Learning to stop playing overly specialized characters

[Silus]

So I've a bit of a problem as a player and I was looking for some advice on dealing with it.

See, I tend to make overly specialized characters. It's bitten me, and currently biting me, in the butt. Like right now we're playing a New World of Darkness game and my guy is built around interrogation tactics and social investigation (Politics + Manipulation + Status (City)), and I'm sure I'd shine in a situation where these might be applicable, but at present I'm just sitting here, twiddling my thumbs because there's not really anything I can do (Honestly I'm tempted to do something bonkers in game to warrant more of a spotlight on me, though that would likely end with my character dying very quickly).

Basically I'm looking for advice on how to make a viable character that isn't overly specialized.

Also it doesn't really help that like 2 players out of the 8 playing tend to dominate everything attention-wise, but I suppose that's more group dynamics type dealy.

[Vitruviansquid]

Think of what you want to be, rather than what you want to do?

[Silus]

Think of what you want to be, rather than what you want to do?

I tried to do that this time around but it still ended up overly specialized ;_;

[tensai_oni]

There are systems where playing a well rounded character is easier, and those where playing a specialized one is easier.

And sadly, anything by White Wolf is the latter while they pretend to be the former. This is due to how the character building at creation vs later advancement works, as well as relatively low power (but supposedly commonplace, something you'd expect a normal person to have) options being overpriced when in relation to whatever superpowers your current splat is supposed to have.

This sounds like the fault of the system because like I said, WoD tends to create specialized characters, especially if you don't start with any extra experience. Maybe ask your ST to give your character more focus by putting the group in appropriate situations?

[Silus]

There are systems where playing a well rounded character is easier, and those where playing a specialized one is easier.

And sadly, anything by White Wolf is the latter while they pretend to be the former. This is due to how the character building at creation vs later advancement works, as well as relatively low power (but supposedly commonplace, something you'd expect a normal person to have) options being overpriced when in relation to whatever superpowers your current splat is supposed to have.

This sounds like the fault of the system because like I said, WoD tends to create specialized characters, especially if you don't start with any extra experience. Maybe ask your ST to give your character more focus by putting the group in appropriate situations?

I did voice my....annoyance with not really having a chance to do anything and apparently I'll get my time to shine "soon". There's a Carthian revolution in NYC and we're trying to deal with it. Since my guy is bonkers at Politics and Manipulation I'll likely be the go-to guy for sorting out the political mess. Suppressing documents, elevating people to positions of power, etc.. But right now it's our Nosferatu Obfuscate-monkey that's getting all the limelight and it's pretty darn annoying.

[The Glyphstone]

It'll depend on the system, to a bit. WoD actively rewards that sort of hyper-specialization. D&D, comparatively, inverts in that the more specialized you are, the worse off you are. Something like FATE actively prevents you from hyper-specializing by forcing a broad array of skills.

But to start with...next time you make a character, hyper-specialize the way you normally do. Then, back up and reduce your capability by,say, 25-30%, and redirect those points/resources/whatever into a secondary area of specialization. Then you get someone who is 'Good' at one thing and 'Okay' at another, instead of 'Great' at one thing and 'Awful' at everything else.

[Segev]

If you tell us what's going on right now in game, with an eye towards identifying why this means your PC can't do anything, we might be able to offer some suggestions on how to involve yourself anyway.

[Silus]

If you tell us what's going on right now in game, with an eye towards identifying why this means your PC can't do anything, we might be able to offer some suggestions on how to involve yourself anyway.

Well right now our Obfuscate monkey (whose blood potency is so bonkers that he HAS to feed on other vampires and has at least 4 dots in Obfuscate) is off doing his own thing, looking for...information on a former Prince? It's kinda hard to follow. The rest of us (like...6 of us) are sidelined to the point that three of us are ******* around on various electronics. Basically it's a one-man show right now. The general gist is that we're trying to halt a Carthian revolution while dealing with some...Changeling/void ooze creature thing stalking the sewers? Things are kinda hectic at the moment but from what I know the Carthians and Invictus are at odds and, being part of the Ordo of Dracul, I'm sort of a neutral party.

[Segev]

Well right now our Obfuscate monkey (whose blood potency is so bonkers that he HAS to feed on other vampires and has at least 4 dots in Obfuscate) is off doing his own thing, looking for...information on a former Prince? It's kinda hard to follow. The rest of us (like...6 of us) are sidelined to the point that three of us are ******* around on various electronics. Basically it's a one-man show right now. The general gist is that we're trying to halt a Carthian revolution while dealing with some...Changeling/void ooze creature thing stalking the sewers? Things are kinda hectic at the moment but from what I know the Carthians and Invictus are at odds and, being part of the Ordo of Dracul, I'm sort of a neutral party.

