Why is min-maxing bad when you need it to play?

[Chaosticket]

Something bothers me about roleplaying games involving luck. Focusing on abilities, statistics, and ways to improve them is frowned upon but you still need those things to succeed and progress. You need as many bonuses as possible to win at life and death dice rolls.

I personally like well rounded characters with synergy between abilities. I keep thinking about different ideas but when I do they are compared to and compete with min-maxed classes which can be optimized further.

Different discussions ive read reinforce negative behavior. I want to make characters I can have fun with but it's either waiting to gain the abilities to start functioning and being useless before then or making something good now but generic and that will fade into obscurity.

So either play with a fun concept and suck or follow trends so I can play well.

EDIT: this isnt about minmaxing being bad. Its about games that push players to make them not out of personal goal but necessity.
High difficulty checks, invincible enemies or ones with powerful abilities you cant counter. Unbalanced difficulty spikes negating any fun unless you win.

I play in organized campaigns and each scenario is wildly different. There are no resurrections, no difficulty adjustments, just minmax to win.

[Fable Wright]

* Grabs popcorn *

This thread again. It'll be a party when Darth Ultron gets here.

Long story short, there's two main schools of thought on character optimization as far as I can tell. There's the school of thought that you're describing—most common with players whose GMs run Combat as War and who are fine letting the dice fall as they may. Every edge, every scrap of paranoia, every number you can add is an edge that lets you survive. And that's fun! There's nothing wrong with it, and it's the way that the oldest school RPGs went.

The other school of thought that springs up in groups whose GMs run it as a character driven game, and some of whom are tired of seeing the same old boring template classes. "Oh look. Another craven rogue. Another ubercharger. Another god wizard. Woo." They'd like diversity in character types, mechanics, and stories, and want to differentiate themselves from the tried and true path as much as physically possible. In many cases, this involved deliberately making characters weak, trying out suboptimal things, and encouraging everyone else to do oddball concepts. And that can be fun! When everyone's on board, it can be cool to see how a Samurai, Truenamer, Monk, and Healer adventure together.

Where the vitriol starts flying is when a player from one school of thought joins a group from the other school of thought. You either have the dead weight everyone complains about and who complains about everyone, or you have the min-maxing powermonkey who wants to end combat before anyone has any fun. Neither player is wrong, but they're not really playing the same game and should not be at the same table.

TL;DR: Min-maxing your character great when your group does it, and terrible when you're the only one who does it. Then there's an irresolvable conflict in the comments section about whether everyone should min-max or no one should min-max that never gets resolved.

[Pex]

There is nothing wrong with it. Those who are against usually cannot accept the concept that a player can be all in enthusiastic welcoming of role playing drama being engaged with the world caring and respecting NPCs and also desire to play a character that's fun to play because they enjoy the game mechanics, allow them to do cool things, and feel awesomeness in power.

[Lord Raziere]

I have an idea for a roleplaying system that would be about getting rid of min-maxing, but I can't really get the idea off the ground.

basically: the simplest character concept you could possibly make would be an omnipotent one and you wouldn't have to write anything down for this character, because you have no limitations and therefore nothing to stat. this is because I'm flipping the usual logic starting with a weak character on its head and instead starting with the strongest character possible.

you start from there, then begin introducing limitations to tighten and narrow concept down to something specific and playable, and that the most mechanically detailed characters would also be the most down to earth and limited by logic, and therefore the most consistent, but also the most fleshed out and well built.

this is to sidestep the usual min-max urge of being weak and using the numbers to get strong. because your imagination is already unlimited and can do anything, the simplest character is already the most powerful, its called the GM. all other characters that introduce limitations are more complex and have their own story to them.

I'm not sure how to make this concept work though and I'm not sure how you'd progress in game, is the thing.

[3WhiteFox3]

Long story short, there's two main schools of thought on character optimization as far as I can tell. There's the school of thought that you're describing—most common with players whose GMs run Combat as War and who are fine letting the dice fall as they may. Every edge, every scrap of paranoia, every number you can add is an edge that lets you survive. And that's fun! There's nothing wrong with it, and it's the way that the oldest school RPGs went.

The other school of thought that springs up in groups whose GMs run it as a character driven game, and some of whom are tired of seeing the same old boring template classes. "Oh look. Another craven rogue. Another ubercharger. Another god wizard. Woo." They'd like diversity in character types, mechanics, and stories, and want to differentiate themselves from the tried and true path as much as physically possible. In many cases, this involved deliberately making characters weak, trying out suboptimal things, and encouraging everyone else to do oddball concepts. And that can be fun! When everyone's on board, it can be cool to see how a Samurai, Truenamer, Monk, and Healer adventure together. It's not that black and white. There's plenty of games where a middle-ground can be reached. It's a false dichotomy because nothing requires an optimized character to be non-character driven. And your example of a bad party? How is that character-driven, you literally chose classes based entirely on their power-level, sure it's based on being bad, but it's not necessarily character-driven at all (you could have a bunch of bad, boring characters in that party just like an optimized one). And that party probably requires more optimization than the average party (or a DM with a lot of system mastery, which tend to be optimizers).

You also talk about the same old optimization tricks, but one only has to look at the Iron Chef in the Playground competitions on this forum to see that making interesting, creative, optimized characters isn't just possible, but quite common. And those tricks are common because without them (more in the case of the rogue and the ubercharger) the game is very unbalanced. Craven wouldn't be necessary if the rogue's damage output wasn't so crap, and ubercharging would be less prominent if that wasn't one of the few things fighters can do to keep up with CR-appropriate encounters (esp. in the mid to high levels). If a DM wants to make characters more diverse, there's plenty of ways to do that in a way that optimizers will find interesting. Allow home-brew, give out free feats (but only if they aren't optimization feats) allow third party stuff, come up with ways to fix the problems in the system, ask players nicely to bring interesting optimized builds to the table, etc...

I personally am more tired of the partywhere players just played whatever they wanted, claimed it was for character reasons (which tend to be one-note stereotypes or completely forgotten in play) and moved on. Because being a Optimization isn't the standard, non-optimizing is. Because optimizing (especially clever and interesting optimizing) is hard, and requires a lot of research and work. If I'm tired of anything, it's players without any system mastery at all (and try to shame others for playing differently).

My point is, you can have characters that are both not character-driven (because they are boring) and not optimized, and a combat based game isn't incompatible with one with strong characters, like you imply.

Where the vitriol starts flying is when a player from one school of thought joins a group from the other school of thought. You either have the dead weight everyone complains about and who complains about everyone, or you have the min-maxing powermonkey who wants to end combat before anyone has any fun. Neither player is wrong, but they're not really playing the same game and should not be at the same table.

TL;DR: Min-maxing your character great when your group does it, and terrible when you're the only one who does it. Then there's an irresolvable conflict in the comments section about whether everyone should min-max or no one should min-max that never gets resolved.

In my experience, it's the non-optimizers who tend to pick on the optimizers, because there's far more casual (not meant in a bad way) players than there are optimizers. I'm an optimizer, but I've fit into plenty of non-optimized groups by knowing my limits and sticking to things that make the game fun for everyone. And I could only do that because I have a lot of system mastery.

[RazorChain]

* Grabs popcorn *

This thread again. It'll be a party when Darth Ultron gets here.

Long story short, there's two main schools of thought on character optimization as far as I can tell. There's the school of thought that you're describing—most common with players whose GMs run Combat as War and who are fine letting the dice fall as they may. Every edge, every scrap of paranoia, every number you can add is an edge that lets you survive. And that's fun! There's nothing wrong with it, and it's the way that the oldest school RPGs went.

The other school of thought that springs up in groups whose GMs run it as a character driven game, and some of whom are tired of seeing the same old boring template classes. "Oh look. Another craven rogue. Another ubercharger. Another god wizard. Woo." They'd like diversity in character types, mechanics, and stories, and want to differentiate themselves from the tried and true path as much as physically possible. In many cases, this involved deliberately making characters weak, trying out suboptimal things, and encouraging everyone else to do oddball concepts. And that can be fun! When everyone's on board, it can be cool to see how a Samurai, Truenamer, Monk, and Healer adventure together.

Where the vitriol starts flying is when a player from one school of thought joins a group from the other school of thought. You either have the dead weight everyone complains about and who complains about everyone, or you have the min-maxing powermonkey who wants to end combat before anyone has any fun. Neither player is wrong, but they're not really playing the same game and should not be at the same table.

TL;DR: Min-maxing your character great when your group does it, and terrible when you're the only one who does it. Then there's an irresolvable conflict in the comments section about whether everyone should min-max or no one should min-max that never gets resolved.



Fable Wright is on to something but those two styles aren't mutually exclusive. Combat as War means you're putting things up in your favor....these are external things. You buy a powerful rifle and put a thermographic scope on it, pay the villains favorite escort to call you when he's coming over for some fun. Then you plant yourself on the top of a building with a view into the escort's apartment and then you shoot them both just for good measure.

This is combat as war, stacking internal bonuses has nothing to do with it. You are using external circumstances in your favor.

Combat as sport then you kick down the villains door and fight his guards before you have a showdown with him.


There is a difference in optimizing and being a total minmaxing munchkin. Player A and B are making a superhero

Player A shows up with wolverine, a tough scrapper with adamantium skeleton and really fast regeneration

Player B show up with Superman. Super Strength, Super Speed, Super Senses, Super Flight, Indistructable, Super Icy Breath thingy, Laser Eyes.

The GM asks player B how the hell he managed to put his character together and player B explains that he got a 50% cutback on all his powers because they rely on a extremely rare powersource, namely a star like our sun and those are thousand of light years apart, so they coun't as extremely rare therefore giving him a hefty cutback

The GM still not satisfied points out that B still doesn't have enough points. Player B points out he got points for his weakness to Kryptonite which nullifies all his powers. When the GM inquires about where kryptonite can be found player B explains it can only be found around Krypton which went supernova.

The GM still not happy about the point total. Player B explains that he got some more points for extremely powerful enemies. GM asks who and where those enemies are, B explains that they are stuck in a mirror prison floating in space a couple of thousand light years away.

Player B is just stacking things in his favor and that is all right isn't it?


Gamers and Roleplayers

Here is the real divide.

Some people want to make as mechanically powerful playing piece and guide it through encounters and scenarios. In fact it's stupid not to try to make your playing piece as powerful as possible because then you'll be less likely to fail.

Others want to make a character that is as close to a concept as they can and the game is an immersive experience to them. They really don't care how many bonuses they can stack because the game isn't about winning over scenarios but immerse yourself in a living breathing fantasy world.


Most people are somwhere between those extremes.

[Chaosticket]

I was unclear.

Core rules mean you don't get easy DC 5 checks to help. You have checks you can only succeed on a natural 20. And that is level one.

The classes themselves are minmaxed before a player even gets them with 20/15/10 BAB, 0/4/6/9 spell levels and 2-8 natural skill points.

Starting ability scores at character creation are more important than the +1 you get every 4 levels.

Right from the start its pushing you to exploit this and not try to be atypical.

MAD is a problem as aside from maybe Charisma you need all abilities.

Ideally you can create a moderate character that can: use buff spells to make up for lack of BAB, have a variety of skills and have interesting class features.

Part two is what you thought I was talking about. Now you made your optimized character, then continue to do so every time your character gains a level.

What is the worst part of that? You can obsessively scour through rules and you will never make the perfect character. Its impossible and even if you did make a "mary/marty sue/stu" then what goal would there be?

[Fable Wright]

It's not that black and white. There's plenty of games where a middle-ground can be reached. It's a false dichotomy because nothing requires an optimized character to be non-character driven.
You are 100% correct, and I'm not arguing the point. A fair chunk of very good optimizers are among the best roleplayers, as they have the most investment in the game. Some people are bad players and bad optimizers and just there to be with friends. The Stormwind Fallacy remains a valid point.

Seeing as this is a forum, though, the moderate opinion is going to be the least useful for the OP. Any situation that prompts someone to step back and ask "Wait, am I doing something wrong?" is one that is likely to involve one of the two polarizing viewpoints I mentioned, and not a reasonable middleground. Hence why I didn't touch on it.


You also talk about the same old optimization tricks, but one only has to look at the Iron Chef in the Playground competitions on this forum to see that making interesting, creative, optimized characters isn't just possible, but quite common.

Again, you're not wrong. Again, that fact will not change the opinion of the people who go far out to the "Avoid power at all costs" spectrum. I've participated in Iron Chefs before, optimize for odd things, and am still, to some people, an unapologetic powergamer due to the fact that I still am (for example) abusing power attack with large accuracy enhancers for huge amounts of damage.

I will not deny that I was stereotyping and am on the optimizer side of the spectrum. I still want to make it clear why some people hate min-maxing, via an exaggerated viewpoint that is easy for anyone to immediately understand, despite the fact that different people's thresholds of "too much op" can be as varied as the shoreline.


This is combat as war, stacking internal bonuses has nothing to do with it. You are using external circumstances in your favor.

Yep! But a party with the mindset of scraping together every advantage, in my experience, is far more accepting of internal optimization than one who goes in and has each encounter tailored to the party's strength and weaknesses. Combat as sport is split roughly 50/50 between optimizing and non-optimizing groups, but combat as war (in my experience) has a much higher percentage of groups who tailor themselves for particular roles. This is why I list Combat as War as an indicator (not a symptom or cause) of a group that's okay with optimizing. My apologies for making this unclear.


Some people want to make as mechanically powerful playing piece and guide it through encounters and scenarios. In fact it's stupid not to try to make your playing piece as powerful as possible because then you'll be less likely to fail.

Others want to make a character that is as close to a concept as they can and the game is an immersive experience to them. They really don't care how many bonuses they can stack because the game isn't about winning over scenarios but immerse yourself in a living breathing fantasy world.

Most people are somwhere between those extremes.

Yep! See above, though. Some people live at both extremes at once, some live at neither. This is what normal game groups look like. But, I will reiterate, moderate parties are very unlikely to prompt the question "Why is min-maxing bad?".

[Kaptin Keen]

I view min-max'ing as an exercise in futility.

It's bigger numbers, and bigger numbers bite their own tail. You do more damage - well then, by necessity, you'll face monsters with larger health pools.

And that's basically all there is to it.

[jojo]

Min-Maxing isn't bad. You don't need it to play.

Did I just blow your mind?

For my next trick, my right hand will cure cancer while my left achieves racial harmony. :tongue:

A min-maxed character will be really, really good at maybe two things. They will probably be mediocre at two more things. They will be bad at everything else. In-game they'll use the things they're really good at to be successful while relying on other party members to get them through situations where their narrow focus would otherwise dictate failure.
If this isn't what's happening then just find one of the numerous areas in which their specialty dictates them to be weak and hammer on it until the "weak" (non min-maxed) members of the party have to save them.

[Eloel]

I view min-max'ing as an exercise in futility.

It's bigger numbers, and bigger numbers bite their own tail. You do more damage - well then, by necessity, you'll face monsters with larger health pools.

And that's basically all there is to it.

Well, of course. But would you rather feel like your character can go toe to toe with dragons or orc mooks?

[RazorChain]

I view min-max'ing as an exercise in futility.

It's bigger numbers, and bigger numbers bite their own tail. You do more damage - well then, by necessity, you'll face monsters with larger health pools.

And that's basically all there is to it.

It it exercise in futility, the problem is when the rest of the party isn't min-maxing and become the victims of the escalation.

[RazorChain]

Well, of course. But would you rather feel like your character can go toe to toe with dragons or orc mooks?

What if I describe the orc mook as a dragon? Will that make you happy? Both of them are just stat blocks that you are defeating with your stat block.


We can give both you and the dragon a stat of 10 then you roll a die and the one that get's the higher number wins.


Optimization and min maxing isn't about power level. The power level of the game is dictated by the GM and the group at the start of the campaign.


You can even start the game as dragon hunters instead of leveling up so you can fight dragons.

[Clistenes]

I am no good at optimizing, and I don't care much for it, either...

So long as my character can contribute, I'm fine with it not being the best at its thing.

The problem I see with minmaxing is, unless you are a 3.5e tier 1 caster with a maxed up casting stat, you have to focus in just one thing, in one of the roles: buffer/healer, damage dealer, tank, crowd control, and if you pick the right class, you can also be the group's face or the skillmonkey... the downside being that your character has all mental stats 8 or under, or is so weak it can't lift a pencil... and honestly, Wizards with STR, CHA & WIS 8 and Barbarians with INT 6, WIS 8, CHA 6 become boring over time...

If those were roleplayed properly, all those characters would be poorly adjusted savants, very good at their trade, but barely able to function in society, and certainly not popular or attractive..

EDIT: Look for Jone's arc in www.yafgc.net. That's how a super-minmaxed fiendish Half-Orc warrior would look like...

[RazorChain]

I am no good at optimizing, and I don't care much for it, either...

So long as my character can contribute, I'm fine with it not being the best at its thing.

The problem I see with minmaxing is, unless you are a 3.5e tier 1 caster with a maxed up casting stat, you have to focus in just one thing, in one of the roles: buffer/healer, damage dealer, tank, crowd control, and if you pick the right class, you can also be the group's face or the skillmonkey... the downside being that your character has all mental stats 8 or under, or is so weak it can't lift a pencil... and honestly, Wizards with STR, CHA & WIS 8 and Barbarians with INT 6, WIS 8, CHA 6 become boring over time...

If those were roleplayed properly, all those characters would be poorly adjusted savants, very good at their trade, but barely able to function in society, and certainly not popular or attractive..

This is because those players are gamers. They are designing their play pieces not characters. Being ugly as sin and socially inept is just fine because you don't have to roleplay it or being dumb as a brick or a drooling idiot is just fine because the mechanical penalties aren't severe for your build.

[Theoboldi]

All matters of whether it's good or not aside, mix-maxing is boring for some of us. It's really boring for some of us. I mean I'd actually rather play FATAL than spend my time actively min-maxing.

Problem is, some groups and games require it if you don't want to feel like you're not contributing or that you're lagging behind. Some groups and games don't. People who find min-maxing boring, like me, will have no fun in the former kinds of games yet might accidentally end up joining one. Just like how a Player who likes min-maxing might accidentally join a game or group that is mainly about narrative and collaborative storytelling, and where min-maxing is either heavily discouraged or shows such little returns it's all but pointless.

[Kaptin Keen]

Well, of course. But would you rather feel like your character can go toe to toe with dragons or orc mooks?

There are ... quite a few things to say about that. One is: What makes you think my character can't go toe to toe with dragons?! It's just numbers - your dragon may have higher health than mine, but .. so what? =)

Another - and somewhat unrelated - thing is that I despise dragons. I find dragons - and demons, and so on - to show a lack of imagination. I try hard to never use MM monsters, or if I do, only use modified versions. And um ... never dragons.

As a consequence, no player knowledge is ever really worth anything in my games.


It it exercise in futility, the problem is when the rest of the party isn't min-maxing and become the victims of the escalation.

Yea, I've seen many examples of needing to buff one (or more) party member, to keep everyone on an even level.

[Jormengand]

It's weird, because my 6-CHA druid (dirty cheating rudisplorker! Look, I rolled badly, and didn't feel like dying all the time or not being able to hurt anything or being an idiot - though the 9 went in int - or not being able to do my class's job) is probably the best-developed character out of all the ones in the game I'm playing right now, partly because of her social awkwardness (She's in about the tenth percentile - 6 CHA is "Shy and awkward" or "Boistrous and irritating" not "Completely unable to act like a normal person." 8 CHA is "Slightly bashful" or "Gets on your nerves after a while") getting her into interesting role-playing situations, especially when she gets all shy around people she finds attractive and has to pray they don't notice (they don't).

And yes, I put my highest score (A whole 13!) in wisdom like a dirty min-maxing optimiser. Bite me.

[Anonymouswizard]

One of my GM's once said the following: 'a little bit of minmaxing is required in a game'. He meant two things.

The first and most important is that for most character concepts you want to be good at a few things, and most systems intentionally don't give you the resources to be good at everything you want while retaining all-around competency. This means that, to represent pretty much any character concept you've got to sacrifice something and give your character a mechanical weakness. Of course what you focus on is up to you, one of the players in that game had forgone standing out anywhere in favour of having good scores in about 30-40 different skills, meaning that they always had a skill suitable for the situation.

The second was that, if the GM isn't writing the adventure himself, then you need to minmax a certain amount to just get past the challenges.

Note that I don't minmax as much as I could, I'm more concerned with making sure I have a good chance to pass what the rulebook calls a 'challenging' check in my important skills. Optimising for the maximum never appealed to me, but I do like optimising for a concept (take an X and build the character who performs the most consistently in that area).

[Boci]

There are ... quite a few things to say about that. One is: What makes you think my character can't go toe to toe with dragons?! It's just numbers - your dragon may have higher health than mine, but .. so what? =)

Generally DMs won't won't do that. Rather than buffing a monster to make it equal to a optimized party, they usually pick a powerful monster. So the question is "Why optimize if it just means you'll face party level +1 CR monsters whilst I have party level CR monsters?" and the answer is "I prefer to fight party level +1 cr monsters.

Plus optimization isn't just about numbers, its also about abilities. An optimized melee character might not only have higher numbers than a core fighter, but abilities that increase its utilities and options. Hell, it might have lower numbers than a fighter, but still be better because of its abilities.

[RazorChain]

It's weird, because my 6-CHA druid (dirty cheating rudisplorker! Look, I rolled badly, and didn't feel like dying all the time or not being able to hurt anything or being an idiot - though the 9 went in int - or not being able to do my class's job) is probably the best-developed character out of all the ones in the game I'm playing right now, partly because of her social awkwardness (She's in about the tenth percentile - 6 CHA is "Shy and awkward" or "Boistrous and irritating" not "Completely unable to act like a normal person." 8 CHA is "Slightly bashful" or "Gets on your nerves after a while") getting her into interesting role-playing situations, especially when she gets all shy around people she finds attractive and has to pray they don't notice (they don't).

And yes, I put my highest score (A whole 13!) in wisdom like a dirty min-maxing optimiser. Bite me.

With those rolls it seems that Luck is your dump stat. But I'm talking about point buying stats. The Barbarian is ugly and stupid, the fighter is ugly and stupid, the monk is ugly and stupid. Then the player shows up with his Cha 5 barbarian and flaunts this picture and says "She's just a little shy and socially awkward :smallbiggrin:"

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/50/c1/2f/50c12f528a7a38ee4dc0b12d7245b215.jpg

[Boci]

With those rolls it seems that Luck is your dump stat. But I'm talking about point buying stats. The Barbarian is ugly and stupid, the fighter is ugly and stupid, the monk is ugly and stupid. Then the player shows up with his Cha 5 barbarian and flaunts this picture and says "She's just a little shy and socially awkward :smallbiggrin:"

Which is exactly how it should work. Many charismatic politicians are not attractive, whilst many models make poor persuasive arguments.

[Jormengand]

With those rolls it seems that Luck is your dump stat.
Just my luck to roll a total of -1 modifiers in a game with no re-rolls. Someone else had an overall +10.


But I'm talking about point buying stats. The Barbarian is ugly and stupid, the fighter is ugly and stupid, the monk is ugly and stupid. Then the player shows up with his Cha 5 barbarian and flaunts this picture and says "She's just a little shy and socially awkward :smallbiggrin:"

I'll admit to having played an 8 cha character on multiple occasions, and even a 6 cha one deliberately (they look like this (http://oi65.tinypic.com/25a3tix.jpg) and barely speak, but in my defence it's a game about repeated deathmatches and not about talky stuff), but normally you can't get massively low charismas anyway, and if you do... 6 cha is anywhere from 5th-9th percentile, and 8 cha is anywhere from 16th-25th. That means that even if you ignore the fact that a wallflower can still have a low charisma and be beautiful (this isn't FATAL: each stat covers multiple things. Actually, even FATAL kinda does this with its stats being the average of 4 substats), 8 charisma is less "Ugly" and more "Plain." 5, yeah, that's pretty low, but I don't really see that regularly (it's pretty hard to pull off in PB).

[RazorChain]

Which is exactly how it should work. Many charismatic politicians are not attractive, whilst many models make poor persuasive arguments.


If you had only seen how often a beautiful women have gotten away with poorly articulated arguments.

[Anonymouswizard]

Which is exactly how it should work. Many charismatic politicians are not attractive, whilst many models make poor persuasive arguments.

Yeah, I've personally never liked attractiveness being something measured by a system. Maybe it's because it brings to mind the idea of 'Charisma score to cup size' charts, maybe because I've yet to find a person near my age who I think is genuinely unattractive, but it never seems to be handled realistically.

Charisma is completely unrelated to physical attractiveness, although being charismatic can make you more attractive to some people (and some people are more likely to listen to those they find attractive). So yeah, depending on the situation it may influence it, but I've met completely uncharismatic bombshells before and highly charismatic but plain people.

Plus if a player wants a hot character, who am I to hold it against them? I've been guilty of it myself.

[Boci]

If you had only seen how often a beautiful women have gotten away with poorly articulated arguments.


Yeah, but that's really not the same. I don't know of any attractive, uncharasmatic person who has transformed a nation, yet unnatractive, charismatic people have been able to. Charisma is more than just the ability to get away with it, it is the ability to lead, to make others follow.

What your describing above is just role play. "You were not at all persuasive, but the guard lets you off because he has fantacies of getting you in bed". Plenty of times beautiful woman don't get away with it, and good looks for a human might not help for other races, not an issue in real life but in D&D it rather implies charisma is deeper than skin.

[Clistenes]

Which is exactly how it should work. Many charismatic politicians are not attractive, whilst many models make poor persuasive arguments.

"Atractiveness" isn't the same as "Beauty". Charisma is related to atractiveness, force of personality and personal magnetism. Charisma can make an average-looking person attractive.


It's weird, because my 6-CHA druid (dirty cheating rudisplorker! Look, I rolled badly, and didn't feel like dying all the time or not being able to hurt anything or being an idiot - though the 9 went in int - or not being able to do my class's job) is probably the best-developed character out of all the ones in the game I'm playing right now, partly because of her social awkwardness (She's in about the tenth percentile - 6 CHA is "Shy and awkward" or "Boistrous and irritating" not "Completely unable to act like a normal person." 8 CHA is "Slightly bashful" or "Gets on your nerves after a while") getting her into interesting role-playing situations, especially when she gets all shy around people she finds attractive and has to pray they don't notice (they don't).

And yes, I put my highest score (A whole 13!) in wisdom like a dirty min-maxing optimiser. Bite me.

A person with a low mental stat can balance it, but if you combine CHA 6, INT 6 and WIS 8 you will get somebody with low personal autonomy and social resources...

And anyways, a wild ape has CHA 7. How can somebody with less people skills than a wild gorilla be just a little shy?

[Boci]

"Atractiveness" isn't the same as "Beauty". Charisma is related to atractiveness, force of personality and personal magnetism. Charisma can make an average-looking person attractive.

There are plenty of politicians who are not at all atractive, yet are undeniable charismatic.

From dictionary:

adjective
1.
providing pleasure or delight, especially in appearance or manner; pleasing; charming; alluring:

That is only tangentily related to charimsa. I thought this was just accepted by now.

[Pelle]

Optimizing and/or min-maxing is ok if used to help role-playing, but I'd rather not play with people who only engage with the character building game.

[Clistenes]

There are plenty of politicians who are not at all atractive, yet are undeniable charismatic.

From dictionary:

adjective
1.
providing pleasure or delight, especially in appearance or manner; pleasing; charming; alluring:

That is only tangentily related to charimsa. I thought this was just accepted by now.

Read "pleasing" and "charming". You can be charming and somebody other people like to be around without being physically pretty.

The way I understand it, attractiveness is a combination of beauty and charisma; having a lot of one can compensate for a lack of the other...

[Boci]

Read "pleasing" and "charming". You can be charming and somebody other people like to be around without being physically pretty.

Yes, but you can also not be pleasing and charming, and yet still be charismatic. A battle hardened mercenry captain for example would likely be statted with decent charisma, yet is likely neither of the above, and could potentially be rather ugly, yet still charismatic.


The way I understand it, attractiveness is a combination of beauty and charisma; having a lot of one can compensate for a lack of the other...

Sure, the GM can reference that, like having guards let a pretty girl off scot free when they would have likely detained a man, but the bottom line is still D&D's charisma score has little to nothing to do with physical beauty or attractiveness.

[Darth Ultron]

Something bothers me about roleplaying games involving luck. Focusing on abilities, statistics, and ways to improve them is frowned upon but you still need those things to succeed and progress. You need as many bonuses as possible to win at life and death dice rolls.


Well, it's not really ''luck'' it is ''chance''....and it's really the Chance that makes it a game....you roll and you might make it or not. If you take away the chance of failure, then it's not a game.

You do NOT ''need'' things to progress.



I personally like well rounded characters with synergy between abilities. I keep thinking about different ideas but when I do they are compared to and compete with min-maxed classes which can be optimized further.


A well rounded Roll Playing character, right? The Super Character that Never Fails a Roll is one way to play the game, but not the only way.




