59 réponses à ce sujet

[WebShaman]

I really like what you are posting, MrZork!! +1 here!

Specifically, the parts about munchkin is the player, not the character. And the negative connotations behind the terms munchkin and abuse.

The Exhalted Sorceress is not the "best" build - or at least, it wasn't. Before patch 1.69 changed things, it was Puff the Dragon (environment dependent, of course).

I agree with MrZork and the others here - an optimized build is, in and of itself, not abuse or munchkin. It is a culmination of a deep understanding of the rules and how they work.

Now, one may take issue with the rules (as MrZork has so eloquently pointed out) - and in this instance, I would be one here that tends to do so (as I have a real objection to Paladins who backstab...ermmm...sneak attack). But that is a can with different worms here, IMHO.

Back to the ECB - my two creations stand out, IMHO. I created the MM, and the Ranger Archer builds. Are they "munchkin"? I do not think so. In high magic environments, the builds are certainly weak.

And this, as Elhanan pointed out, is the major difference IMHO between NWN and any other game. In NWN, you have so many hugely different types of environments, that there is no possible way to create an optimized build that is equally effective in them all.

You want a PvP optimized character? It probably will not be effective in environment X. Vice versa, quid pro quo. And so on.

The ECB came together because veterans (I use this term lightly) of the game who have experienced a portion (or more) of the different environments noticed that it is possible to optimize for certain criteria and started to do so, posting their builds for others. For some, it became a pasttime in and of itself.

I will start out with this little gem :

MM said:

I don't possibly see how the Exalted Sorceress idea isn't inherently a munchkin build.

Ok, in this certain environment, we are playing with the PRC enabled. So, the ES is nowhere near the optimized build here. So, in light of the environmental conditions, can you now see how the ES can not be a "munchkin" build? It will not get you "teh lootz!" on this server, as it is balanced for much more powerful builds.

MM said :

Okay, go ahead and glance at the first 100 builds listed in the ECB guild. Tell me how many of those aren't focused on squeezing out every last inch of character power. If there's more than, say, five, I'd be extraordinarily shocked.

Well, go take a look. Please be aware that I will, of course, be measuring these builds along the lines of environmental criteria, where I get to set the environmental conditions, of course.

Prepare to be extraordinarily shocked.

About the only real case of "munchkin" builds that exist are "hax0r" type .bics - which basically are optimized for Munchkin power in any environment (because they really do abuse -I prefer the term exploit here- the NWN engine).

These are the ONLY builds that I consider munchkin, though I do understand that there are those who like to play the game in this type of environment (mostly PvP type ones). And yes, there is quite a bit of expertise required to be able to build such creations (or at least there were, as some of the best .bics eventually got released to the public).

Leto really made such possible (and there was quite a bit of knowledge about how to do this (hacking .bics) before the leto forum went down.

So, in light of the above, is the ES munchkin? I don't think so. It is nowhere near the power of a hacked .bic character. And neither are any of the ECB builds.

[MagicalMaster]

Elhanan wrote...

I believe cripple may mean "to impair" or "to hamper". And in the case of a WM where feats are already somewhat needed for prereqs, purposely selecting ones that have no benefit seems somewhat wasteful as well as weakened.

Cripple means more than merely "to impair" or "to hamper."  More like "to severely impair or hamper."  As in, a normal person can run.  A person with a mild injury has his running impaired.  A person with a major injury is crippled and cannot run at all.

A crippled WM would be one with 8 Dex/8 Str and everything in Wisdom or something.
 

Elhanan wrote...

Mistakes do happen; why I concede that unplanned errors may be part of the norm. But to do so purposely is not normal in my experience; only rare exceptions that mistakenly belived that this made for good RP.

You do realize there are plenty of people who plan out builds, create them correctly, and the builds are still bad?  If everyone was good at creating builds there kind of wouldn't have been a need for the ECB guild.  There's a reason it's considered unusual and not part of the norm.

Elhanan wrote...

Yet none of the three are completlely vegetarian, so someone must continue to look elsewhere....

He didn't ask for a vegetarian pizza.  He wanted to know where he could find Munchkin builds.  This does not mean every build at that location is a Munchkin build, just that some are.  If you cannot see that important distinction, then this is completely pointless.

MrZork wrote...

MM, you really can't get around the fact that the term "munchkin" usually has a negative connotation. Similarly, it's a very odd thing to refer to a practice as an "abuse" without implying that there's something wrong with it. Like most other negative terms, they can be used playfully in some contexts. But, if someone is reading a discussion about munchkin builds that work by abusing the rules, then it's perfectly natural for him to assume something negative is being implied about the builds. Ultimately, I think that's what irritates some of the people who responded in this thread.

I feel it's worth pointing out that the first person irritated was Webshaman, and he was offended by

" Can any of you guys point me to that one page from way back that containt all the munchkin builds(Epic chars, etc...)."

No one had mentioned the word abuse or anything else at that point.  He then asked why the original poster had used the word "munchkin" and things went from there.

Incidentally, the reason the OP used the word munchkin is because he wanted a very powerful build.  He was using it in a positive sense, aka "I don't want an RP build, I want a munckin build."

I feel it's also worth pointing out that "munchkin" is *only* negative from the view of an RPer.  If a person tried to join my guild in WoW and claimed he was an RPer, he'd be laughed out.  RPers also tend (in general) to dislike "powergaming" (even though the two are not exclusive).

