Talakeal's Gaming Horror Stories Continued (not really)

[Talakeal]

But: That isn´t "Gamist" in any way. That said, the way that Talakeal extended the underlying abstraction that beyond the point that reaching the "broken" condition lies death is just quite a bit too much, because it effectively removes death from the game, as long as you have items or money to prevent it.

So are you saying that it is the removal of player death itself that is the problem?

If that is the case, it must be a subconscious psychological thing, because my players specifically said they liked that rule.

Furthermore, in my experiance death isnt really much of a thing in modern gaming. Unless you are hit by a massive attack or an enemy decides to ignore active combatants and finish of an unconscious character death just isnt a possibility.

In all the games I have played or run in over the last quarter century I can probably count the number of dead PCs on my fingers, and the majority of those were raised almost immediately, turning death into a mere financial setback.

As I recall, PC deaths al,ost always occurred only when a min maxxed character did someting without the support of the party, for example going off alone or randomly attacking a friendly npc.

I have no idea where the term comes from, I was just riffing on the previous statement, describing min-maxing as maximising the benefits, while minimizing the detriments. This character seems to be all about the benefits, and not at all caring about having big detriments. Hence maxing, within that use of the term. As others have pointed out, that doesn't look like a very optimal build...

I have always taken min max to mean maximizing the aspects of the character you care about and minimizing those you dont, so the mage in my campaign would be a classic min maxxer.

Also, optimizer was invented on the forums on the mid 2000s to try and rebrand power-gaming without the negative stigma that was attached to it.

1) Losing half their treasure is "just because", in that no action they take will change that amount. No matter how much of their money is invested in retainers, no matter what those retainers' orders are, no matter if all their money is in one gem that they swallow if captured, they lost half their funds. It's a Gamist "just because", no matter the attempt to put a logical window-dressing on it after the fact.

2) yes, make that thread.

3) so just boil it down to a check for him. Just make those explicit rules I talked about, so he has to fill in all the blanks in the process of asking for said roll. "I attempt to convince x to do Y for me, using z as payment / leverage / etc. Diplomacy DC Q?"

4) yeah, probably.

5) cool. Although I am a bit confused by "personality without motivations"... Unless you mean that the characters had personalities, but the players lacked motivations.

6) does the detail level change your immersion level? Do you feel equally immersed using player skills to haggle with a merchant, using complex Ven diagram haggling rules to determine your current state in the haggle process, making a single haggle skill check, and drawing from a "haggle results" deck?

7) fair enough. It is their first time using the system though, is it not? So them Exploring the system is to be expected, and produces similar results.

8) I think that they have to have "immersion and long term interest in the game" in the first place for them to kill it.

I agree that their actions are not conducive to forming such. So, what (if anything) can you do to provide an environment conducive to them forming "immersion and long term interest in the game"?

9) "I convince the BBEG to be help with this Simple task of handing over the McGuffin of Doom, offering the Amazing commodity of my friendship". Whether the GM agrees that this is a simple task, and whether the GM agrees that The Power of Friendship is an Amazing-rank commodity says a lot about the tone of the game.

3: I have been trying to do just that for years. I have told him that all he needs to do is tell me what he wants, what he will offer, and what approach he is using to present the deal, but that is just too much for him.

His biggest problem is coming up with what to offer the npcs. He has told me repeatedly that he wants social interactions in an rpg to work like a store, he goes in and tells them what he wants and they give him a price. Of course, that doesnt work so well when you are dealing with intangible things rather than cash.

1: well... I specifically made it half because the players didnt want any randomness involved. There are lots of rules in RPGs that dont follow realistic probabilities for gamist reasons, I just look at those as averages and abstractions.

If the players want to take specific steps to protect their wealth I would be open to that on a case by case basis, but I cant really think of any situations that would drastically alter the balance without having large built in costs and / or risks of their own.

For example, the retainer is being paid to transport treasure through the wilderness which is an inherent cost, as well as incredibly risky as he is both vulnerable and under enormous temptation to betray the party. Likewise a single swallowed gem requires me to give them a significantly valuable single gem early on in the adventure, which is very unlikely, and recovering a single gem from their waste is pretty difficult, especially if they are pooping in the woods at nigh, possibly while lost or being chased or suffering from dysentary.

But ultimately, there are going to be gamist elements in any game and you either have to ignore them or work with your DM to come up with an exception that works for you on a case by case basis. For example, in 3e you can only raise an ability score every fourth level. If I have my scrawny character hitting the gym and pumping iron 24/7 but I never make it past third level by RAW I will never get any stronger.

To me the idea that the inclusion of a single gamist mechanic, especially one that rarely if ever actually comes up in play, shattering someones ability to take the narrative seriously is totally bewildering.