This thread again. It'll be a party when Darth Ultron gets here.


I'm here!




Right from the start its pushing you to exploit this and not try to be atypical.

If your pushing to exploit the game, that make you a bad player in my book.



What is the worst part of that? You can obsessively scour through rules and you will never make the perfect character. Its impossible and even if you did make a "mary/marty sue/stu" then what goal would there be?

You might try having fun any way except having a Super Duper All Powerful Demi God Character.


I view min-max'ing as an exercise in futility.

It's bigger numbers, and bigger numbers bite their own tail. You do more damage - well then, by necessity, you'll face monsters with larger health pools.

And that's basically all there is to it.


The idea that you MUST play the game only as a number counting/number obsessed Roll Player is just wrong. It is one way to play, yes, but it's not really a good way to play and it's not worth it. When you are playing the adversarial numbers game of Your Pluses vs the DM's DCs, your not even playing anything close to a role playing game. You might as well just play a video game or a board game.

When your playing the game, and you Encounter DC Obstacle(does not even matter what it is) Number Six, you immediately look on your character sheet for a Plus. Then you Roll. As you ''must'' have a high Plus, you will likely beat the DC. So your happy, for one second, that your character is all powerful, useful or whatever you want to think. And that is great sure. But lets say you fail the roll, what happens then? Complain like a bratty kid? Do you rip up your character sheet and run from the game screaming? Sit in a corner and weep? Is it really the End of the World as you Know it...just as you failed one roll in one game?

Some people are stuck...trapped even...in playing only one type of character ever:The Optimized Roll Playing Demi God. And again, it's a fine way to play...but not the only way. You might want to find a good DM, and then try to play any of the other ways, even just once, to see what they are like.

[Pex]

There is the other extreme, the Drama Queen.

This player cares only about the roleplay. His only interest is to focus everything about the game on his character. His character has a tragic or mysterious backstory that needs to be played out in hours of dialogue with the DM as events unfold. His character is a tragic figure yearning to achieve some goal that would bring Final Happiness and make his life Complete. The numbers on his character sheet are irrelevant. If his character can do anything well it's only that which is necessary to carry out his Life Drama, some skills here and there. Combat interferes with his roleplay. If he's a spellcaster his only desire is to cast utility spells. Speak With Animals is wonderful. Magic Missile is abhorrent. Anyone whose basic attack does more than 1d6 + 2 damage is a horrible "rollplaying" munchkin. In combat his character's first priority is his own safety. If he can hide or just get out of the way to not be attacked and thus need not do anything all the better. If he must attack he couldn't care less if his attack is successful or not.

[Anonymouswizard]

The short answer is, both extremes are bad, and you should try to end up at the same rough point the rest of your group is.

[Theoboldi]

The short answer is, both extremes are bad, and you should try to end up at the same rough point the rest of your group is.

Or opt out of playing an RPG with them, if you just can't enjoy their gameplay style.

[Jormengand]

And anyways, a wild ape has CHA 7. How can somebody with less people skills than a wild gorilla be just a little shy?

I don't know if you realise, but most species of primates are pretty social animals. Remember that CHA 7 means that you're better than at least 9.26% and possibly up to 16.20% of people at social interactions. Again, for those in the back, CHA 7 means that you are better than, on average, around 13% of people at social interactions. I don't think that over a tenth of people are completely incompetent at social encounters, honestly.

[Boci]

And anyways, a wild ape has CHA 7. How can somebody with less people skills than a wild gorilla be just a little shy?

And the lich template gives the base creature +2 charimsa.

[Chaosticket]

Im not talking about player minmaxing, but the game rules.

Classes have specialization which sounds good but I dont see things that are overkill(you need a 5 to hit and have a +5 so only miss on critical fail) but rather what you need huge rolls so are underpowered if you dont have those huge bonuses.

Its more about luck rather than choice and all those additions are to reduce it to high probability.

Doing things for fun is the goal but when the Gm says "roll for it" then whether you succed isnt clever thinking but all those scores.

Players focusing on that is understandable. I think you need specific game systems like realistic character growth rather than level ups. If your character had to develop muscle mass than it would be understandable why you are strong. If your character can jump from building to building its within reason.

[Jormengand]

And the lich template gives the base creature +2 charimsa.

Incidentally, this reminds me of the best argument for why charisma doesn't necessarily mean attractiveness: this guy on the left (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/MM35_gallery/MM35_PG41.jpg) has higher charisma than this girl (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/MM35_gallery/MM35_PG198.jpg), by seven points. I know which one I think is prettier. Charisma is to do with force of personality more than physical attractiveness.

(I'm sure that if you crack open the BoEF, the nymph has a nice high ATT and the balor has a pretty low one, indeed).

[Anonymouswizard]

Or opt out of playing an RPG with them, if you just can't enjoy their gameplay style.

Of course, but I tend to put that under 'no gaming is better than bad gaming'. I really need to start posting on my blog again, I've got a half finished post about 'the purpose of rules' so maybe something about style conflict will be something to work on.

[Clistenes]

And the lich template gives the base creature +2 charimsa.

So what? I was speaking of social abilities, not of physical beauty...

[Theoboldi]

Of course, but I tend to put that under 'no gaming is better than bad gaming'. I really need to start posting on my blog again, I've got a half finished post about 'the purpose of rules' so maybe something about style conflict will be something to work on.

I honestly mentioned it only for completeness. That said, I'd be very interested in those posts. Not that I agree with all your ideas, but I do always enjoy seeing different viewpoints and learning from them.

[Boci]

So what? I was speaking of social abilities, not of physical beauty...

The whole point of this argument is that you have been objecting to a pretty barbarian girl with low charisma, hence pointing out that an ape has a higher charisma. If you're not talking about physical beauty, then you aren't objecting to a pretty barbarian girl with low charisma, but rather to the concept that anyone could have a lower charisma than an ape, which isn't the case.

[Kaptin Keen]

Generally DMs won't won't do that. Rather than buffing a monster to make it equal to a optimized party, they usually pick a powerful monster. So the question is "Why optimize if it just means you'll face party level +1 CR monsters whilst I have party level CR monsters?" and the answer is "I prefer to fight party level +1 cr monsters.

Plus optimization isn't just about numbers, its also about abilities. An optimized melee character might not only have higher numbers than a core fighter, but abilities that increase its utilities and options. Hell, it might have lower numbers than a fighter, but still be better because of its abilities.

You prefer bigger numbers. Whether you call those numbers a giant or an ogre is irrelevant. Any monster, no exceptions, is just a set of numbers. Any ability is just a set of numbers. Then you fluff out those numbers, and you get a goblin, a gnoll, an ogre, a giant. But it's all just numbers.

There is no part of the game that cannot be expressed as numbers. Except for the roleplaying, but that's not the topic here.


The idea that you MUST play the game only as a number counting/number obsessed Roll Player is just wrong. It is one way to play, yes, but it's not really a good way to play and it's not worth it. When you are playing the adversarial numbers game of Your Pluses vs the DM's DCs, your not even playing anything close to a role playing game. You might as well just play a video game or a board game.

When your playing the game, and you Encounter DC Obstacle(does not even matter what it is) Number Six, you immediately look on your character sheet for a Plus. Then you Roll. As you ''must'' have a high Plus, you will likely beat the DC. So your happy, for one second, that your character is all powerful, useful or whatever you want to think. And that is great sure. But lets say you fail the roll, what happens then? Complain like a bratty kid? Do you rip up your character sheet and run from the game screaming? Sit in a corner and weep? Is it really the End of the World as you Know it...just as you failed one roll in one game?

Some people are stuck...trapped even...in playing only one type of character ever:The Optimized Roll Playing Demi God. And again, it's a fine way to play...but not the only way. You might want to find a good DM, and then try to play any of the other ways, even just once, to see what they are like.

I cannot fathom how that has anything to do with what I said. It's a simple equation: IF your character is more powerful, THEN your GM must find more powerful enemies to challenge you. Hence, futility. You're just chasing your own tail.

[Anonymouswizard]

I honestly mentioned it only for completeness. That said, I'd be very interested in those posts. Not that I agree with all your ideas, but I do always enjoy seeing different viewpoints and learning from them.

Don't worry, when I'm posing again I'll be shoving the link in my signature.

[Boci]

You prefer bigger numbers. Whether you call those numbers a giant or an ogre is irrelevant. Any monster, no exceptions, is just a set of numbers. Any ability is just a set of numbers. Then you fluff out those numbers, and you get a goblin, a gnoll, an ogre, a giant. But it's all just numbers.

That a very generous and rather useless definition of "numbers". Sure, increased health, attack and damage are all just numbers, but I'd like to see your method for breaking down "flight" into just numbers. Sure, the speed value is a number, but the tactical implications it gives are rather more. What number would you asign flight speed 20 with average maneuverability? What about flight speed 30 with average maneuverability? Speed 15 with perfect maneuverability?

[Clistenes]

The whole point of this argument is that you have been objecting to a pretty barbarian girl with low charisma, hence pointing out that an ape has a higher charisma. If you're not talking about physical beauty, then you aren't objecting to a pretty barbarian girl with low charisma, but rather to the concept that anyone could have a lower charisma than an ape, which isn't the case.

Uh, no. My argument was that somebody with WIS 8 INT 6 CHA 6 would be severely hindered.

I didn't mention pretty barbarian girls and I didn't say a physically beautiful person couldn't have low charisma...

I did say that I think attractiveness is a mix of physical beauty and personal magnetism/charisma, not that charisma is equal to beauty...

I mentioned the ape because somebody said that a character with CHA 6 was just a bit shy and awkward, which is hard to believe if an ape has better social skills...

[Boci]

Uh, no. My argument was that somebody with WIS 8 INT 6 CHA 6 would be severely hindered.

They are severly hindered. They have a low will save, few skill points and are unlikely to suceed on social skills like bluff and diploamacy.


I mentioned the ape because somebody said that a character with CHA 6 was just a bit shy and awkward, which is hard to believe if an ape has better social skills...

The ape doesn't have better social skills, because it lacks a common language with most humanoids, which prevents that from being effective. Also this is D&D, a housecat has like a 30% chance of killing an unarmed adult commoner, which is distinctly not the case in real life.

[Jormengand]

I mentioned the ape because somebody said that a character with CHA 6 was just a bit shy and awkward, which is hard to believe if an ape has better social skills...

You then promptly didn't respond to the argument to the contrary. Also, I'm pretty sure that a balor wouldn't do that well in human society, but they get along in demon society just fine. Similarly, apes get along fine in ape society, they just don't really do well in human society due to a fair few culture clashes and not speaking any human languages (except for the one or two apes who "Speak" sign language).

[Max_Killjoy]

There's a lot of terminology creep and blurring in these discussions.

For some, "minmaxing" is the extreme edge practice of dump-statting anything and everything that isn't critical to a very specific maximized specialty for that character. "I can a do a 6 INT and 7 WIS, this character a Fighter, Fighters never use those stats, and every warrior I ever build will dump those stats" or "why would you ever use weapon X and build Q, that setup generates an average of 8 less damage per combat encounter than the optimal build when we get to level 10."

For others, "minmaxing" is the horrible, horrible crime of making sure a character is at least competent enough to make it out the door each morning.


IMO, there's absolutely nothing wrong, and quite a bit right, with making sure that your PC isn't what would be a minor secondary character in any work of fiction (outside of navel-gazing lit-fic), and isn't a complete drag on the rest of the PCs.

[Quertus]

* Grabs popcorn *

This thread again. It'll be a party when Darth Ultron gets here.

Long story short, there's two main schools of thought on character optimization as far as I can tell. There's the school of thought that you're describing—most common with players whose GMs run Combat as War and who are fine letting the dice fall as they may. Every edge, every scrap of paranoia, every number you can add is an edge that lets you survive. And that's fun! There's nothing wrong with it, and it's the way that the oldest school RPGs went.

The other school of thought that springs up in groups whose GMs run it as a character driven game, and some of whom are tired of seeing the same old boring template classes. "Oh look. Another craven rogue. Another ubercharger. Another god wizard. Woo." They'd like diversity in character types, mechanics, and stories, and want to differentiate themselves from the tried and true path as much as physically possible. In many cases, this involved deliberately making characters weak, trying out suboptimal things, and encouraging everyone else to do oddball concepts. And that can be fun! When everyone's on board, it can be cool to see how a Samurai, Truenamer, Monk, and Healer adventure together.

Where the vitriol starts flying is when a player from one school of thought joins a group from the other school of thought. You either have the dead weight everyone complains about and who complains about everyone, or you have the min-maxing powermonkey who wants to end combat before anyone has any fun. Neither player is wrong, but they're not really playing the same game and should not be at the same table.

TL;DR: Min-maxing your character great when your group does it, and terrible when you're the only one who does it. Then there's an irresolvable conflict in the comments section about whether everyone should min-max or no one should min-max that never gets resolved.

I know you've already largely addressed comments on this, but as someone who believes in CoW "let the dice fall where they may", and who loves building oddball, often statistically underwhelming characters, I have to put in my 2¢ and add to the "those aren't opposed schools of thought" bandwagon.

Also, it gives me a good starting point to say, the correct answer is to balance to the group, and to the module. Yes, this represents me leveling up one of my previously held opinions. I'm allowed to grow and change.

See, you can't really bring an übercharger / god wizard gestalt into a party with a Samurai, a Ninja, and an Expert - unless, of course, the group is actually cool with that range of capabilities, in which case, you can. So, both the size of the range, and where that range is located, varies by group.

But, even if this works at the group level, if the module is such that an übercharger would rolfstomp the entire module, then he isn't appropriate to the module. Similarly, if an Expert would totally fail to contribute, he isn't appropriate. Or, to flip that, if the module is all about skill checks, it's possible that the Expert might singlehandedly roflstomp the entire module, while an übercharger might fail to contribute.

So, even if they would otherwise be acceptable, if the module is Necrophilia on Bone Hill, the GM might well suggest that the DPS Rogue or Diplomancer might be better suited for a different day.


What is the worst part of that? You can obsessively scour through rules and you will never make the perfect character. Its impossible and even if you did make a "mary/marty sue/stu" then what goal would there be?

Actually, I think DU had the best response to this one...


A fair chunk of very good optimizers are among the best roleplayers, as they have the most investment in the game. Some people are bad players and bad optimizers and just there to be with friends.

And I get to level up again. This is a much better way of thinking about it.


Yep! But a party with the mindset of scraping together every advantage, in my experience, is far more accepting of internal optimization than one who goes in and has each encounter tailored to the party's strength and weaknesses. Combat as sport is split roughly 50/50 between optimizing and non-optimizing groups, but combat as war (in my experience) has a much higher percentage of groups who tailor themselves for particular roles. This is why I list Combat as War as an indicator (not a symptom or cause) of a group that's okay with optimizing. My apologies for making this unclear.

... Not my experience. Parties that enjoy the "scraping together every possible advantage" minigame don't exactly like it when your +NI bonus to the task obviates the need for their fun.


I view min-max'ing as an exercise in futility.

It's bigger numbers, and bigger numbers bite their own tail. You do more damage - well then, by necessity, you'll face monsters with larger health pools.

And that's basically all there is to it.


Well, of course. But would you rather feel like your character can go toe to toe with dragons or orc mooks?

Best. Answer. Ever. This person gets it.

Although, personally, I prefer the idea of the module as a set target, and getting to choose just how strong the party is as the first battlefield for player agency.


It it exercise in futility, the problem is when the rest of the party isn't min-maxing and become the victims of the escalation.

I strongly agree, in that it is a problem when it detracts from the fun of the other players. Disagree that it is a problem or exercise in futility otherwise, though.

[2D8HP]

....I don't think that over a tenth of people are completely incompetent at social encounters, honestly..
You'd feel differently at some of my jobsites.


Of course, but I tend to put that under 'no gaming is better than bad gaming'......
No gaming is better than really, really bad gaming.

Or playing .

As to the OP questions, I can think of some RPG's where I don't have any ideas on even how to "min-max", except maybe equipment carried, and others where it's hard not to.

I suppose instead of "min-max" and "not min-max", you could call them "specialist" and "generalist" PC's.

And as far as I can tell your miffed or confused that some people decry how you play?

If it's really face-to-face then it's an issue, but if you're just posting 'bout stuff other people have posted, remember that the world is a very big place with lots of people with internet access now and someone somewhere sometime has probably voiced most every opinion that may be imagined.

For example, if you read my posts from a couple of years ago you'll probably see more of my posts about how much more awesome old games were and how lame new ones are, but now you'll probably read more of my posts 'bout some awesome qualities in new games and admitting some lameness in old ones.

No real intrinsic changes in the games themselves, just one blabermouth changing some opinions with familiarity.

But I'll still claim that [I]Excalibur is a better movie than whatever new movie that's out that I haven't seen yet FOREVUH!!!

(Unless the new movie has performances by Cherie Lunghi, Helen Mirren, Liam Neeson, and Patrick Stewart that is. Is there such a movie? Because that would be AWESOME!).

[Kaptin Keen]

That a very generous and rather useless definition of "numbers". Sure, increased health, attack and damage are all just numbers, but I'd like to see your method for breaking down "flight" into just numbers. Sure, the speed value is a number, but the tactical implications it gives are rather more. What number would you asign flight speed 20 with average maneuverability? What about flight speed 30 with average maneuverability? Speed 15 with perfect maneuverability?

You seem fiercely intent on not adressing the point I'm making.

When your character gains in power .............................. so do the challenges you need to overcome.

It's just bigger numbers, that's really all there is to it.

If you feel like answering my point - rather than something else - I'll listen, gladly. Otherwise, I can't really be bothered.

[Jormengand]

You seem fiercely intent on not adressing the point I'm making.

When your character gains in power .............................. so do the challenges you need to overcome.

It's just bigger numbers, that's really all there is to it.

If you feel like answering my point - rather than something else - I'll listen, gladly. Otherwise, I can't really be bothered.

> Answers point about how it's clearly not just bigger numbers by reiterating that it's just bigger numbers.
> "You're not answering my point!"

[Boci]

You seem fiercely intent on not adressing the point I'm making.

When your character gains in power .............................. so do the challenges you need to overcome.

It's just bigger numbers, that's really all there is to it.

If you feel like answering my point - rather than something else - I'll listen, gladly. Otherwise, I can't really be bothered.

You said "There is no part of the game that cannot be expressed as numbers". How do you express the tactical dimension added when a PC or monsters gains flight? There's the speed sure, that's a number, but what number expresses the ability to now move in 3 dimensions rather than 2?

If you feel this is me fiercly not adressing your point, maybe you should make your point clearer, because all I'm asking you to do is give a specific example of a claim you made.

Yes, if you get +20% HP and damage, and the monsters gain +20% HP and damage that was rather pointless, but typically the power scaling from optimization will play out differently to that.

[Eloel]

but what number expresses the ability to now move in 3 dimensions rather than 2?

Dimensional movement? Most characters have a 2 in that stat, those with flight have 3, those with time travel have 4. Easy. /s

[Boci]

Dimensional movement? Most characters have a 2 in that stat, those with flight have 3, those with time travel have 4. Easy. /s

And what's the ration of dimensional movement stat imncrease to say, strength state increase? Flight gives you +1 to the formerand is a third level spell, whilst a second level spell gives +4 to the latter, so 1:8?

[Eloel]

And what's the ration of dimensional movement stat imncrease to say, strength state increase? Flight gives you +1 to the formerand is a third level spell, whilst a second level spell gives +4 to the latter, so 1:8?

1:8 sounds about right. So for a 6th level spell, time travel!

[martixy]

* Grabs popcorn *

This thread again. It'll be a party when Darth Ultron gets here.

Long story short, there's two main schools of thought on character optimization as far as I can tell. There's the school of thought that you're describing—most common with players whose GMs run Combat as War and who are fine letting the dice fall as they may. Every edge, every scrap of paranoia, every number you can add is an edge that lets you survive. And that's fun! There's nothing wrong with it, and it's the way that the oldest school RPGs went.

The other school of thought that springs up in groups whose GMs run it as a character driven game, and some of whom are tired of seeing the same old boring template classes. "Oh look. Another craven rogue. Another ubercharger. Another god wizard. Woo." They'd like diversity in character types, mechanics, and stories, and want to differentiate themselves from the tried and true path as much as physically possible. In many cases, this involved deliberately making characters weak, trying out suboptimal things, and encouraging everyone else to do oddball concepts. And that can be fun! When everyone's on board, it can be cool to see how a Samurai, Truenamer, Monk, and Healer adventure together.

Where the vitriol starts flying is when a player from one school of thought joins a group from the other school of thought. You either have the dead weight everyone complains about and who complains about everyone, or you have the min-maxing powermonkey who wants to end combat before anyone has any fun. Neither player is wrong, but they're not really playing the same game and should not be at the same table.

TL;DR: Min-maxing your character great when your group does it, and terrible when you're the only one who does it. Then there's an irresolvable conflict in the comments section about whether everyone should min-max or no one should min-max that never gets resolved.

And then there's me. I subscribe to this school:
https://i.imgur.com/6rZ8g8R.jpg

I'm dead tired of the basic optimized builds. But I definitely lean towards the Combat as War camp. So what do I do? Be super generous with character options! Abolish feat taxes! Free LA! Extra skill points! Generous point buy(go as MAD as you like)!

The other day I placed my L5 party in front of a CR13 or thereabouts encounter. They lost only because they're not used to a more tactical game.

P.S. He's here! Woe is us!

[KorvinStarmast]

Then the player shows up with his Cha 5 barbarian and flaunts this picture and says "She's just a little shy and socially awkward :smallbiggrin:" your "barbarian" looks like a Diablo II (Blizzard, CPRG) Amazon. :smallcool:

@jojo: love your response.

Min-Maxing isn't bad. You don't need it to play.
Did I just blow your mind?
For my next trick, my right hand will cure cancer while my left achieves racial harmony. :tongue:
As to "numbers"

But it's all just numbers. There is no part of the game that cannot be expressed as numbers. Except for the roleplaying, but that's not the topic here. Hmm, it appears to be the topic since this forum is dedicated to role playing games, and role playing is a part of each role playing game to one extent or another.

The "it's just numbers" approach works well enough in CRPG's, though.

[Kaptin Keen]

You said "There is no part of the game that cannot be expressed as numbers". How do you express the tactical dimension added when a PC or monsters gains flight? There's the speed sure, that's a number, but what number expresses the ability to now move in 3 dimensions rather than 2?

If you feel this is me fiercly not adressing your point, maybe you should make your point clearer, because all I'm asking you to do is give a specific example of a claim you made.

Yes, if you get +20% HP and damage, and the monsters gain +20% HP and damage that was rather pointless, but typically the power scaling from optimization will play out differently to that.

I ... believe I get your point. Just, it doesn't seem to me like it makes any difference.

Tactical options are not a part of this. A dragon has a flight speed - so does a stirge. So does anything if the GM wants it to.

[Boci]

I ... believe I get your point. Just, it doesn't seem to me like it makes any difference.

Tactical options are not a part of this. A dragon has a flight speed - so does a stirge. So does anything if the GM wants it to.

Yes, tactical options are not part of this, but they are part of optimizingv and minmaxing. So you're claim that it can all be reduced to number is wrong, because, well as you just said, its doesn't include tactical options.

Now yes, a DM can negate this by giving any tactical options you have to any monsters, but that's bad DMing. Obviously the DM needs to do something to balance things out, but it can be more variable than a mirror match, hence the +1 CR thing.

[Kaptin Keen]

Yes, tactical options are not part of this, but they are part of optimizingv and minmaxing. So you're claim that it can all be reduced to number is wrong, because, well as you just said, its doesn't include tactical options.

Now yes, a DM can negate this by giving any tactical options you have to any monsters, but that's bad DMing. Obviously the DM needs to do something to balance things out, but it can be more variable than a mirror match, hence the +1 CR thing.

You simply are not listening. That's fair - but then let's end here.

[Quertus]

When your character gains in power .............................. so do the challenges you need to overcome.

It's just bigger numbers, that's really all there is to it.


Obviously the DM needs to do something to balance things out, but it can be more variable than a mirror match, hence the +1 CR thing.

How many times do I have to say it, the "arms race" mentality is only one of many possible ways to play the game. And, it's not only not even the best, it's likely toxic. "Never get into an arms race with your players, because that cannot win". Deciding what power level they want to play at is the first beachhead in the war of player agency vs railroading.

IMO, the module should be a static challenge, and should not change based on the power level of the PCs. The GM can give a few sample characters, and the players can choose at what power level (within the range that the group is comfortable with) to play.

Now, yes, if the group likes to totally overwhelm monsters at 50:1 odds, the stronger the party, the stronger the monsters will need to be. Or, if the party likes to scramble for their lives when facing even a single monster, yes, the stronger the party, the stronger the monsters will need to be to achieve that level of balance. But, IMO, this is best achieved with the GM simply showing the party X characters of Y level and Z optimization, who can handle the module at Q competence, and let the players build their characters from that known balance point to their preferred power level.

Allow the players to optimize their characters for fun.

[Boci]

How many times do I have to say it, the "arms race" mentality is only one of many possible ways to play the game.

It's not an arms race. Arms race is back and forth with the goal of each side to exceed the other in power. What me and Kaptin Keen are describing is the DM looking at the character sheets and their building/adjusting the encounters. Too weak? Buff them. No way to deal with negative energy level? Better cut back on the wights. That's not an arms race, because the players won't respond. They're get stronger when they level, but so will the encounters. This is also notable not toxic, but generally good game planning and at worst neutral.

[Arbane]

Well, of course. But would you rather feel like your character can go toe to toe with dragons or orc mooks?

If your character can defeat an asthmatic kobold without needing to painstakingly prepare an ambush first the game is obviously on Easy Mode and you are a filthy min-maxing ROLLplayer.

Semi-seriously, some GMs are just not happy unless every fight has at least one PC face-down in a pool of their own blood, and successful min-maxing frustrates them. As people have said, the problem mostly becomes when you have Sir Ralph the Speed-Bump in a well optimized party, or Lolhax The Omnipotent in a group of scrubs.


You seem fiercely intent on not adressing the point I'm making.

When your character gains in power .............................. so do the challenges you need to overcome.

It's just bigger numbers, that's really all there is to it.

If you feel like answering my point - rather than something else - I'll listen, gladly. Otherwise, I can't really be bothered.

It's not just bigger numbers, if the GM is at all competent. It's 'clear the goblins out of the chicken coop' vs. 'defeat the Necromancer's Undead Horde before they annihilate the kingdoms!'

[RazorChain]

I strongly agree, in that it is a problem when it detracts from the fun of the other players. Disagree that it is a problem or exercise in futility otherwise, though.


Quertus we aren't going through this again are we? :smallsmile:

The power level of the campaign has nothing to do with the power disparity between the PC's. Like I stated earlier you just might start with fighting Dragons from the start instead of going through the hoops murdering Orc mooks just to get to high enough level so you can fight a dragon.

How much you min-max just dictates how powerful a dragon I throw against you. You think seriously that I'm going to be beholden to some crap that says in the Monster Manual about how powerful Dragons are?

[Max_Killjoy]

Whenever this discussion comes up, there's this entanglement of balance and power levels as general concepts... with D&D's rather peculiar and provincial assumptions about character progression and threat progression (Levels, Hit Dice, etc).

It makes it hard to discuss the former when people keep dragging in the latter.

[Chaosticket]

Its depending on what you face. I play mostly scenarios in a campaign with fixed enemies so the GM cant swap out things that are too difficult.

In my experience they are based around min-maxing to have high skills combat ability immediately with DC20 checks at level 1.

[Kaptin Keen]

How many times do I have to say it, the "arms race" mentality is only one of many possible ways to play the game. And, it's not only not even the best, it's likely toxic. "Never get into an arms race with your players, because that cannot win". Deciding what power level they want to play at is the first beachhead in the war of player agency vs railroading.

IMO, the module should be a static challenge, and should not change based on the power level of the PCs. The GM can give a few sample characters, and the players can choose at what power level (within the range that the group is comfortable with) to play.

Now, yes, if the group likes to totally overwhelm monsters at 50:1 odds, the stronger the party, the stronger the monsters will need to be. Or, if the party likes to scramble for their lives when facing even a single monster, yes, the stronger the party, the stronger the monsters will need to be to achieve that level of balance. But, IMO, this is best achieved with the GM simply showing the party X characters of Y level and Z optimization, who can handle the module at Q competence, and let the players build their characters from that known balance point to their preferred power level.

Allow the players to optimize their characters for fun.

Who said arms race?!

If you want to challenge your players - and why else would the combat be there - you will adjust the toughness of each encounter to meet the power level of your players. And that's all there is to it. That is, literally, it. End all, be all. Nothing more to say.

There is NO arms race. There is cause and effect.

All the example needed is Great Cleave. It's fun for precisely one encounter where you effortlessly cut down dozens of goblins. Then you need to counter it to keep things interesting. And that's that.