I remember doing Mock Trial in high school.  That was all about abusing every loophole we could find to give our team an advantage.  We would have laughed if someone claimed we weren't keeping true to the "intent" of the case because our goal was to *win.*  Within the rules, but intent be damned.

WebShaman wrote...

The Exhalted Sorceress is not the "best" build - or at least, it wasn't. Before patch 1.69 changed things, it was Puff the Dragon (environment dependent, of course).

Doesn't have to be the "best" build to be a munchkin build.  If you made a 38 sorcerer/1 monk/1 paladin and then gave him nothing but Skill Foci feats, it would still be a munchkin build.

WebShaman wrote...

I agree with MrZork and the others here - an optimized build is, in and of itself, not abuse or munchkin. It is a culmination of a deep understanding of the rules and how they work.

No, of course an optimized build isn't necessarily munchkin and it takes knowledge of how the rules work to create an optimized build.  If you recall, I specifically separated the two categories earlier on.

WebShaman wrote...

Back to the ECB - my two creations stand out, IMHO. I created the MM, and the Ranger Archer builds. Are they "munchkin"? I do not think so. In high magic environments, the builds are certainly weak.

You'd have to point out the builds to me.

WebShaman wrote...

Ok, in this certain environment, we are playing with the PRC enabled. So, the ES is nowhere near the optimized build here. So, in light of the environmental conditions, can you now see how the ES can not be a "munchkin" build? It will not get you "teh lootz!" on this server, as it is balanced for much more powerful builds.

Munchkinism and optimization do not go hand in hand, though they are often related.  It doesn't matter that the ES is not the strongest build, it is still a munchkin build due to the 1 paladin and 1 monk level.

WebShaman wrote...

Well, go take a look. Please be aware that I will, of course, be measuring these builds along the lines of environmental criteria, where I get to set the environmental conditions, of course.

Environmental criteria doesn't matter.  Munchkin builds are ones that abuse class mechanics.

WebShaman wrote...

These are the ONLY builds that I consider munchkin, though I do understand that there are those who like to play the game in this type of environment (mostly PvP type ones). And yes, there is quite a bit of expertise required to be able to build such creations (or at least there were, as some of the best .bics eventually got released to the public).

Those aren't Munchkin, specifically because they are not within the legal rules.  The whole point of Munchkin building is the idea of creating a build that is strictly legal but mercilessly abuses the intent of the rules.

Go look at "Pun pun the kobold" and tell me with a straight face that he isn't a Munchkin build.

Also, to pre-empt something I expect you to say, yes, there is intent within the rules.  If I recall correctly, you vehemently disagree and claim that anything strictly legal within the rules is intended.

But apologies if I'm misremembering.

Modifié par MagicalMaster, 10 septembre 2012 - 10:53 .

[Elhanan]

MagicalMaster wrote...

Cripple means more than merely "to impair" or "to hamper."  More like "to severely impair or hamper."  As in, a normal person can run.  A person with a mild injury has his running impaired.  A person with a major injury is crippled and cannot run at all.

A crippled WM would be one with 8 Dex/8 Str and everything in Wisdom or something.
 
You do realize there are plenty of people who plan out builds, create them correctly, and the builds are still bad?  If everyone was good at creating builds there kind of wouldn't have been a need for the ECB guild.  There's a reason it's considered unusual and not part of the norm.

He didn't ask for a vegetarian pizza.  He wanted to know where he could find Munchkin builds.  This does not mean every build at that location is a Munchkin build, just that some are.  If you cannot see that important distinction, then this is completely pointless.

Not according to Dictionary.com.

Nope; would never become a WM in the first place, as it fails to meet the prereqs.

Again, mistakes happen even with planning. But purposely crippling a build does not appear to be common.

Yep; the OP asked for Munchkin and Epic builds, and that is when the debate over the term started. Again, mistakes occur, and some us are trying to clarify the difference.

[WebShaman]

Also, to pre-empt something I expect you to say, yes, there is intent within the rules. If I recall correctly, you vehemently disagree and claim that anything strictly legal within the rules is intended.

But apologies if I'm misremembering.

??

I can't ever remember having said that - I think perhaps Kail may have.

What I do hold to be true, is a comparison of the evolution of the rules (earlier to later) and how some intent has been "filtered out" as new rules were introduced (like backstab to sneak attack, for example, yadda yadda yadda).

I don't propose to know the intent of the devs (well, not the current ones. Gary Gygax and Ed Greenwood I knew personally, so....)

Your definition of "munchkin" I do not accept. The ES is NOT a munchkin build. And quite plainly, munchkin builds are affected by environment.

BTW - a hacked .bic is possible within the framework of the NWN Engine. And there used to be servers that catored to this type of playstyle (i.e. they were legitimate to play, even necessary, to play there). This is very much like how you need items of a certain level to even be able to go on certain raids in WoW (which also brings us to another point, but it belongs in another thread, so I will expound on it there).

You are really digging yourself deeper here. We are not agreeing on the same definitions, and so, we will not be able to do any type of debate, nor reach a consensus here.

I am sure that there is nothing like the hacked .bic (and manipulated 2das) legitimate play server in WoW. Since that is so, I think you should leave WoW out of this debate.

And as we cannot seem to agree on the definition of what is munchkin (and what is not), I suggest we leave it at that. You have your opinion, and we have ours.

