>when you have an "I Win" button but you can't abuse it or else the GM is going to go Rule Zero on you for being too optimal
>>47923276
>When you want to roleplay and face actual challenges but another player has an "I win" button and murder-hobo's his way through every encounter and problem in the campaign.
The solution is to not play games that have I Win buttons. The job of the game designer was to make sure the game was playtested appropriately and rigorously.
Or, alternatively, if you're playing a game where that's nigh-impossible or it's wide open (see: most supers games), to agree on the parameters ahead of time.
>>47923316
Sometimes it's more a matter of attitude than the rules themselves. I've been in a few games where I've tried to treat combat as a last resort, fearing serious injury or death if it came to combat, then the game comes to combat... and we win easily... and because we won easily, it doesn't seem as intimidating or challenging the next time it comes to combat.
>>47923358
This, in certain kinds of games there's this weird social contract where the GM doesn't want to wipe out the entire party too easily, so they'll have a way to win (or at least survive) anything, but the party is expected to roleplay as if they're not aware of this fact. All it takes is one player to ignore the contract or immersion element and they sorta give the entire party an "I win" button.
>>47923276
Have you tried not playing D&D?
>>47923551
WoD, nigga
>>47923551
Clearly you've never had someone throw a 40d6 elemental at you in Shadowrun, or played with a vampire who maxed celerity in WoD.
Ignorant twit.
>>47923276
Stop crying, be happy you didn't get straight out removed from the game.
Any GM who uses Rule 0 to stop a PC from doing something is a shit GM. Rule 0 exists to adjudicate situations not covered by the rules, and ONLY those situations.
The conflation of that into "The GM is always right" is one of the worst things to ever happen to roleplaying culture.
>>47923629
If one player is spoiling the fun not only for the DM, mind you, but for entire rest of the group, this is a valid option. Its still better than kicking out the man entirely.
>>47923276
That sounds pretty ideal, senpai. Best of both worlds.
>>47923276
>wants to abuse it
I'd just sit on it and the moment everything's going to shit, save the day.
>>47923855
>>47924345
If the only way you can control your game is to arbitrarily decide when players can use abilities that you already allowed them to have, then you are a shit GM, plain and simple.
If player choices don't matter because you don't like the outcome then you might as well get rid of your players completely and write a book instead.
>>47923629
Careful there, player, your entitlement is suffocating the entire room. You guys are a dime a dozen, but GMs are rare and GOOD GMs even rarer still.
>>47923276
>worried about getting nerfed
>not worried about spoiling the fun of the other players
Shit player detected.
>>47924378
Are you the guy from the "edgy characters" thread? Because right now you're just looking like you're throwing a hissyfit because someone didn't let you break the game.
If a player is ruining the entire game for everyone involved by having a "win button" because they exploited the system in a way nobody forsaw, then yes, the GM has a responsibility to his player to tell the munchin asshat to quit being a munchkin asshat. If munchkin asshat doesn't like that, he can get the fuck out of the group and go bitch about it on 4chan.
Just play a lazy comic relief character who does the bare minimum to not be a burden.
When things go tits up, have a sudden shit-gets-real moment and start dunking on everyone.
feels good man.
>>47924416
Amen!
>>47924471
Undertale, plz go.
>>47924487
Yeah, because Undertale came up with that concept, right.
>>47924511
If you're making references to "get dunked on", you're pretty much referencing Underfail. Get over it.
>>47924533
Undertale didn't come up with that phrase either.
> Playing games allowing the existence of an "i win" button
I pity you
>>47923276
>Play a demoralizing build bad touch cleric
>Every single opponent I go against is either immune to fear effects or somehow resist my super high CR spells just because he doesn't want his big scary warriors to run away like babies
Two feats and most of my spells, down the drain for no reason.
>>47923559
>>47924608
This is why Pathfinder's "system mastery" bullshit and hyper-specialized builds are a bad thing.
Actually, hyper-specilized and "gimmick" characters are bad in several systems, it's just DnD/Pathfinder that actively encourages them so hard.
>>47923276
You can meta, but I'll meta back
>>47924630
Nope, a bunch of JRPGs that have recently been translated do that, too. Needless to say, they're pretty damn bad.
>>47924590
No he's right you tremendous newfag. Dunking on someone is an old meme.
>>47924643
Why would you even? If I wana play a JRPG, I'll just import some vidya or watch some anime. The idea of "playing" an anime sounds unthinkable to me.It's because I'm extremely biased and warped by people trying to turn non-anime games into anime games anyway and it always ending horribly.
>>47924630
It's not really that bad if you play strictly by the rules, but my DM is a cunt who likes to play favorites with his players.
We also have a super minmaxed druid who absolutely demolishes everything, but the DM is a-okay with it because they're buttbuddies for one another, to the point where most major story elements directly revolve around doing something for the druid.
>>47924673
Yeah, this. It goes back to what, 2010 at least?
>>47924695
2009. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqSfpw6dsFw
![[Screams Externally].png](https://i.imgur.com/BYbgDcL.png "[Screams Externally].png")
>>47923276
>when you want to act with the tiniest scrap of intelligence, but doing so would trivialize most of the GM's challenges
>some of these challenges can be beaten by asking an NPC to clarify something he said earlier
>>47924701
If you're gonna go maximum damage control you could at least have the decency to do it back on /v/ where you belong.
>>47924744
>SOMEONE ACCUSED ME OF DAMAGE CONTROL!
>NO YOU'RE DAMAGE CONTROLLING!
*grabs popcorn*
>>47923276
having an I win button spotlights you as a retarded faggot. Its a game you fucking douchebag.
>>47924758
You're really bad at this. Please stop.
>>47924701
do you have actual autism or something?
>>47924775
That one wasn't even me, but sure, out of respect for OP and his topic, yeah, I'll stop :^)
>>47923276
TTRPGs are not a vehicle to live out your mary sue fantasies.
The other players are not your sidekicks.
The DM is not obligated to make you feel awesome and invincible.
TTRPG is a group experience. The other players want to have fun, not just you.
The DM wants to have fun too. Nobody likes a spotlight-hog.
If you play with a group and have enough knowledge of the system to optimize then optimize for support or to the level of the party. The moment you think it's okay to have an i-win button is the moment you've crossed the line and become that guy.
>>47923276
Here's a revolutionary idea: Try talking with your GM and/or group and figure out a solution instead of fishing for validation from strangers on a Mongolian online puppet show.
>>47923276
Seems pretty reasonable to me.
Just use the old standby cliche of keeping your powerlevel to yourself until the chips are down.
