True or false: Anyone who "has" to powergame/optimize/min-max/munchkin fundamentally lacked validation as a child

[citation needed]

False, it just says they want to beat everyone else.
True.

Games that restrict mages are simply, not fun.

Project harder

I feel that largely hinges on what you consider 'fun'. Judging by your statements and the way this is usually phrased, I'd assume you mean combat prowess.

Like most things on Veeky Forums, I think the answer is more/better communication on what everyone is expecting from the game. I think a lot of GMs/DMs are starting to go with building a setting where the PCs arnt the most/only competent people in The world, and rather approach it with a 'always a bigger fish' mentality. This can cause problems since a lot of players want to be the best around, but it's hard to get that type of satisfaction when every fight is either a hair's breath away from a TPK or not feasible for them to attempt and live.

Personally, I'm not a fan of treating RPGs like a board game where the goal is to 'win'. If you really want that, you can do a dungeon crawl where there's no story to speak of and characters are largely disposable. In such an environment, I'd image a bit of minmaxing is accepted since the DM is basically throwing everything at you, but it seems that gets stale fast.

If it is a logical progression of skills and classes or whatever the system you're running has. Dipping classes in 3.5 that have a radically different flavor to the rest of your build in order to get that one ability, or choosing a splat niche race or class so colorful as to be cringe inducing for that ability are examples of power gaming. Dipping a common class like fighter or rogue isn't powergaming, it makes sense for an adventurer to diversify their skill set, what doesn't make sense is specializing by taking on a vast array of obscure classes. It's pure cheese. If it can be justified through roleplaying it's fine (unless you have a little cuck dm who will spin a helter skelter narrative to cater to that build in which case you need a dm who can say no instead of fapping in the closet while you talk about how worthless he is).

D&D 3.5 requires multiclassing for competent martials, while casters can win the game single-classed or single-prestige-classed.

True or False:
A guy should stick to playing male characters, and girls to female ones. It's less awkward, and more genuine that way.

I never understood the idea of powergaming. The stronger the party, the stronger the DM is going to make things, no?
If you want to blow through encounters, just play incompetently in any encounters that don't seem deadly so you can kick ass when it matters, if that's the case.

I like to pick what I'm doing and then do it damn well because I can't do anything else right.

The big issue is when it's only one person power gaming, or when there's one person not doing it. In the first scenario, they become the center of attention and basically hog all the action, unless the DM deliberately takes steps to assure that they don't (which is attention hogging by proxy anyways). In the latter, you basically have a useless tagalong.

Whoa, advanced meta-powergaming

I've done exactly this. I made the most grossly overpowered character I have ever, but due to believing himself to be almost entirely untouchable and never wanting to give his enemies an accurate gauge on his abilities, he mostly never showed his true power levels.

>lacked validation
>oberlin sjw logic
>why yes i am a shitlord
>but i blame others

False.

>I like to powergame and optimize sometimes
>realize that I do feel a need for validation sometimes.
Ok, you got me. Its true.

>False.

>False.
Some players will enjoy that type of game.

>False.
It depends on the specific player.

False, because there could be many reasons for 'having' to powergame beyond just wanting validation, as the naming conventions suggest. Maybe they think that they have to 'win' the game; maybe they honestly don't see anything wrong with cheesy builds.

Nah I was doted on by overly warm and caring parents and I still want to be as helpful to my party as possible.
I don't get why anyone would want to be dead weight and parade it around like it somehow made them better at acting out their character, or whatever. It does not follow.

Hahahahahahahahaha.

No.

There is a difference between "I want to be able to fulfill my role in the party" and "I wanna be the very best, like no one ever was"
Powergaming usually means that you want a character at the theoretical limit, whether it fits your party or not.

False.
Real life is complicated and cannot be summed up with a single ridiculous true or false question, even when the subject is as limited and trite as powergaming and munchkin behavior.

Why intentionally flaw a work of art?

Not him, but... Do you really remember your childhood?

Young adult life has a lot of influence, but people still consider them children, so you know, it's true, but also false.

How was your day?

That's a pretty limiting view. Classes are just a framework.
Sure, the books attach a certain fluff to the classes, but that's hardly the only way you can play them (even single-classed).
No character would describe themselves as a rogue/fighter/wizard/whatever - that's purely a metagame construct. He's a swordsman who picked up a bit of magic and learned to pick locks, or a wizard who picked up swordsmanship as a hobby to stay fit or whatever.

Pick the classes that have the abilities you want your character to have and build your own fluff around them.

Building strong characters and building interesting characters/good roleplaying are not mutually exclusive.

The only problem with powergaming is if parts of the group are significantly stronger than the others.
If one (or some) players are stronger than others the weaker players feel unable to contribute and get frustrated.
If your DM builds strong encounters but the players don't know how to build characters that can fight that strength everyone dies, gets frustrated and quits.
If your players build strong characters and your DM doesn't know how to build encounters to the same strength level the game is boring.

But if your player characters and the DMs encounters are at the same level of strength it doesn't matter what that level is.
Some groups enjoy optimizing. Some only want to RP. Building characters to the groups powerlevel is also part of optimizing - anything else is munchkinry, and nobody likes munchkins.

The point where I as a GM get mad that you're beating all the GMPCs I make to keep you on the railroad.

Aw. shit yes, a Bait thread!

True or false: 3.5e has game mechanics to cover 90% of situations, and can be used to build game mechanical challenges to overcome using the player's tactics and strategy.

True or false: 3.5e can therefore be used for its game mechanics, dropping the Roleplaying part of the RPG, and still result in a fun time.

True or false: Therefore, people who insist that 3.5e must involve "roleplaying" are idiots that fundamentally lacked validation as children.

because characters with flaws are more enjoyable and memorable.

Not hom, but you're an idiot.

You honestly believe that the period of your life when you are getting your first impressions about existence and learning what everything "means" has no effect on you because you don't consciously remember it?
See
This.

>hom
him
I don't even