[MagicalMaster]

Elhanan wrote...

Not according to Dictionary.com.

The word comes from the meaning:

"A person or animal that is partially disabled or unable to use a limb or limbs"

Cripple is far more severe than "impair" or "hamper."  Unless you're saying that you'd say a person missing an arm is "impaired."  Maybe if you're trying to be incredibly polite, I guess, but crippling something is far worse than impairing or hampering.  Either accept that or don't, I really don't see the point in discussing the meaning of an extremely common and mainstream word.

Elhanan wrote...

Nope; would never become a WM in the first place, as it fails to meet the prereqs.

Fine.  Considered it modified to have 13 dex and 13 int.  That doesn't change my point and you know it.

Elhanan wrote...

Again, mistakes happen even with planning. But purposely crippling a build does not appear to be common.

You keep using the word purposely.  These people are not *trying* to be bad.  If I asked you to design a house, changes are that despite trying your best your design would be far worse than an actual architect's.  That's why people go to the ECB guild for help, because they know they're not nearly as good at building.

Elhanan wrote...

Yep; the OP asked for Munchkin and Epic builds, and that is when the debate over the term started. Again, mistakes occur, and some us are trying to clarify the difference.

No one in this thread has claimed there is no difference.  No one.

The subject of "discussion" is apparently whether there are *any* Munchkin builds in the ECB.

WebShaman wrote...

??

I can't ever remember having said that - I think perhaps Kail may have.

Yeah, I think you're right, it was probably Kail.  Sorry!  My mistake.

WebShaman wrote...

BTW - a hacked .bic is possible within the framework of the NWN Engine. And there used to be servers that catored to this type of playstyle (i.e. they were legitimate to play, even necessary, to play there). This is very much like how you need items of a certain level to even be able to go on certain raids in WoW (which also brings us to another point, but it belongs in another thread, so I will expound on it there).

I didn't say possible within the framework of the NWN Engine, I said legal within the rules.  Munchkin builds stay within the rules, they just abuse rules to increase power.

Do you not see the difference between a build that would be allowed with Enforce Legal Characters and one that wouldn't be (assuming ELC was correctly done)?

WebShaman wrote...

Your definition of "munchkin" I do not accept. The ES is NOT a munchkin build. And quite plainly, munchkin builds are affected by environment.

Do you think Pun Pun isn't a Munchkin build?

And if you mean that Exalted Sorceress wouldn't be a Munchkin build if the paladin level did nothing beyond granting Light Armor proficiency and giving +1 saving throws (aka, +1 max per paladin level or something), then sure.

WebShaman wrote...

You are really digging yourself deeper here. We are not agreeing on the same definitions, and so, we will not be able to do any type of debate, nor reach a consensus here.

And as we cannot seem to agree on the definition of what is munchkin (and what is not), I suggest we leave it at that. You have your opinion, and we have ours.

If you don't think taking one level of monk as a Druid for the AC bonus and other "goodies" is a violation of the spirit/intent of the rules, if you don't think taking one level of paladin as a sorcerer for the plate armor and save bonus is a violation of the spirit/intent of the rules, if you don't think taking one level of rogue as a fighter to tumble dump is a violation of the spirit/intent of the rules, then no, we don't have anything to talk about.

Again, please remember you were the one who wanted to talk about it in the first place.  This thread could easily have remained at four posts.

WebShaman wrote...

I am sure that there is nothing like the hacked .bic (and manipulated 2das) legitimate play server in WoW. Since that is so, I think you should leave WoW out of this debate.

I brought up WoW to show that while "Munchkin build" might be considered an insult here, being an "RPer" is an insult in WoW (and being a Munchkin would be approved of).  Whether the word is considered negative depends on the person.

Modifié par MagicalMaster, 11 septembre 2012 - 09:39 .

[Elhanan]

MagicalMaster wrote...

The word comes from the meaning:

"A person or animal that is partially disabled or unable to use a limb or limbs"

Cripple is far more severe than "impair" or "hamper."  Unless you're saying that you'd say a person missing an arm is "impaired."  Maybe if you're trying to be incredibly polite, I guess, but crippling something is far worse than impairing or hampering.  Either accept that or don't, I really don't see the point in discussing the meaning of an extremely common and mainstream word.

Don't have to discuss the meaning when the dictionary contains my meaning for me.

Fine.  Considered it modified to have 13 dex and 13 int.  That doesn't change my point and you know it.

You keep using the word purposely.  These people are not *trying* to be bad.  If I asked you to design a house, changes are that despite trying your best your design would be far worse than an actual architect's.  That's why people go to the ECB guild for help, because they know they're not nearly as good at building.

No one in this thread has claimed there is no difference.  No one.

The subject of "discussion" is apparently whether there are *any* Munchkin builds in the ECB.

Again, the norm is not those that impair their builds purposely, take more usless choices than pro, etc. I have seen  rare exceptions by those that believed such boosted RP, but RP has nothing at all to do with a good or bad design.

"Why are they being labeled "munchkin" builds? o_0  I feel slightly offended here." - WS

This was then followed by Wiki definitions and discussion.

Does not require much pondering to as to why he and others may find the term puzzling when linked to ECB. While the site may have such builds stored there, if so they are the exception; not the rule.

Overall: Munchkin = bad; ECB = good.

