Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[piecewise]

Hmm.  Strength attacking is now objectively superior to dex attacking, due to the significantly higher damage, but that fact automatically buffs dex, because if you're attacked by a str weapon dex provides direct damage resistance.  Armor would have to give very large amount of HP to overcome that, and since you still haven't said anything about armor, I'm guessing you're deliberately waiting for me to munchkin things.  So, str is better, but dex isn't a dump stat.

Yeah, unfortunately dex having dodging means I can't make it too strong in attack because otherwise it's OP. I could always have a stat JUST for dodging and make dex weapons more powerful.

And armor...I dunno If I'll even have it honestly. It would just be either reducing damage or acting as extra HP.  Making dodge the only defense is probably something to make it more valuable. Strength parts will have more HP anyways, so it's kind of like built in armor.

Speed synergizes very powerfully with strength once you get multiattacks, but is very expensive to get so high, especially since there doesn't appear to be any real penalty for low speed if you don't multiattack.  Since the stat cap is 100, you'll need to have speedy limb parts to guarantee more than one multiattack, which makes the limb weaker.  But, if you're already strong enough to hit, that is virtually always going to mean a significant damage increase.

Well, it's not in there yet but I intended for speed to act as initiative; so if you don't care about going before monsters it's only really used for misc speed rolls and multi-hits.
 

Grappling is... interesting.  I want to say it's underpowered because it only forces a -30 to combat rolls, but if it can be done multiple times then that's actually pretty powerful.  Due to stat caps, and the nature of limb stat bonuses, it might be possible to  make very reliable; if I grapple an unstatted part with a high dex & str limb, I have a good chance to succeed.  From there, I can grapple more parts to completely cripple an enemy, which allows safe precision dismemberment as a bonus.  However, grappling exclusively favors the side with more units and time, so it might be a horrible strategy if players will frequently be outnumbered and hurrying.  Grapple builds also wouldn't benefit as much from speed as other builds, so they're free to put points elsewhere.

The thing is that multiple people could grapple one creature. So If I had it drop much more it might become extremely OP, since once one person grapples it would be easy for more people to and it builds up to the point where if a few people grab hold, the enemy literally cannot break free or deal any damage. As of right now they could still do that, but it would take a few people, rather than just 2 or whatever. Alternatively I could just say only one person can grapple an enemy at a time and buff the debuff.

Of course, if grappling can't be stacked, or if an opponent can choose which limb to use stats from, it's completely terrible.  Most people will have a high str or dex limb which will usually beat you in one of the two rolls, and such limbs are also the only ones which are helpful to specifically target--which gives -30 to your roll, making success even less likely.

...Speaking as a person with RL grappling training, I would like it to be a powerful debuffing ability.  Just FYI.

I actually hadn't even thought about using limb bonuses in the grapple. What I'm probably gonna do is say that you get to choose the limb you're trying to grab and they have to use that limb and their base stats to try and fight back. So if you grab at a weak limb, you can probably get it. If you grab at a strong limb, they're probably gonna evade or break free. Actually I'll do that, say you can grab multiple parts if you have enough [grasp] parts to do so, that only one person can grab an enemy at a time (no ganging up) and that both the grabbed limb and grabbing limb are no longer usable, but that the grabbed critter gets a malus to all combat rolls equal to the difference between both the strength and the dex rolls combined.

Intelligence can just be lowered to 49 minus whatever int bonuses you get, since out of combat humanity spending isn't really a penalty.  Maybe having it high is a good idea if mindfuck or something is a serious worry.  Maybe having it lower is acceptable if the penalty for failed limb attachments isn't severe.  Dunno.

Int also helps in scavenging lost body parts. I'm gonna make it so that healing requires Int rolls as well; as does harvesting parts from corpses.

Heart should be at least 34, as that allows a maximum humanity buff; any lower, and you need to pump int more to guarantee basic limb attachments.  Higher heart mostly just has value for attaching parts, but generally stats from parts are less valuable than innate stats, because limbs only apply bonuses when they're used.  Also, presumably you won't get lots of good limbs quickly, so one would have time to level up heart as they get better stuff.

Remember, demonic powers require humanity to use as well. So having low humanity is kind of limiting, because you'll not have much wiggle room to use powers and it could be easy to get ganked by humanity draining powers. You hit 0 humanity and it's autodeath remember.