Damn, I sound angry =D

I'm not. It's just ... the point I'm trying to make is really simple, and it's hardly debatable: To challenge powerful pc's, you need powerful monsters - that's evident .. and it's mostly numbers.

And tactics are present at any level of play, so that's not the 'big equaliser'.


[FONT=Comic Sans MS][COLOR="#800080"]It's not just bigger numbers, if the GM is at all competent. It's 'clear the goblins out of the chicken coop' vs. 'defeat the Necromancer's Undead Horde before they annihilate the kingdoms!'

The big difference between goblins and undead horde is almost entirely bigger numbers. You just like the fluff of the epic struggle against the necromancer better. But behind the scenes, all that's different is the numbers.

[Pex]

Who said arms race?!

If you want to challenge your players - and why else would the combat be there - you will adjust the toughness of each encounter to meet the power level of your players. And that's all there is to it. That is, literally, it. End all, be all. Nothing more to say.

There is NO arms race. There is cause and effect.

All the example needed is Great Cleave. It's fun for precisely one encounter where you effortlessly cut down dozens of goblins. Then you need to counter it to keep things interesting. And that's that.

Damn, I sound angry =D

I'm not. It's just ... the point I'm trying to make is really simple, and it's hardly debatable: To challenge powerful pc's, you need powerful monsters - that's evident .. and it's mostly numbers.

And tactics are present at any level of play, so that's not the 'big equaliser'.



The big difference between goblins and undead horde is almost entirely bigger numbers. You just like the fluff of the epic struggle against the necromancer better. But behind the scenes, all that's different is the numbers.

If the character never gets to use Great Cleave again that's not the min/maxer's fault. That's the DM purposely not letting him use it for lack of opportunity. The player taking the feat obviously means the player wants to use it. That's his fun. Let him use it. Let there be other swarms of mooks he can Great Cleave to his heart's content in future adventures.

The same is true for any class feature, ignoring I Win D&D shenanigans which is a different topic. It's not a crime for a PC to be powerful. That's a feature, the whole point of having the Thing that makes him so awesome.

[Kaptin Keen]

If the character never gets to use Great Cleave again that's not the min/maxer's fault.

That is not what I'm saying. Obviously.

Can we dispense with the fingerpointing? Please respond to the point I'm making - or do not respond at all.

This is my point: Stronger PC's need stronger monsters to challenge them.

There is NO hidden message. The above is everything. Nothing not contained on the above 8 words have anything to do with what I'm saying.

[icefractal]

When your character gains in power .............................. so do the challenges you need to overcome.That depends on the style of the campaign.

In a sandbox, the challenges are whatever they are, they don't auto-scale. A more powerful character likely goes up against bigger stuff (after quickly dealing with the smaller stuff if necessary), and thus accomplishes different things in the fiction.

And as to "Why does it matter what the quest was called?" - caring about what happens in the fiction is the whole reason to play an RPG. If I only cared about having a tactical challenge, I'd play MtG, or a board game - less setup, better balanced rules, and usually faster.

Also, even in a non-sandbox, not all GMs tune every encounter to the PCs. Many use modules, or base the opposition on world-building logic, and in those cases the PCs' numbers would absolutely make a difference.

[Jormengand]

This is my point: Stronger PC's need stronger monsters to challenge them.

No duh. But that doesn't stop it being interesting or worthwhile to make those PCs stronger, so it has nothing to do with the thread topic.

[Arbane]

The big difference between goblins and undead horde is almost entirely bigger numbers. You just like the fluff of the epic struggle against the necromancer better. But behind the scenes, all that's different is the numbers.

Not if you're doing it right. I suppose 'population numbers' and 'the war-devastated economy' and 'the slain innocents rising horrifically to swell the undead horde' ARE numbers, but any GM who can't make an obvious qualitative difference between the two situations just isn't trying.

[Quertus]

Quertus we aren't going through this again are we? :smallsmile:

Probably, I am a slow learner at times. :smallwink:

Let's see...


The power level of the campaign has nothing to do with the power disparity between the PC's. Like I stated earlier you just might start with fighting Dragons from the start instead of going through the hoops murdering Orc mooks just to get to high enough level so you can fight a dragon.

How much you min-max just dictates how powerful a dragon I throw against you. You think seriously that I'm going to be beholden to some crap that says in the Monster Manual about how powerful Dragons are?

No, this is something different. :smalleek:

See, in talking to you, I was only addressing disparity between characters. And I was just saying that such power level differences are not inherently a problem - they are only a problem if the group has a problem with them. If the group does have a problem with them, then, yeah, big problem, needs to be addressed, totally agree.

However, now we have a new problem: the idea that it's ok for the GM to violate player expectations, and not make the world consistent with the player's preconceptions as provided by the rules. Note that such changes to established facts also has the potential to retroactively negate a player's backstory.

So, yes, I do actually disagree with the notion of the GM just changing things at will "for balance", just because they feel that a dragon should be X challenging to a Y level character, instead of letting the rules and the math answer just how challenging they actually are.


It's not an arms race. Arms race is back and forth with the goal of each side to exceed the other in power. What me and Kaptin Keen are describing is the DM looking at the character sheets and their building/adjusting the encounters. Too weak? Buff them. No way to deal with negative energy level? Better cut back on the wights. That's not an arms race, because the players won't respond. They're get stronger when they level, but so will the encounters. This is also notable not toxic, but generally good game planning and at worst neutral.


Who said arms race?!

If you want to challenge your players - and why else would the combat be there - you will adjust the toughness of each encounter to meet the power level of your players. And that's all there is to it. That is, literally, it. End all, be all. Nothing more to say.

There is NO arms race. There is cause and effect.

All the example needed is Great Cleave. It's fun for precisely one encounter where you effortlessly cut down dozens of goblins. Then you need to counter it to keep things interesting. And that's that.


If the character never gets to use Great Cleave again that's not the min/maxer's fault. That's the DM purposely not letting him use it for lack of opportunity. The player taking the feat obviously means the player wants to use it. That's his fun. Let him use it. Let there be other swarms of mooks he can Great Cleave to his heart's content in future adventures.

Ok, maybe i jumped the gun on my arms race comment. :smallredface: But "GM adapting to the party" is still not the only or even undisputed best way to run a game. Do recognize that there are other ways to play the game.

But allowing exactly one use of 6 levels class features from the Fighter before intentionally negating them? Geez, it's no wonder Fighters can't have nice things. :smalleek:

I would advise, instead, if anything, intentionally including swarms of mooks going forward, to validate the players choices. Personally, I usually don't change the module to help the PCs look cool, because I'm a **** like that, but, if you're willing to change the module in the first place, at least be a fan of the PCs when doing so.

[Boci]

Ok, maybe i jumped the gun on my arms race comment. :smallredface: But "GM adapting to the party" is still not the only or even undisputed best way to run a game. Do recognize that there are other ways to play the game.

Maybe, but its a pretty good idea. There's degrees of it, yes, but bare minimum a DM should probably have a glance at the character sheets and reference that to the encounter design. Does one of the monsters have a mechanic that interacts with an ability the party doesn't have, and it will be a pretty generic monster without that shtick? Maybe replace it. Is the one of the monsters unbeatable by the players (i.e. weapon immune swarms)? Might want to check that's not game over. Does one of the players have a specialized ability, like a redicolously buffed jump check? Make sure an encounter will have a use for that.

Sure, nothing about D&D playstules is undisputed, but it seems like most Dms should probably do the above at bare minimum.

[Kaptin Keen]

No duh. But that doesn't stop it being interesting or worthwhile to make those PCs stronger, so it has nothing to do with the thread topic.

It has to do with min-max'ing. Explain to me how that isn't what this thread is about.

I hope it's apparent that making PC's stronger isn't interesting or worthwhile to me. Not saying I put any extra special effort into making them weak, either. All I care about is that they are functional. Dysfunctional characters aren't fun.

And before you say so - yes, we likely have different thresholds for what we consider functional =)


Not if you're doing it right. I suppose 'population numbers' and 'the war-devastated economy' and 'the slain innocents rising horrifically to swell the undead horde' ARE numbers, but any GM who can't make an obvious qualitative difference between the two situations just isn't trying.

You're confusing 'story' with 'min-max'ing'. I can make precisely as good a story with goblins as with undead.

Not, however, with chicken coops. That I will grant you.

But the drama has nothing to do with the choice of enemies, or how optimized a character you roll up.

[RazorChain]

No, this is something different. :smalleek:

See, in talking to you, I was only addressing disparity between characters. And I was just saying that such power level differences are not inherently a problem - they are only a problem if the group has a problem with them. If the group does have a problem with them, then, yeah, big problem, needs to be addressed, totally agree.

However, now we have a new problem: the idea that it's ok for the GM to violate player expectations, and not make the world consistent with the player's preconceptions as provided by the rules. Note that such changes to established facts also has the potential to retroactively negate a player's backstory.

So, yes, I do actually disagree with the notion of the GM just changing things at will "for balance", just because they feel that a dragon should be X challenging to a Y level character, instead of letting the rules and the math answer just how challenging they actually are.


I'm a big boy, I don't need a game designer of a questionable quality to tell me how the Dragons in my campaign work.

I mean it's my world, my setting and my campaign.

You even have D&D doing this. Baby heroes fight baby dragons and badass heroes fight badass dragons

And I design most of my monsters myself based on myth, legends and folktales.

So let's trash your argument for internal consistency based on rules in a game like D&D.

In a game where a human can vary in strength from level 1 to level 20 what's stopping the monsters from getting stronger? The monster manual?

[Eloel]

I'm a big boy, I don't need a game designer of a questionable quality to tell me how the Dragons in my campaign work.

But you need them telling you how the rules work? How does that happen? It's your game, you clearly dislike the designers and the work they do, why are you using their rules? Why not create your own system?


In a game where a human can vary in strength from level 1 to level 20 what's stopping the monsters from getting stronger? The monster manual?

Nothing. Monsters with class levels are a thing, and so are monsters that have additional HD depending on their type. (hell, even ANIMALS can advance in HD). It's the handwavy number-buffing that comes across as funny.

[Mordar]

You're confusing 'story' with 'min-max'ing'. I can make precisely as good a story with goblins as with undead.

Not, however, with chicken coops. That I will grant you.

But won't *someone* think of the chickens?!?

More OT - Don't these discussions always boil down to (a) is everyone at the table of a similar mindset, and (b) are you playing a game with greater or lesser ability to min/max?

- M

[Kaptin Keen]

But won't *someone* think of the chickens?!?
- M

That was my first thought - but I didn't want to derail the discussion into a chicken thread =)

[Darth Ultron]

So, yes, I do actually disagree with the notion of the GM just changing things at will "for balance", just because they feel that a dragon should be X challenging to a Y level character, instead of letting the rules and the math answer just how challenging they actually are.


I don't get the idea of why can't a DM change things on a whim?

Everything in the game should be a challenge. you can have a slight challenge, an average challenge or a hard challenge...but that is it. You could put non challenging things in the game, except it is just wasting time. So why bother?

And guess this has, yet again the silly question of the DM creating things. So ok, if the DM makes a foe a week before the game and writes down something like AC 20, the DM can never, ever change that ever. But if the DM makes nothing up before the game, and then on a whim improvises a foe with an AC of 30, that is ok?



But allowing exactly one use of 6 levels class features from the Fighter before intentionally negating them? Geez, it's no wonder Fighters can't have nice things. :smalleek:

Odd, it would seem are abdicating a forced narrative Railroad game here with a Story Before and a Plot that must be followed. Because IF you have a DM that does this, they can make sure a player gets to use all the class features of a character they want to use, all the time.

Hummm....

[Pex]

That is not what I'm saying. Obviously.

Can we dispense with the fingerpointing? Please respond to the point I'm making - or do not respond at all.

This is my point: Stronger PC's need stronger monsters to challenge them.

There is NO hidden message. The above is everything. Nothing not contained on the above 8 words have anything to do with what I'm saying.

But you said it was futile to min/max because of this. Why should it be a problem the enemies my character fighters are ogres instead of orcs? Why would it never be orcs sometimes to show how tough I am? In 5E they would still be orcs but in greater numbers because now the character can handle them. That's progress. As was asked, why is it a problem to fight dragons instead of orcs because I'm so min/maxed?

[Quertus]

Maybe, but its a pretty good idea. There's degrees of it, yes, but bare minimum a DM should probably have a glance at the character sheets and reference that to the encounter design. Does one of the monsters have a mechanic that interacts with an ability the party doesn't have, and it will be a pretty generic monster without that shtick? Maybe replace it. Is the one of the monsters unbeatable by the players (i.e. weapon immune swarms)? Might want to check that's not game over. Does one of the players have a specialized ability, like a redicolously buffed jump check? Make sure an encounter will have a use for that.

Sure, nothing about D&D playstules is undisputed, but it seems like most Dms should probably do the above at bare minimum.

Most DMs? Eh, maybe. DMs who DM for me? No, please don't.

See, if our party is completely unable to handle, say, undead, it'll feel contrived for suddenly this party to never encounter undead. So it hurts realism / suspension of disbelief / that v word to custom tailor the world to the party.

Also, I personally really enjoy the "what the **** do we do now?" minigame.

So, this "bare minimum" you describe? It's just reducing my enjoyment of the game.

So, know your players. Are they Combat as War, or Combat as Sport?

-----

So, let's discuss alternatives to that "bare minimum" that you described. I'll try to make an exhaustive list, based on my experience, but I'm sure I'll miss a few techniques.

How does one handle the fact that not every encounter is inherently "sporting"?
Design the encounters with the PCs in mind.
Modify the encounters to meet some minimum bar of "sporting".
Don't modify the encounters, but advise the players of any potential problems you foresee.
Play the encounters as is, and leave it to the players to solve the problem.
Have the players build the challenges.
Rely exclusively on player skill to resolve challenges.
Modify the rules of the game reality to force the encounters to be sporting.
Create the pc's yourself, so that there's no question that they match your adventure.
Make the outcome certain, predetermined, so that there is no chance that the players can mess up your story.
Rant and rail about game balance, then TPK the party first session.
Rant and rail about game balance, nerf the PCs into unrecognizable shadows of their former selves, then TPK the party first session.
Choose to aim for "not sporting".
EDIT - add NPCs to the party to make the encounter the correct level of challenging.

The first and sixth options probably only work when the GM designs the adventure themselves. The fourth, obviously, requires an unusually high level of player involvement. The rest should work no matter who wrote the module.

Some of these require the GM to see the player's sheets (and therefore open the potential for them to give away metagame information - see thread on player secrets).

Some of these put the burden squarely on the shoulders of the GM, while others distribute the workload, and still others don't give the GM any responsibility in this matter at all. (this is one place where my list is clearly incomplete, as the module writer should be considered separately from the person running the game).

Point is, fun is everyone's responsibility. Who you give that responsibility to at any given step determines what options you will consider.

Me, I'm biased. I believe that, if there's a problem at the gaming table, the first place to look is in the GM's chair, because that's probably where the problem is. Thus, I prefer solutions that don't involve that particularly problematic element whenever possible.

In short, that minimum you speak of assumes a certain gaming mindset which isn't universal.

[Boci]

Most DMs? Eh, maybe. DMs who DM for me? No, please don't.

See, if our party is completely unable to handle, say, undead, it'll feel contrived for suddenly this party to never encounter undead. So it hurts realism / suspension of disbelief / that v word to custom tailor the world to the party.

Hello straw man. Why yes, it is rather redicolous that an example would involve a party being unable to handle undead. Yes, those zombies are really difficult opponents, a common core party frequently cannot hope to handle them.

You also ignored the whole "monster not being interesting against this party" point.

[Chaosticket]

BEFORE THIS GOES ANY FURTHER I updated the opening post.

[RazorChain]

But you need them telling you how the rules work? How does that happen? It's your game, you clearly dislike the designers and the work they do, why are you using their rules? Why not create your own system?

I have made my own systems. I made my first system three decades ago as a kid when my older brother didnt want to lend me his D&D beginners set (the red box). So I made my own system to run for my friends

I have no need for designers of games to tell me how to run a game. I have played dozens of systems and made my own, created my own worlds and settings.

You see my NEED is based on the fact I fully realize that I have a choice. I dont need those rules, I choose them and if I'm not happy I'll change them or make up new ones to suit my needs.



Nothing. Monsters with class levels are a thing, and so are monsters that have additional HD depending on their type. (hell, even ANIMALS can advance in HD). It's the handwavy number-buffing that comes across as funny.

It boils down to the fact that not everyone needs to follow guidelines baked into the system. If I want the Nemean lion instead of a ordinary lion there is nothing stopping me from creating one.

Some people might like an unimaginative GM who's a stickler for all the rules and guidelines in the book who gently but firmly railroads his players through published modules only. But not me.

[Arbane]

So, know your players. Are they Combat as War, or Combat as Sport?


Sport for me, in any even remotely Heroic Fantasy genre. War is one of the most awful things human beings can do to each other, while sports are sometimes fun to participate in or watch.
If it's Call of Cthulhu or similar, sure, break out the invincible monsters that can only be beaten with Plot or high explosives.

(This is the "ROLEplaying instead of ROLLplaying" shibboleth of this decade, right?)

[Mechalich]

Something bothers me about roleplaying games involving luck. Focusing on abilities, statistics, and ways to improve them is frowned upon but you still need those things to succeed and progress. You need as many bonuses as possible to win at life and death dice rolls.

I personally like well rounded characters with synergy between abilities. I keep thinking about different ideas but when I do they are compared to and compete with min-maxed classes which can be optimized further.

Different discussions ive read reinforce negative behavior. I want to make characters I can have fun with but it's either waiting to gain the abilities to start functioning and being useless before then or making something good now but generic and that will fade into obscurity.

So either play with a fun concept and suck or follow trends so I can play well.

EDIT: this isnt about minmaxing being bad. Its about games that push players to make them not out of personal goal but necessity.
High difficulty checks, invincible enemies or ones with powerful abilities you cant counter. Unbalanced difficulty spikes negating any fun unless you win.

I play in organized campaigns and each scenario is wildly different. There are no resurrections, no difficulty adjustments, just minmax to win.

D&D operates on a treadmill. There are very specific benchmarks that the party must hit by certain levels - ability to deal with level drain, flight, DR, etc. - to be able to match certain monster types and other challenges that scale. Essentially you have a relationship on a graph between level and character power and there's a relatively small zone that needs to be hit (note that the traditional 'linear fighters vs quadratic wizards' expresses how these two class types plot out on said graph).

This setup encourages people to play D&D like a video game. Especially in games that emphasize combat heavily and neglect social abilities like video games do. When the only thing that matters is how effective your character is in the tactical combat frame, then yes, minmaxing for maximum capability is desirable. D&D also encourages this because combat in that system has little storytelling value. There's whether you survived or whether you did not, you're not learning anything about the character or having big reveals as a result of combat. It's just a gameplay element designed to break up the story, add tension, and insert problems. There are many video games that function exactly like this. Most jRPGs play out this way. There is absolutely nothing you can do in combat that will have any impact on the cutscenes whatsoever.

D&D was designed before video game RPGs were a thing. It was built from a tabletop wargame chassis and was designed to provide a combat-heavy experience. In the 1970s this made sense. In the 2010s this is absurd. There is simply no way that a TTRPG is going to provide a better intense combat experience compared to cooperative video gaming - whether that's in an MMO or a MOBA or a coop shooter game. As a result, it makes sense to focus on the storytelling aspect of TTRPGs in the current era, because the free-form environment allows for more variety of options and more consequential choices than scripted code can provide.

From this framework is makes sense to build characters who are well, characters. As in PCs that represent at least moderately believable fantasy persons rather than nothing but a collection of statistics. That does not mean they shouldn't be functional. A PC is an ensemble protagonist. They have a role and should be good at that role most of the time. Simple example: if your PC is a doctor they should be a decent doctor and not freeze at the sight of blood. Games tend to skew heavily towards the epic mode, meaning they should probably a great doctor or have some special talent on top of that. This doesn't mean they shouldn't have flaws or other complications or perhaps be bizarrely awful at some particular aspect of their job as a weakness, but most of the time they should be able to fulfill their role.

A decently designed game should make it easy for a player to pick a common concept and make a character who is good at that task. FATE, for instance, is quite obvious in this regard. The WW storyteller system is less so but placing dots is fairly intuitive for most concepts (combat heavy being the idiosyncratic one). It should not be necessary to minmax in any significant way or to look up complex builds that involve spreadsheets to make a character who has a reasonable expectation of surviving a campaign.

[Quertus]

Hello straw man. Why yes, it is rather redicolous that an example would involve a party being unable to handle undead. Yes, those zombies are really difficult opponents, a common core party frequently cannot hope to handle them.

You also ignored the whole "monster not being interesting against this party" point.

Straw man? No, no, no. See, I played in an "all Rogue* party" IRL, so, "has an inordinately hard time with undead (or anything without a discernable anatomy)" is something I'm very familiar with, and kinda my go-to scenario when thinking about this issue. Seeing as how we played that party from roughly 1-20, and all.

And, um, I didn't intentionally leave that bit out. If senility doesn't hit, I may come back for it.

* it was worst than that, because we weren't core only, so things like ninja were allowed. And not everyone was stealthy, so we couldn't just sneak past monsters that didn't have anatomies. It was horrible! And that's why it was so bloody great!


In a game where a human can vary in strength from level 1 to level 20 what's stopping the monsters from getting stronger? The monster manual?

Nothing. The rules explain exactly how they can get stronger. And homebrew is a thing.


I don't get the idea of why can't a DM change things on a whim?

I kinda already answered that. But, to spell it out, because some of us value consistency more than others.


Everything in the game should be a challenge. you can have a slight challenge, an average challenge or a hard challenge...but that is it. You could put non challenging things in the game, except it is just wasting time. So why bother?

Well, to show that it's not a challenge, for one...

I mean, nothing says that Quertus is the best at Spellcraft like the gods of magic coming to him with a problem that they can't solve, and it isn't even a challenge for him.


And guess this has, yet again the silly question of the DM creating things. So ok, if the DM makes a foe a week before the game and writes down something like AC 20, the DM can never, ever change that ever. But if the DM makes nothing up before the game, and then on a whim improvises a foe with an AC of 30, that is ok?

If the GM gave it an AC of 20, he should have given it an AC of 20 for a reason. Because it is hard as steel, but moves like a panther, for example. Assuming that reason hasn't changed, and the creature isn't suddenly made of adamantine or ancient dragon hide or something, no, the GM shouldn't change the numbers.

But not everyone agrees with my PoV.


Odd, it would seem are abdicating a forced narrative Railroad game here with a Story Before and a Plot that must be followed. Because IF you have a DM that does this, they can make sure a player gets to use all the class features of a character they want to use, all the time.

Hummm....

Yes, there are, indeed, parallels to be drawn. Quite astute of you to notice.

I still don't like either, personally. :smalltongue:

[RazorChain]

EDIT: this isnt about minmaxing being bad. Its about games that push players to make them not out of personal goal but necessity.
High difficulty checks, invincible enemies or ones with powerful abilities you cant counter. Unbalanced difficulty spikes negating any fun unless you win.

I play in organized campaigns and each scenario is wildly different. There are no resurrections, no difficulty adjustments, just minmax to win.

Organized play isn't tailored to the player or his character.

Nobody gives a rat's ass about who your character is or where he's from and we know he's on the train wherever that leads. The only thing that matters is what your character can do.

You are firmly in gamist territory. Show up with your strongest game piece.

[martixy]

* Popcorn time has come! *


When your character gains in power .............................. so do the challenges you need to overcome.

There's so much this dude doesn't understand about numbers, but I just wanna drop a note on this one point:
It can work the opposite.

That's where the most fun games start.

[Fable Wright]

EDIT: this isnt about minmaxing being bad. Its about games that push players to make them not out of personal goal but necessity.
High difficulty checks, invincible enemies or ones with powerful abilities you cant counter. Unbalanced difficulty spikes negating any fun unless you win.

I play in organized campaigns and each scenario is wildly different. There are no resurrections, no difficulty adjustments, just minmax to win.

Cool. Wargaming-roots game. People who are just in it for the RP are not going to have a great time—the table isn't built for them. Solution: Play the wargame, have a good time; or find another table, and do something different. This is a table where min-maxing is standard, and not a bad thing. The two can dovetail together nicely—when your character has had enough, and has achieved his personal goals, he retires. Then you roll in someone who has goals that align more with the table's, or if you're tired of that, find any other people who are burned out in the grind of adventure paths and make a table more tuned to your tastes.


* Popcorn time has come! *

Sir, it's been popcorn time. There was no chance of this topic going any other way.


* Grabs popcorn *

[Quertus]

* Popcorn time has come! *

There's so much this dude doesn't understand about numbers, but I just wanna drop a note on this one point:
It can work the opposite.

That's where the most fun games start.

You mean, the kind of game where the GM actually takes his cues from the players? Where the GM listens to what the players create, and builds his encounters according to their unspoken wishes? Where, when the player creates a very powerful character, they realize that the player wants to play a power fantasy, and make their monsters weaker? Where, when the players create a character with teleport, the GM, instead of hiding The McGuffin behind impenetrable teleport-proof barriers, instead makes the adventure not based on travel? Where, when the player takes Great Cleave, the GM realizes that the player wants to roflstomp mooks, and adds more fodder to the adventure?

Yeah, that'll never happen.

[Cosi]

Min-maxing, like any other behavior, is bad when it is disruptive to the table and not bad at other times. If you show up with a cheesed-out Incantatrix to a D&D game that is trying to do low power heroic fantasy, that is going to piss people off. If you show up to a street-level Mage game and start combining your character's magic with your knowledge of physics to create superweapons, that is going to piss people off. But if people want to do things that are powerful and impressive, it is not only okay, but expected that you show up with a character that is hard core.

People do have stupid beliefs about optimization, of course. People believe that it's somehow incompatible with roleplaying, which is nonsense. Your character lives in a world that follows the rules of the game, and he has goals that he can better achieve with more power. It would be out of character for him to not use his resources to achieve his goals. People also believe that the obligation to respect the group's power level only goes one way. This is also nonsense. The ability of a low power group to complain about Incantatrixes is directly dependent on and directly implies the ability of a high power group to complain about sword and board Fighters.

[RazorChain]

You mean, the kind of game where the GM actually takes his cues from the players? Where the GM listens to what the players create, and builds his encounters according to their unspoken wishes? Where, when the player creates a very powerful character, they realize that the player wants to play a power fantasy, and make their monsters weaker? Where, when the players create a character with teleport, the GM, instead of hiding The McGuffin behind impenetrable teleport-proof barriers, instead makes the adventure not based on travel? Where, when the player takes Great Cleave, the GM realizes that the player wants to roflstomp mooks, and adds more fodder to the adventure?

Yeah, that'll never happen.

Jeez Quertus you were being way too hopeful. By meaning opposites he meant that instead of the GM raising the challenge to meet the PC power increase. The PCs must gain power to overcome bigger challenges!

Proactive vs Reactive!

[Quertus]

Jeez Quertus you were being way too hopeful. By meaning opposites he meant that instead of the GM raising the challenge to meet the PC power increase. The PCs must gain power to overcome bigger challenges!

Proactive vs Reactive!

I just didn't want anyone else getting their hopes up that such a game was actually possible. :smalltongue: I'm glad to hear that the poster I was responding to had a much more reasonable goal in mind.

Yeah, you can certainly hint that there's a bigger world out there, and hope that the players step up to engage it.

[Chaosticket]

Cool. Wargaming-roots game. People who are just in it for the RP are not going to have a great time—the table isn't built for them. Solution: Play the wargame, have a good time; or find another table, and do something different. This is a table where min-maxing is standard, and not a bad thing. The two can dovetail together nicely—when your character has had enough, and has achieved his personal goals, he retires. Then you roll in someone who has goals that align more with the table's, or if you're tired of that, find any other people who are burned out in the grind of adventure paths and make a table more tuned to your tastes.



Sir, it's been popcorn time. There was no chance of this topic going any other way.

I actually like character customization, but not when I have to make a character mentally deficient so I can get better physical stats.

It depends on growth. BAB, hit points, and Skill points increase but based on character class. There are classes with a better balance but the best balance would be a Mary Sue with 20 BAB, tier 9 casting, high class skill points. In 3.5 that still wasnt possible but through creative builds like the Arcane Hierophant or Dragon Disciple.

Id rather see either a situations with you can make a superpowered character but don't need to.

I consider a flat 50-50 chance to hit fair at level 1 and grow until its more like 90-10 against everyone not those level 1 mooks. Better difficulty changes so rather than having enemies with just more armor class they instead take tactics like Called Shots.

Its struggling for more hit points, more hit bonuses and so on that should be easier but have growth in other areas. A Druid gaining a large Dinosaur form=cool, a Druid gaining a +1? Need more.

[Boci]

Most DMs? Eh, maybe. DMs who DM for me? No, please don't.

Beyond CR right? I imagine you don't want a DM rolling a d20 to determine the CR of the encounter for your group.

[Quertus]

You also ignored the whole "monster not being interesting against this party" point.