[MagicalMaster]

Elhanan wrote...

Don't have to discuss the meaning when the dictionary contains my meaning for me.

Obviously the Oxford English Dictionary is inferior to "thefreedictionary" or whatever!

"Hamper...

b. to entangle, encumber, or embarrass, with obstacles or difficulties. (Now the common use.)"

"Cripple...

1. trans.[/i] To deprive (wholly or partly) of the use of one's limbs; to lame, disable, make a cripple of."

If you think those have the same meaning, and particularly if you think the severity of the words is the same, then...yeah.

Elhanan wrote...

Again, the norm is not those that impair their builds purposely, take more usless choices than pro, etc. I have seen  rare exceptions by those that believed such boosted RP, but RP has nothing at all to do with a good or bad design.

Do you not understand English?  They are not purposely impairing anything.  They are building the best they can.  They simply don't know enough about the game to build better.

Hence why they often go to the ECB for advice.

Elhanan wrote...

Does not require much pondering to as to why he and others may find the term puzzling when linked to ECB. While the site may have such builds stored there, if so they are the exception; not the rule.

Overall: Munchkin = bad; ECB = good.

I'm counting 14ish suspicious builds on the first page of the level 40 builds page alone.  They're definitely not a minor exception.  Nor are they the rule.  But if you want Munchkin builds, ECB guild has quite a few.

P.S. Munchkin only has meaning within roleplaying, so it's only "bad" if you're in an RP environment.

[Elhanan]

MagicalMaster wrote...

Obviously the Oxford English Dictionary is inferior to "thefreedictionary" or whatever!

"Hamper...

b. to entangle, encumber, or embarrass, with obstacles or difficulties. (Now the common use.)"

"Cripple...

1. trans.[/i] To deprive (wholly or partly) of the use of one's limbs; to lame, disable, make a cripple of."

If you think those have the same meaning, and particularly if you think the severity of the words is the same, then...yeah.

Not inferior, but not superior either. And it  is also used as synonyms.

Do you not understand English?  They are not purposely impairing anything.  They are building the best they can.  They simply don't know enough about the game to build better.

Hence why they often go to the ECB for advice.

Folks that purposely create flaws do not require the ECB, and if one uses the engine, they are seeking info to prevent flaws. But everyone makes mistakes, and for those that try learn from them can use the ECB to avoid erors thru advanced research.

And I still have my dictionary, so all good there, too.

I'm counting 14ish suspicious builds on the first page of the level 40 builds page alone.  They're definitely not a minor exception.  Nor are they the rule.  But if you want Munchkin builds, ECB guild has quite a few.

P.S. Munchkin only has meaning within roleplaying, so it's only "bad" if you're in an RP environment.

So there are supposedly 40 'Munchkin-esque-" on this first page, judging by the standards you use. Personally, I have my doubts, though I only use their engine. By those previous terms, Munchkins seek the greatest, best, etc, and there can only be one. Thus all the others must be for non-Munchkins that may be seeking advice on builds for other reasons.

[MagicalMaster]

Elhanan wrote...

Not inferior, but not superior either. And it  is also used as synonyms.

Next you say "I cut off his arms and legs to hamper him," let me know.  This is idiotic and I'm done with this nonsense.

Elhanan wrote...

Folks that purposely create flaws do not require the ECB, and if one uses the engine, they are seeking info to prevent flaws. But everyone makes mistakes, and for those that try learn from them can use the ECB to avoid erors thru advanced research.

By "mistake" you mean "sub-optimal build?"

Imagine a 40 fighter.  In Epic Levels he takes the feats...

21 Epic Weapon Focus
22 Epic Weapon Specialization
24 Epic Prowess, Armor Skin
26 Overwhelming Critical
27 Great Strength I
28 Devastating Critical
30 Great Strength II, Epic Toughness I
32 Epic Toughness II
33 Great Strength III
34 Epic Toughness III
36 Great Strength IV, Epic Toughness IV
38 Epic Toughness V
39 Great Strength V
40 Epic Toughness VI

Hopefully you see the primary flaw in this feat selection.  But a person who isn't used to optimizing builds would think this looks just fine (and it makes it easier to play before max level, strictly speaking).

Elhanan wrote...

So there are supposedly 40 'Munchkin-esque-" on this first page, judging by the standards you use. Personally, I have my doubts, though I only use their engine. By those previous terms, Munchkins seek the greatest, best, etc, and there can only be one. Thus all the others must be for non-Munchkins that may be seeking advice on builds for other reasons.

Say what?  I said 14ish, and I just skimmed the class combinations, didn't look at any in detail.  Some are probably not Munchkin builds.  Where did you get 40?

And no, there can be multiple Munchkin builds, this isn't Highlander.

[Elhanan]

MagicalMaster wrote...

Next you say "I cut off his arms and legs to hamper him," let me know.  This is idiotic and I'm done with this nonsense.

Agreed, but don't be so tough on yourself....

By "mistake" you mean "sub-optimal build?"

Imagine a 40 fighter.  In Epic Levels he takes the feats...