...Something important is exactly how levels interact with the stat cap.  Once you have 100 str, is it completely impossible to level it any higher?  More importantly, do you lose those points, or can you spend them on heart instead?  If so, that means you want to start with relatively low stats aside from heart, so you have more room to grow.

Yes. And I'm thinking that it might be smart to randomize stats instead of pick them. Lose what points? The hypothetical points you'd get once you're at max level? Thats pretty far in the future but yes, you'd just have to spend them on heart.

I'm not really sure how to stop people from just dumping 100 into str like you other than perhaps saying that up to 50 it's a 1 to 1 ratio but past that it starts getting more expensive to buy stats in the beginning. Ie from 60-70 you'd need to spend 2 points to get 1 stat point and so on....actually...

Str 100
Dex 64
Spd 93
Int 49
Hrt 34


34 heart grants 51 humanity, allowing max humanity buffs, and granting 6 regen per turn, which spent on a multiattack guarantees two attacks.

I spent awhile wondering about the best distribution between dex and str, but ended up deciding to go full str.  Str is applied twice per turn, regardless of your enemies, but dex is applied once for each attack dodged; Dex is worse if you're only being attacked once or not at all, and if initiative exists, it's possible, even likely, that you'll kill your foe before they can touch you.  Also, str grants improved defense in the form of armor, so dodging isn't strictly necessary--it's just here for DR.[/spoiler]

And sadly, as with before, your character becomes obsolete as I play fun police.

[Execute/Dumbo.exe]

Y'know, I'm enjoying this dynamic between you and Syv, PW.
It's like a constant cycle of "Hey, Syv, tell me how you'd work with this"
"Well PW considering the probabilities of the rolls and the scenarios I believe I'd find myself in I'd do th-"
"Okay well now that's changed, okay Syv, now how are you going to work with this?"

[TheBiggerFish]

Y'know, I'm enjoying this dynamic between you and Syv, PW.
It's like a constant cycle of "Hey, Syv, tell me how you'd work with this"
"Well PW considering the probabilities of the rolls and the scenarios I believe I'd find myself in I'd do th-"
"Okay well now that's changed, okay Syv, now how are you going to work with this?"

Balance by powergamer.

[piecewise]

Y'know, I'm enjoying this dynamic between you and Syv, PW.
It's like a constant cycle of "Hey, Syv, tell me how you'd work with this"
"Well PW considering the probabilities of the rolls and the scenarios I believe I'd find myself in I'd do th-"
"Okay well now that's changed, okay Syv, now how are you going to work with this?"

Balance by powergamer.

Sy is good partner for my game making. Mechanics are always my weak point, so it helps to have a munchkin to throw things at and try to foil.

[TheBiggerFish]

Y'know, I'm enjoying this dynamic between you and Syv, PW.
It's like a constant cycle of "Hey, Syv, tell me how you'd work with this"
"Well PW considering the probabilities of the rolls and the scenarios I believe I'd find myself in I'd do th-"
"Okay well now that's changed, okay Syv, now how are you going to work with this?"

Balance by powergamer.

Sy is good partner for my game making. Mechanics are always my weak point, so it helps to have a munchkin to throw things at and try to foil.

Aye.  The best way to find out where the holes are in a system is to set somebody who knows how to find them against it.

[syvarris]

Spoiler: response (click to show/hide)

The thing is that multiple people could grapple one creature. So If I had it drop much more it might become extremely OP, since once one person grapples it would be easy for more people to and it builds up to the point where if a few people grab hold, the enemy literally cannot break free or deal any damage. As of right now they could still do that, but it would take a few people, rather than just 2 or whatever. Alternatively I could just say only one person can grapple an enemy at a time and buff the debuff.

I don't see why allowing multiple players to grapple one enemy is so terrible.  It still requires people to successfully grapple the monster with higher stats than them, and they lose the opportunity to attack.  Also, as I've said before, grappling benefits the side with more units, and more turns.  If the players try to grapple while they're outnumbered, they'll get eviscerated.  So controlling it is pretty easy; just don't make us fight lone demons often.

How about if grappling a foe also debuffs the grappler's dodge against other enemies?  You really shouldn't be able to dodge while holding on to another person.