Ok, back to that point.


Maybe, but its a pretty good idea. There's degrees of it, yes, but bare minimum a DM should probably have a glance at the character sheets and reference that to the encounter design. Does one of the monsters have a mechanic that interacts with an ability the party doesn't have, and it will be a pretty generic monster without that shtick? Maybe replace it. Is the one of the monsters unbeatable by the players (i.e. weapon immune swarms)? Might want to check that's not game over. Does one of the players have a specialized ability, like a redicolously buffed jump check? Make sure an encounter will have a use for that.

Sure, nothing about D&D playstules is undisputed, but it seems like most Dms should probably do the above at bare minimum.

I think that both of those are pretty well covered in my big list of every way I've remembered seeing such issues handled. Personally, I run the module as written (whether or not I wrote the module), and maybe directly warn the players or provide in-game hints when I foresee a problem. And I generally prefer GMs I game with to do the same, placing the responsibility for solving in-game problems on the party, where it belongs.

Or, does this exchange touch on what you mean?


Everything in the game should be a challenge. you can have a slight challenge, an average challenge or a hard challenge...but that is it. You could put non challenging things in the game, except it is just wasting time. So why bother?


Well, to show that it's not a challenge, for one...

I mean, nothing says that Quertus is the best at Spellcraft like the gods of magic coming to him with a problem that they can't solve, and it isn't even a challenge for him.

For the last bit about the jump check, let's start here:


if you're willing to change the module in the first place, at least be a fan of the PCs when doing so.

So, if a pc has an awesome jump check, if you're the type to change the module, I'd say yes, I agree, change it to allow the PCs to show off their cool skills.

Myself, I will change modules that I've written if the presence of a PC talent makes me realize that I unrealistically didn't include certain elements. Like, say, 3d terrain features or ledges or whatnot in the case of the super jump.

-----

So, does that cover your point?

[Boci]

Ok, back to that point.



I think that both of those are pretty well covered in my big list of every way I've remembered seeing such issues handled. Personally, I run the module as written (whether or not I wrote the module), and maybe directly warn the players or provide in-game hints when I foresee a problem. And I generally prefer GMs I game with to do the same, placing the responsibility for solving in-game problems on the party, where it belongs.

Or, does this exchange touch on what you mean?

You're not going to fight a monster CR 5 monster at level 1, but its totally breaks immersion if the Dm tweaks an encounter based off the party. Sure.

[Rhedyn]

I personally can't stand players that act like any amount of rules knowledge would taint their role-playing.

And then they are bad at role-playing. They spend more time berating people for knowing the rules than actually talking in character.

[Fable Wright]

I actually like character customization, but not when I have to make a character mentally deficient so I can get better physical stats.

For what it's worth, I feel like this is more of a complaint with point buy stats than anything else, and it is a valid complaint. When the stats you need to do your primary job and the stats that have no mechanical impact on you are equally weighted, it leads to stale concepts.


Id rather see either a situations with you can make a superpowered character but don't need to.

A game system where both Lois Lane and Superman are valid character concepts is usually the realm of hard mechanics-lite games. You might be interested in Powered By The Apocalypse games. In those, you can just get a trait saying "Best Swordsman In The World", use it to your advantage, and then continue as normal because that (probably) isn't the most important thing about your character.


I consider a flat 50-50 chance to hit fair at level 1 and grow until its more like 90-10 against everyone not those level 1 mooks. Better difficulty changes so rather than having enemies with just more armor class they instead take tactics like Called Shots.

Its struggling for more hit points, more hit bonuses and so on that should be easier but have growth in other areas. A Druid gaining a large Dinosaur form=cool, a Druid gaining a +1? Need more.

For what it's worth, it sounds like this bit is a complaint with the absurd numbers inflation of D&D 3.5e. You might be interested in fifth edition, where the design concept of Bounded Accuracy describes the 50/50 to 90/10 accuracy growth you've listed here, and magic items are designed to (in most cases) be a side-grade rather than a strict numerical upgrade. In cases of magic swords, sure, they're going to do more damage and be easier to hit with, but it's never assumed that the players will have them or will need them, which keeps them special.

[Darth Ultron]

D&D operates on a treadmill. There are very specific benchmarks that the party must hit by certain levels - ability to deal with level drain, flight, DR, etc. - to be able to match certain monster types and other challenges that scale.

This is a big flaw right here as this is Not True. D&D, as an open ended type game, really has an infinite of things to deal with. To say you ''must'' be able to deal with any one, or even any ten things is just silly and short sighted. Like say to ''deal'' with your ''must matches'', all ten of them, and are happy as a clam....big deal, any good DM, like myself, can hit your character, no problem, with the other twenty things you did not deal and match with. So, not much point.

And this does not even touch tactics. Your character can be immune to happy hugs, and a good DM can still have a couple kobolds snipe and kill that character from a long way away with even mundane weapons.



This setup encourages people to play D&D like a video game.

Only video gamers think this. If your the type that plays video games, then you think table top games are video games too...just with no cool ''beep beep'' sound effects.



D&D also encourages this because combat in that system has little storytelling value. There's whether you survived or whether you did not, you're not learning anything about the character or having big reveals as a result of combat. It's just a gameplay element designed to break up the story, add tension, and insert problems. There are many video games that function exactly like this. Most jRPGs play out this way. There is absolutely nothing you can do in combat that will have any impact on the cutscenes whatsoever.

This is Roll Player thinking right here. Combat is all about the Numbers and the Rolls, nothing else. The Role Player finds plenty of role playing in fights, and does not obsess about the numbers.



There is simply no way that a TTRPG is going to provide a better intense combat experience compared to cooperative video gaming - whether that's in an MMO or a MOBA or a coop shooter game. As a result, it makes sense to focus on the storytelling aspect of TTRPGs in the current era, because the free-form environment allows for more variety of options and more consequential choices than scripted code can provide.

This is absurd. A video game provides a great visual, lots of ''pew pew'' and ''bam bam'', and does look great. And for people that like the random mess of visual spam combat, it's great. But video games are very limited...to what someone can program into them, and that is just mindless mooks. Not to mention the dumb stuff like in a video game your character can only pick up and move things that someone programed into the game.

A RPG, with a real person like a DM, anything can happen.




I kinda already answered that. But, to spell it out, because some of us value consistency more than others.


Seems very dumb and very stuck in the mud. Nothing can chance ever?



I mean, nothing says that Quertus is the best at Spellcraft like the gods of magic coming to him with a problem that they can't solve, and it isn't even a challenge for him.

I know Qwerty is your super demi god character, but anyway.....why can't the gods of magic ask for something to be done? Gods do that sort of thing all the time.



If the GM gave it an AC of 20, he should have given it an AC of 20 for a reason. Because it is hard as steel, but moves like a panther, for example. Assuming that reason hasn't changed, and the creature isn't suddenly made of adamantine or ancient dragon hide or something, no, the GM shouldn't change the numbers.

But why?

A DM can, on a whim, ''for a reason'' make a foe out of thin air and give the foe an AC of 30. But they can't EVER change anything EVER once they 'make' it? That is just beyond dumb.


You mean, the kind of game where the GM actually takes his cues from the players? Where the GM listens to what the players create, and builds his encounters according to their unspoken wishes? Where, when the player creates a very powerful character, they realize that the player wants to play a power fantasy, and make their monsters weaker? Where, when the players create a character with teleport, the GM, instead of hiding The McGuffin behind impenetrable teleport-proof barriers, instead makes the adventure not based on travel? Where, when the player takes Great Cleave, the GM realizes that the player wants to roflstomp mooks, and adds more fodder to the adventure?

Yeah, that'll never happen.

Sounds pretty close to my style of game.

I'd never make monsters weaker to prop up a player that was not so good at playing, but wanted to play a powerful character. I'd do more the ''teach the player how to be better so they can PLAY a powerful character''.

And I'd still use anti teleport up the wazoo, but I'd encourage players to find ways around it and over come it.

And I would not add mooks just to make a player with a feat or something feel better....but then I have lots of mooks anyway. And if the player really wants to ''mow through mooks'', I would encourage them to pick adventures that have lots of foes.




I consider a flat 50-50 chance to hit fair at level 1 and grow until its more like 90-10 against everyone not those level 1 mooks. Better difficulty changes so rather than having enemies with just more armor class they instead take tactics like Called Shots.


I think the 50/50 chance should be kept through the whole game...for foes of an equal level to the characters. There are Powerful foes and there are Weak foes, and there are Challenging foes. At low level their are more powerful foes, and as you level up that pool gets smaller...and the weaker foes pool gets bigger. But the Challenging foes never change from the same pool.

[Florian]

D20 D&D is an odd duck when it comes to that topic. Looking at the raw underlying math, you are actually required to "power game" as the classes themselves don´t function on the necessary level to deal with appropriate enemies without doing so, at the same time it is all to easy to "beat the system" by just doing that. Makes one unterstand 4E and 5E.

[Quertus]

You're not going to fight a monster CR 5 monster at level 1, but its totally breaks immersion if the Dm tweaks an encounter based off the party. Sure.

Um, actually... Yeah, I would. And have. I'm Combat as War. Back in 2e, the "best" local group had ancient dragons on their random encounter tables (and actually rolled one with a 1st level character in the party).

Now, the game is, IMO, and in the opinion of most, more fun when the party usually stands a chance, of at least surviving if not victory. Which is why modules usually have a "for X characters, level Y-Z" label. Just like a good sandbox isn't just completely random toys.

But fun can definitely be had even when the encounters aren't guaranteed to be "CR Appropriate".

[Pex]

I personally can't stand players that act like any amount of rules knowledge would taint their role-playing.

And then they are bad at role-playing. They spend more time berating people for knowing the rules than actually talking in character.

Understood.

There are also DMs who don't want players to know the rules. This is not about teaching brand new players how to play but the players need not concern themselves at all about them. The DM will take care of everything. He stresses he wants "roleplayers not rollplayers". I've seen occasion of this where a game is not necessarily for new players. I cringe when I see DMs advertise for players demanding "roleplayers not rollplayers". Aside from the Stormwind fallacy, what that tells me is the DM is on a power trip. He's allowed all the power to do what he wants and enforce his rulings. Well, that's true for all games, but I mean player character aren't allowed any kind of power. They may only do what the DM wants. It would be a glorified game of Mother May I. I suppose I have to allow the possibility that wouldn't always be the case, not an accurate description for every campaign advertised this way, but I often found it to be true the more descriptive the DM is about the game he wants to run. Not coincidentally spellcasters are often banned or highly restricted from normal rules on how spellcasting works and/or roleplaying penalties such as being illegal to be one in the country the game takes place.

[Boci]

Now, the game is, IMO, and in the opinion of most, more fun when the party usually stands a chance, of at least surviving if not victory. Which is why modules usually have a "for X characters, level Y-Z" label. Just like a good sandbox isn't just completely random toys.

Exactly, which is not Combat as War. That's not how war works. Questgivers have not read Expedition to Castle Ravenloft, so they do not know its best for 4 6th level characters and in reality, they could have a chance of sending a bunch of level 2 character who would need to retreat or be slaughtered, or send level 12 charcters, who would curb stomp it. (Yes yes, pending optimization, but as general rule).

[RazorChain]

Exactly, which is not Combat as War. That's not how war works. Questgivers have not read Expedition to Castle Ravenloft, so they do not know its best for 4 6th level characters and in reality, they could have a chance of sending a bunch of level 2 character who would need to retreat or be slaughtered, or send level 12 charcters, who would curb stomp it. (Yes yes, pending optimization, but as general rule).

D&D tends to suck at Combat as War because of the power curve.

[Quertus]

Seems very dumb and very stuck in the mud. Nothing can chance ever?


But why?

A DM can, on a whim, ''for a reason'' make a foe out of thin air and give the foe an AC of 30. But they can't EVER change anything EVER once they 'make' it? That is just beyond dumb.

It's about having reasons for doing things. It's - to use the hated words - a very Simulationist way of looking at things.

You yourself once posted a very good example of changing stats by having an NPC purchase an item. Your example included a reason why those stats had changed.

Personally, I prefer the GM to follow Simulationist logic, play the NPCs as PCs, and have the world evolve realistically. Not everyone prefers those kinds of games. But I find it much more rewarding when my spies report that NPC X was seen at the magic shop, and a few greased palms later, I know what he bought, rather than he just got arbitrary improvements because the GM wanted to keep him at the "correct" level of challenge.


I know Qwerty is your super demi god character, but anyway.....why can't the gods of magic ask for something to be done? Gods do that sort of thing all the time.

In D&D, gods have stats. Quertus is so far beyond them, that many things they find challenging (such as really high DC Spellcraft checks) are trivial to Quertus. Just like purchasing a tank would be really challenging for me, but trivial for most governments.

These marked differences in capability help differentiate entities. Yes, role-playing also distinguishes characters. But, so long as we're playing a game with stats, I'd like those stats to matter, and to be able to use them to differentiate characters. Always only engaging in sporting, CR-appropriate challenges limits statistical characterization. Having encounters that are trivial to the character (or impossible for the character) helps characterization.

[Quertus]

Exactly, which is not Combat as War. That's not how war works. Questgivers have not read Expedition to Castle Ravenloft, so they do not know its best for 4 6th level characters and in reality, they could have a chance of sending a bunch of level 2 character who would need to retreat or be slaughtered, or send level 12 charcters, who would curb stomp it. (Yes yes, pending optimization, but as general rule).

Agreed. Which is one of the reasons why I prefer a sandbox over a module, and a proactive party over the quest-giver model.

[Boci]

Agreed. Which is one of the reasons why I prefer a sandbox over a module, and a proactive party over the quest-giver model.

Even then, with a CR of 1-20, its still going to be based off the party unfortunatly, you need a game with much level power range to pull off the aproach you're describing.

[Darth Ultron]

It's about having reasons for doing things. It's - to use the hated words - a very Simulationist way of looking at things.

You yourself once posted a very good example of changing stats by having an NPC purchase an item. Your example included a reason why those stats had changed.

But your just adding a pointless requirement. The DM can do anything, as long as there is a good reason too. And a good DM will always have a reason, so it makes the requirement pointless.

Unless your talking about being an adversarial player where you will demand that things can only be changed in ways and such that you agree with personally.



Personally, I prefer the GM to follow Simulationist logic, play the NPCs as PCs, and have the world evolve realistically. Not everyone prefers those kinds of games. But I find it much more rewarding when my spies report that NPC X was seen at the magic shop, and a few greased palms later, I know what he bought, rather than he just got arbitrary improvements because the GM wanted to keep him at the "correct" level of challenge.

I agree with you there...but I find few players have the will to role play out such things.

Most encounters won't have that much background though. Take like a thug encounter: it's meant to be a bit of combat when the PCs are on the dark side of town. The thugs are written are pointlessly weak: just one PC can cleave through all of them. So there is no point in even having the encounter. But the game still needs combat as it's part of the game...and ''thugs on the dark side of town'' fits perfectly for a nice combat encounter. And..yes..you could have something else come out of somewhere for a combat encounter, but it's a bit silly. So the DM just makes the thugs more powerful and makes the encounter fun and meaningfully....but the DM does not need a huge backstory about ''how the thugs when shopping''.



These marked differences in capability help differentiate entities. Yes, role-playing also distinguishes characters. But, so long as we're playing a game with stats, I'd like those stats to matter, and to be able to use them to differentiate characters. Always only engaging in sporting, CR-appropriate challenges limits statistical characterization. Having encounters that are trivial to the character (or impossible for the character) helps characterization.

My problem with people that say this that they only want positive stats to matter. Their character is super smart, so they must have an intelligence of 20. But, amazingly, they will never, ever, want to do the opposite: have a dumb character with an intelligence of 7.

I thought I was clear that the world should be a mix of easy, challenging and hard encounters.....and maybe a few trivial and impossible ones.

[Chaosticket]

Well I think 80+ percent of the responses to this thread have nothing to do with the opening post.

Tabletop roleplaying games are assumed that the GM will be experienced and be able to adjust things. If not then players have adjust their characters.

[2D8HP]

...There are also DMs who don't want players to know the rules....


:confused:

That's considered a bad thing now?

You are a DM aren't you? Because
As this book is the exclusive precinct of the DM, you must view any non-DM player possessing it as something less than worthy of honorable death.

The 21st century is weird.

[Boci]

:confused:

That's considered a bad thing now?

You are a DM aren't you? Because

The 21st century is weird.

Yeah, D&D has changed. Now its assumed to be good if players understand the rules of the world they are in, since it allows them to better explore and engage, rather than just blindling following the DM's lead.

[martixy]

Jeez Quertus you were being way too hopeful. By meaning opposites he meant that instead of the GM raising the challenge to meet the PC power increase. The PCs must gain power to overcome bigger challenges!

Proactive vs Reactive!

Precisely.

Out of all the ways one can play this game, I find this style to be the absolute most fun. Living in a bigger world. Knowing that today, we could never take down this challenge ahead of us right now. And then going out there and doing things, choosing our battles wisely. And when next time, the same obstacle arises, we rise up and meet it head on. And BEAT it. The heroic journey, distilled to its bare essence. Complete agency placed upon us, instead of being led by the nose by a higher authority. Move instead of be moved.

[Clistenes]

Exactly, which is not Combat as War. That's not how war works. Questgivers have not read Expedition to Castle Ravenloft, so they do not know its best for 4 6th level characters and in reality, they could have a chance of sending a bunch of level 2 character who would need to retreat or be slaughtered, or send level 12 charcters, who would curb stomp it. (Yes yes, pending optimization, but as general rule).

Yes, if the D&D world were real, people without a DM picking their challenges could spend 10 years fighting nothing but small groups of kobolds and goblins, and then one day BAM! A whole tribe of Frost Giants!

That's how I explain powerful people are so rare in D&D worlds... people are afraid to go on adventures because there is no guarantee their encounters will be appropiate, and those who do almost always die when they bump into something too strong for their level...

PCs go from kobolds to goblins to orcs to gnolls to bugbears to ogres to trolls to ettins to hill giants.

NPCs can bump into a gang of trolls their very first day, because they don't have a DM picking their fights...

[Mechalich]

Yeah, D&D has changed. Now its assumed to be good if players understand the rules of the world they are in, since it allows them to better explore and engage, rather than just blindling following the DM's lead.

Attempts to keep the players from learning the rules were: 1. a bad economic incentive for the hobby. 2. posited an absurd 'always player/always GM' divide that has never existed, and 3. pointless and unable to work.


Out of all the ways one can play this game, I find this style to be the absolute most fun. Living in a bigger world. Knowing that today, we could never take down this challenge ahead of us right now. And then going out there and doing things, choosing our battles wisely. And when next time, the same obstacle arises, we rise up and meet it head on. And BEAT it. The heroic journey, distilled to its bare essence. Complete agency placed upon us, instead of being led by the nose by a higher authority. Move instead of be moved.

This is certainly the core of the 'level up' paradigm, wherein characters would be easily crushed at the start of the campaign but will be able to ultimately take the BBEG at the end of the campaign having powered up. This is a very common storytelling approach in serials like shounen manga and its simple and effective. The issue with this in regard to min-maxing or optimization is one of calibration.

For instance, in 3.X D&D you could have characters start at level one and have the BBEG ultimately be a level 9-10 character with the assumption that the party will be able to defeat him and a few chosen minions in a climatic battle around the point where they hit level 6 or so. The problem is this cannot be guaranteed. It is possible for a party to advance such that said BBEG either remains unstoppable or becomes an utterly trivially problem depending on how the characters are built. There's too much variability built into the advancement progression.

This imposes burdens on the GM. It makes it difficult to plan ahead - because the party's overall capabilities can change drastically over a relatively minor amount of advancement - from levels 5-13 a full caster advances by leaps and bounds every time they unlock a new higher level spell slot, which happens every two levels. Overall gameplay undergoes dramatic strategic alterations at the same time. This results in interactions with the world either altering dramatically or becoming nonsensical - rather like when in an open world game like Skyrim you do an early game radiant quest with a maxed out late-game character: 'go to someone's house and kill a wolf? D***it Aela, I've killed gods!' This is, not coincidentally, also a very common feature of shounen manga.

[Max_Killjoy]

:confused:

That's considered a bad thing now?


You are a DM aren't you? Because



page 8 of the 1979 DUNGEON MASTERS GUIDE[/B]]As this book is the exclusive precinct of the DM, you must view any non-DM player possessing it as something less than worthy of honorable death.




The 21st century is weird.

No, that was just always a stupid concept.

Or did they really expect that once someone had DMed, they'd never be a non-DM player ever again, having somehow been "elevated" or "promoted" to the "exalted status" of DM?

People who play games are supposed to know the rules of those games.

[2D8HP]

...People who play games are supposed to know the rules of those games.


I suppose.

I just prefer the old way of just knowing what my PC perceives, and leaving the number wrangling to the referee.

It drives me batty when I'm asked what stat/skill/ability/feature I'm rolling instead of "What do you do?" or "What does your PC try to do?"

[Max_Killjoy]

I suppose.

I just prefer the old way of just knowing what my PC perceives, and leaving the number wrangling to the referee.

It drives me batty when I'm asked what stat/skill/ability/feature I'm rolling instead of "What do you do?" or "What does your PC try to do?"


I think those are two separate issues.

The player can fully understand the rules and still focus on their PC's (attempted) actions, and express them first as in-setting concepts and then as rules if necessary.

But the idea of players not ever learning the rules wasn't sustainable.

[Koo Rehtorb]

It's not even how old D&D worked. Players weren't supposed to know the DM rules. They weren't supposed to know none of the rules.

[Max_Killjoy]

It's not even how old D&D worked. Players weren't supposed to know the DM rules. They weren't supposed to know none of the rules.

True, but even that I find an unsustainable concept, both because most gamers will end up going back and forth between "DM" and "player" over their gaming lifetime, and because "hidden rules" is a just IMO a bad idea.

[flond]

I suppose.

I just prefer the old way of just knowing what my PC perceives, and leaving the number wrangling to the referee.

It drives me batty when I'm asked what stat/skill/ability/feature I'm rolling instead of "What do you do?" or "What does your PC try to do?"

The main thing is though, the less simple the system, the more this can cause problems. I know we use the "can you really think to yourself "I have a 45 percent chance of climbing that" but, I think the opposite problem where you can't really estimate it at all, is just as bad, and easier to cause by limited GM bandwidth.

[Mechalich]

The main thing is though, the less simple the system, the more this can cause problems. I know we use the "can you really think to yourself "I have a 45 percent chance of climbing that"

Unless you're a total novice at something, you can probably estimate with reasonable accuracy your chances of accomplishing a particular task. For instance, if you're any kind of athlete you probably do have a sense of general track and field measures like how far you can jump and how fast you can run. If you have any rock-climbing experience, sorting ascents into 'piece of cake,' 'tough, but I got this,' 'maybe...,' and 'no way,' is natural. Intellectual challenges are a bit different, since most people will assess difficulty in terms of 'how long will this take' rather than whether or not it can be done at all but the general principle is the same. Sometimes these estimates will be way off, but generally they'll be in the right range. Games that use RNG systems that produce a something approximating a standard distribution approximate this quite effectively. D&D doesn't do this well because rolling 1d20 gives you a flat distribution curve. This is also one of the reasons D&D incentivizes minmaxing like crazy, because the chances of failure even at tasks your character is intended to be extremely good at remain unacceptably high until you get off the range entirely.

[Pex]

I suppose.

I just prefer the old way of just knowing what my PC perceives, and leaving the number wrangling to the referee.

It drives me batty when I'm asked what stat/skill/ability/feature I'm rolling instead of "What do you do?" or "What does your PC try to do?"

That's how you got tyrannical DMing which was the norm pre-3E. The non-tyrannical DM was the exception.

The 3E DMG when it first came out did also discourage players from reading it but added the caveat being players who were not also DMs. Still, because players were given choices to make for their character in the Player's Handbook tyrannical DMing was lessened anyway. The Internet also allowed communication across the country and world. Players discussed the game and its rules. Tyrannical DMing was frowned upon.

Players are going to know the rules. That's a good thing.

[D+1]

Something bothers me about roleplaying games involving luck. Focusing on abilities, statistics, and ways to improve them is frowned upon but you still need those things to succeed and progress. You need as many bonuses as possible to win at life and death dice rolls.
Simple. RPG's aren't supposed to be about just maximizing the numbers - but what you choose for your characters to do whether everything about them is optimized or not. Min/maxing will only get you so far. It can reduce or increase certain probabilities but the randomness of the dice will still dictate that your survival and success is not guaranteed, and indeed may not be affected by your attempts at min/maxing anyway. Optimization is only part of the game, not even the most important part, and certainly not the be-all/end-all that it is too often made out to be.

[Boci]

I suppose.

I just prefer the old way of just knowing what my PC perceives, and leaving the number wrangling to the referee.

It drives me batty when I'm asked what stat/skill/ability/feature I'm rolling instead of "What do you do?" or "What does your PC try to do?"

You can still do that. You can say "Goading them into the right position, I/my character slash my/their blade in a long arc, cutting both orcs" and therefor reference cleave without naming it. Knowing the rules doesn't prevent you doing that.

[Florian]

No, that was just always a stupid concept.

Or did they really expect that once someone had DMed, they'd never be a non-DM player ever again, having somehow been "elevated" or "promoted" to the "exalted status" of DM?

People who play games are supposed to know the rules of those games.

It´s an interesting statement in regards to our other ongoing discussion. Can you really go "full immersion mode" when knowing you're playing a game and what the actual rules are?

[Rhedyn]

It´s an interesting statement in regards to our other ongoing discussion. Can you really go "full immersion mode" when knowing you're playing a game and what the actual rules are?
In my opinion, lack of rules knowledge prevents immersion not adds to it.

[Cosi]

D&D doesn't do this well because rolling 1d20 gives you a flat distribution curve. This is also one of the reasons D&D incentivizes minmaxing like crazy, because the chances of failure even at tasks your character is intended to be extremely good at remain unacceptably high until you get off the range entirely.

Well, yeah, but that's not inherent in the d20 RNG. It doesn't happen, for example, in combat where repeated applications of a linear RNG still produce a curved result. It also doesn't (or wouldn't if Skill Challenges weren't broken) happen with Skill Challenges. You can fix it for single rolls (to the degree that you want to) by mapping the output of a linear RNG to a curved result space. Drop base DCs, make each 5 points you beat the DC by move you up one step on a time chart. Whatever.

I also don't think your thesis about that incentivizing minimaxing makes sense. If people were minimaxing because they were worried about chances of failure, wouldn't we expect to see that happen more in e.g. Shadowrun where the nature of the RNG makes it impossible for you to avoid failure entirely?

[Max_Killjoy]

It´s an interesting statement in regards to our other ongoing discussion. Can you really go "full immersion mode" when knowing you're playing a game and what the actual rules are?

First, not knowing the rules, or having rules that don't sync up with the setting, is worse for immersion than being familiar with a set of rules that line up with the setting. (Example, being told it's a fairly realistic setting and then getting rules results that have normal human beings unable to do mundane things -- such as get over a 3' wall -- or capable of fantastic things -- such as leaping over a 20' wall with ease.)

Second, stop (apparently) conflating "immersion" with "altered mental state" or "delusion". Immersion isn't about literally thinking that you're this other person in some other place and entirely forgetting who and where you really are. (Never mind that the next step in that argument has historically been either "since you can't forget you're playing a game, immersion is impossible, and so we can reject that idea entirely as a thing for gaming"... or "only people with something wrong in their head can really get immersion, so we should be worried about you".)

[MeimuHakurei]

Min-maxer is to the tabletop gamer as Mary Sue to writing - a completely overused phrase, people overreact to the negative effects it might cause, it's incredibly ill-defined and vague and most people who get upset about them are novices with little experience.

Truth is, the competent minmaxers are generally the ones with long experience with tabletop games who can use their system mastery for roleplaying and for building characters to fill a purpose. The ones that are problem players have many social problems that have nothing to do with the character they made (heck, give their character to a good roleplayer and see what happens). It doesn't help that basically any amount of making the character more effective is bedeviled, while complaints about characters being too ineffective or weak are almost nonexistent.

This kind of mentality is what drives me out of trying new systems: I'm having fun building all kinds of characters, and when they end up me playing around with the systems to see what kind of efficiency I can get, everyone loses their mind.

The strong character's player could help the others improve their builds. The roleplaying and plot hooks can still share the spotlight appropriately. Encounters could be segmented to require the strong character's attention somewhere while the rest does something else. You shouldn't punish a player for liking or roleplaying characters who happen to have powerful mechanical options.

[Darth Ultron]

Yeah, D&D has changed. Now its assumed to be good if players understand the rules of the world they are in, since it allows them to better explore and engage, rather than just blindling following the DM's lead.

This is a false assumption, and it's very much a thing that is wrong with a lot of gamers thinking about D&D.


Attempts to keep the players from learning the rules were: 1. a bad economic incentive for the hobby. 2. posited an absurd 'always player/always GM' divide that has never existed, and 3. pointless and unable to work.