In that case, I suggest you take a look at some of the threads this guy isn't following right now. Head off on one of those. Your PCs are surely not just sitting around in their coffins and twiddling their thumbs, so go find some people who know something. Witnesses, victims, suspected information brokers, whatever.

Or go to the local hangouts and try to make friends/allies. Build some political alliances. See what problems other vampires are having that you can discover. Go invite yourself into a Changeling freehold and charm your way into their court, so you can play politics with them. Pretend you've got more authority than you do, if you have to; they may not know better, depending on their relations to the vampire courts.

[tensai_oni]

Obfuscate monkey (whose blood potency is so bonkers that he HAS to feed on other vampires and has at least 4 dots in Obfuscate)

That doesn't sound like a starting character at all. In fact it sounds like a really experienced player character, or at least a highly specialized one. I mean, I don't know if you're supposed to be playing "new" characters or not but either way that illustrates my point:

The system rewards specialized characters so I am assuming that everyone in the party is as specialized as you are. When playing this kind of game, it's the ST's job to make sure everyone is having fun. There are several ways to do it:

1. Make sure everyone is on the same page and creates characters that are good at one thing (fighting, politics, infiltration or whatever), then run games that are mostly about that thing.
2. Create situations where players' specialties can work off each other, simultaneously. Promoting teamwork instead of one person doing a thing while everyone else sits on their hands, unable to contribute.
3. Rotate situations so everyone gets equal spotlight, but not everyone at once.

From what you said, your ST is trying to do #3, but it doesn't seem to be working so well. A group of seven is pretty big for a game like this, so that's going to be a LOT of spotlight shifting and waiting for your turn.

[Silus]

Well after action report: my guy is providing political damage control and will be attemting to use his Politics + Manipulation + Contacts + Status to work things out in the team's favor. I only ended up with a single beat for the session, and that was for showing up because the aforementioned Obfuscate monkey took up like 4/5 of the session with his solo I'm-not-telling-anyone BS. Not sure if I'll fight the ST on this or not.

[Thrudd]

This is mainly on the ST, as everyone has pointed out. In WoD, it is easy to make challenges too hard for anyone except a character optimized with just the right specialization. They should tone down the difficulties of many things, so that having three dice on a roll actually gives you a chance.

WoD also requires the ST actively make sure there are appropriate activities for all the players, especially since the range of skills and character types is so broad...many games are like that, really. That one player is monopolizing the entire session is completely the ST's fault and something they should know better than to allow to happen. The best thing you can do is just try to interrupt every few minutes, to suggest what actions your character is taking, to encourage him to split time more equally with all the players.

[Silus]

This is mainly on the ST, as everyone has pointed out. In WoD, it is easy to make challenges too hard for anyone except a character optimized with just the right specialization. They should tone down the difficulties of many things, so that having three dice on a roll actually gives you a chance.

WoD also requires the ST actively make sure there are appropriate activities for all the players, especially since the range of skills and character types is so broad...many games are like that, really. That one player is monopolizing the entire session is completely the ST's fault and something they should know better than to allow to happen. The best thing you can do is just try to interrupt every few minutes, to suggest what actions your character is taking, to encourage him to split time more equally with all the players.

Near the end of the session I interrupted in an admittedly poor fashion ("Okay seriously what can I do I'm getting bored here"). The ST turned his attention to me for not even 5 minutes as suggested I meet up with a lawyer friend of the party's to try to run damage control. Told me to roll a whole mess of dice (like 13 or so). I did, and was ready to tell him my successes on said damage control but he had turned back to the Obfuscate monkey.

I'll be having words with the ST tomorrow to voice (politely) mine and another player's displeasure at being sidelined for the last three sessions by Mr. Obfuscate and that the spotlight needs to be on someone else for a change.

[daniel_ream]

The best thing you can do is just try to interrupt every few minutes, to suggest what actions your character is taking, to encourage him to split time more equally with all the players.

I don't think being rude is exactly "the best thing [he] can do".

If the GM is allowing a single PC to monopolize the session, and that PC is being extremely cryptic about what they're doing[1], then this is a one-on-one session, not an RPG. You're well within your rights to explain to the GM and that player (politely) after the session that the game has become a waste of your time and you won't be showing up any more.