I actually hadn't even thought about using limb bonuses in the grapple. What I'm probably gonna do is say that you get to choose the limb you're trying to grab and they have to use that limb and their base stats to try and fight back. So if you grab at a weak limb, you can probably get it. If you grab at a strong limb, they're probably gonna evade or break free. Actually I'll do that, say you can grab multiple parts if you have enough [grasp] parts to do so, that only one person can grab an enemy at a time (no ganging up) and that both the grabbed limb and grabbing limb are no longer usable, but that the grabbed critter gets a malus to all combat rolls equal to the difference between both the strength and the dex rolls combined.

Firstly, allowing a person to choose their limb target without penalty makes grappling a bit more powerful, and isn't actually entirely realistic.  Why not randomize the target limb normally, essentially making a basic grapple attack a roulette for limb target, while targeting a specific limb guarantees that you'll avoid a limb bonus, but always comes with a heavy penalty?

Secondly, you don't need grasp parts to lock a limb.  It's entirely possible to disable a person's arm with your leg, though that's at a point where you're not dodging anything.  _{I get that you probably just want to keep things simple and balanced, though.}

Int also helps in scavenging lost body parts. I'm gonna make it so that healing requires Int rolls as well; as does harvesting parts from corpses.

Are these things that you have to do for yourself?  Can there be no medics?

Yes. And I'm thinking that it might be smart to randomize stats instead of pick them. Lose what points? The hypothetical points you'd get once you're at max level? Thats pretty far in the future but yes, you'd just have to spend them on heart.

I'm not really sure how to stop people from just dumping 100 into str like you other than perhaps saying that up to 50 it's a 1 to 1 ratio but past that it starts getting more expensive to buy stats in the beginning. Ie from 60-70 you'd need to spend 2 points to get 1 stat point and so on....actually...

350 points to put into stats to start with. 100 is maximum in all stats except Heart. Heart has no upper limit. However, stats get more expensive as they increase. Up to 70 it’s 1 to 1, but 71-80 needs 2 points for every stat point increase, 81-90 needs 3, and 90-100 needs 4.

I feel like this restricts creativity.  I mean, it's pretty clear what the most powerful stat spread is, done like this.  Why would you reduce anything?  Strength can't be reduced, because it's the powerful attacking stat.  Dex can't be reduced because it's now the only defensive stat.  Int can't be reduced much because you'll gradually die without it, unless you actually do decide to let players heal their teammates.  Speed can be reduced without much penalty, but you get a big power bump at 100, so it's a bad idea in the long run.  Heart's the only real option for reduction, and doesn't do much early on, but the only two real options are to buff str for more damage, or spd for earlier multiattacking.

If you're gonna go with diminishing return point buy, give us way lower starting stats.  Really though, I'd prefer a system where you roll 6d10 seven(?) times, and let us use the five highest stats wherever we like, with a few non-diminishing returns points on top of that.  That would be interesting, and would prevent munchkinning of the sort I've been doing.



I'm starting to have another concern.  What part of this system encourages teamwork?  The only real way to help your buddies is to attack whatever they're killing.  Are demon powers supposed to be teamwork-oriented?

Y'know, I'm enjoying this dynamic between you and Syv, PW.
It's like a constant cycle of "Hey, Syv, tell me how you'd work with this"
"Well PW considering the probabilities of the rolls and the scenarios I believe I'd find myself in I'd do th-"
"Okay well now that's changed, okay Syv, now how are you going to work with this?"

Balance by powergamer.

Sy is good partner for my game making. Mechanics are always my weak point, so it helps to have a munchkin to throw things at and try to foil.

Where are the other munchkins, anyway?  I wasn't always alone here. 

[piecewise]

Spoiler: response (click to show/hide)

The thing is that multiple people could grapple one creature. So If I had it drop much more it might become extremely OP, since once one person grapples it would be easy for more people to and it builds up to the point where if a few people grab hold, the enemy literally cannot break free or deal any damage. As of right now they could still do that, but it would take a few people, rather than just 2 or whatever. Alternatively I could just say only one person can grapple an enemy at a time and buff the debuff.

I don't see why allowing multiple players to grapple one enemy is so terrible.  It still requires people to successfully grapple the monster with higher stats than them, and they lose the opportunity to attack.  Also, as I've said before, grappling benefits the side with more units, and more turns.  If the players try to grapple while they're outnumbered, they'll get eviscerated.  So controlling it is pretty easy; just don't make us fight lone demons often.