1.Or the best idea ever.
2.This has always existed and always will: it's a fundamental part of the game.
3.It worked great for years, until the happy group hug of the 2000's, that is now fading away.



This imposes burdens on the GM.


What you see as a ''burden'', a Real DM sees as ''part of the Fun'' (notice the DM/Player split here, player?)




People who play games are supposed to know the rules of those games.

This is only true of games that are NOT RPGs. The problem is that RPGs have a player ''being a character in a living real fictional world'', and not just ''a token on a board''.


It's not even how old D&D worked. Players weren't supposed to know the DM rules. They weren't supposed to know none of the rules.

Knowing the rules does players more harm then good: most players can't handle the rules and play the game.

My classic example is the player knows the DC of something is 15, and their character only has a ''+2'' to do that. All to often that player just breaks down, cries and goes and sits in the corner as they ''can't play their character '' as ''what they are trying to do is impossible''. And yes that is a ''hard'' or ''unlikely'' roll to make, but it's not impossible. But the player that is playing by the numbers will just shut down.

Now the player that is not bogged down by all the rules and numbers, and is just basing their actions on what they want the character to try and do, has the amazing ability to at least try anything. So they literally roll the dice and take their chances.

[Boci]

This is a false assumption, and it's very much a thing that is wrong with a lot of gamers thinking about D&D.

Na uh, your assumption is false and very much what is wrong with a lot of old-school gamers. I have a basic understanding of how the real world works, and I don't put myself in danger on a regular basis. A lot of the complaining about players knowing the rules in my expirience is often DMs salty that they now have to justify arbitarily changing the rules on the fly, which I have never found to be a limitation when I DM.


1.Or the best idea ever.

Nope worst. It was confirmed by people who do science with very sciency-y tests in places of science.


2.This has always existed and always will: it's a fundamental part of the game.

Sure, the DM needs to know more than the players, that will never change, barring some very niche game designs. But if you can only DM when the players next to nothing, I dunno, makes you sound a little limited to me.


3.It worked great for years, until the happy group hug of the 2000's, that is now fading away.

Plenty of things worked for years, and were then changed or improved upon. It kinda how technology and progression works.

[Rhedyn]

This is only true of games that are NOT RPGs. The problem is that RPGs have a player ''being a character in a living real fictional world'', and not just ''a token on a board''.

RPGs are games...

If your RPG isn't a game, you aren't playing an RPG.

This is true regardless of how rules light (aka GM writes the rules) that your game is.

[martixy]

~snikt~
+1 on all of this.


This is certainly the core of the 'level up' paradigm, wherein characters would be easily crushed at the start of the campaign but will be able to ultimately take the BBEG at the end of the campaign having powered up. This is a very common storytelling approach in serials like shounen manga and its simple and effective. The issue with this in regard to min-maxing or optimization is one of calibration.

For instance, in 3.X D&D you could have characters start at level one and have the BBEG ultimately be a level 9-10 character with the assumption that the party will be able to defeat him and a few chosen minions in a climatic battle around the point where they hit level 6 or so. The problem is this cannot be guaranteed. It is possible for a party to advance such that said BBEG either remains unstoppable or becomes an utterly trivially problem depending on how the characters are built. There's too much variability built into the advancement progression.

This imposes burdens on the GM. It makes it difficult to plan ahead - because the party's overall capabilities can change drastically over a relatively minor amount of advancement - from levels 5-13 a full caster advances by leaps and bounds every time they unlock a new higher level spell slot, which happens every two levels. Overall gameplay undergoes dramatic strategic alterations at the same time. This results in interactions with the world either altering dramatically or becoming nonsensical - rather like when in an open world game like Skyrim you do an early game radiant quest with a maxed out late-game character: 'go to someone's house and kill a wolf? Damnit Aela, I've killed gods!' This is, not coincidentally, also a very common feature of shounen manga.

My players keep repeating how anime my game is. I suppose I should not be surprised by you reinforcing that.

And by the way, all of these things you see as a problem - I see as a feature that reinforces the 'level up' paradigm, as you put it. The leaps and bounds advancement, the flat d20 curve, the lack of a guarantee. They are all part of this type of "bigger world, rise up to the challenge" game style.

[Max_Killjoy]

Min-maxer is to the tabletop gamer as Mary Sue to writing - a completely overused phrase, people overreact to the negative effects it might cause, it's incredibly ill-defined and vague and most people who get upset about them are novices with little experience.

Truth is, the competent minmaxers are generally the ones with long experience with tabletop games who can use their system mastery for roleplaying and for building characters to fill a purpose. The ones that are problem players have many social problems that have nothing to do with the character they made (heck, give their character to a good roleplayer and see what happens). It doesn't help that basically any amount of making the character more effective is bedeviled, while complaints about characters being too ineffective or weak are almost nonexistent.

This kind of mentality is what drives me out of trying new systems: I'm having fun building all kinds of characters, and when they end up me playing around with the systems to see what kind of efficiency I can get, everyone loses their mind.

The strong character's player could help the others improve their builds. The roleplaying and plot hooks can still share the spotlight appropriately. Encounters could be segmented to require the strong character's attention somewhere while the rest does something else. You shouldn't punish a player for liking or roleplaying characters who happen to have powerful mechanical options.

Well said.

To me, the attitude of "any amount of concern or effort for making your character effective at anything is anti-roleplaying" is just as damaging as the attitude of "if your character isn't honed to a razor's edge using the Most Best Build, then it's useless and you shouldn't even be playing".

[MeimuHakurei]

My players keep repeating how anime my game is. I suppose I should not be surprised by you reinforcing that.

And by the way, all of these things you see as a problem - I see as a feature that reinforces the 'level up' paradigm, as you put it. The leaps and bounds advancement, the flat d20 curve, the lack of a guarantee. They are all part of this type of "bigger world, rise up to the challenge" game style.

I can second this - I'm not really enjoying to kill rats in a basement from Level 1 all the way to Level 20. People already complain things are "too anime" when they're not almost dying trying to walk up a flight of stairs or getting kicked in the shin by a toddler.

[Max_Killjoy]

I'll never understand the idea that knowing the system and being able to make the in-system character match the in-"mind space" character as closely as possible is somehow a Cardinal Roleplaying Sin. Shouldn't "the mechanics" being as close to what you want from that character make roleplaying easier?

Maybe there's just a mistaken assumption that anyone "doing math" to their character will automatically try to make it more powerful -- it would be ironic if the people who assert that an analytical approach to character building is in direct and unavoidable opposition to roleplaying... were unconsciously adopting the very attitude they claim to hate, that "better" and "more powerful" are a single locked axis, rather than "better" being entirely subjective to the person building the character.

[Rhedyn]

Well said.

To me, the attitude of "any amount of concern or effort for making your character effective at anything is anti-roleplaying" is just as damaging as the attitude of "if your character isn't honed to a razor's edge using the Most Best Build, then it's useless and you shouldn't even be playing".
As an extreme centrist, I aggressively agree with this sentiment.

[Cosi]

It´s an interesting statement in regards to our other ongoing discussion. Can you really go "full immersion mode" when knowing you're playing a game and what the actual rules are?

Yes, you can do that. In fact, knowing the rules is required for immersion, because they are your (and by extension your character's) model of the world, and as such provide a tool to determine which actions are likely to succeed, and therefore which are likely worth taking.


1.Or the best idea ever.

Please explain to me how telling 80% of your playerbase not to buy somewhere between half and two-thirds of books is a good idea from an economic perspective. I'm eager to hear how that makes any sense at all to you.


2.This has always existed and always will: it's a fundamental part of the game.

As someone who has both played and DM'd, it is news to me that there is a fundamental divide between those two positions.


What you see as a ''burden'', a Real DM sees as ''part of the Fun'' (notice the DM/Player split here, player?)

Don't you mean a True DM?


My classic example is the player knows the DC of something is 15, and their character only has a ''+2'' to do that. All to often that player just breaks down, cries and goes and sits in the corner as they ''can't play their character '' as ''what they are trying to do is impossible''. And yes that is a ''hard'' or ''unlikely'' roll to make, but it's not impossible. But the player that is playing by the numbers will just shut down.

I think your problem is that you play exclusively with people who don't understand how math works. That sounds like 0% a problem with "players have an accurate understanding of how the world behaves" and 100% a problem with "players are unable to figure out the odds of rolling 13 or higher on a d20".

[Florian]

I'll never understand the idea that knowing the system and being able to make the in-system character match the in-"mind space" character as closely as possible is somehow a Cardinal Roleplaying Sin. Shouldn't "the mechanics" being as close to what you want from that character make roleplaying easier?

Maybe there's just a mistaken assumption that anyone "doing math" to their character will automatically try to make it more powerful -- it would be ironic if the people who assert that an analytical approach to character building is in direct and unavoidable opposition to roleplaying... were unconsciously adopting the very attitude they claim to hate, that "better" and "more powerful" are a single locked axis, rather than "better" being entirely subjective to the person building the character.

This coming from you, mr. "I want my character to feel as natural as possible"?

For some, the mechanics are descriptive, no prescriptive. The question is: "What it is and how can we model its in-game reality using the rules?", like "This is Tom, a Fighter, describe Tom, please".

The reverse is building for effect because the mechanics are known. Because I want Tom to be good at two-weapon fighting, I know that a high DEX score is needed so I see to Tom having just that. So my exemplary Tom is not lithe and agile because I describe him that way, but rather because I know I will need that score and build Tom based on that.

So in this case, min-maxing is maybe the most powerful indicator that you're participating in a game and a character is just a playing piece.

[icefractal]

I think in cases where the rules conflict with the fiction, knowing those rules can hurt immersion. But in that situation, the immersion was already going to have a short shelf-life, because after experiencing the consequences of the rules a few times, people will spot that same contradiction.

Like for instance, if the system is 3.x and the setting/plot had the concept of "Crossbows, the most deadly weapon". Ie. people are expected to crap their pants if there's more than one crossbow pointed at them, and you can tell someone is a serious bad-ass if they have one. That doesn't match the rules at all, where crossbows are about on-par with other weapons at low level and fall behind after that. Where if you can survive an angry Troll, you sure as hell can survive a few crossbow bolts.

So in that case, yeah; if the players don't know the rules, they might believe the crossbow hype ... for a few sessions. Because at some point they're going to use a crossbow, or go up against people who do, they're going to realize the hype isn't warranted at all, and it's going to be dumb. Better idea - use a system that supports the fiction you want, and/or use fiction that fits the system.



My classic example is the player knows the DC of something is 15, and their character only has a ''+2'' to do that. All to often that player just breaks down, cries and goes and sits in the corner as they ''can't play their character '' as ''what they are trying to do is impossible''. And yes that is a ''hard'' or ''unlikely'' roll to make, but it's not impossible. But the player that is playing by the numbers will just shut down.But they'd be perfectly happy with the situation if they didn't know the DC, tried it, rolled a 12, and failed? I don't think the players knowing the rules is the problem there, it's players being overly cautious.

And ironically (since you describe it as a "new school" attitude), the concept of "The rules say you're probably going to fail ... so avoid rolling anything and try to make the situation more advantageous instead." is pretty classic old-school strategy.



The reverse is building for effect because the mechanics are known. Because I want Tom to be good at two-weapon fighting, I know that a high DEX score is needed so I see to Tom having just that. So my exemplary Tom is not lithe and agile because I describe him that way, but rather because I know I will need that score and build Tom based on that.

So in this case, min-maxing is maybe the most powerful indicator that you're participating in a game and a character is just a playing piece.Ok, but what's the alternative? Being "good at fighting with two weapons" is as much of this hypothetical character's concept is being or not being agile is, so if you go with low Dexterity and are then unable to use two weapons effectively, that's just as much of a disconnect. I think sacrificing some immersion during char-gen for greater immersion during gameplay is generally the better option.

[Florian]

I think in cases where the rules conflict with the fiction, knowing those rules can hurt immersion.

I think my most favored example is the "hostage situation": Is having a knife to the throat deadly or not? That's similar to high level Barbarians surviving any fall, from any height.

Interestingly enough, I actually get DU on this topic. A "transparent" system with known and fixed DCs/Target Numbers and such, makes you either not try in the first place to not risk failure or know the system well enough to "game" it, making the roll unnecessary because you always aim for auto-win.

[Max_Killjoy]

This coming from you, mr. "I want my character to feel as natural as possible"?

For some, the mechanics are descriptive, no prescriptive. The question is: "What it is and how can we model its in-game reality using the rules?", like "This is Tom, a Fighter, describe Tom, please".

The reverse is building for effect because the mechanics are known. Because I want Tom to be good at two-weapon fighting, I know that a high DEX score is needed so I see to Tom having just that. So my exemplary Tom is not lithe and agile because I describe him that way, but rather because I know I will need that score and build Tom based on that.

So in this case, min-maxing is maybe the most powerful indicator that you're participating in a game and a character is just a playing piece.


Nothing you're saying here is a refutation or response to what I've posted.

Furthermore, it appears to be based on the false assumption that the rules do not and cannot "feel natural". This is not a failing shared in equal degree by all systems.

"I envision this character as good at fighting with two weapons." -- OK, how does one do that in the system being used? There's nothing inherently objectively wrong or subjectively un-immersive about that starting point or process, any more than "I envision this character as lithe and agile". The problems occur when the system imposes contrary or odd mechanisms or requirements for a character who is supposed to be good at fighting with two weapons conceptually, to also be good at fighting with two weapons mechanically. Or has odd linkages such that being good at fighting with two weapons makes Tom a world-class chef and respectable tax accountant as well.

[Max_Killjoy]

I think in cases where the rules conflict with the fiction, knowing those rules can hurt immersion. But in that situation, the immersion was already going to have a short shelf-life, because after experiencing the consequences of the rules a few times, people will spot that same contradiction.

Like for instance, if the system is 3.x and the setting/plot had the concept of "Crossbows, the most deadly weapon". Ie. people are expected to crap their pants if there's more than one crossbow pointed at them, and you can tell someone is a serious bad-ass if they have one. That doesn't match the rules at all, where crossbows are about on-par with other weapons at low level and fall behind after that. Where if you can survive an angry Troll, you sure as hell can survive a few crossbow bolts.

So in that case, yeah; if the players don't know the rules, they might believe the crossbow hype ... for a few sessions. Because at some point they're going to use a crossbow, or go up against people who do, they're going to realize the hype isn't warranted at all, and it's going to be dumb. Better idea - use a system that supports the fiction you want, and/or use fiction that fits the system.


That's not an argument that knowing the rules hurts immersion, it's an argument that rules that conflict with the setting* -- that is, when the rules and the descriptive passages contradict each other -- will hurt immersion.


* ("The fiction", but we have to avoid that term that because some take it as an "admission" that gaming is story...)



Ok, but what's the alternative? Being "good at fighting with two weapons" is as much of this hypothetical character's concept is being or not being agile is, so if you go with low Dexterity and are then unable to use two weapons effectively, that's just as much of a disconnect. I think sacrificing some immersion during char-gen for greater immersion during gameplay is generally the better option


Someone trying to split hairs between building to fit "agile and lithe" as "concept dictating build" and building to fit "is effective fighting with two weapons" as "build dictating concept" as an attack on the idea of immersion just comes across as trying really hard to attack immersion.

[icefractal]

I think my most favored example is the "hostage situation": Is having a knife to the throat deadly or not?That one is especially difficult to solve, because it's not just conflicting mechanics and fiction, it's conflicting pieces of fiction!
A) A knife to the throat is a deadly threat.
B) The protagonists get snuck up on sometimes, and sometimes sneak up on the BBEG.
C) Neither the protagonists nor the BBEG are summarily killed by a sneaky guy with a knife shortly after appearing.

Those three don't work together, unless events go just right. And in single-author fiction, they do go just right, because the author controls exactly what happens. But in a game (at least one without heavy narrative-control elements), not so much.

[martixy]

That one is especially difficult to solve, because it's not just conflicting mechanics and fiction, it's conflicting pieces of fiction!
A) A knife to the throat is a deadly threat.
B) The protagonists get snuck up on sometimes, and sometimes sneak up on the BBEG.
C) Neither the protagonists nor the BBEG are summarily killed by a sneaky guy with a knife shortly after appearing.

Those three don't work together, unless events go just right. And in single-author fiction, they do go just right, because the author controls exactly what happens. But in a game (at least one without heavy narrative-control elements), not so much.

Really... I've always found this to be one of the easier situations to resolve.

I like the more fantastical and I'm not into realism, so I can offer zero opinion there.

But in a setting where wizards can reshape reality, I find it cool to imagine a tough, heroic dude/gal surviving a knife to the throat. But I don't think it should be just 1d4 damage either.

I would model it(and do in my game) as an automatic critical hit called shot (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/other-rules/called-shots/) to the neck. For any generic commoner this is likely a death sentence, as he would probably bleed out within a few rounds, without outside help.

For the protagonist or the BBEG, it's likely a debilitating wound that would likely severely cripple them, but not outright kill them.

To me this seems a satisfactory resolution in every case, for every actor, be it generic commoner or a main character. AND! With no loss of the drama of the scene!

[flond]

My classic example is the player knows the DC of something is 15, and their character only has a ''+2'' to do that. All to often that player just breaks down, cries and goes and sits in the corner as they ''can't play their character '' as ''what they are trying to do is impossible''. And yes that is a ''hard'' or ''unlikely'' roll to make, but it's not impossible. But the player that is playing by the numbers will just shut down.

Now the player that is not bogged down by all the rules and numbers, and is just basing their actions on what they want the character to try and do, has the amazing ability to at least try anything. So they literally roll the dice and take their chances.

Except that what this is, is a question of how much they can estimate their chances. If you give them no estimation, it's whatever their internal assumption is, and now some people are going to assume every gap is nightmare ridge, better walk away, sure hope this is a hexcrawl and not a railroad, because this plot died.

Now you can give them natural language descriptions of their odds, but wouldn't that basically be the same as them knowing the rules, just with a layer of obfuscation?

[Arbane]

(grognards.txt outtakes snipped)
3.It worked great for years, until the happy group hug of the 2000's, that is now fading away.


When did you start playing D&D? Because I played in the 80's, and I can assure you everyone at our table had read through the DMG at least once. (Because it was COOL.)


This is only true of games that are NOT RPGs. The problem is that RPGs have a player ''being a character in a living real fictional world'', and not just ''a token on a board''.

Knowing the rules does players more harm then good: most players can't handle the rules and play the game.

"You want the rules? YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE RULES!" 9_9

'Living real fictional world' is an oxymoron. I've never been so rapturously engrossed in an RPG that I've forgotten I'm sitting around a table rolling dice with my fellow nerds, and if I did, I might be a bit worried about my mental state afterwards.


My classic example is the player knows the DC of something is 15, and their character only has a ''+2'' to do that. All to often that player just breaks down, cries and goes and sits in the corner as they ''can't play their character '' as ''what they are trying to do is impossible''. And yes that is a ''hard'' or ''unlikely'' roll to make, but it's not impossible. But the player that is playing by the numbers will just shut down.

Your players sound horribly damaged. I hope it wasn't your fault.


Now the player that is not bogged down by all the rules and numbers, and is just basing their actions on what they want the character to try and do, has the amazing ability to at least try anything. So they literally roll the dice and take their chances.

"They are FREE to commit suicide by ignorance!" I know you love failure, but don't you think PCs should at least have a vague approximation of their ability to guess their chances that people have in real life? I presume you haven't tried to fly by flapping your arms really hard recently....


People already complain things are "too anime" when they're not almost dying trying to walk up a flight of stairs or getting kicked in the shin by a toddler.

"Too anime"? Like the Knights of the Round Table or Beowulf?
If they want to play E6 (or Call of Cthulhu might suit them better), that's fine, but I can see why you'd get bored with it.


And ironically (since you describe it as a "new school" attitude), the concept of "The rules say you're probably going to fail ... so avoid rolling anything and try to make the situation more advantageous instead." is pretty classic old-school strategy.

Yup. "Old School" seems to be largely about playing Mother-May-I with the GM to avoid actually using the rules as much as possible. (Not that that's only an Old School thing - My first 3rd ed game, I had such bad luck that eventually decided 'if I have to roll dice, I've already failed'.)



Ok, but what's the alternative? Being "good at fighting with two weapons" is as much of this hypothetical character's concept is being or not being agile is, so if you go with low Dexterity and are then unable to use two weapons effectively, that's just as much of a disconnect. I think sacrificing some immersion during char-gen for greater immersion during gameplay is generally the better option.

How the heck do you get "immersion" during chargen? Just write your character's concept and backstory without using any icky NUMBERS, and let the GM interpret it without telling you?

[Florian]

Yup. "Old School" seems to be largely about playing Mother-May-I with the GM to avoid actually using the rules as much as possible. (Not that that's only an Old School thing - My first 3rd ed game, I had such bad luck that eventually decided 'if I have to roll dice, I've already failed'.)

That will probably get us all into and argument without end. Being good at a game by finding ways to ignore the rules and technically still stay within the boundaries of said rules is just sad. It´s like saying that I'm good at Texas Holdem because I have a very high alcohol tolerance and know that it´s cheaper for me to order some rounds of shots instead of losing.

[Mr Beer]

Given a choice, I'd rather my players knew the rules. It's annoying to always have to remember every rule every time instead of everyone basically knowing the rules so we can get the answer quickly and move on.

Of course, when players know the rules, it brings up the terrifying spectre of the Player That Dares To Question The God-King GM, but since I play with non-douchebags, I'm actually OK with that.

[Max_Killjoy]

When did you start playing D&D? Because I played in the 80's, and I can assure you everyone at our table had read through the DMG at least once. (Because it was COOL.)


I started gaming in the mid 80s, and one of the first books I bought and read cover-to-cover was the DMG... if there was a time when it was regarded as bad form or "cheating" for players to know all the rules, or when DMs were considered a special elite class with access to special secret knowledge of the systems... it was certainly before my time, or part of an entirely different region's "subculture".

The second game I learned, WEG's Star Wars, didn't have a separate DMG at all.




"You want the rules? YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE RULES!" 9_9

'Living real fictional world' is an oxymoron. I've never been so rapturously engrossed in an RPG that I've forgotten I'm sitting around a table rolling dice with my fellow nerds, and if I did, I might be a bit worried about my mental state afterwards.


This is another one of those instances when seemingly disparate interests will push an extreme straw-filled definition of a gaming term in order to base their arguments on it.

On one hand, we have someone arguing that immersion is this near-delusional state of forgetting the real world, because it might form the basis of keeping the players ignorant of the rules.

On the other hand, we have someone arguing that immersion is this near-delusional state of forgetting the real world, because it might form the basis of asserting that immersion is impossible or counter-productive.




"They are FREE to commit suicide by ignorance!" I know you love failure, but don't you think PCs should at least have a vague approximation of their ability to guess their chances that people have in real life? I presume you haven't tried to fly by flapping your arms really hard recently....


Yeah, the idea that players should be ignorant of the chances of success is an argument that their PCs should be ignorant of the chances of success, even though they've grown up and lived and worked and adventured and whatnot in very same "secondary world" that the events of the campaign are not taking place in.




Yup. "Old School" seems to be largely about playing Mother-May-I with the GM to avoid actually using the rules as much as possible. (Not that that's only an Old School thing - My first 3rd ed game, I had such bad luck that eventually decided 'if I have to roll dice, I've already failed'.)


As much as I like the setting and overall really like the game, the Mayhem Cards in Planet Mercenary are a giant "perverse incentive" to avoid rolling the dice in favor of working to set up foregone conclusions.

(Roll 3d6, higher is better, you're trying to roll >= a target number. One of the dice is a "Mayhem Die", if it's higher than the other two dice and your roll was successful, draw a Mayhem Card with all sorts of curveball and wacky effects -- for me that screams "rolling is bad".)




How the heck do you get "immersion" during chargen? Just write your character's concept and backstory without using any icky NUMBERS, and let the GM interpret it without telling you?


That's actually a really good question...

[Arbane]

I started gaming in the mid 80s, and one of the first books I bought and read cover-to-cover was the DMG... if there was a time when it was regarded as bad form or "cheating" for players to know all the rules, or when DMs were considered a special elite class with access to special secret knowledge of the systems... it was certainly before my time, or part of an entirely different region's "subculture".

Well, in Paranoia, the GM's section is Ultraviolet Clearance, so Troubleshooters knowing the rules is Treason. This just means you have not mention the rules IN PLAY, and Paranoia is not exactly a good example of How To Play anything but Paranoia.

[Quertus]

D&D tends to suck at Combat as War because of the power curve.


Even then, with a CR of 1-20, its still going to be based off the party unfortunatly, you need a game with much level power range to pull off the aproach you're describing.

So, food for thought: there's an online game (I forget the name, I've never played it) where you are a circle. When two circles touch, the larger one absorbs the smaller one, and gets bigger. PvP, much sharper power curve than d20, works just fine.

CaW D&D requires a party that cares about intel, that has contingency plans, and is fully prepared to run away. CaW D&D is not terribly comparable with beer and pretzels, kick in the door play.


But your just adding a pointless requirement. The DM can do anything, as long as there is a good reason too. And a good DM will always have a reason, so it makes the requirement pointless.


Unless your talking about being an adversarial player where you will demand that things can only be changed in ways and such that you agree with personally.

How about, "ways that follow the rules, and common sense. Ways that give the players the agency to detect and investigate these changes. Ways that you, as a GM, would be comfortable with the players changing things."?


I agree with you there...but I find few players have the will to role play out such things.

Most encounters won't have that much background though. Take like a thug encounter: it's meant to be a bit of combat when the PCs are on the dark side of town. The thugs are written are pointlessly weak: just one PC can cleave through all of them. So there is no point in even having the encounter. But the game still needs combat as it's part of the game...and ''thugs on the dark side of town'' fits perfectly for a nice combat encounter. And..yes..you could have something else come out of somewhere for a combat encounter, but it's a bit silly. So the DM just makes the thugs more powerful and makes the encounter fun and meaningfully....but the DM does not need a huge backstory about ''how the thugs when shopping''.

See, this implies that there is some "correct" level of challenge for this encounter. Try to imagine that this is not the case.

Suppose the Fighter does go first, and cleaves through all the thugs in one attack. Maybe this means that the party gains a reputation of "don't mess with these guys", and maybe the town guard shows them fear and/or respect.

Or maybe the Fighter used subdual damage, and then turned them in (respect from the town guard), interrogated them (plot hook), Or even let them go (reputation, favor from the thieves guild, future plot hook).

Maybe no-one in the party took Diplomacy, so getting the King to help them on their quest is impossible. Maybe they decide that this is ok. Or maybe they decide that they really need the king's help. So maybe they decide to curry favor with another noble, to intercede on their behalf. Or maybe they try to leverage their reputation with the town guard. Or maybe they hire a diplomat to speak for them.

Or maybe the Wizard goes first, and takes out all the thugs with one spell. Maybe this has a very similar consequence chain to the Fighter doing so... except that, when they go to see the King, the guards seem very wary, and the wizards is required to be bound, gagged, blindfolded, whatever, so the party gains additional information that the King fears and despises powerful wizards (a fact that they can use in future negotiations).

Or maybe the Rogue goes first, and subtly flashes the thugs some secret sign saying, hey, I'm one of you guys, I paid my dues, don't **** with us. Then he "convinces" the thugs to stand down. If the Rogue isn't a local, maybe he now owes a favor to the local guild. Then, when they go to see the King, maybe the party gets the "clearly very diplomatic" Rogue to be their spokesperson, which could lead to some interesting role-playing opportunities... or to the Rogue suggesting one of the alternative approaches I mentioned earlier.

Or maybe the Cleric goes first, screams obscenities to his god, and cracks one of the thugs' skulls open before one of the other PCs ends the encounter.

Or maybe one of the thugs goes first. Maybe he happens to score a crit, or fumble, or otherwise distinguish himself such that the party takes a liking to him, and promote him to a Named NPC.

Point is, there a lot of possible fun games that can result by simply not tailoring encounters to the party.


My problem with people that say this that they only want positive stats to matter. Their character is super smart, so they must have an intelligence of 20. But, amazingly, they will never, ever, want to do the opposite: have a dumb character with an intelligence of 7.

Well, now, there's two issues here. It sounds like you're trying to say that you're accustomed to playing with people who only want advantages, and don't like when they have to deal with disadvantages. I'm sorry for your luck. While I'm not a fan of GMs who focus too hard / exclusively on disadvantages, as one could expect from the fact that my description of my signature character is "Tactically inept (disadvantage) verbose (neutral) academia mage (advantage)", I'm personally a fan of a realistic balance.

The second issue is the idea that some players don't want to play dumb characters. And, that's fine. Some players don't want to play short characters, or tall characters, or thin characters, or fat characters, or characters of certain races, classes, genders, or "persuasions". And that's fine.


I thought I was clear that the world should be a mix of easy, challenging and hard encounters.....and maybe a few trivial and impossible ones.