If there are natural breaks in the Nosferatu's narrative where you could reasonably speak up and say "I'd like a scene now", then you might try that first, but constantly interrupting isn't solving the real problem.

][1] There's a theory in game play that says that players should not have secrets from one another. Not characters, players. If someone is secretly a serial killer or working for the other side or whatever, everyone else should know this and play their character as if they don't. It sounds counter-intuitive, but the overwhelming majority of the time that someone does this it's because they have a mental image in their head of how incredibly awesome the Big Reveal is going to be and how incredibly cool everyone else if going to think they are for pulling all this off.

It isn't cool. It's like Rimmer's (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnold_Rimmer) "He could never get the other kids to call him Ace, no matter how much he let them beat him up". It's suborning the entire group's fun to one player's personal little Mary Sue fantasy.

[Thrudd]

Yeah, don't be rude about it; that should go without saying. But I don't think it's rude to ask to take a turn after another player in the manner normally expected in an RPG. When one player has had a few rounds without any other players getting a turn, I don't think it's out of place for you to speak up and suggest what your character is going to do now. Encourage the GM to go around the table from player to player. If this seems to interrupt a scene somehow, because the PCs are all separated and doing different things in different places...well the GM needs to figure out a better way to run the game. That's why everyone usually knows not to split the party for too long.

[Silus]

Well good news, I spoke with the ST about the Obfuscate-monkey taking up all the time and such and he had taken notice of it as well and said he would endeavor to fix it in the future. We'll have to see how things go next session but I'm expecting good things.

[Hawkstar]

I suggest turning to the other players being sidelined, ask if they'd chip in for Chinese Take-out (or whatever you favor), then start rolling up characters for another game while waiting for the ST to turn his attention to you guys.

[Silus]

I suggest turning to the other players being sidelined, ask if they'd chip in for Chinese Take-out (or whatever you favor), then start rolling up characters for another game while waiting for the ST to turn his attention to you guys.

....I HAVE wanted to run a Pathfinder game for a while >.>

Or maybe convince someone else to run a Hunters game and let me roll up a Noble from Princess: The Hopeful...

[GungHo]

Pick a pre-statted sample character or have someone else create it for you, or play something you normally wouldn't play.

There are times when I just play an axe & board fighter just to make life easy, or in the case of WoD, a Brujah or Get of Fenris thug. I differentiate as I level rather than trying to fill a specific niche that requires the GM to adapt to me.

[Aetis]

Specialize for combat situations, then turn every situation into a combat.

[Jay R]

In character design, you should always ask, "What will he do if this isn't available?"

Batman needs to be able to get around town when the Batmobile's not available. The first Thor movie is in large part about what Thor can do when he can't use his hammer. In Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, Harry uses a broomstick against a dragon when his wand wasn't going to be much help.

I'm now playing a gnome illusionist. Sometimes, the enemy are undead, and aren't subject to illusions. So I have to be ready for when illusions don't work.

[Segev]

I'm now playing a gnome illusionist. Sometimes, the enemy are undead, and aren't subject to illusions. So I have to be ready for when illusions don't work.
This is admittedly a side-track, but... how are undead not subject to illusions? There are only a few that are mind-affecting.

[CharonsHelper]

This is admittedly a side-track, but... how are undead not subject to illusions? There are only a few that are mind-affecting.

I was just about to say this. Figments work just fine against undead as they aren't mind-affecting. That's the reason that illusionists aren't nearly the 1 trick ponies that enchanters are.

Plus - many undead have both horrible will saves and Int, so it's easy to trap them all in walled rooms/cages with Silent Image so that your party can take them down piecemeal. (I always connect the cages with Eat At Joes in neon lights so that it's all a single illusion.)

[Segev]

Enchanters just need to branch out a little. Command undead may not be in-school for them, but it's familiar territory. It's basically dominate for mindless, and charm for intelligent undead.

[Flickerdart]

This seems to be more your game master's fault than yours, but you're basically running into a min-maxing problem. You need to be more attentive to opportunity costs and diminishing returns.

Taking the simple example of D&D 3e point buy - it costs a mere 6 points to raise an ability score to 14, but 4 points more to raise it to 16, and 6 points more to raise it to 18 (the maximum). Under a typical 32-point buy, you can get two 18s at the cost of leaving all your other abilities at 8 (the minimum). Or you can go for two 16s instead, and free up 12 points to turn two more 8s into 14s. You become slightly worse at your desired focus, but a much more well-rounded character.

Try to find where "good enough" lies for a particular focus, and don't over-invest. If it takes you more resources to go from great to excellent at one thing than it would take to become great at a second thing, think hard about over-investing.