How about if grappling a foe also debuffs the grappler's dodge against other enemies?  You really shouldn't be able to dodge while holding on to another person.

I actually hadn't even thought about using limb bonuses in the grapple. What I'm probably gonna do is say that you get to choose the limb you're trying to grab and they have to use that limb and their base stats to try and fight back. So if you grab at a weak limb, you can probably get it. If you grab at a strong limb, they're probably gonna evade or break free. Actually I'll do that, say you can grab multiple parts if you have enough [grasp] parts to do so, that only one person can grab an enemy at a time (no ganging up) and that both the grabbed limb and grabbing limb are no longer usable, but that the grabbed critter gets a malus to all combat rolls equal to the difference between both the strength and the dex rolls combined.

Firstly, allowing a person to choose their limb target without penalty makes grappling a bit more powerful, and isn't actually entirely realistic.  Why not randomize the target limb normally, essentially making a basic grapple attack a roulette for limb target, while targeting a specific limb guarantees that you'll avoid a limb bonus, but always comes with a heavy penalty?

Secondly, you don't need grasp parts to lock a limb.  It's entirely possible to disable a person's arm with your leg, though that's at a point where you're not dodging anything.  _{I get that you probably just want to keep things simple and balanced, though.}

Int also helps in scavenging lost body parts. I'm gonna make it so that healing requires Int rolls as well; as does harvesting parts from corpses.

Are these things that you have to do for yourself?  Can there be no medics?

Yes. And I'm thinking that it might be smart to randomize stats instead of pick them. Lose what points? The hypothetical points you'd get once you're at max level? Thats pretty far in the future but yes, you'd just have to spend them on heart.

I'm not really sure how to stop people from just dumping 100 into str like you other than perhaps saying that up to 50 it's a 1 to 1 ratio but past that it starts getting more expensive to buy stats in the beginning. Ie from 60-70 you'd need to spend 2 points to get 1 stat point and so on....actually...

350 points to put into stats to start with. 100 is maximum in all stats except Heart. Heart has no upper limit. However, stats get more expensive as they increase. Up to 70 it’s 1 to 1, but 71-80 needs 2 points for every stat point increase, 81-90 needs 3, and 90-100 needs 4.

I feel like this restricts creativity.  I mean, it's pretty clear what the most powerful stat spread is, done like this.  Why would you reduce anything?  Strength can't be reduced, because it's the powerful attacking stat.  Dex can't be reduced because it's now the only defensive stat.  Int can't be reduced much because you'll gradually die without it, unless you actually do decide to let players heal their teammates.  Speed can be reduced without much penalty, but you get a big power bump at 100, so it's a bad idea in the long run.  Heart's the only real option for reduction, and doesn't do much early on, but the only two real options are to buff str for more damage, or spd for earlier multiattacking.

If you're gonna go with diminishing return point buy, give us way lower starting stats.  Really though, I'd prefer a system where you roll 6d10 seven(?) times, and let us use the five highest stats wherever we like, with a few non-diminishing returns points on top of that.  That would be interesting, and would prevent munchkinning of the sort I've been doing.



I'm starting to have another concern.  What part of this system encourages teamwork?  The only real way to help your buddies is to attack whatever they're killing.  Are demon powers supposed to be teamwork-oriented?

Y'know, I'm enjoying this dynamic between you and Syv, PW.
It's like a constant cycle of "Hey, Syv, tell me how you'd work with this"
"Well PW considering the probabilities of the rolls and the scenarios I believe I'd find myself in I'd do th-"
"Okay well now that's changed, okay Syv, now how are you going to work with this?"

Balance by powergamer.

Sy is good partner for my game making. Mechanics are always my weak point, so it helps to have a munchkin to throw things at and try to foil.

Where are the other munchkins, anyway?  I wasn't always alone here. 

Buggered off apparently. We've seen a pretty marked dip in people round here. Which isn't surprising, really.

In any case, i think that allowing them to choose the limb to target isn't so bad because both the targeted limb and the limb the attacker uses to grab are taken out of the equation and become unusable so long as they are grappled. So yeah, you could use your best limb to grab their weakest one, but it would effectively just remove your best limb and leave their better ones to hit you with. The difficulty in dodging is true though. I've added a -50 dex penalty to both attacker and defender for dodging and removed the constraint that only one person can grapple an enemy at a time.