21 Epic Weapon Focus
22 Epic Weapon Specialization
24 Epic Prowess, Armor Skin
26 Overwhelming Critical
27 Great Strength I
28 Devastating Critical
30 Great Strength II, Epic Toughness I
32 Epic Toughness II
33 Great Strength III
34 Epic Toughness III
36 Great Strength IV, Epic Toughness IV
38 Epic Toughness V
39 Great Strength V
40 Epic Toughness VI

Hopefully you see the primary flaw in this feat selection.  But a person who isn't used to optimizing builds would think this looks just fine (and it makes it easier to play before max level, strictly speaking).

For myself, the flaws are in the lack of overall versatility, weak in REF and WILL, dislike Dev Crit, and hp is not the answer to everything. But No; not an expert in builds, so I use the ECB engine to aid me.

Say what?  I said 14ish, and I just skimmed the class combinations, didn't look at any in detail.  Some are probably not Munchkin builds.  Where did you get 40?

And no, there can be multiple Munchkin builds, this isn't Highlander.

The 40 was a mis-read by my failing vision; my bad. But by the defintion you posted, Munchkins seek the greatest, best, etc, and it would seem that multiple answers would not fit that criteria. And am happy someone got the ref.

[MagicalMaster]

Elhanan wrote...

Agreed, but don't be so tough on yourself....

I'll endeavor to utilize mono-syllable words since a greater quantity is evidently beyond your comprehension:

You do not get it.  You do not speak well.  Stop bad stuff.

Did that break though?

Elhanan wrote...

For myself, the flaws are in the lack of overall versatility, weak in REF and WILL, dislike Dev Crit, and hp is not the answer to everything. But No; not an expert in builds, so I use the ECB engine to aid me.

And if you tried to make a build yourself, you would claim you're purposefully trying to make a sub-optimal build?

Elhanan wrote...

The 40 was a mis-read by my failing vision; my bad. But by the defintion you posted, Munchkins seek the greatest, best, etc, and it would seem that multiple answers would not fit that criteria. And am happy someone got the ref.

Munchkinism is saying "I'm making this build as powerful as possible, abusing every rule that I can without regard for story or RP."  It is easily possible to have multiple munchkin builds.

Modifié par MagicalMaster, 13 septembre 2012 - 12:21 .

[Elhanan]

MagicalMaster wrote...

I'll endeavor to utilize mono-syllable words since a greater quantity is evidently beyond your comprehension:

You do not get it.  You do not speak well.  Stop bad stuff.

Did that break though?

Yep; loud and clear:  You do not keep your word.

And if you tried to make a build yourself, you would claim you're purposefully trying to make a sub-optimal build?

My builds in NWN, DAO, etc are notably sub-optimal; prefer versatility over raw power as I prer to solo. So I have Dwarven archers, WM archers, etc. and prefer Rogues over most olther classes. That said, they are effective, and have given a few other designs a whirl.

The Melee Mage is a good example, as it helped me attempt to play a Wizard when I began in PW's. But I still use Rogue with it, which lessens the magical power in exchange for a cargo vessel of Skill Pts. But I am not a member of the ECB; simply enjoy using their pool of knowlege for improved gaming, and have no need to seek out the Best Build Ever.

Munchkinism is saying "I'm making this build as powerful as possible, abusing every rule that I can without regard for story or RP."  It is easily possible to have multiple munchkin builds.

If one were to abuse every rule, then there seemingly is only a single most powerful build per that criteria. While others may offer variations, they still would not be The Best.

Modifié par Elhanan, 13 septembre 2012 - 12:51 .

[BelowTheBelt]

IMO, optimization/munchkanism/powergaming is the natural progression of things based on experience within a certain context (be it SP modules or persistent worlds/multiplayer).

As players become more experienced with the rules and restrictions within a given world (I'll use persistent worlds here as my example, since that's where most of my experience lies), they utilize this learning to alter the choices made for their characters to maximize the performance of that PC in that world. This happens even in the most hardcore RP worlds.

Personally, I'm an RP'r and I usually play a dwarven ranger - almost every PW I have ever tried uses this as my starting character. Not the best class-race combination, but I love the RP of it. So, I make that initial decision purely based on the RP. However, as I learn about the world and what works there, I make choices. For example, if I see, through experience with the world, that there aren't many dragons, well, I don't choose dragons as a favored enemy. Is there a purely RP reason for it...sure, if my character doesn't see many dragons, he probably wouldn't have reason to have such enmity for them. But, I'll admit that it's primarily made so that I don't waste my feat.

At the same time, the entire playerbase of that world is doing the same thing: using their individual learning and experience to make more informed choices about their characters. As a result, I would posit that as a world lives on, the relative power of characters gets greater (i.e. a level 5 character when the world is "new" will be less optimized/powerful than a level 5 character when the world is 2 years old, provided that there is a constant playerbase).

I think it is normal and natural to improve your builds and that there are only semantic differences between optimizing/munchkanism/powergaming. Howerver, by acknowledging it, PW owners can consider that when constructing their economy and allocation of resources. Knowing that power flows downward, worlds can scale encounters and resources such that when it does happen, the world will be at the intended difficulty level THEN (and maybe a little harder in the beginning) rather than be faced with a situation of powerful lower-level PCs ripping through areas that were originally intended for higher levels and then needing to create new challenges for them.

[MagicalMaster]

BelowTheBelt wrote...

IMO, optimization/munchkanism/powergaming is the natural progression of things based on experience within a certain context (be it SP modules or persistent worlds/multiplayer).

