killed. Most fantasy characters are of this sort. D&D works for characters like this.

You can play either way (lower standards may not work too well. D&D isn't meant for commoner's adventures.). If you're expecting one and getting the other, you will have problems. And those problems may look an awful lot like this thread...You've got the guy with an NPC love interest who wields a bastard sword, has TWF so that he can bash with his spiked shield in a pinch, insists on single combat with humanoid enemies, and makes pastries in his free time on one side, matched with a spiked chain wielder who coolly yanks the feet out from under anyone and anything who tries to get near the wizard he's guarding, then executes most of his enemies after they've been rendered helpless by the magician, and doesn't even remember where he was born, he's been on campaign 90% of the time since his 17th birthday (and in taverns for most of the rest of it).

[Indon]

This was explained earlier, in a discussion of different group/forum types and how they establish labels and identities, however. To go forward, take a look where we've already been. :smallsmile:


If there is no standard definition for a word (and if we decide not to use the local one for lack of that) then we can't viably use the term in discussion, now can we?

Which would have made the proper response to "powergaming appears to be so-and-so", I do believe, "unfortunately, too many people disagree for that to be a standard definition," rather than, "other people used to use a different definition, therefore it's wrong".

But at least we have that understanding. It seems that Winterwind has the right idea when he says that we should think more on what causes us to distinguish these terms, rather than simply throwing around different definitions of them.



In essence, you are saying that powergamers don't know what powergamers are, and that it should be people who aren't powergamers who decide what their terminology means.

Bull. That just plain doesn't work in practice, and it barely even makes sense in theory.

Why would a forum interested in powergaming be interested in accurate labels describing roleplaying ability?

Mind I'm not neccessarily saying that roleplayers be the ones to describe that for other communities, just that neither solution is neccessarily optimal.

[tainsouvra]

But at least we have that understanding. It seems that Winterwind has the right idea when he says that we should think more on what causes us to distinguish these terms, rather than simply throwing around different definitions of them. Yeah...an impression that came about via the post I was suggesting you review. You might want to re-read the thread, it's getting long and I think you're forgetting the context for a lot of statements.


Why would a forum interested in powergaming be interested in accurate labels describing roleplaying ability? I agree completely with this, however I was referring to labels describing types of powergamers. Sorry for any confusion there, not sure where it came from.

I prefer to let roleplayers make terms for types of roleplayers and powergamers make terms for types of powergamers. Everything comes out a lot more accurate that way, even if it's more effort to learn them all.

[Indon]

Yeah...an impression that came about via the post I was suggesting you review. You might want to re-read the thread, it's getting long and I think you're forgetting the context for a lot of statements.


Maaaybe I skimmed along a few of the longer posts discussing semantics, finding the whole thing kind of uninteresting. It was rather a surprise to me when I'd noticed the topic was dominated by it.



I agree completely with this, however I was referring to labels describing types of powergamers. Sorry for any confusion there, not sure where it came from.

I prefer to let roleplayers make terms for types of roleplayers and powergamers make terms for types of powergamers. Everything comes out a lot more accurate that way, even if it's more effort to learn them all.

Well, in the defense of standardization, roleplayers and powergamers do often have to play in the same games, which would be facilitated by a common pool of terms; else confusion is almost inevitable.

[tainsouvra]

Well, in the defense of standardization, roleplayers and powergamers do often have to play in the same games, which would be facilitated by a common pool of terms; else confusion is almost inevitable. While they play the same games, for rather unfortunate reasons they do not tend to engage in the same discussions at the same places. It would indeed be useful if there were a common pool of terms which would be used equivalently regardless of the group using them, but for reasons previously discussed this is not feasible. Group identities and labeling simply don't work that way, it's very difficult to perceive some elements when they don't stand out and it's hard to gloss over some elements that jump out, even if the reason is the focus of your own group rather than any objective measure.

[Winterwind]

How good a character actor or powergamer someone is is the wrong way to look at it. Those don't really tell you anything about the person's interests. Unless you genuinely want to assert that a gift for mental math, a photographic memory, and a good conception of how mechanics work are all things that make you less of a roleplayer.

If you want to talk about what people are interested in doing, don't substitute talking about what they're good at. They aren't the same thing.Quoted for truth. That's what I've been trying to say all along, but much more eloquently put than I could ever have.

And you bring forth some interesting points in the rest of your post, too...

If it is as you say, and powergamers do indeed tend to limit their character concepts, plus to adjust their characters' personalities to suit "lives for their job", this would easily explain why some roleplayers dislike powergamers so much: They will likely assume that this leads to one boring generic personality without further facettes, only caring about whatever it is the character's role is, gold and power gain, and that's it. That is not true in the least - one of the players I play with is most definitely to be classified as a powergamer, and most (not all) of his characters are practically married to their job, yet every single one of them has a unique and usually quite shining personality. Not to mention there are other character concepts, too. But that's how bad opinions may come to be.

[Tyrael]

Commoner railgun, as passing someone an item is a free action, they all pass one after the other.

Ummm....According to the PHB, "dropping an item into your space or into an adjacent square is a free action." Furthermore, picking up an item is a move action.

On top of that, even if it WAS a free action, each of the commoners can only act on their initiative count.

[Douglas]

Which is why the commoners all ready actions to pass it on when it gets to them. Each readied action, which can be up to a standard action, is triggered and completed on the same initiative count in the same round, so the item still traverses the entire line in a single round.

[Bassetking]

Which is why the commoners all ready actions to pass it on when it gets to them. Each readied action, which can be up to a standard action, is triggered and completed on the same initiative count in the same round, so the item still traverses the entire line in a single round.

...actually, at a certain point along the chain of commoners, the quarterstaff, as it approached the speed of light, would become so massive that it would surpass the commoner's carrying capacity.

[Kyeudo]

Please, think of the cat-girls.

[horseboy]

...actually, at a certain point along the chain of commoners, the quarterstaff, as it approached the speed of light, would become so massive that it would surpass the commoner's carrying capacity.

Now, now, this system kills enough cat girls without something like that having to be figured out.