No. I don't think I have anywhere that you HAVE to do these things yourself. But someone has to. So you could have a medic to do the int stuff. But if he goes demon then you're in a bad place.

Random with some point buy wiggle room is a good idea actually. The D100 system recommends rolling d100 twice and taking highest but that seems unbalanced because it's very easy to get 17 and then 20 and just be fucked.  6d10 gives an average around 30 points. I think we'll go 7d10, which is an average closer to 40. Then...lets see...what do you think...50 points to put wherever? Maybe more?

[Lenglon]

-snip-
Where are the other munchkins, anyway?  I wasn't always alone here. 

I don't do it that much anymore. I found it was more fun to just design a character I enjoyed, and then to munchkinize them enough to make whatever concept I had be viable. I could have a go at breaking PW's system I suppose, but I've always found that having a good GM tends to make true munchkinning pointless. because Rule 0: the rules are whatever the GM says they are. If I do something completely broken, then the GM will patch it on the spot as needed. and frankly, that makes for better gameplay. Having a flawless ruleset that is balanced and consistent frankly is boring sometimes. If I want to design a character that is inheriently non-viable, then I need to be able to break the balance to make it about as strong as a normal concept would be.

case in point: Lyra. She always was munchkinned out a little. not a lot, but enough to let me get away with her heavilly flawed core design. Lyra's concept and role were not natively viable in the ER system. To make her viable anyway I had to exploit EXO and amps, exploit the flaw in old ER Amp design that made WIll not very important when it was supposed to be, exploit a -2 charisma when she never spoke, etc etc etc. which made her end up only slightly less effective than other characters of equal veterancy.
here's the other thing. the kinds of flaws Sy's designs are exploiting are one-trick-ponies. they have one trick. it's a VERY nice trick, but it's just one trick. and they've invested everything they have into that one trick. one-trick-ponies, quite frankly, are going to die when they encounter a hard-counter to their one trick.for example, lets say Sy designs Sir McMillionDamageSword with WonderShieldDefense. and said person, being completely broken, is able to one-shot anything at all he can hit, and takes no damage from any monster's attacks.

then he encounters the Silver Knight Archers of Anor Londo, successfully shieldblocks their shots, but is knocked off the cliff by knockback anyway and dies from fall damage.

Meanwhile, MrMixedBuild hammers a piton into the wall, ties himself off to it, gets out his bow, and begins an archery duel. he gets beat up during it, but eventually he whittles them down and takes them out.
one-trick-ponies have this nasty habit of encountering something that hard-counters their one trick. the kind of design flaws I like to exploit are things that are more versitile than they should be, not things that are more powerful than they should be. in the case of PW's system, I keep looking at the possibility of a design based on magic items / spells, because if there is enough variety there, I might be able to replace all monster bits with MOAR ITEMZ. which hits harder, sy's multiattack design or a gust of wind spell that knocks enemies into a bottomless pit?

[Egan_BW]

Hmm. The Dragonslayer Greatbow school of balancing had not occurred to me before, but it seems sensible enough.

[piecewise]

-snip-
Where are the other munchkins, anyway?  I wasn't always alone here. 

I don't do it that much anymore. I found it was more fun to just design a character I enjoyed, and then to munchkinize them enough to make whatever concept I had be viable. I could have a go at breaking PW's system I suppose, but I've always found that having a good GM tends to make true munchkinning pointless. because Rule 0: the rules are whatever the GM says they are. If I do something completely broken, then the GM will patch it on the spot as needed. and frankly, that makes for better gameplay. Having a flawless ruleset that is balanced and consistent frankly is boring sometimes. If I want to design a character that is inheriently non-viable, then I need to be able to break the balance to make it about as strong as a normal concept would be.

case in point: Lyra. She always was munchkinned out a little. not a lot, but enough to let me get away with her heavilly flawed core design. Lyra's concept and role were not natively viable in the ER system. To make her viable anyway I had to exploit EXO and amps, exploit the flaw in old ER Amp design that made WIll not very important when it was supposed to be, exploit a -2 charisma when she never spoke, etc etc etc. which made her end up only slightly less effective than other characters of equal veterancy.
here's the other thing. the kinds of flaws Sy's designs are exploiting are one-trick-ponies. they have one trick. it's a VERY nice trick, but it's just one trick. and they've invested everything they have into that one trick. one-trick-ponies, quite frankly, are going to die when they encounter a hard-counter to their one trick.for example, lets say Sy designs Sir McMillionDamageSword with WonderShieldDefense. and said person, being completely broken, is able to one-shot anything at all he can hit, and takes no damage from any monster's attacks.

then he encounters the Silver Knight Archers of Anor Londo, successfully shieldblocks their shots, but is knocked off the cliff by knockback anyway and dies from fall damage.