Whoa there, partner!  You just included munchkinism along with optimization/powergaming.  But we've all heard the munchkinism is the devil hiding under your bed waiting to steal your lunch money.  We (by which I mean "apparently everyone besides you and me") don't take kindly to that around these here parts.

BelowTheBelt wrote...

As players become more experienced with the rules and restrictions within a given world (I'll use persistent worlds here as my example, since that's where most of my experience lies), they utilize this learning to alter the choices made for their characters to maximize the performance of that PC in that world. This happens even in the most hardcore RP worlds.

Absolutely.  That said, most PWs have rules/restictions to prevent munchkin builds, but you still have plenty of optimized/powerbuilt characters.

BelowTheBelt wrote...

At the same time, the entire playerbase of that world is doing the same thing: using their individual learning and experience to make more informed choices about their characters. As a result, I would posit that as a world lives on, the relative power of characters gets greater (i.e. a level 5 character when the world is "new" will be less optimized/powerful than a level 5 character when the world is 2 years old, provided that there is a constant playerbase).

I think it depends largely  on the community.  Let's say we have character power on a scale from 1 to 10.  On a new world with a less mechanic-capable community, the builds might be a 6 that move up towards 10 as tweaks specific to the world are found.  On a world populated by ECB members, you'd go from 9 to 10.  And there are diminishing returns on fine-tuning.

BelowTheBelt wrote...

I think it is normal and natural to improve your builds and that there are only semantic differences between optimizing/munchkanism/powergaming.

I think the main difference is the optimizer/powergamer *can* respect the story and try to make a powerful build that makes sense within the RP.  A munchkin, on the flip side, definitely cares nothing about RP/lore/story/etc.

So perhaps you could say that all munchkins are optimizers/powergamers, but not all optimizers/powergamers are munchkins.  Munchkin is a term used to designite specifically those who care nothing about story or what makes sense.

Modifié par MagicalMaster, 13 septembre 2012 - 11:59 .

[WebShaman]

First of all, since we do not agree on the definition of Munchkin, that part of this text wall is useless to debate.

As MrZork pointed out, we define Munchkin as a form of personal playing style, not game mechanic(s), as you tend to - thus, no "munchkin" build, just munchkin playing style.

Second, this

MM said :

Do you think Pun Pun isn't a Munchkin build?

Pun Pun is not possible in NWN. That basically throws that strawman out, doesn't it?

Get it into your head. It is not possible in NWN.

I will repeat that once more; it is not possible to make Pun Pun in NWN.

Now, we can go into the various "merits" of Pun Pun (which have all been done on other boards, and somewhat discussed here, long ago). Basically (because you probably were not around back then, or perhaps you don't know much about the build, about D&D, whatever), Pun Pun is not possible to make with the core rules.

Yep, let that sink in. It is not possible to make Pun Pun with the core rules. You need some supplements that may (or may not, dependingly) be allowed by the DM in question.

Which, according to your Legal Character quib, may be outside of the legal rules, accordingly. But apparently you "allow" this exception to make your point, while espousing that I cannot use hacked .bics as an example of your "munchkin" build definition (which, of course, just sinks your ship).

Of course. Need a different emoticon here >.<

Hacked .bics can be LEGAL, depending on the server (which is why I introduced the term in this thread called environment, which is very important when talking about builds in NWN). This is a well-known term that every NWN builder is aware of, for it is critical for the building process. Where is this [build] going to be played, and under what rules.

As the actual allowed rules themselves are variable in NWN, builds become more or less powerful, accordingly.

And this is what I pointed out, but you just don't seem to grasp, or want to. The ES, in and of itself, is powerful only as long as the environment where it is implemented allows it to be. Thus, even using your definition of munchkin (which I do not subscribe to, btw), may or may not be "optimal" accordingly.

Thus, it simply cannot be a "munchkin" build, without stating the environment where it will be implemented in (as I also pointed out). There are environments (as I also pointed out) where no-one would "gimp" themselves with such a weak build - hardly "munchkin".

Case in point, according to your used definition of "munchkin", ANY AND EVERY BUILD IS MUNCHKIN - depending soley upon the environment where it is implemented and used (meaning that the rules favors that particular build before all others).

This is why the NWN Community tends to use the term "munchkin" to describe a playing style, as environments differ, but munchkin playstyle does not - instead of applying that label to a build (which is not constantly optimized in every environment, so it cannot be consistently considered "munchkin").

I wonder, now, if you will be able to grasp this.

[MagicalMaster]

WebShaman wrote...

As MrZork pointed out, we define Munchkin as a form of personal playing style, not game mechanic(s), as you tend to - thus, no "munchkin" build, just munchkin playing style.

I'm saying it can be either or both.

Let's boil this down to two questions:

1, is there such a thing as a munchkin build, period?
2. is there such a thing as a munchkin build in NWN?

If the answer to #1 is no, then obviously the answer to #2 is ALSO no.

But if the answer to #1 is yes, then we have to consider the *possibility* that #2 might also be a yes.

Hence my question about Pun Pun.  Pun Pun might not be part of the core rules, but the rules that make him possible are rules that were officially written, it's not like a random DM decided "Okay, let me make up a few rules out of thin air for tonight."  So if we assume a DnD game where the DM allows those supplements...

...is Pun Pun a munchkin build?

[Squatting Monk]

WebShaman wrote...

First of all, since we do not agree on the definition of Munchkin, that part of this text wall is useless to debate.