That's good. But you don't have to predetermine which is which. Just make encounters, and let the party encounter them.

And, if you or a player notice that your encounters are too same-y, just fix it in the short term, and, long term, work to train up your GM skills, and learn to vary your encounters automatically.


Well I think 80+ percent of the responses to this thread have nothing to do with the opening post.

Just because posts aren't directly responding to the opening question doesn't mean that they aren't related.

Assuming I'm not pulling a senior moment, and talking about the wrong thread (again :smallredface:), then we could probably call /thread with previous posts saying that, in a gamist game, play your strongest piece. Or enjoy explicitly not doing that. Or balance to the party. Unless someone has a fourth PoV to add.

But these "side" conversations (hopefully) help people to see how each of these (potentially foreign) mindsets could come about, and what a game with them can entail.


Tabletop roleplaying games are assumed that the GM will be experienced and be able to adjust things. If not then players have adjust their characters.

That seems a silly assumption to make, especially given that, IME, it's usually not true.

[jindra34]

Well, in Paranoia, the GM's section is Ultraviolet Clearance, so Troubleshooters knowing the rules is Treason. This just means you have not mention the rules IN PLAY, and Paranoia is not exactly a good example of How To Play anything but Paranoia.
Paranoia is definitely a very distant outlier. Also I think the GM's section/guide thing is for other reasons...

[Squiddish]

Well, in Paranoia, the GM's section is Ultraviolet Clearance, so Troubleshooters knowing the rules is Treason. This just means you have not mention the rules IN PLAY, and Paranoia is not exactly a good example of How To Play anything but Paranoia.

Knowledge of the security clearance of the GM's section is Treason. Please report to Friend Computer for reeducation, traitor.

Speaking seriously, I'm 100% okay with minmaxing a character but against creating characters solely for minmaxing. If you're making a character concept and then trying to make it as powerful as possible without altering the concept too much, that's okay. If your character is created for the sole purpose of being the Strong Person Who Wins Dungeons And Dragons With a Build From The Internet, that's not okay unless you can
1. Really pull it off personality-wise
2. Avoid overshadowing everyone else

If you're the barbarian who can wrestle seven bears before breakfast but not count how many he wrestled, I expect to see that roleplayed.

[Arbane]

CaW D&D requires a party that cares about intel, that has contingency plans, and is fully prepared to run away.

The problem being that there are a lot of things in D&D that if you can't outfight them, you probably can't outrun them, either. (But hey, as long as you can outrun at least one other PC, all is good.)

[RazorChain]

The problem being that there are a lot of things in D&D that if you can't outfight them, you probably can't outrun them, either. (But hey, as long as you can outrun at least one other PC, all is good.)

Which is just why you allow that annoying halfling to tag along. He may eat all the food but you don't have to outrun the enemy, you just have to outrun him.

[Mr Beer]

Which is just why you allow that annoying halfling to tag along. He may eat all the food but you don't have to outrun the enemy, you just have to outrun him.

A use for kender!

[Pex]

Knowing the rules does players more harm then good: most players can't handle the rules and play the game.

My classic example is the player knows the DC of something is 15, and their character only has a ''+2'' to do that. All to often that player just breaks down, cries and goes and sits in the corner as they ''can't play their character '' as ''what they are trying to do is impossible''. And yes that is a ''hard'' or ''unlikely'' roll to make, but it's not impossible. But the player that is playing by the numbers will just shut down.

Now the player that is not bogged down by all the rules and numbers, and is just basing their actions on what they want the character to try and do, has the amazing ability to at least try anything. So they literally roll the dice and take their chances.

The solution is to teach that player he can try anyway and look beyond the numbers. It's a player flaw to be overcome, not evidence that knowing rules is bad.

[Max_Killjoy]

Anyone who suggested that players shouldn't know the rules would get laughed out of the room if they were talking about any card game, board game, sporting or athletic competition, or any other "game".

And yet some people seriously think it's laudable for players to remain ignorant of the rules of RPGs, as if that keeps them pure and uncompromised or something.

[Arbane]

And yet some people seriously think it's laudable for players to remain ignorant of the rules of RPGs, as if that keeps them pure and uncompromised or something.

[white wolf circa 1990]Numbers BAD![/wwc1990]

(Was it Changeling the Dreaming that acted like knowing math was damaging to the delicate magic of the faerie soul? 9_9 )

[Koo Rehtorb]

To be brutally honest, I find players who refuse to learn the rules to be bad players. It's basically sitting there and telling other people to do their work for them. Knowing the rules is everyone's responsibility.

[Guizonde]

i think i'll paraphrase jay r on this one: "any lawyer knows the rules. a good lawyer knows the exceptions. a great one knows the judge".

when building characters, i'm not really thinking first and foremost of what that one's gonna do all alone. i'm wondering how they'll fit in the group and in the adventure.

i've got a psycho dm in front of me? i'll crunch it up. my team is weak in x area? i'll go double-crunch to save their butts.

example: arch-militant with the best bonuses to shooting, agility, willpower, and anything to do with combat, since i'm pulling triple bodyguard duty in that game with a whopping 66% of non-combattants. it's tough, but i'm really digging the roleplay that goes into being the gruff bodyguard. (and of course, i shine in fights and they shine in social interactions). specialist role tailored to the group's needs and the dm's playstyle.

the dm is more likely to go full-intrigue? i'll ask the team what their playstyle is and fit in accordingly so no one feels left out.

example: skillmonkey inquisitor. probably the second weakest optimization configuration for that pf class, still an integral part of the team, since the rest are specialists. that character has got all the sneakiest skills optimized, but that's more because i've got too many skill points and i don't know what to do with them and less out of a desire to powergame. generalist role tailored to the group's needs and the dm's playstyle.

now, here's where i really start to optimize: team synergy. it's not about killing dragons. it's about solving the plot and the encounters the dm throws at the team and solving it as a team. that paladin needs a bit more "oomph"? the cleric casts bull's strength on him, and i flank the boss to grant him extra leeway in how he fights. i've read too many theoretical optimization threads on how to frag the tarrasque to care about "masters of math". what happens when your team is 5 individuals rather than one unit? tucker's kobolds happen. that's what. also, arguments and bad blood.

i always described pen and paper as "teambuilding and group problem solving", and although there is some math and luck involved, at its core, that's all that roleplaying is: dm throws large monster in front of you. you want its treasure. what does the group do to get the treasure?

-kill the monster to death, loot the corpse.
-charm/bribe/befriend the monster, loot the treasure.
-bypass the monster by throwing a very large steak in the opposite direction, loot the treasure.
-surrender to the monster's mightiness, become its minions, loot more treasure in his name and bring it back to him.
-commit a genocide because that orphanage looks a lot less tough than the monster, forget about the treasure.
-other left-field solution. perhaps involving going to the bar and commandeering a twin-linked automatic combat goat-motorcycle hybrid.

i'm sure you get the idea. there is no good or bad way of playing, until "fun" and "necessity" get mixed. i avoid playing rules-heavy systems because that takes the fun away from me, i avoid survival-horror for the same reasons. spending 18 hours on character creation is a necessity in certain systems, and that's fine. not my cup of tea, but fine. fun is my necessity and if me or my group is not having fun, then it's no fun for anyone anymore.

[Cosi]

The second game I learned, WEG's Star Wars, didn't have a separate DMG at all.

It's practical issues like this that sink the "some stuff is DMs only" school of thought. Pretty much every RPG that isn't D&D can't get away with requiring three books for you to play. So they don't. Which means that you can't even have the dubious barrier of "it is in a book you might not personally own" to keep players out of the DM sections.


Paranoia is definitely a very distant outlier. Also I think the GM's section/guide thing is for other reasons...

Paranoia is a work of parody within the genre of RPGs, in the same way that Blazing Saddles is a work of parody within the genre of Westerns. As such, part of the point of the exercise is to screw with the rules of the genre and generally do things in the service of humor that you couldn't get away with in a serious setting. Just as you wouldn't expect serious Westerns to succeed by aping Blazing Saddles, you shouldn't expect serious RPGs to succeed by aping Paranoia.

[Fable Wright]

Anyone who suggested that players shouldn't know the rules would get laughed out of the room if they were talking about any card game, board game, sporting or athletic competition, or any other "game".

While I agree that rules should usually be transparent, I'll posit the exception for Betrayal at House on the Hill, which makes it a selling point that one player knows one set of rules, and the rest of the players knows a different set of rules. It's an interesting tension, when the traitor and the heroes don't know what the other is doing or how they're doing it.

Mao is also a card game that seems rather similar to Darth Ultron's games, where half the charm is the incomprehensible but consistent rules that you're never told, and punished for breaking. The learning process is actually fun (given a good group of people to play with), and becoming the dictator is an achievement that justifies the game.

[Mutazoia]

Some would say, that if you NEED to min-max in order to play, you have already lost.

[Florian]

Anyone who suggested that players shouldn't know the rules would get laughed out of the room if they were talking about any card game, board game, sporting or athletic competition, or any other "game".

And yet some people seriously think it's laudable for players to remain ignorant of the rules of RPGs, as if that keeps them pure and uncompromised or something.

Non-RPGs have rules that are completely self-contained, defining and limiting any move or action you can make with them. The fun part of RPGs is the freedom to more or less do anything you want and have the tools to handle that, for example by coming up with new rulings or the gm making a judgment call/introduce a new house rule, and so on.

It´s not like you shouldn't know the rules and the resolution mechanics that the game uses, but especially "crunch heavy" game systems can give the impression that you can only do what is already covered by the rules themselves. So what you get are players that don´t even try things because it´s either not explicitly written on their character sheet or they only try things they know they will succeed at because they know their numbers. It´s not like you need a "Face" with an exceptional Diplomacy skill to strike up a conversation with a NPC, or your character can´t have sexual intercourse in D&D because there's no supporting mechanic for this.

Another aspect is handling rules dysfunctions. I guess we all mostly assume that physics and such work as we know it and using rules by RAW often lead to results that are either not plausible or outright stupid, like thieves not being able to climb over a simple fence or a cooking skill that will always lead to deadly food poisoning.

So, overall it´s a bit like a Zen exercise: "Learn the rules, then forget the rules".

[Boci]

CaW D&D requires a party that cares about intel, that has contingency plans, and is fully prepared to run away. CaW D&D is not terribly comparable with beer and pretzels, kick in the door play.

No, its not terrible, it is just different. However it does require the DM to adjust their game to the party level. I don't know why you are so reluctant to knowledge that. What contingency plans do you imagine a level 3 party is going to have for a CR 10 random encounter, which can totally happen if the DM doesn't take the party's level into consideration.

[Darth Ultron]

Na uh, your assumption is false and very much what is wrong with a lot of old-school gamers. I have a basic understanding of how the real world works, and I don't put myself in danger on a regular basis. A lot of the complaining about players knowing the rules in my expirience is often DMs salty that they now have to justify arbitarily changing the rules on the fly, which I have never found to be a limitation when I DM.

As any Old School DM can tell you: they don't care if the players know the rules as.....the rules don't even matter.

Oh, and leave your safe space from time to time and put your self out in the world...it's amazing out here.



Sure, the DM needs to know more than the players, that will never change, barring some very niche game designs. But if you can only DM when the players next to nothing, I dunno, makes you sound a little limited to me.

Luckily, the vast majority of player know next to nothing.


Please explain to me how telling 80% of your playerbase not to buy somewhere between half and two-thirds of books is a good idea from an economic perspective. I'm eager to hear how that makes any sense at all to you.

It's simple enough:

For a DM only book, you simply make less of them. So small, limited runs. Also as DM's are a lot less likely to care about ''Coolz Art'' and ''fancy paper'' you can make the DM books much cheaper as they won't have tons of art.

Player books you print more of them and fyou fill with ''awesome coolz video game/anime art''.

Then, you expand your business model at bit to ''not just sell books'', but sell ''RPG stuff''.




As someone who has both played and DM'd, it is news to me that there is a fundamental divide between those two positions.

A Jack of all Trades is a Master of None.



I think your problem is that you play exclusively with people who don't understand how math works. That sounds like 0% a problem with "players have an accurate understanding of how the world behaves" and 100% a problem with "players are unable to figure out the odds of rolling 13 or higher on a d20".

Though again, that is everyone. People think that like 50% means if they roll once and fail, they will automatically succeed on their next roll as that is how math works.

And very, very, very few people understand odds, as gambling will clearly show you. People spend $100 buying scratch off tickets all month and then get super excited when they win big and get $50.



But they'd be perfectly happy with the situation if they didn't know the DC, tried it, rolled a 12, and failed? I don't think the players knowing the rules is the problem there, it's players being overly cautious.

No, all most anyone will be unhappy if the fail a roll....but that is not the point.

The Rule Obsessed Roll Player won't even try. If they ''think'' by the numbers that it's ''impossible'', they won't even try to play the game. "I only have a 45% of making the roll..why bother''. If the Rule Obsessed Roll Player does not have a 100% of making the roll, they won't even try.




Ok, but what's the alternative? Being "good at fighting with two weapons" is as much of this hypothetical character's concept is being or not being agile is, so if you go with low Dexterity and are then unable to use two weapons effectively, that's just as much of a disconnect. I think sacrificing some immersion during char-gen for greater immersion during gameplay is generally the better option. [/QUOTE]

[Pex]

The Rule Obsessed Roll Player won't even try. If they ''think'' by the numbers that it's ''impossible'', they won't even try to play the game. "I only have a 45% of making the roll..why bother''. If the Rule Obsessed Roll Player does not have a 100% of making the roll, they won't even try.




Ok, but what's the alternative? Being "good at fighting with two weapons" is as much of this hypothetical character's concept is being or not being agile is, so if you go with low Dexterity and are then unable to use two weapons effectively, that's just as much of a disconnect. I think sacrificing some immersion during char-gen for greater immersion during gameplay is generally the better option.

That's still a player flaw, not an issue of knowing the rules. Try to teach him otherwise. Show by example. Have another player try something against the odds. When it doesn't work show it wasn't a colossal failure game over. When it does work emphasize the heroic success. Repeat as necessary until the Rollplayer gets it.

[Max_Killjoy]

That's still a player flaw, not an issue of knowing the rules. Try to teach him otherwise. Show by example. Have another player try something against the odds. When it doesn't work show it wasn't a colossal failure game over. When it does work emphasize the heroic success. Repeat as necessary until the Rollplayer gets it.


Given DU's past statements on related issues, it probably IS "game over" for a PC when they try something and fail...

[Rhedyn]

If your skill rules weren't bad, then this problem doesn't happen.

45% chance and no rerolls to climb something? Yeah that is bad, an immersed player goes and finds a rope or a ladder, or they already have one because they know how useful such things are because the rules told them so.

I can maybe agree that players shouldn't know bad rules that the GM has to change anyways. But that is because bad rules are bad.

[Max_Killjoy]

Non-RPGs have rules that are completely self-contained, defining and limiting any move or action you can make with them. The fun part of RPGs is the freedom to more or less do anything you want and have the tools to handle that, for example by coming up with new rulings or the gm making a judgment call/introduce a new house rule, and so on.

It´s not like you shouldn't know the rules and the resolution mechanics that the game uses, but especially "crunch heavy" game systems can give the impression that you can only do what is already covered by the rules themselves. So what you get are players that don´t even try things because it´s either not explicitly written on their character sheet or they only try things they know they will succeed at because they know their numbers. It´s not like you need a "Face" with an exceptional Diplomacy skill to strike up a conversation with a NPC, or your character can´t have sexual intercourse in D&D because there's no supporting mechanic for this.

Another aspect is handling rules dysfunctions. I guess we all mostly assume that physics and such work as we know it and using rules by RAW often lead to results that are either not plausible or outright stupid, like thieves not being able to climb over a simple fence or a cooking skill that will always lead to deadly food poisoning.

So, overall it´s a bit like a Zen exercise: "Learn the rules, then forget the rules".


Which is why I want a rules set that's internally consistent and doesn't conflict with the setting/"fiction".

If the rules are the "map" of the setting and character and events "territory", and the mapping is done consistently and clearly, then when you go into territory off the map you can draw more map and people don't suddenly get lost -- the map is still to the same scale, still uses the same symbology, etc. GM rulings and house rules are more likely to be fair and consistent because they can extend an existing structure and pattern that's already consistent, both with itself and with expectations that arise out of "the fiction".

[Quertus]

now, here's where i really start to optimize: team synergy. it's not about killing dragons. it's about solving the plot and the encounters the dm throws at the team and solving it as a team. that paladin needs a bit more "oomph"? the cleric casts bull's strength on him, and i flank the boss to grant him extra leeway in how he fights. i've read too many theoretical optimization threads on how to frag the tarrasque to care about "masters of math". what happens when your team is 5 individuals rather than one unit? tucker's kobolds happen. that's what. also, arguments and bad blood.

There was so much great stuff in this post, it was hard to know what to respond to. However, I will add that "5 individuals" gives interesting role-playing opportunities, and too much perfect team synergy can create the Determinator of parties rather than a good role-playing experience.


No, its not terrible, it is just different. However it does require the DM to adjust their game to the party level. I don't know why you are so reluctant to knowledge that. What contingency plans do you imagine a level 3 party is going to have for a CR 10 random encounter, which can totally happen if the DM doesn't take the party's level into consideration.

Having played in and run numerous games where the GM did not adjust the world to the party's level, I can state with great certainty that no, that isn't actually a requirement. So, "Experience" is the reason I'm so reluctant to acknowledge that falsehood as truth.

As for contingency plans? How about horses with Horse Shoes of the Zephyr, and maybe a sacrificial mule or two? Or a scroll of teleport, alongside prepared BFC spells? Potion of Invisibility or Wraithform? Having a high level Wizard cast an actual Contingency? Possession of a (2e) Succor charm? Or, heaven forbid, actually wanting to adventure with higher level characters? EDIT: a good BFC Chain Tripper build can also greatly help here.

However, don't forget that that list is a list of contingency plans - a last resort for when gathering intel, doing divination, and picking the safest path have still led you into impossible odds.

[PhoenixPhyre]

As for contingency plans? How about horses with Horse Shoes of the Zephyr, and maybe a sacrificial mule or two? Or a scroll of teleport, alongside prepared BFC spells? Potion of Invisibility or Wraithform? Having a high level Wizard cast an actual Contingency? Possession of a (2e) Succor charm? Or, heaven forbid, actually wanting to adventure with higher level characters? EDIT: a good BFC Chain Tripper build can also greatly help here.

However, don't forget that that list is a list of contingency plans - a last resort for when gathering intel, doing divination, and picking the safest path have still led you into impossible odds.

And does said level 3 party have any chance of having those things, or the caster level needed to actually affect a CR 10 creature? Not a chance. It can out move you, it is immune to anything you can throw, can probably 1-hit-kill you, and has no save, just die abilities. I'm assuming 3.5 here due to your comments. 5e might actually be somewhat survivable/escapable in that situation, assuming you know early enough. And low level parties don't have the divination capabilities to know that their getting in over their heads. If you just mix the CRs too much, you have an unacceptably high (to me at least) chance of random, unavoidable TPK that kills a game. And that's no fun.

The truth is, the DM must always pull their punches, otherwise the party can't survive at low levels. And even at high levels, the DM can always win if he wants to.

[Guizonde]

There was so much great stuff in this post, it was hard to know what to respond to. However, I will add that "5 individuals" gives interesting role-playing opportunities, and too much perfect team synergy can create the Determinator of parties rather than a good role-playing experience.


i'm not saying that individual characters are bad, far from it. i'm thinking that if everyone wants to be the team leader/mary sue/hero of the story, infighting will happen and reduce overall fun and efficiency. the last time i played true-blue dnd we had a unit of 4 (cleric, rogue, monk, wizard), and then we had the outliers: edgelord black dragon descended sorceress, perverted druid (who had a habit of chasing tail more than doing anything with animals), bored fighter... the dm accepted that there was the core team, and that the 3 outsiders were just there to penalize the team. you'd think a pre-written encounter is easier with 7, in that particular case, it was worse, slower, and full of infighting. it was really a case of "struggling together", as it were.

there could be a case made for 5 high-op specialists working together like a well-oiled machine as much as for 5 low-op roleplayers struggling to survive, and both would be equally enjoyable, so long as team dynamics are respected. this is also why a lot of roleplayers are against the concept of including one roll-player at their table. i've clearly more experience roleplaying than optimizing, but in my rogue trader group, i'm the only truly high-op guy out of necessity. i enjoy my roleplay, but with 25 charisma, i'm far from the face of the group. i shine in combat, and the rest of the team thank me for carrying them, just as i thank them for talking their way into bolstering my armament and advancing the plot. this is down to team dynamics. we've got 6 specialists, with very little overlap of duties (void master has tech-skills, tech-priest can pilot a bit, priest and i know medicine, seneschal is only bad in physical skills due to poor rolls, and the necron is both the melee specialist and the intimidation expert). it could be a mess of spotlight stealing (and i've been there before in past games), but it's extremely fluid, with everyone deferring to the specialist.

why i referred to tucker's kobolds was because what struck me about that story was that as the team was getting terrorized, they pulled apart rather than pulled together to fight them off. team synergy allows you to punch much higher above your weight class, and it's something that both optimizers and roleplayers alike underestimate or plain neglect.

[MeimuHakurei]

There's a 10% chance Darth Ultron completely exaggerates player reactions to challenge and a 90% chance he's completely making this up. No need to pay attention to anything he says.

I also agree with the sentiment that working together fosters a good roleplaying experience more consistently than infighting does, because without prior agreements or DM counseling, IC conflict can easily escalate into OOC conflict because the characters aren't 100% disconnected from the players.

Escaping from combat is more of an option at higher levels where you have speed boosts and teleports which aren't easily traced back - the enemy might run into unexpected resistance or has reason to believe you're creating a diversion. At lower levels, yeah, you generally don't have the resources or speeds to actually flee from high-level combatants.

Finally, I absolutely agree that the player should be made aware of the rules, *especially* the ones you plan on changing. You may have to admit you made a mistake, explain why something is detrimental to your play experience or accept that your players want consistency in their actions. But ultimately, you shouldn't strive to keep game rules hidden just so you can sucker punch them for a thing they couldn't have possibly known.

[Arbane]

But ultimately, you shouldn't strive to keep game rules hidden just so you can sucker punch them for a thing they couldn't have possibly known.

But gloating over players' mental inferiority for not reading my mind is the greatest joy of GMing!

[PhoenixPhyre]

But ultimately, you shouldn't strive to keep game rules hidden just so you can sucker punch them for a thing they couldn't have possibly known.

I'd call that gotcha DM'ing and I consider it to be a cardinal sign of bad play. It's about the fastest way to make me leave a table.

I had a DM decide that my spell a) hit allies (it normally doesn't) and b) wasn't endable at will (which it normally was). All for reasons that I had no way of knowing, not even with a check. Left a bad taste in my mouth.

[Boci]

And does said level 3 party have any chance of having those things, or the caster level needed to actually affect a CR 10 creature? Not a chance. It can out move you, it is immune to anything you can throw, can probably 1-hit-kill you, and has no save, just die abilities. I'm assuming 3.5 here due to your comments. 5e might actually be somewhat survivable/escapable in that situation, assuming you know early enough. And low level parties don't have the divination capabilities to know that their getting in over their heads. If you just mix the CRs too much, you have an unacceptably high (to me at least) chance of random, unavoidable TPK that kills a game. And that's no fun.

The truth is, the DM must always pull their punches, otherwise the party can't survive at low levels. And even at high levels, the DM can always win if he wants to.

To add to this:

And even if it works, and the 3rd level party escape the CR 10 random encounter, they stayed alieve, but they didn't achieve anything else beyond. Back to the drawing board/quest centre. Maybe the next once won't be hopesle

Plus then there's the reverse, you go on a quest at 12th level, and find the average CR of the encoutner is 2. Great, that was a waste of time. Maybe they used divination magic to find that out beforehand, but that still a waste of game time, just a little less. How plot hooks are a part going to stumble across every week? If the challenge can range from EHL 1-20, its going to be rather unlikely any one of them is suitable for you, no matter how you modle the distribution.

And this is assuming the CRs of a quest/segment are consistent, which if the DM doesn't enforce it there is no reason to assume. You could have a CR 6 random encounter on the way to clear a fort of monstrous humanoids where the average encounter is CR 3, except one of them is CR 9, hanging out with his friends.

[Quertus]

And does said level 3 party have any chance of having those things, or the caster level needed to actually affect a CR 10 creature? Not a chance. It can out move you, it is immune to anything you can throw, can probably 1-hit-kill you, and has no save, just die abilities. I'm assuming 3.5 here due to your comments. 5e might actually be somewhat survivable/escapable in that situation, assuming you know early enough. And low level parties don't have the divination capabilities to know that their getting in over their heads. If you just mix the CRs too much, you have an unacceptably high (to me at least) chance of random, unavoidable TPK that kills a game. And that's no fun.

The truth is, the DM must always pull their punches, otherwise the party can't survive at low levels. And even at high levels, the DM can always win if he wants to.

Hahaha, I was mostly focused on 3.x because of the term "CR 10". :smallwink:

In 3e, the PCs are generally assumed to be able to buy things, so, yes, the kind of competent party that can survive in the "real" world would have one or more of those, or some similar plan of escape.

And - even ignoring shenanigans or paying NPCs for casting services - "yes or no" divinations come online by level 3. Knowledge checks - and asking people questions - comes online at level 1.

AFB, but does Entangle or Fog Cloud or Green Blockade allow SR? I was under the impression "caster level" was usually pretty unimportant for BFC.

Yes, death and even TPK is absolutely a possibility. But the GM doesn't have to pull their punches, and some parties have actually survived even when the GM played the world honest.

Those, IMO, make for the most tense, best stories.


To add to this:

And even if it works, and the 3rd level party escape the CR 10 random encounter, they stayed alieve, but they didn't achieve anything else beyond. Back to the drawing board/quest centre. Maybe the next once won't be hopesle

Plus then there's the reverse, you go on a quest at 12th level, and find the average CR of the encoutner is 2. Great, that was a waste of time. Maybe they used divination magic to find that out beforehand, but that still a waste of game time, just a little less. How plot hooks are a part going to stumble across every week? If the challenge can range from EHL 1-20, its going to be rather unlikely any one of them is suitable for you, no matter how you modle the distribution.

And this is assuming the CRs of a quest/segment are consistent, which if the DM doesn't enforce it there is no reason to assume. You could have a CR 6 random encounter on the way to clear a fort of monstrous humanoids where the average encounter is CR 3, except one of them is CR 9, hanging out with his friends.

Personally, I prefer games where the party not only doesn't always make progress, but sometimes actually moves backwards. So if the worst you've got is "the party had to run away, and got nowhere", well, that sounds almost like easy mode in comparison.

[Boci]

Personally, I prefer games where the party not only doesn't always make progress, but sometimes actually moves backwards. So if the worst you've got is "the party had to run away, and got nowhere", well, that sounds almost like easy mode in comparison.

No, the worst I've got "the campaign devolves into the party embarking of series of quests, the majority of which are too hard best case scanrio they manage to run away, likely at least one of them dies, or trivial curbstomps not worth their time and energy, which stastically very few actually being challenging encounter, potentiall none, since theres no gurantee the challenge of the encounters is consistent".


But fine, I'll bite. How does the DM choose the CR of a questhook if they aren't paying attention to the party's level? The closest I can think of it they roll as d100 and consult a table like this:

1-50 = CR 1-4
51-76 = CR 5-8
77-89 = CR 9-12
90-97 = CR - 13-16
98-00 = 17-20

Which virtually gurantees a missmatched quest (plus see the above problem about mixing you ignored). If you have a better system I would to hear it. Actualy mechanics rather than vague assurences that, no, it totally works.

[Mordaedil]

There's a 10% chance Darth Ultron completely exaggerates player reactions to challenge and a 90% chance he's completely making this up. No need to pay attention to anything he says.

He's made it clear previously that he doesn't want players that challenge him before and often goes to extreme lengths to actively drive them away from his table. Basically, a classic bully.

[Florian]

There was so much great stuff in this post, it was hard to know what to respond to. However, I will add that "5 individuals" gives interesting role-playing opportunities, and too much perfect team synergy can create the Determinator of parties rather than a good role-playing experience.

It´s very depending on how you see the "balanced game" approach (of newer D&D editions) and who you really want to challenge, the player or the character.

I don´t have a problem with setbacks, failure and loss, but D&D is not the best game for that. The whole underlying system behind the rules is too closely keyed towards certain assumptions (CR, resource attrition, so on) and prone to breaking when not handled right.

While it seems amusing to have 5 "individuals" show up and have to deal with they can, but more so what they cannot do and have to find "creative" ways to deal with it using what they have, it can most likely lead to "pixel bi***ing" and the regular unwanted arms race.

You give some good examples for this task vs. solution kind of thinking, that reminds me of the older "I Win Button" thread: You can create a list of possible tasks and start "immunizing" yourself against that. Running away? Expeditious retreat. Solved. Swimming or climbing? Fly. Solved. And so on.