Meanwhile, MrMixedBuild hammers a piton into the wall, ties himself off to it, gets out his bow, and begins an archery duel. he gets beat up during it, but eventually he whittles them down and takes them out.
one-trick-ponies have this nasty habit of encountering something that hard-counters their one trick. the kind of design flaws I like to exploit are things that are more versitile than they should be, not things that are more powerful than they should be. in the case of PW's system, I keep looking at the possibility of a design based on magic items / spells, because if there is enough variety there, I might be able to replace all monster bits with MOAR ITEMZ. which hits harder, sy's multiattack design or a gust of wind spell that knocks enemies into a bottomless pit?

This is true, but I'm less concerned with stopping specific builds than addressing problems those builds may illuminate. People can make as many glass cannons as they'd like and I'm fine with it because, as you said, they'll probably bite it from being unable to handle unknown situation.

But sometimes his builds and his feedback let me know that something in the system isn't balanced the way I want it. Like the speed of humanity regen or the way part stacking works, or the fact that human parts have innate bonuses, or that speed was OP as is. I will never stop Sy from munchkining, and the system will never be perfect. Even professional systems have exploits. But It can be at least somewhat balanced, and most importantly can behave like I want it to.

[piecewise]

I've updated the rules, removed some things, added others, reorganized it a bit, and added the section about demonic powers and magic. Demonic powers are the special abilities of demon parts, magic is a bit different. You can do magic as a normal human. But it will involve allowing a metaphysical parasite live in your brain.

I've also added a section about status effects. Causing and resisting effects is boosted by certain stats, such as speed for poison and strength for burning. This means that, depending on your character, you'll have inherent resistances and weaknesses to certain statuses.

[syvarris]

I don't do it that much anymore. I found it was more fun to just design a character I enjoyed, and then to munchkinize them enough to make whatever concept I had be viable. I could have a go at breaking PW's system I suppose, but I've always found that having a good GM tends to make true munchkinning pointless. because Rule 0: the rules are whatever the GM says they are. If I do something completely broken, then the GM will patch it on the spot as needed. and frankly, that makes for better gameplay. Having a flawless ruleset that is balanced and consistent frankly is boring sometimes. If I want to design a character that is inheriently non-viable, then I need to be able to break the balance to make it about as strong as a normal concept would be.

I have to disagree with this rather strongly.  You're basically saying that a good GM will be good at making things difficult and hard for players, and people should have to find their own way to enjoy the game.  This is in direct contrast to my opinion of how a good GM should run a game; people who are weak or unoptimized should be provided with ways to be stronger, or situations which lend themselves to their own skillsets, while strong people should always be given a real reason why they're not dominating.

Weak characters should not need to be played by a skilled player to have fun in the game.  This is going to result in a lot of unskilled players trying to play, and end up getting crushed, because they're not exoerienced enough to notice all the mistakes they make, and not skilled enough to come up with counterbalances for those mistakes.  At the same time, you're making the game unfun for skilled players who come up with a clever strategy--you're saying the GM should Rule Zero them and just say "No.", which has always been very unpleasant for me, at least.  Yeah, you also suggest giving them situations where things are legitimately just hard for their build, but that's really difficult in a heavily broken system--just look at late-game ER, where PW basically had two options with powerful ampers: Give them some bullshit threat that's arbitrarily hard and unfair (see: Amp Specialist, Nuke Door), or just let them run wild.  Both solutions led to a lot of salt, a lot of the time.

Basically, the end result of your preferred system is that only one type of player is going to have fun:  Munchkins who deliberately munchkinize only weak characters.  So, yourself.

[Lenglon]

Uh, sy, I think you read a TON of stuff into that that wasn't actually there.