As MrZork pointed out, we define Munchkin as a form of personal playing style, not game mechanic(s), as you tend to - thus, no "munchkin" build, just munchkin playing style

MagicalMaster wrote...

I think the main difference is the optimizer/powergamer *can* respect the story and try to make a powerful build that makes sense within the RP.  A munchkin, on the flip side, definitely cares nothing about RP/lore/story/etc.

So perhaps you could say that all munchkins are optimizers/powergamers, but not all optimizers/powergamers are munchkins.  Munchkin is a term used to designite specifically those who care nothing about story or what makes sense.

Sounds to me like you guys may actually agree on this point but are just talking circles around each other.

Would it be fair to say that some builds, while not exclusively the province of munchkins, are significantly more likely to be used by munchkins than by non-munchkin players?

Modifié par Squatting Monk, 20 septembre 2012 - 02:34 .

[MagicalMaster]

The difference is I think there are builds that are munchkin in their very nature along with players that are munchkin.

A munchkin player forced to play a certain character by the DM or something will still be obsessed about stats and treasure to the detriment of RP. Just because a munchkin plays a certain build doesn't make it a munchkin build.

Whereas WebShaman would say no build is inherently munchkin, only players can be munchkin.

[Squatting Monk]

At one point does one cross the line from having a powerful build to having a munchkin build, then? Isn't that subjective and arbitrary? If so, why bother arguing about it?

[WebShaman]

 I can only say that since in NWN the environment is practically infinitely variable, that there is no inherent munchkin-like build that is consistent in all of them (whereas the munchkin playstyle is).
What is certain, is that in each environment, there are builds that are powerful for that specific environment.
As to your question, SM - obviously it is subjective and arbitrary when discussing the game mechanic(s) as related to munchkinism.  Instead, as we have defined it, munchkin is a playing style.
One can have a powerful build, and not be munchkin.  

MM said:
I'm saying it can be either or both.
Let's boil this down to two questions:
1, is there such a thing as a munchkin build, period?
2. is there such a thing as a munchkin build in NWN?

In answer to No. 1, yes.  In any specific environment, one can have what one might wish to refer to as a munchkin-style build.

In answer to No. 2, no.  The reason being, that since each environment in NWN is unique, there is no one build that
is inherently munchkin.  There are, of course, for that specific environment, builds that one might refer to as munchkin (see above answer to No. 1).

For example, you might have a munchkin build in WoW.  But is that same build also munchkin in, say, SWKotOR?

MM said :

If the answer to #1 is no, then obviously the answer to #2 is ALSO no.
But if the answer to #1 is yes, then we have to consider the *possibility* that #2 might also be a yes.

Explained above, and in practically every explanation that I have given here.

MM said :

Hence my question about Pun Pun.  Pun Pun might not be part of the core rules, but the rules that make him possible are rules that were officially written, it's not like a random DM decided "Okay, let me make up a few rules out of thin air for tonight."  So if we assume a DnD game where the DM allows those supplements...
...is Pun Pun a munchkin build?

Pun Pun may (or may not, according to WHAT THE DM ALLOWS IN HIS/HER CAMPAIGN) be a munchkin build, depending on what the environment is.

Case in point, Pun Pun is only munchkin in an environment where magic is readibly available.  In an environment where there is no magic (DMZ, etc) or one where the rules of magic are different (many Outer Planes, for example), Pun Pun would not be as useful.

Again, this is where your WoW mentality is failing in NWN (and D&D) - WoW only has the one environment, and only one ruleset that works there.  In NWN (and especially D&D), that is not the case.  You do not seem to be able to grasp this.  Don't you see that environment is the deciding factor here?

Any build that one refers to as "munchkin" in NWN (and even moreso in D&D) has to first take into account the environment before making the reference.  

I will give you a solid example, perhaps then you will understand.

You are playing the OC.  You have a specific build (say ES) that you consider munchkin for it.
Now take that same build, and play on a server where the PRC is enabled, and you have liches, etc running around.

Or you are now on a server where there is very low magic (limited to level x) - or perhaps a server where levelling is very, very slow, perma-death is active, rest heavily restricted, and the highest character is level 6.  Are you sure now, that the ES is here munchkin?  I can say that the character at level 6 is a Paladin, and that there are almost no Mages (Sorcerers) at all - because they normally die in 1 ~ 2 hits, and there is NO RAISE or RESSURECTION possible because there is no-one high enough level to do this.  And yes, I have played on a server like this.

^Here, the munchkin build was a Ranger/Druid/Mage - due to the Animal Companions+Familiar+Summons.  A mega-solo build for that specific environment.

So one can see that the ES is no longer munchkin at all, but a sub-par build that no munchkin would touch.

As you can plainly see, environment is the deciding factor here.  Where it is the same, one can have builds that one may wish to refer to as munchkin that is common to those similar environments.  Where the environment is not the same, those builds may or may not be referred to as munchkin, appropriately.

Thus, there is no one build in NWN that is inherently munchkin in every environment - the only possible exception would be hacked .bics with super 2das that pass ELC checks.  Though they may not be then munchkin on a Server where this type of gameplay is expected and encouraged (hacked .bics and super2das).

Again, one has to take the specific environment into account here 

This goes doubly so for any PnP D&D game.

Modifié par WebShaman, 20 septembre 2012 - 11:53 .