That is something you do on the pure meta game knowledge level. You need to know that a, say, Dominate Monster spell exists, that Vampire exist and can use it and that Protection From Evil is a straight counter to it, trivializing a vampire combat.

[Black Jester]

The paradox thing about minmaxing is that you have to be bad at something so that you can be get good at something else. This is not how real life works and it always feel artificial. I know that it is a balancing measure but it is not one that usually works (as balancing almost never does in a vaccuum) because the important aspect is usually the niche of the character where he or she excels, not any other aspects of the character; a wizard with an above average Strength score doesn't become a much more powerful character; he is first and foremost still a mage and uses spells as his core competence.
Niels Bohr won the Noble Prize in physics and was a professional football player and a quite handsome man. Why should a potential player character be more limited than that?

Really, I think that limiting player ressources to enforce minmaxing is a lot less sensible than it usually appears; establishing a ceiling and allow the players to set their abilities within this framework ("as high as necessary, as low as possible") and let them just do what they want is usually the better option, I think. The resulting characters are less one-sided and the players have more potential to be playful with their characters, adding hobbies and the like without having the impression that they impose a penalty to their more adventurous/central skills and abilities by "wasting" precious character ressources on fluffy, but ultimately relatively useless abilities that don't see much use in a typical adventure but contribute greatly to a character's personality and memorability.

And yes, allowing the players to go wild offers the potential for massive abuse. So what? Everybody will build his ultimate monster once, realise that such a character tend to become very boring very quickly. Afterwards, you can proceed to build characters which a) every player is probably very content with and b) which are not artificially limited by a randomly limited resource or random chance and thus often feel quite natural.

[Darth Ultron]

He's made it clear previously that he doesn't want players that challenge him before and often goes to extreme lengths to actively drive them away from his table. Basically, a classic bully.

Make me wonder how a player ''challenges'' a DM ?


The paradox thing about minmaxing is that you have to be bad at something so that you can be get good at something else. This is not how real life works and it always feel artificial.

Except it is how real life works?

[MeimuHakurei]

It´s very depending on how you see the "balanced game" approach (of newer D&D editions) and who you really want to challenge, the player or the character.

I don´t have a problem with setbacks, failure and loss, but D&D is not the best game for that. The whole underlying system behind the rules is too closely keyed towards certain assumptions (CR, resource attrition, so on) and prone to breaking when not handled right.

While it seems amusing to have 5 "individuals" show up and have to deal with they can, but more so what they cannot do and have to find "creative" ways to deal with it using what they have, it can most likely lead to "pixel bi***ing" and the regular unwanted arms race.

You give some good examples for this task vs. solution kind of thinking, that reminds me of the older "I Win Button" thread: You can create a list of possible tasks and start "immunizing" yourself against that. Running away? Expeditious retreat. Solved. Swimming or climbing? Fly. Solved. And so on.

That is something you do on the pure meta game knowledge level. You need to know that a, say, Dominate Monster spell exists, that Vampire exist and can use it and that Protection From Evil is a straight counter to it, trivializing a vampire combat.

It's correct that D&D doesn't lend itself too well to failure, since mostly it's just a TPK or retreating after an encounter took too many resources to allow progress. That's fine, not every tabletop system under the sun has to be a grimdark dystopia full of suffering and pain.

And if you think being able to use Protection from Evil means the vampire is now trivial, you're a pretty lousy DM - the spell is low-level and can be dispelled, but most importantly, *it's limited duration* - you can easily make a horror scenario out of the players racing to find and slay the vampire before they run out of Protection of Evil, leaving them at mercy of being dominated. Not to mention there's plenty of other means a vamp can kill players (thralls, blood drain, other spells, weapons etc.), without relying on this one trick.


The paradox thing about minmaxing is that you have to be bad at something so that you can be get good at something else. This is not how real life works and it always feel artificial. I know that it is a balancing measure but it is not one that usually works (as balancing almost never does in a vaccuum) because the important aspect is usually the niche of the character where he or she excels, not any other aspects of the character; a wizard with an above average Strength score doesn't become a much more powerful character; he is first and foremost still a mage and uses spells as his core competence.
Niels Bohr won the Noble Prize in physics and was a professional football player and a quite handsome man. Why should a potential player character be more limited than that?

Really, I think that limiting player ressources to enforce minmaxing is a lot less sensible than it usually appears; establishing a ceiling and allow the players to set their abilities within this framework ("as high as necessary, as low as possible") and let them just do what they want is usually the better option, I think. The resulting characters are less one-sided and the players have more potential to be playful with their characters, adding hobbies and the like without having the impression that they impose a penalty to their more adventurous/central skills and abilities by "wasting" precious character ressources on fluffy, but ultimately relatively useless abilities that don't see much use in a typical adventure but contribute greatly to a character's personality and memorability.

And yes, allowing the players to go wild offers the potential for massive abuse. So what? Everybody will build his ultimate monster once, realise that such a character tend to become very boring very quickly. Afterwards, you can proceed to build characters which a) every player is probably very content with and b) which are not artificially limited by a randomly limited resource or random chance and thus often feel quite natural.

That's exactly the wrong assumption about building effective characters - you only have so many stat points to allocate, so you should be having strengths and weaknesses. Do you want players to start with 20s across the board instead? Or have all 3s to claw their way to high stats?

There's also the fact that some fluff options don't actually accomplish what you're trying to do with your character - 3.5's Toughness being a prime example of this. It provides an okay bonus at Level 1 and amounts to basically nothing at Level 2 and on. Most martial characters already have enough hit points to convey a character being durable. (and you can always do things like splashing in Fighter/Barb levels).

And super-high power characters are only boring if you keep pitting them against rats in the basement - if you'd actually acknowledge that the average PC is stronger than an old-aged commoner with leprosy, high-power games can actually be fun.

[Jay R]

Min-maxing is like driving on a one-lane country road. Anybody slower than you is a slug; anybody faster than you is a maniac.

[Florian]

It's correct that D&D doesn't lend itself too well to failure, since mostly it's just a TPK or retreating after an encounter took too many resources to allow progress. That's fine, not every tabletop system under the sun has to be a grimdark dystopia full of suffering and pain.

And if you think being able to use Protection from Evil means the vampire is now trivial, you're a pretty lousy DM - the spell is low-level and can be dispelled, but most importantly, *it's limited duration* - you can easily make a horror scenario out of the players racing to find and slay the vampire before they run out of Protection of Evil, leaving them at mercy of being dominated. Not to mention there's plenty of other means a vamp can kill players (thralls, blood drain, other spells, weapons etc.), without

Unnecessary details. I just wanted to point out a paradox:
- I want a challenge.
- I want a system that ensures the challenge is fair.
- I want to have the tools to make a fair challenge into an easy one.

You could also use:
- I want the thrill of randomness, so we use a one die based mechanic
- Then I will want to control the randomness by being able to stack a high static modifier to the roll, up to the point that makes rolling unnecessary.
- I will try to avoid randomness by only choosing actions and spell that don´t need a die roll.

Both sets contain very heavy contradictions. It´s like saying that you want the thrill of Save and Die spells, but only face them when your saves are high enough that you know you will succeed at the roll.

[Max_Killjoy]

Unnecessary details. I just wanted to point out a paradox:
- I want a challenge.
- I want a system that ensures the challenge is fair.
- I want to have the tools to make a fair challenge into an easy one.

You could also use:
- I want the thrill of randomness, so we use a one die based mechanic
- Then I will want to control the randomness by being able to stack a high static modifier to the roll, up to the point that makes rolling unnecessary.
- I will try to avoid randomness by only choosing actions and spell that don´t need a die roll.

Both sets contain very heavy contradictions. It´s like saying that you want the thrill of Save and Die spells, but only face them when your saves are high enough that you know you will succeed at the roll.


In my experience, there are gamers for whom that "contradiction" is exactly the point, and exactly the "emotional hit" they're looking for.

They want a situation that is a big challenge or a big risk to start out with, and then through their own cleverness, knowledge, effort, skill, etc, to turn that situation into a sure thing. They get their thrill from being "that damn good" and turning a long-shot into a sure-thing.

[Arbane]

Make me wonder how a player ''challenges'' a DM ?

Except it is how real life works?

I'm guessing you played with this guy (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?545994-Ranged-Builds-5th-edition) or a close relative at some time in the past and it traumatized you.

"Real Life" is what I play RPGs to GET AWAY FROM.


Both sets contain very heavy contradictions. It´s like saying that you want the thrill of Save and Die spells, but only face them when your saves are high enough that you know you will succeed at the roll.

"I want the POSSIBILITY of failure, not the actuality."

[Black Jester]

Make me wonder how a player ''challenges'' a DM ?
Except it is how real life works?


No, it really doesn’t. Do you think that Stephen Hawking for example is a renowned scientist because of his affliction or despite of it? (okay, the ‘renowned’ part may be at least partially a result of his ALS because it has probably formed his public image, but it would be grossly unfair to reduce Hawkins’ attributions alone to his disease and ignore his actual achievements).



That's exactly the wrong assumption about building effective characters - you only have so many stat points to allocate, so you should be having strengths and weaknesses. Do you want players to start with 20s across the board instead? Or have all 3s to claw their way to high stats?

I have no problems with powerful characters – player characters should feel relevant within the margins of the genre they represent – but the idea that you have to sacrifice secondary abilities just to achieve the expected levels of capability is neither logical nor is it actually necessary. It is just such a fixture in game design to artificially limit the player characters just as it was once the dominant concept to randomize character abilities. Both methods are ultimately superfluous in an environment of mutual trust.

Again, let the players decide. Give the players as many ‘stat points’ as they want. If you need to build the character with the perfect stat line to prove something, do it. Get it out of your system. It is not nearly as much fun as it seems at first especially when the all perfect stats basically mean that you have no development potential left.
There is no need to limit the resources of the players in the first place as long as the players can handle the responsibility –as the vast majority can. And the few that cannot handle this freedom without inevitably abusing it would also try to abuse any other unclear rules or wording to their utmost advantage whenever they gain the opportunity.





There's also the fact that some fluff options don't actually accomplish what you're trying to do with your character - 3.5's Toughness being a prime example of this. It provides an okay bonus at Level 1 and amounts to basically nothing at Level 2 and on. Most martial characters already have enough hit points to convey a character being durable. (and you can always do things like splashing in Fighter/Barb levels).


Thank you for making my point for me – if there is a fluff option that isn’t very helpful (Toughness isn’t that flavourful, but there are more than enough quite underperforming traits) but which can actually tell a significant part of the character’s story there is no good reason to punish people for taking it. If it is a minor trait anyway, what is wrong with just granting it to the PC, free of charge? There is clearly a finite number of relevant traits that fit the character image in the first place anyway.

[Pex]

The paradox thing about minmaxing is that you have to be bad at something so that you can be get good at something else. This is not how real life works and it always feel artificial. I know that it is a balancing measure but it is not one that usually works (as balancing almost never does in a vaccuum) because the important aspect is usually the niche of the character where he or she excels, not any other aspects of the character; a wizard with an above average Strength score doesn't become a much more powerful character; he is first and foremost still a mage and uses spells as his core competence.
Niels Bohr won the Noble Prize in physics and was a professional football player and a quite handsome man. Why should a potential player character be more limited than that?

Really, I think that limiting player ressources to enforce minmaxing is a lot less sensible than it usually appears; establishing a ceiling and allow the players to set their abilities within this framework ("as high as necessary, as low as possible") and let them just do what they want is usually the better option, I think. The resulting characters are less one-sided and the players have more potential to be playful with their characters, adding hobbies and the like without having the impression that they impose a penalty to their more adventurous/central skills and abilities by "wasting" precious character ressources on fluffy, but ultimately relatively useless abilities that don't see much use in a typical adventure but contribute greatly to a character's personality and memorability.

And yes, allowing the players to go wild offers the potential for massive abuse. So what? Everybody will build his ultimate monster once, realise that such a character tend to become very boring very quickly. Afterwards, you can proceed to build characters which a) every player is probably very content with and b) which are not artificially limited by a randomly limited resource or random chance and thus often feel quite natural.

Point Buy in D&D is a zero sum game. To have a high score somewhere you must have a low score somewhere else. When the success of doing stuff depends on an ability score, you want it as high as possible. Ability scores that see little use from you naturally don't matter so much so they will be low. The ability score is never totally useless, but there's only so much you can do. In 5E, Niehls Bohr at 1st level could have 16 ST 16 IN and 16 CH, but he'll have 9 DX 9 CO and 9 WI. Did they have to be 16s? That's subjective, but your description hints at it. A human character could have 14 14 14 14 14 11. That's not horrible. He can be fine at anything but will be lacking compared to the one who specialized a 16 in that specialized field. As the levels progress he'll get to 18 first and then 20. He's ahead for the majority of the game. It comes to personal taste which you prefer, but you are never, ever the superior player for choosing to play a character of 14 14 14 14 14 11 instead of 16 16 16 9 9 9 nor vice versa.

If you use dice rolling, you're bound to luck.


In my experience, there are gamers for whom that "contradiction" is exactly the point, and exactly the "emotional hit" they're looking for.

They want a situation that is a big challenge or a big risk to start out with, and then through their own cleverness, knowledge, effort, skill, etc, to turn that situation into a sure thing. They get their thrill from being "that damn good" and turning a long-shot into a sure-thing.

<raises hand>

[Florian]

In my experience, there are gamers for whom that "contradiction" is exactly the point, and exactly the "emotional hit" they're looking for.

They want a situation that is a big challenge or a big risk to start out with, and then through their own cleverness, knowledge, effort, skill, etc, to turn that situation into a sure thing. They get their thrill from being "that damn good" and turning a long-shot into a sure-thing.

The OP question is: "Why is min-maxing bad when you need it to play?"

I see three distinct levels to it:
- Tactical Mastery.
- Strategic Mastery.
- System Mastery.

As I see it, it will turn "bad" when one set of Mastery will begin to overshadow or even replace one or both of the others, possibly altering the game and the basic premise behind it by doing so.

Taking 3E D&D as an example, it´s "bad" when building up a character that can "auto win" tactical combat without you having to deal with any actual tactical choices anymore, or making build decisions that let you ignore the strategic part of resource management entirely.

[Max_Killjoy]

The OP question is: "Why is min-maxing bad when you need it to play?"

I see three distinct levels to it:
- Tactical Mastery.
- Strategic Mastery.
- System Mastery.

As I see it, it will turn "bad" when one set of Mastery will begin to overshadow or even replace one or both of the others, possibly altering the game and the basic premise behind it by doing so.

Taking 3E D&D as an example, it´s "bad" when building up a character that can "auto win" tactical combat without you having to deal with any actual tactical choices anymore, or making build decisions that let you ignore the strategic part of resource management entirely.


Ah, so then your example would be "system mastery" overwhelming one of the others, such that there is no tactical challenge at all.

Makes sense.

(I had partially misunderstood your point as being about only about the discrete challenges, not about the interplay, and was trying to explain why a player might seem to contradict themselves on whether they want challenges/risk or not -- they want a challenge or risk, but they want to overcome it along another axis such that they can in essence say to the challenge/risk "I've already beaten you, you just don't know it yet.)

[Florian]

Ah, so then your example would be "system mastery" overwhelming one of the others, such that there is no tactical challenge at all.

Makes sense.

A side effect is that it moves the whole decision making process from the actual game to the pre-game state of character creation, further disrupting the interplay on this.

The strategic element of an RPG is often based around long-term management of resources, the tactical element is most often the combat system and the choices you make each turn. The interplay here isn't just that being good at handling resources makes the individual encounters/challenges easier, "smart moves" like scouting ahead, gathering knowledge and doing research (mundane and divination) give the necessary edge to win, like you don´t charge into a dragon lair without finding out age and color beforehand.

So the one side is using the purely technical side of a game system to negate the tactical challenges, the other side is trying to negate the strategic side of it, for example by trying to eliminate resource management in the first place.

Overall, the disconnect here can be quite annoying.

[Mordaedil]

Make me wonder how a player ''challenges'' a DM ?
DM's are often challenged by player's doing actions they did not predict they would undertake.

Examples:
A bard goes off on his own to perform a diversion tactic of putting a noble-mans house on fire across town. He turns into a fly and lands on a soldiers pauldron. The DM has predicted the outcome so far and is mostly curious what sort of diversion he will pull off. The bard then says he transforms into a triceratops. The DM now has to deal with the bard going off rails.

Your villain is attempting to teleport away, but the wizard player has been readying an action all this time and finally interjects; He's counterspelling the villain. Now your villain is dead and you have to think of a new way to motivate your players (pro-tip, always expect your villains to die)

Your campaign has a big climatic finalé planned and one of your players gets in the wrong place at the wrong time and ruins everything.

But I'm sure you have an answer to every one of these, but then that kinda defeats the point. The entire point, if you will, of having players play with you.

[Black Jester]

Point Buy in D&D is a zero sum game. To have a high score somewhere you must have a low score somewhere else. When the success of doing stuff depends on an ability score, you want it as high as possible. Ability scores that see little use from you naturally don't matter so much so they will be low. [...]

If you use dice rolling, you're bound to luck.



I know. I don't suggest to use dice rolling instead of Point Buy. Both options have their obvious shortckmings. I therefore recomment using neither option and just pick the abilitiy scores you want for your character, based by the guideline "as high as necessary, as low as possible". Then, there is no need for minmaxing and the resulting all-too-common cookie cutter character clishés.

[Darth Ultron]

No, it really doesn’t. Do you think that Stephen Hawking for example is a renowned scientist because of his affliction or despite of it? (okay, the ‘renowned’ part may be at least partially a result of his ALS because it has probably formed his public image, but it would be grossly unfair to reduce Hawkins’ attributions alone to his disease and ignore his actual achievements).

But that has nothing to do with anything? Stephen is a scientist, and is good at one thing: Science. He, like most people, is an example of some one good at one thing.




I have no problems with powerful characters – player characters should feel relevant within the margins of the genre they represent – but the idea that you have to sacrifice secondary abilities just to achieve the expected levels of capability is neither logical nor is it actually necessary. It is just such a fixture in game design to artificially limit the player characters just as it was once the dominant concept to randomize character abilities. Both methods are ultimately superfluous in an environment of mutual trust.

Except, again, this is how Real Life works. To get ''levels of capability'' takes hard work and time and training and such...and simply put most people can only do one thing. There just is not that much time in a day...or life.

Just take any language: you can take some time and learn how to speak any language...but that does not make you speak every language in the world. Can you keep learning languages..yes, there are people can speak lots of languages....but not too many. The vast majority of people maybe max out at three, and maybe up to five. But as that number goes up past the first couple the quality goes down...very few people can handle so much. So the ones after six are more ''conversational'' or ''know a little''.





Again, let the players decide. Give the players as many ‘stat points’ as they want. If you need to build the character with the perfect stat line to prove something, do it. Get it out of your system. It is not nearly as much fun as it seems at first especially when the all perfect stats basically mean that you have no development potential left.
There is no need to limit the resources of the players in the first place as long as the players can handle the responsibility –as the vast majority can. And the few that cannot handle this freedom without inevitably abusing it would also try to abuse any other unclear rules or wording to their utmost advantage whenever they gain the opportunity.

If your going to have the players just make demi god characters, why even bother to play the game?

[Rhedyn]

I know. I don't suggest to use dice rolling instead of Point Buy. Both options have their obvious shortckmings. I therefore recomment using neither option and just pick the abilitiy scores you want for your character, based by the guideline "as high as necessary, as low as possible". Then, there is no need for minmaxing and the resulting all-too-common cookie cutter character clishés.
I need straight 18s for my character concept. So does the rest of the party.

"I care more about story than stats or game balance."

"Characters with the same array of stats are l literally the same."

[Boci]

I need straight 18s for my character concept. So does the rest of the party.

Whilst such an aproach would take a little more adjusting to, if players can be trusted to write their own backstories without abusing it to make themselves just about to inherit a kingdom and have 200 elite body guard follow them everywhere, I think the above is a little pessamistic for how players would respond to being allowed to ration their own point buy.

[Rhedyn]

Whilst such an aproach would take a little more adjusting to, if players can be trusted to write their own backstories without abusing it to make themselves just about to inherit a kingdom and have 200 elite body guard follow them everywhere, I think the above is a little pessamistic for how players would respond to being allowed to ration their own point buy.
I don't roll iniative with my backstory and spend 45 minute or more chunks in a very tactical, very rules heavy, game mode.

[Boci]

I don't roll iniative with my backstory and spend 45 minute or more chunks in a very tactical, very rules heavy, game mode.

You effectively do if your backstory includes: "As royal heir I offcourse have one of the Soltakan as my bodyguards, They are fanatically loyal to me and will lay down their life preventing even a drop of my sacred blood from being spillt. They are level 4 fighters with an initiative modificer of +6".

[Rhedyn]

You effectively do if your backstory includes: "As royal heir I offcourse have one of the Soltakan as my bodyguards, They are fanatically loyal to me and will lay down their life preventing even a drop of my sacred blood from being spillt. They are level 4 fighters with an initiative modificer of +6".
"Your character doesn't know stats as an in-character concept."

[Boci]

"Your character doesn't know stats as an in-character concept."

Really? That's pretty trivial to overcome. "They are at the peak of physical fitness and have a decade of training and 2 years experience on the battle field. Despite relying on strength they have not neglected their reflex, and indeed excel in seizing the initiative in a fight".

No, any DM worth their salt is in fact going to say "No, you don't have a body guard like that, rejigg your background story or you can't play them. If he must be of this royal family he cannot be next in line of success, unless you are okay with me coming up with a reason for why that doesn't happen, and you will need to write that bodyguard out of the picture for the start of the game. Maybe they left without their parents blessing so they never got one, or they were parted before the game begins".

[Florian]

I know. I don't suggest to use dice rolling instead of Point Buy. Both options have their obvious shortckmings. I therefore recomment using neither option and just pick the abilitiy scores you want for your character, based by the guideline "as high as necessary, as low as possible". Then, there is no need for minmaxing and the resulting all-too-common cookie cutter character clishés.

That's more of a problem with the underlying game system than with point buy. D20 is a good example, as raw effectiveness is solely based on the initial character choices. You want to be good at dual-wielding? Then you already know that you'll need a certain DEX score to go for the full feat line, same as any full caster knows that a INT/WIS/CHA score of 19 is necessary to cast ninth level spells.

It´s really only that interplay that promotes this min-max-based concept building.

Contrast that with Splittermond. You automatically get the average attributes of a member of your race, the average skills and talents of a member of your culture and social standing and the skills, talents and spells of a well-trained member of your chosen profession (For Tier 1, that means attribute scores at 2 out of 4, skill ranks at 4 out of 6, maybe 7 talents and 1st and 2nd level spells, average success rate at tasks maybe 65-70%). Now you use point buy to max, or add, but never lower at any one point, like either raising a skill to 6 or adding an atypical one at 4, and so on.

Main difference is, that I know that I can raise any weapon skill to 6 and pick the dual-wield talent, no further requirements, or raise any one magic school skill to the point that I can learn spells of the highest rank, still no further requirement, but I know that I have to work on the relevant attribute scores when it comes to offensive spells, to overcome defenses.

IMHO one forces me to min-max, the other doesn't.

[Quertus]

Really? That's pretty trivial to overcome. "They are at the peak of physical fitness and have a decade of training and 2 years experience on the battle field. Despite relying on strength they have not neglected their reflex, and indeed excel in seizing the initiative in a fight".

No, any DM worth their salt is in fact going to say "No, you don't have a body guard like that, rejigg your background story or you can't play them. If he must be of this royal family he cannot be next in line of success, unless you are okay with me coming up with a reason for why that doesn't happen, and you will need to write that bodyguard out of the picture for the start of the game. Maybe they left without their parents blessing so they never got one, or they were parted before the game begins".

That is a character about whom good stories could be told. A GM worth more than his salt could help facilitate such stories without changing the character.

[Arbane]

If your going to have the players just make demi god characters, why even bother to play the game?

Because they want to have demigod adventures.

[Max_Killjoy]

Because they want to have demigod adventures.

"You might be the biggest baddest thing in this valley, but there's always another mountain and another valley."

[Rhedyn]

That is a character about whom good stories could be told. A GM worth more than his salt could help facilitate such stories without changing the character.

Oh yeah a bodyguard like that would be hilarious to GM for.

The campaign probably starts with him captured by enemies he made in the war and your quest to save him is what prompted you to leave your protective homestead.

I always save player back stories in a folder called "ammunition" anyways.

[Max_Killjoy]

Oh yeah a bodyguard like that would be hilarious to GM for.

The campaign probably starts with him captured by enemies he made in the war and your quest to save him is what prompted you to leave your protective homestead.

I always save player back stories in a folder called "ammunition" anyways.


Maybe I'm overreacting to your terminology, but that seems like the approach to handling backstories that encourages players to make the Orphans from Nowhere with Nothing to Care About, the wandering strangers and even specifically "murderhobos", that other GMs and players end up complaining about in other threads so often.

If players feel like they're being punished for their characters having connections to the world, they're going to stop giving their characters connections.

And overall, it's called a "plot hook" and not a "meat hook" for a reason. Working in a character's history, family, etc, doesn't always have to be about kidnapping their kid sister, killing their parents, and/or burning down their home town.

[Rhedyn]

Maybe I'm overreacting to your terminology, but that seems like the approach to handling backstories that encourages players to make the Orphans from Nowhere with Nothing to Care About, the wandering strangers and even specifically "murderhobos", that other GMs and players end up complaining about in other threads so often.

If players feel like they're being punished for their characters having connections to the world, they're going to stop giving their characters connections.

And overall, it's called a "plot hook" and not a "meat hook" for a reason. Working in a character's history, family, etc, doesn't always have to be about kidnapping their kid sister, killing their parents, and/or burning down their home town.
Ah but I fill in any holes in the backstory.

So when they meet their demon father or grandfather, they learn no backstory just means you don't know what's coming for you.

Though it's not like a backstory can't help them out, but it's probably leading up to a bigger more interesting problem.

[Boci]

That is a character about whom good stories could be told. A GM worth more than his salt could help facilitate such stories without changing the character.

That has nothing to do with what you quoted from me. I was explaining how a DM would prevent this to from happening since it presumed a character using their backstory to cheat out extra power, not a legitimate attempt to add something to the game.

I was talking about how if you trust players with a backstory, whilst not the same it isn't inconceivable that you would trust them with their own point buy ratio.

[Quertus]

That has nothing to do with what you quoted from me. I was explaining how a DM would prevent this to from happening since it presumed a character using their backstory to cheat out extra power, not a legitimate attempt to add something to the game.

I was talking about how if you trust players with a backstory, whilst not the same it isn't inconceivable that you would trust them with their own point buy ratio.

We're almost aggressively agreeing.

Where I think we differ is on whether the game has a preset power level. And, arguably, whether that character fits within the group's power range with the other PCs.

Yes, anything can be abused. But not all powerful characters inherently need to be nerfed. And, the notion of trusting the other players to make their characters kinda almost assumes that power level is a negotiation, where the players start by telling the GM what power level they'd like to run at. Calling that "cheating" indicates that you don't fully grasp the concept, or, at the very least, are looking at it from a suboptimal PoV.

Hand players the rules, and you'll get lots of responses. Some players will try to eek out every last drop of power. Some players will hide, and ask someone else to build their character for them. Me, I'll experiment, and build characters all over the place, because that's what I do.

The point here is, if you just let players have whatever they want, then they can tell the stories they want about the characters they want. It's the ultimate in player agency. Now, me, I look at that and scream, "Freedom! Horrible, horrible Freedom!". But I appreciate how some could use and enjoy that style, while feeling stifled by silly rules limiting what types of characters are valid.

[Florian]

That has nothing to do with what you quoted from me. I was explaining how a DM would prevent this to from happening since it presumed a character using their backstory to cheat out extra power, not a legitimate attempt to add something to the game.

I was talking about how if you trust players with a backstory, whilst not the same it isn't inconceivable that you would trust them with their own point buy ratio.

Your character is generally your own concern and you can do anything you like within the boundaries that you are given by the game system. If you're not playing a game system that is concerned about creating facts as part of the in-game reality (ex: Fate), a backstory is nothing more than a proposal for the gm to include into the in-game reality, nothing more.

But unlike trusting a player with PB values, meaning character, backstory is basically "gm country" and you will be hard-pressed to "game" that against a gm.

So Quertus is basically right, because the player just handed the gm more stuff to be creative with.

[Boci]

We're almost aggressively agreeing.

Where I think we differ is on whether the game has a preset power level. And, arguably, whether that character fits within the group's power range with the other PCs.

Yes, anything can be abused. But not all powerful characters inherently need to be nerfed. And, the notion of trusting the other players to make their characters kinda almost assumes that power level is a negotiation, where the players start by telling the GM what power level they'd like to run at. Calling that "cheating" indicates that you don't fully grasp the concept, or, at the very least, are looking at it from a suboptimal PoV.