I said it makes it pointless to munchkinize because a good GM either patches on the spot or rebalances or whatever, to make characters approx equally viable. That is has no signifigant net result in any way. That includes how the GM can (and probably should) compensate for player skill differences as part of why it's net-zero. giving little buffs to characters of players that aren't very skilled, little nerfs to characters of players that are, etc. is a good thing. clever strategies should be rewarded, yes, but not so heavilly rewarded that other players make no impact upon the game. and a good GM will do exactly that.

that's what rule 0 is for, is someone designs a million-damage-attack, the GM should NOT be putting 10million hp enemies against the players, because the people that do 5 damage an attack will have zero impact and be completely irrelevant. in that case, the million-damage attack HAS to be rule-0'd out, or a counterplay threat has to be introduced, like Anor Londo Archers, or suchlike.

I mean seriously, if someone is playing something broken beyond all measure that reduces all other players to having no impact upon the game. It doesn't matter how clever it is. It has to die in a fire.

Assuming you're capable of making a character that powerful, you have a responsibility not to do it, as a player. so, assuming the system you end up working in is breakable (safe assumption), then a skilled munchkin will have to either intentionally hold back, by choosing to use a flawed concept or build, or they will be rule 0'd down to approximately the same region of power as everyone else.

if a player is unskilled in a broken system, then, again, they can be rule 0'd, up to the level of everyone else.
this is why the brokenness of a system is irrelevant.

however, if what is happening is the GM is focused on making the system perfectly balanced, then someone who makes poor design choices or plays their character poorly has no recourse because fixing their flaws would throw off the balance of the game. It's better to have a accepted to be broken system that can and will be hourse-ruled to personalize power to each player than a balanced system that screws the unskilled over.

THAT is what I'm saying.

[Ozarck]

having a good GM tends to make true munchkinning pointless. because Rule 0: the rules are whatever the GM says they are. If I do something completely broken, then the GM will patch it on the spot as needed. and frankly, that makes for better gameplay. Having a flawless ruleset that is balanced and consistent frankly is boring sometimes. If I want to design a character that is inheriently non-viable, then I need to be able to break the balance to make it about as strong as a normal concept would be.

how a good GM should run a game; people who are weak or unoptimized should be provided with ways to be stronger, or situations which lend themselves to their own skillsets, while strong people should always be given a real reason why they're not dominating.

Weak characters should not need to be played by a skilled player to have fun in the game. 

These are kinda my GM mission statement.  Iuse the system as a guideline to make things easier, and because players must have the option to fail, in order for there to be challenge and risk, and therefore fun.

I said it makes it pointless to munchkinize because a good GM either patches on the spot or rebalances or whatever, to make characters approx equally viable. That is has no signifigant net result in any way. That includes how the GM can (and probably should) compensate for player skill differences as part of why it's net-zero. giving little buffs to characters of players that aren't very skilled, little nerfs to characters of players that are, etc. is a good thing. clever strategies should be rewarded, yes, but not so heavilly rewarded that other players make no impact upon the game. and a good GM will do exactly that.

that's what rule 0 is for, is someone designs a million-damage-attack, the GM should NOT be putting 10million hp enemies against the players, because the people that do 5 damage an attack will have zero impact and be completely irrelevant. in that case, the million-damage attack HAS to be rule-0'd out, or a counterplay threat has to be introduced, like Anor Londo Archers, or suchlike.

I mean seriously, if someone is playing something broken beyond all measure that reduces all other players to having no impact upon the game. It doesn't matter how clever it is. It has to die in a fire.

Assuming you're capable of making a character that powerful, you have a responsibility not to do it, as a player. so, assuming the system you end up working in is breakable (safe assumption), then a skilled munchkin will have to either intentionally hold back, by choosing to use a flawed concept or build, or they will be rule 0'd down to approximately the same region of power as everyone else.

I've had a couple people introduce some potentially game breaking characters in Omega. I think it's an interesting challenge for me as a GM - how do I allow this character, within the ruleset i've provided, and still challenge them in a way that allows the other players to contribute. that becomes a game for me, as well, a cat and mouse game in which the mice are buildiung better mice and I am eating well, on all these fat mice, with a tall drink of players' tears to wash it all down.

[piecewise]

Don't mind me, I'm just gonna go take cover in this ditch over here.

Lemme know when the cease fire is issued.