[Squatting Monk]

I went back and re-read the thread to make sure I have the whole context instead of just jumping in feet-first. >_<

This can be a useful discussion, but right now it's not. As Web has stated, you two have different definitions of munchkinism, and what you're both doing is saying "I define munchkinism as X, therefore Y is/isn't munchkinism." This isn't how useful discussions work, and neither of you is helping matters by repeating the same talking points.

If you guys want to actually reach some sort of consensus rather than arguing for arguing's sake, you need to dissolve the question.

Consider: if a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? People can disagree depending on how they define "sound". If by "sound" they mean vibrations carried through the air, then their answer to the question is yes because a falling tree makes those vibrations regardless of whether anyone's around. If, however, they mean auditory experiences perceived by a brain, then their answer is no, because no one is around to receive an auditory experience of the tree falling. Instead of arguing over the definition of "sound", then, we can dissolve the question by asking "...does it cause vibrations in the air?" or "...does it cause auditory experiences in people's brains?" Reasonable people can agree on these questions where they would not agree on the question as originally phrased.

How to apply this to have a useful discussion? Don't talk about why build X is or isn't munchkinism. Talk about the characteristics of build X and why that might or might not be desirable, what sorts of playstyles it might appeal to, and its relative power in various environments.

Lemme give a nudge here...

WebShaman wrote...

I can only say that since in NWN the environment is practically infinitely variable, that there is no inherent munchkin-like build that is consistent in all of them (whereas the munchkin playstyle is).

You seem to be talking about whether a build is overpowered given the environment in which it is played.

MagicalMaster wrote...

WebShaman wrote...

The Exhalted Sorceress is not the "best" build - or at least, it wasn't. Before patch 1.69 changed things, it was Puff the Dragon (environment dependent, of course).

Doesn't have to be the "best" build to be a munchkin build. If you made a 38 sorcerer/1 monk/1 paladin and then gave him nothing but Skill Foci feats, it would still be a munchkin build.

You seem to be talking about whether a build uses game and class features in a way that is legal according to the game rules but counter to what the designers intended.

You can make a case for these characteristics. But the definition of a "munchkin build" is enitrely arbitrary and considerinf that the label of "munchkin" conveys negative connotations (whether you think it ought to or not), the charitable thing to do is avoid applying it unless you guys can agree on whether or not a build should be viewed pejoratively on its own merits.

Modifié par Squatting Monk, 20 septembre 2012 - 10:07 .

[MagicalMaster]

Squatting Monk wrote...

You seem to be talking about whether a build uses game and class features in a way that is legal according to the game rules but counter to what the designers intended.

You can make a case for these characteristics. But the definition of a "munchkin build" is enitrely arbitrary and considerinf that the label of "munchkin" conveys negative connotations (whether you think it ought to or not), the charitable thing to do is avoid applying it unless you guys can agree on whether or not a build should be viewed pejoratively on its own merits.

As people here are fond of pointing out, "Powergaming" and "Roleplaying" are not mutually exclusive.  In other words, you can do a lot of both (or do neither).  To me, "munchkin" indicates powergaming without roleplaying.  In terms of builds, it's a character that utilizes mechanics in a way that doesn't make sense RP-wise.

Obviously, there's a subjectiveness to it that comes from the class system.  A 39 sorcerer/1 paladin would be munchkin, you're abusing the charisma saves (and potentially full plate armor proficiency).  On the flip side, a 20 sorcerer/20 paladin wouldn't be.

For me, the deciding factor is whether you take levels in a class solely to gain abuse a few specific low level features (charisma saves, full plate proficiency) or whether you care about the whole package (high BAB, paladin spells, etc).  The exact breakpoint can be hazy.

I think a good analogy is having to classify something as hot or cold.  Everyone will say 110 F/43 C is hot and 20 F/-7 C is cold.  But what's the point at which it crosses over from hot to cold?  And if you're going to claim we use a word like "warm" or "cool" then rephrase the question as "hot versus warm" or "cool versus cold" if you'd like.

Modifié par MagicalMaster, 23 septembre 2012 - 12:53 .

[WebShaman]

In terms of builds, it's a character that utilizes mechanics in a way that doesn't make sense RP-wise.

A good RPer can RP anything. It all relies on the playstyle, not the mechanic. Anything can be made to "make sense", if one is a good RPer.

You say

whether you take levels in a class solely to gain abuse a few spedific low level features [sic] or whether you care about the whole package

As long as the Character is being RPed accordingly, it should not really matter.

[MagicalMaster]

WebShaman wrote...

A good RPer can RP anything. It all relies on the playstyle, not the mechanic. Anything can be made to "make sense", if one is a good RPer.

So taking 1 level of rogue after 39 levels of fighter and putting 40 points into Tumble is RPed as...?

"Um, I practiced Tumbling.  A LOT.  Yeah."

WebShaman wrote...

As long as the Character is being RPed accordingly, it should not really matter.

I never said otherwise.  If someone wants to RP the Exalted Sorceress as a pure sorcerer, I wouldn't care, at least not RP-wise.  But I think most people who WOULD care that you're not RPing the 1 level of monk and 1 level of paladin would also object to said 1 level in each in the first place.

[Aelis Eine]

So... how do you RP an evil Paladin/Blackguard that retains full Paladin abilities, including the stacking Cha bonus to saves?