Hand players the rules, and you'll get lots of responses. Some players will try to eek out every last drop of power. Some players will hide, and ask someone else to build their character for them. Me, I'll experiment, and build characters all over the place, because that's what I do.

The point here is, if you just let players have whatever they want, then they can tell the stories they want about the characters they want. It's the ultimate in player agency. Now, me, I look at that and scream, "Freedom! Horrible, horrible Freedom!". But I appreciate how some could use and enjoy that style, while feeling stifled by silly rules limiting what types of characters are valid.

No, we're talking about 2 completly different things. You're applying my stance to the game as a whole, when it was addressed to the very niche case of players being allowed to give themselves whatever stats they want, and how whilst not for everyone, it could work and its foolish to assume it will lead to the whole group putting straight 18 in all stats as Rhedyn immediatly suggested. That you apply what I say and stretch it to the game as a whole means you are left with a false idea of what I believe about the game, because the parameters in my origional argument would not hold to the game as whole.

[Guizonde]

Maybe I'm overreacting to your terminology, but that seems like the approach to handling backstories that encourages players to make the Orphans from Nowhere with Nothing to Care About, the wandering strangers and even specifically "murderhobos", that other GMs and players end up complaining about in other threads so often.

If players feel like they're being punished for their characters having connections to the world, they're going to stop giving their characters connections.

And overall, it's called a "plot hook" and not a "meat hook" for a reason. Working in a character's history, family, etc, doesn't always have to be about kidnapping their kid sister, killing their parents, and/or burning down their home town.

like previously mentionned, i jot down very short backstories to fluff out later. case in point with my current character, a half-drow inquisitor. his mom's drow, that we know, his dad is captain of the riddle-port navy, had issues with his parents, and that led to a wild adolescence ending with him kicked to inquisition school. we pick up the campaign, he's an accomplished inquisitor and about to embark on the mission that will make or break his reputation. not exactly a developped backstory, but with a few hooks, nonetheless.

that's all i gave to my dm. session 2, i go look for my dad's chambers to maybe find something that could be useful. i find an altar dedicated to my mother. huh, things definitely got a bit melancholy right off the bat, even tugging at the heartstrings.

session 11? i receive a send spell from the ol' pater who needs help getting rid of a curse, right in golarion's equivalent of hell, so he turns to his son who's kinda sorta good at these things. as you do. we all knew he left to wage war up there, but it's not a "captured parent" or "dead family" situation. it's a genuine plea for assistance, since according to the dm, the war is gruelling, but in favor of the non-demonic forces. plus, ooc, i know that the npc sheet he drew up places the father in the low-ecl 17 area, with a few dips and even prc's. as he told me "he's a fleet captain of one of the most cut-throat seas in golarion. he's a badass. old, but you won't want to mess with him".

let me tell you i did not expect that turn of events. i really liked it. dm estimates the group will be ready for that campaign in about 10 levels (ecl 14-ish). we're a group of 6, and the dm tailor-made a mini-campaign based on each team-member's backstory and it all fits into our over-arching campaign. told me he pulled a few all-nighters coming up with all of that and how all the pieces fit, but it helped him deal with a bout of post-adolescent depression. i foresee good things in my dm's future.

[Clistenes]

You effectively do if your backstory includes: "As royal heir I offcourse have one of the Soltakan as my bodyguards, They are fanatically loyal to me and will lay down their life preventing even a drop of my sacred blood from being spillt. They are level 4 fighters with an initiative modificer of +6".

You don't get any xp, since that bodyguard does all the fighting. Also, that bodyguard is secretly reporting to the king, who will soon send his cousin the archduke and a guard of 50 knights supported by a priest and a mage to make the heir stop foolishly putting his life into danger and retrieve him to palace, using force, if necessary...

[icefractal]

The OP question is: "Why is min-maxing bad when you need it to play?"

I see three distinct levels to it:
- Tactical Mastery.
- Strategic Mastery.
- System Mastery.

As I see it, it will turn "bad" when one set of Mastery will begin to overshadow or even replace one or both of the others, possibly altering the game and the basic premise behind it by doing so.

Taking 3E D&D as an example, it´s "bad" when building up a character that can "auto win" tactical combat without you having to deal with any actual tactical choices anymore, or making build decisions that let you ignore the strategic part of resource management entirely.I'm going to somewhat disagree. If the strategic layer actually means anything, then it will sometimes negate the tactical layer /of a particular challenge/. If you successfully use subterfuge to enter the fortress as janitors then the fight at the main gates never happens, for example. And when the GM negates this and forces all planned encounters to happen it gives things a very "theme park" feeling.

A better solution is to simply have more stuff ready, so if the PCs assassinate the corrupt Duke 15 minutes into the session, just move on to what happens next. For this reason, I think an ideal system makes encounter building very easy for the GM, so that skipping one doesn't waste too much work.

[Boci]

You don't get any xp, since that bodyguard does all the fighting. Also, that bodyguard is secretly reporting to the king, who will soon send his cousin the archduke and a guard of 50 knights supported by a priest and a mage to make the heir stop foolishly putting his life into danger and retrieve him to palace, using force, if necessary...

Yeah, those are all pretty terribly ways of handling the issue. IC aproach to an OOC problem rarely end well.

[Clistenes]

Yeah, those are all pretty terribly ways of handling the issue. IC aproach to an OOC problem rarely end well.

Well, to begin with, I don't think any DM would accept a 1st lvl character to have a powerful lvl 4 cohort, so I was mostly joking... And if somebody tried to pull that (I don't think anybody would try it in a real game) he or she should be convinced to forget about it...

But if that lvl 4 bodyguard fighter (and the rest of the badass royal guard) is there, first order of things is to decide what you do: If everybody wants to play a political game around royal connections and intriges, it is fine, but you have to adapt everything to the mountain of resources the crown can bring to the table.

If the group wanted to play a more traditional adventure, having the prince run away from palace and go incognito is a reasonable way to do it, keeping the royal connections as a source of plothooks for later...

[Pex]

Well, to begin with, I don't think any DM would accept a 1st lvl character to have a powerful lvl 4 cohort, so I was mostly joking... And if somebody tried to pull that (I don't think anybody would try it in a real game) he or she should be convinced to forget about it...

But if that lvl 4 bodyguard fighter (and the rest of the badass royal guard) is there, first order of things is to decide what you do: If everybody wants to play a political game around royal connections and intriges, it is fine, but you have to adapt everything to the mountain of resources the crown can bring to the table.

If the group wanted to play a more traditional adventure, having the prince run away from palace and go incognito is a reasonable way to do it, keeping the royal connections as a source of plothooks for later...

I give you, the Pathfinder Summoner.

[Koo Rehtorb]

Maybe I'm overreacting to your terminology, but that seems like the approach to handling backstories that encourages players to make the Orphans from Nowhere with Nothing to Care About, the wandering strangers and even specifically "murderhobos", that other GMs and players end up complaining about in other threads so often.

Only if you hate the idea of your character being vulnerable to anything...

[Brookshw]

You're not going to fight a monster CR 5 monster at level 1,

This is one of those statement that reinforces to me the fundamental distinctions between playstyles and expectations.

It is also demonstrably false for 1st through 3.5 D&D. 3.5, being the most recent example, includes an encounter scale for DMs which includes a 5% chance of an encounter 10+ CR above party, with no ceiling for the scope of the gap, and increased odds for various other CRs also above the party (iirc pg. 42, but it's been a few years since I checked the pg reference). Assuming the 4 encounter day, 11 encounters per level, you are, as a matter of fact, more likely than not to have a CR 5+ encounter at level 1.

This is also regularly overlooked.

Carry on.

[Jay R]

Maybe I'm overreacting to your terminology, but that seems like the approach to handling backstories that encourages players to make the Orphans from Nowhere with Nothing to Care About, the wandering strangers and even specifically "murderhobos", that other GMs and players end up complaining about in other threads so often.

If players feel like they're being punished for their characters having connections to the world, they're going to stop giving their characters connections.

This is just confused thought. The DM is going to endanger every character, in every session, in every game, regardless of backgrounds.

So what if the DM's villains kidnapped your character's sister? Yes, than means you have to risk your life fighting them, but you were going to go risk your life fighting the DM's villains in any case.

It is simply untrue that the DM will endanger the characters with a background while the ones with no background can just play with butterflies in the meadow all day.

[Boci]

This is one of those statement that reinforces to me the fundamental distinctions between playstyles and expectations.

It is also demonstrably false for 1st through 3.5 D&D. 3.5, being the most recent example, includes an encounter scale for DMs which includes a 5% chance of an encounter 10+ CR above party, with no ceiling for the scope of the gap, and increased odds for various other CRs also above the party (iirc pg. 42, but it's been a few years since I checked the pg reference). Assuming the 4 encounter day, 11 encounters per level, you are, as a matter of fact, more likely than not to have a CR 5+ encounter at level 1.

This is also regularly overlooked.

Carry on.

Yeah, and there's a reason for that. Firstly of all, by RAW, there was no way to reliable tell the difference between a CR 2 monster and CR 10. If its abilities have a visual tell then the players maybe ato guess, but if not then they're SOOT.

But fine, let's say the DM is generous and lets a 1st level party know a monster with a high CR when they see one, even if its appearns doesn't imply that. There is still the issue that a the monster could easily be too fast for them to escape and certainly too strong to kill, if they have a decent stealth modifer than the players won't see them coming, so all the players can do it hope its not interested in them, which will not always be the case.

There will be demons and other evil outsider, who won't mind taking a standard action to kill a party with fireball. There are undead, driven to snuff out out all life, including that of first level PCs. There are humanoid eating predators, who generally will find the crospe of a 1st level character every bit as appaetizing as that of a level apropriate player. There are sadistic fey, who will be amused by how helpless the PCs are, and the list goes one...

So no, its not demonstratably false for 3.5. The DMG has a rule that very few use, because it would literally be the opposite of fun for the majority of groups.

[Brookshw]

So no, its not demonstratably false for 3.5. The DMG has a rule that very few use, because it would literally be the opposite of fun for the majority of groups.

The chart I reference is a fact. A fact does not change based on your opinions, preferences or house rules. Your earlier assumption remains demonstrably false. If the page reference is incorrect please let me know and I will gladly correct it later.

Beyond that I have no interest in engaging in a conversation about a fact.

[Boci]

The chart I reference is a fact. A fact does not change based on your opinions, preferences or house rules. Your earlier assumption remains demonstrably false. If the page reference is incorrect please let me know and I will gladly correct it later.

Beyond that I have no interest in engaging in a conversation about a fact.

If DMs do not enforce the chart, then "You're not going to fight a monster CR 5 monster at level 1" is a fact. And it pretty much is, in the majority of casses. So....nope, you're wrong.

[Koo Rehtorb]

And it pretty much is, in the majority of casses. So....nope, you're wrong.

I'd love to see your empirical data on that.

[Boci]

I'd love to see your empirical data on that.

Its on the shelf, right next to the double blind test determining ig fparachutes make jumping out of an airplane safer.

[Brookshw]

I'd love to see your empirical data on that.

It's irrelevant, as soon as he raised "what if we don't follow the rules" he ceased talking about the rules, and thus the facts of the game. If he wants to go down the rabbit hole of "well my house rule is..." it stops mattering in any objective manner and demonstrated my initial observation re: the original statement showing fundamental differences in playstyles & expectations.

And now we've come full circle.

[Boci]

It's irrelevant, as soon as he raised "what if we don't follow the rules" he ceased talking about the rules, and thus the facts of the game. If he wants to go down the rabbit hole of "well my house rule is..." it stops mattering in any objective manner and demonstrated my initial observation re: the original statement showing fundamental differences in playstyles & expectations.

And now we've come full circle.

Every DM has their house rules. Ignoring them in a discussion about how people expirience the game will make for a rather pointless discussion.

[Max_Killjoy]

This is just confused thought. The DM is going to endanger every character, in every session, in every game, regardless of backgrounds.

So what if the DM's villains kidnapped your character's sister? Yes, than means you have to risk your life fighting them, but you were going to go risk your life fighting the DM's villains in any case.

It is simply untrue that the DM will endanger the characters with a background while the ones with no background can just play with butterflies in the meadow all day.

And yet "endangering the character" is entirely beside the point.

Most player characters can take care of themselves.

It's about endangering things and people that the character cares about, that often can't take care of themselves -- if the only thing that happens to things the character cares about is that they get killed, kidnapped, threatened, endangered, and otherwise used as leverage against the character, then that only gives the player incentive for their characters to care about absolutely nothing, to have no attachments and no connections.

Plus, it's just plain contrived when it keeps happening. It's like the TV series wherein if "our dashing hero" falls in love, you know the object of his affection is going to die, get sick, get kidnapped, have a dark secret that takes her away by the end of the episode, turn out to be an enemy plant or spy, or be the mysterious enemy catburgler that the episode is about catching.




Only if you hate the idea of your character being vulnerable to anything...


Which has almost nothing to do with what I actually posted.

Take a look at what I was replying to again, for the important context:



I always save player back stories in a folder called "ammunition" anyways.



And my reply to that was:



Maybe I'm overreacting to your terminology, but that seems like the approach to handling backstories that encourages players to make the Orphans from Nowhere with Nothing to Care About, the wandering strangers and even specifically "murderhobos", that other GMs and players end up complaining about in other threads so often.



If the GM only uses backstory as ammunition, and they can't seem to tell the difference between "plot hook" and "meat hook"... then there's a problem, and it's not the players who say "screw it, we're all Orphans from Nowhere".

The reasonable reaction of hating it when every connection or relationship your character ever has is used against them, over and over, across multiple PCs and campaigns... is not the same as unreasonably hating it when those things are occasionally used against your character as part of a broader spectrum of working PC relationships and connections into the game over time.

Or, to be blunt... I NEVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT PEOPLE HATING THEIR CHARACTERS BEING VULNERABLE TO ANYTHING. And I didn't suggest that it was good for players to pull back into a shell of making nothing but detached strangers and even murderhobos for PCs, only that it was a natural result of how some GMs treat anything in backstory as a way to F with PCs.


And if that comes across as overreacting or way too confrontational, it's because I want to completely nip the whole thing in the bud right now and not spend pages on end with one or more people thinking that I'm arguing for a position that I do not hold. Some days it really aggravates me that I can't respond to something that's too far in one direction without someone assuming that I'm taking a position that's too far in the other direction.

[Mechalich]

And yet "endangering the character" is entirely beside the point.

Most player characters can take care of themselves.

It's about endangering things and people that the character cares about, that often can't take care of themselves -- if the only thing that happens to things the character cares about is that they get killed, kidnapped, threatened, endangered, and otherwise used as leverage against the character, then that only gives the player incentive for their characters to care about absolutely nothing, to have no attachments and no connections.


Heroic fantasy induces this as a result of certain structural elements. In a zero to hero story, the PCs often come from nothing. That means that once they get a few levels behind them the people they used to know are incapable of helping them and revert into nothing but liabilities. It doesn't even cost the villain any measurable resources to attack them.

Compare to something like ASOIAF RPG. In that your characters are probably members of a noble house, and their relatives are also members of a noble house. If you're a knight, attacking your brother means attacking another knight with resources only marginally worse than yours. Your sisters have minders, bodyguards, and potentially even spouses who will fight back on your behalf.

In terms of D&D the reduction of plot hooks to meat hooks is at least partly a function of the broader power scaling issue.

[Max_Killjoy]

Heroic fantasy induces this as a result of certain structural elements. In a zero to hero story, the PCs often come from nothing. That means that once they get a few levels behind them the people they used to know are incapable of helping them and revert into nothing but liabilities. It doesn't even cost the villain any measurable resources to attack them.

Compare to something like ASOIAF RPG. In that your characters are probably members of a noble house, and their relatives are also members of a noble house. If you're a knight, attacking your brother means attacking another knight with resources only marginally worse than yours. Your sisters have minders, bodyguards, and potentially even spouses who will fight back on your behalf.

In terms of D&D the reduction of plot hooks to meat hooks is at least partly a function of the broader power scaling issue.


More like zero to demigod, at least in some editions. Not that I think "heroic fantasy" is defined by zero to anything -- that strikes me as over-applying The Hero's Journey as prescriptive instead of descriptive/analytical.

Either way, to me, this is just another instance in that particular system is really only "synchronous" with a very specific sort of setting and very specific sort of story, and for anything else it kinda falls apart unless the entire group politely ignores all the mounting contradictions.

Regardless of what the system might seem to result in, the GM (like an author or screenwriter) can only hit that same note over and over so many times before it becomes just a bad running joke at the expense of the game (or story).


{Although this subthread does remind me of an old Champions campaign from back in the day, in which one of the other PCs had moved in with his girlfriend, and one of his "rogues gallery" villains (acting on said villain's "Obsessed with breaking the hero" Psychological Limitation, and the GM doing a good job of keeping GM knowledge out of NPC heads) tried to pull the tired "woman in a refrigerator" cliche... and ended up in a coma that lasted until almost the end of the campaign...

...because said PC's girlfriend was actually a recently reawakened deity in hiding (think Hekate in hiding), far more powerful than any of the PCs at the time. You had to be there for the relationship to make sense.}

[Chaosticket]

This is really still going?

Min-maxing is necessary to acquire feats and statistics normally not allowed due to limitations.

If you could just roll until you had statistics you were satisfied and would make min-maxing stats pointless. Feats on the other hand are basically impossible to ever acquire them all, but having even more can be a big boost depending on what it is.]

Min-maxing is one of those things people say they dont care about, but they really do some degree. I dont see people willingly using the minimum statistics possible and trying to just play. Its more like you want 14 all round rather than 5 Charisma and 20 strength.

[Quertus]

Only if you hate the idea of your character being vulnerable to anything...

Max mostly covered this, but no. When being a muggle is (perceived as being) nothing but disadvantageous in 3e, do people really just continue playing muggles with neither complaint nor attempt to rectify the situation? Or do they display a clear desire to optimize their situation somehow?

This inability of many GMs to make attachments anything but disadvantageous has logical consequences, that most such GMs rarely think through, and then complain about when they reap what they sow.

Personally, I'm less concerned than Max on this particular point. So long as the GM isn't butchering my backstory, they're welcome to play my heartstrings in their monotone dirge of only viewing the people, places, and things that they've introduced in their world as "meat hooks", if that's all that they're capable of.


Yeah, and there's a reason for that. Firstly of all, by RAW, there was no way to reliable tell the difference between a CR 2 monster and CR 10.

Aside from Knowledge checks, Sense Motive, or even using "red shirts"?


So no, its not demonstratably false for 3.5. The DMG has a rule that very few use, because it would literally be the opposite of fun for the majority of groups.

I'll grant you that most groups believe that it wouldn't be fun. But, as I recall, your original position was one of "none", which was demonstrably false just from my own experiences, let alone being enforced by RAW.


Every DM has their house rules. Ignoring them in a discussion about how people expirience the game will make for a rather pointless discussion.

Unless discussing RAW, this is a mostly true statement. Is "don't be a ****" a house rule? If not, then one could argue that I've played at 3.x tables with no house rules. And I've certainly played at 2e tables with no house rules.

[Guizonde]

Max mostly covered this, but no. When being a muggle is (perceived as being) nothing but disadvantageous in 3e, do people really just continue playing muggles with neither complaint nor attempt to rectify the situation? Or do they display a clear desire to optimize their situation somehow?

This inability of many GMs to make attachments anything but disadvantageous has logical consequences, that most such GMs rarely think through, and then complain about when they reap what they sow.

Personally, I'm less concerned than Max on this particular point. So long as the GM isn't butchering my backstory, they're welcome to play my heartstrings in their monotone dirge of only viewing the people, places, and things that they've introduced in their world as "meat hooks", if that's all that they're capable of.

I'll grant you that most groups believe that it wouldn't be fun. But, as I recall, your original position was one of "none", which was demonstrably false just from my own experiences, let alone being enforced by RAW.

Unless discussing RAW, this is a mostly true statement. Is "don't be a ****" a house rule? If not, then one could argue that I've played at 3.x tables with no house rules. And I've certainly played at 2e tables with no house rules.

this really sums up my point on why my backstory is "to be developped". if it's necessary, it'll appear in 3 sessions' time. if it's not, i won't really bother fleshing out the past in favor of the present. if a dm butchers my backstory (and it has happened), i'll be very angry, especially if the dm gloats about it. like my anecdote stated, my current dm is acing my backstory, and we're fleshing it out together. he's the exception to my experiences, and he loves a good backstory. for him, when the character retires, it'll read like a true biography, full of ups, downs, successes, failures, and overcoming challenges, like a good biography should contain.

as for the last bit, correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't that rule n°1 of pen and paper? i know for a fact it's in the first 3 pages of the pathfinder phb, and fairly confident it's in the intro to the 3.5 dmg. who in their right minds would play with jerks? as we say in french, that's fetching the stick to get beaten with.

@chaosticket, i think you're accidentally contradicting yourself in your last sentence: you posit that most players would rather play with overall
good average stats with no dump stats rather than outliers, and yet you say that people do care about min-maxing? i agree i prefer playing with no real outliers (and so do a lot of my fellow players, unless they want a challenge), but the way you wrote it seems self-contradicting. do you mean "people think about min-maxing a lot specifically to avoid it"? your 20 to 5 example is clearly min-maxing, you straight 14's sounds like a plea for "balanced" characters where they're jacks of all trades rather than specialists (again, my favorite kind of character, but with its own set of limitations).

[PersonMan]

If your going to have the players just make demi god characters, why even bother to play the game?

Because it's fun. Why else would you be doing it?

Re: Backstories

Using backstories to help find things to motivate characters is also complicated a bit by how much the player wants their character's backstory to be relevant. In some games, it could be expected that "something related to your family's mine happened, so you want to go figure out what's going on" and the like the norm for quests. In others, "your family is asking for a favor" is going to be an annoying distraction from the real story.

That being said, I can't see the direct link between "threaten low-level PC family" and "PCs rapidly grow in power over the course of the story". In fact, it seems like a bit of a gamble for anyone who doesn't have effectively infinite resources, given the amount of travel that can easily be involved in a game. Yes, Mighty Mage Mark's family may be a pair of level 2 Experts, but finding out who they are, where they are, and then going all the way over there to threaten them seems like a waste of resources you could otherwise use to just ambush them (since you can obviously hit them with plenty of divination or gather information all about their past for this to work). Worse, it's not even a guaranteed success. "I have a family?! The monks said I was an orphan!" and "Eh, my family? They kicked me out when I showed signs of sorcerous talent, why would I care about them more than Peasant Bob?" are just as possible as "Well this sucks, better run into the obvious trap to save them", after all.

[Florian]

Yeah, those are all pretty terribly ways of handling the issue. IC aproach to an OOC problem rarely end well.

I think we're talking by each other on this.

1) There're game systems that explicitly allow for this kind of choice, but also tie them into the character mechanics. So you can start with your bodyguard, but you have to pay character XP to upgrade the bodyguard, for example.

2) Difference between Internal and external stuff. You can start with a +5 sword, and that sword can simply be stolen, the bodyguard can be killed, the manor house you inherited burned down. So that's a very simply issue to handle, unlike stuff that is internal to the character, like extra feats, higher ability scores or more skill points.

3) Blatant cheating. If stuff like gaining the sword, bodyguard or manor is not part of the character creation rules that you players should use and the issue is not brought up as a polite request before the actual game and the player shows up trying to enforce it by "power of backstory", there's the door.

That's why it´s a bit different from the proposed "stats as you like" variant, as that still follows some rules, is talked about in the group and may take many forms, like a gm saying "ok, use PB 40, no attribute lower than 12, no higher than 20" or "here´re three arrays, chose one and a free template".

[Lorsa]

Something bothers me about roleplaying games involving luck. Focusing on abilities, statistics, and ways to improve them is frowned upon but you still need those things to succeed and progress. You need as many bonuses as possible to win at life and death dice rolls.

I personally like well rounded characters with synergy between abilities. I keep thinking about different ideas but when I do they are compared to and compete with min-maxed classes which can be optimized further.

Different discussions ive read reinforce negative behavior. I want to make characters I can have fun with but it's either waiting to gain the abilities to start functioning and being useless before then or making something good now but generic and that will fade into obscurity.

So either play with a fun concept and suck or follow trends so I can play well.

EDIT: this isnt about minmaxing being bad. Its about games that push players to make them not out of personal goal but necessity.
High difficulty checks, invincible enemies or ones with powerful abilities you cant counter. Unbalanced difficulty spikes negating any fun unless you win.

I play in organized campaigns and each scenario is wildly different. There are no resurrections, no difficulty adjustments, just minmax to win.

I find it fascinating that you create a thread for something you answer yourself, even in the very question you ask.

Obviously, if you need minmaxing to play, it is not bad. That's nothing but basic logic.

The issue, of course, is if you can imagine that there may be cases when minmaxing is not needed to play. In those cases, people can find it good or bad for various reasons.

How on earth did this thread get so long from such a simple question?

[Florian]

More like zero to demigod, at least in some editions. Not that I think "heroic fantasy" is defined by zero to anything -- that strikes me as over-applying The Hero's Journey as prescriptive instead of descriptive/analytical.

Hm. Interesting point. Thinking of it, you might be right, that will lead to a huge detachment from the setting and in-game reality by focusing only on overcoming the challenge and the resulting growth.

As I mostly gm tightly themed campaigns anyway, I've got the luxury to work with it in reverse. I hand my players a list of "plot hooks" and they must chose one each concerning locations and persons to integrate into their characters backstory and hand my a plot hook based on the backstory of their own in return. So a "kidnapped family" will get you a "story feat" with an "ongoing" and a "completion" reward, like "Your family has been kidnapped by the Night Heralds, your investigation has lead you to the town of Rushmoor. Ongoing: Favored Enemy: Night Heralds. Completion: a +2 bonus against charm, compulsion, fear or pain related spells".

[Jay R]

And yet "endangering the character" is entirely beside the point.

Most player characters can take care of themselves.

It's about endangering things and people that the character cares about, that often can't take care of themselves -- if the only thing that happens to things the character cares about is that they get killed, kidnapped, threatened, endangered, and otherwise used as leverage against the character, ...

If that's all that happens to them, the the player characters can't take care of anything. In fact, their loved ones also get rescued, in every game I've had in which they were involved at all.

Something is going to get used as leverage to get the PCs to the adventures. That doesn't change.


... then that only gives the player incentive for their characters to care about absolutely nothing, to have no attachments and no connections.

That may be true for some players, but I find that experience points and loot and rescuing people I care about is at least as satisfying as just experience points and loot.


Plus, it's just plain contrived when it keeps happening. It's like the TV series wherein if "our dashing hero" falls in love, you know the object of his affection is going to die, get sick, get kidnapped, have a dark secret that takes her away by the end of the episode, turn out to be an enemy plant or spy, or be the mysterious enemy catburgler that the episode is about catching.

A. I've never had that incompetent a DM. In fact, my characters' families have been threatened, lost in the woods, kidnapped, and then we rescued them. Are there really DMs who are setting up games in which the PCs always fail? And if so, why do people play with these DMs?

If the DM is arranging that the rescue mission always fails, then it makes no difference to me whether we fail to rescue our loved ones, the princess, a village full of strangers, or a stray cat. In over 40 years of role-playing, I've never had such a bad DM. But if I did, I would blame the DM who did it, not the backstory he used as a tool.

B. Yes, of course a series of D&D sessions is just like an adventure TV series. We're trying to tell a series of stories. How many times has Lois Lane been kidnapped, robbed, or just been present at an earthquake?

C. Yes, having the loved ones threatened each session by monsters of exactly the right CR is exactly as contrived as going to the tavern and finding a quest that sends them each session to fight monsters of exactly the right CR. The basis of a D&D campaign is contrived. But don't blame the PCs' families for that.

Families or not, the PCs will be fighting the monsters over something that matters to them.

[Rhedyn]

I'm running Savage Worlds in the Starfinder setting.

One guy is the CSO of a large corporation on Eox. He ended up in a death game with all the other COs and their minions for control of the company. (This is a side mission)

Every CO he named ended up being an enemy and he named a lot of powerful undead creatures.

Maybe that's a "meat hook" to your group but my group hasn't expressed such an opinion so far.

[PersonMan]

Something is going to get used as leverage to get the PCs to the adventures. That doesn't change.

True, but that doesn't mean that it's all the same and equal. "Leverage" in terms of "do what NPC X says or you explode" is different from "you're in a nice village, and it's being attacked by orcs".


C. Yes, having the loved ones threatened each session by monsters of exactly the right CR is exactly as contrived as going to the tavern and finding a quest that sends them each session to fight monsters of exactly the right CR. The basis of a D&D campaign is contrived. But don't blame the PCs' families for that.

Only if you don't bother to make it not contrived (or use it as a catch-all for "anything that happens due to chance or wasn't done by explicitly planned-out actions by known actors). I wouldn't call a campaign hinging on 'go to a tavern for quests of exactly your CR every week' bad, but I wouldn't expect it to be praised for its story.