[Segev]

This seems to be more your game master's fault than yours, but you're basically running into a min-maxing problem. You need to be more attentive to opportunity costs and diminishing returns.

(...)

Try to find where "good enough" lies for a particular focus, and don't over-invest. If it takes you more resources to go from great to excellent at one thing than it would take to become great at a second thing, think hard about over-investing.

Unfortunately, one of the design flaws (in my opinion) of White Wolf games is that they tend to have diminishing returns for branching out. As you get higher up in rating in various things, your power goes up geometrically or exponentially. The cost remains linear. Entry-level abilities tend to be...mediocre...at best.

After chargen, the cost for going up becomes geometric. It is much cheaper to buy the first rank than to buy your way up into higher ranks. Optimal distribution of resources encourages getting things you want to be good at as high as they'll go at chargen, when vertical costs are linear. Then branch out to be "okay" at the other things you want with character advancement XP, because that'll get you more for your investment at that point.

[Flickerdart]

Unfortunately, one of the design flaws (in my opinion) of White Wolf games is that they tend to have diminishing returns for branching out. As you get higher up in rating in various things, your power goes up geometrically or exponentially. The cost remains linear. Entry-level abilities tend to be...mediocre...at best.

After chargen, the cost for going up becomes geometric. It is much cheaper to buy the first rank than to buy your way up into higher ranks. Optimal distribution of resources encourages getting things you want to be good at as high as they'll go at chargen, when vertical costs are linear. Then branch out to be "okay" at the other things you want with character advancement XP, because that'll get you more for your investment at that point.

Really? Wow, that's dumb.

Yeah, I guess put some points into relevant stuff once you get them. Maybe kill off the spotlight hogging PC for delicious blood and experience points.

[Max_Killjoy]

Unfortunately, one of the design flaws (in my opinion) of White Wolf games is that they tend to have diminishing returns for branching out. As you get higher up in rating in various things, your power goes up geometrically or exponentially. The cost remains linear. Entry-level abilities tend to be...mediocre...at best.

After chargen, the cost for going up becomes geometric. It is much cheaper to buy the first rank than to buy your way up into higher ranks. Optimal distribution of resources encourages getting things you want to be good at as high as they'll go at chargen, when vertical costs are linear. Then branch out to be "okay" at the other things you want with character advancement XP, because that'll get you more for your investment at that point.


If I were fixing the oWoD system, I'd make creation rules and XP expenditure rules identical, and balance them together.

[CharonsHelper]

If I were fixing the oWoD system, I'd make creation rules and XP expenditure rules identical, and balance them together.

Indeed. I'm amazed how many different point-buy systems don't do this.

It's one of the many reasons that I think of World of Darkness being an interesting world with horrid mechanics. (Not quite to the extremes of Cthulutech - but close.)

[Max_Killjoy]

Indeed. I'm amazed how many different point-buy systems don't do this.

It's one of the many reasons that I think of World of Darkness being an interesting world with horrid mechanics. (Not quite to the extremes of Cthulutech - but close.)

Cthulutech's setting is too much for me.


As in, too much rape camp, for starters.



As for oWoD, if you put it in my hands, there are some setting/systems issues I'd have to work out, like what supernatural beings are PC-worthy and which are not, how the mechanics of all the beings interact more constructively, etc. And while I know this would tick off some people, reign in some of the "supernatural beings control everything in the world" conspiracy crap, tone down the "blood gods" stuff with the eldest of Vampire elders, etc.

[CharonsHelper]

Cthulutech's setting is too much for me.


As in, too much rape camp, for starters.



Well - I never got much past the core book. I've heard that it got creepy later.

I enjoyed the setting in the core book in a over-the-top ridiculous lovecraftian sort of way.

[Max_Killjoy]

Well - I never got much past the core book. I've heard that it got creepy later.

I enjoyed the setting in the core book in a over-the-top ridiculous lovecraftian sort of way.

That's true, from what I was just reading (every time I reference CT having this issue, I go look it up first, because I don't want to accuse the wrong game of going down that road). It sounds like a lot of the Lovecraftian cosmic horror was replaced by gore-horror and shock-horror as more material came out.

[Anonymouswizard]

][1] There's a theory in game play that says that players should not have secrets from one another. Not characters, players. If someone is secretly a serial killer or working for the other side or whatever, everyone else should know this and play their character as if they don't. It sounds counter-intuitive, but the overwhelming majority of the time that someone does this it's because they have a mental image in their head of how incredibly awesome the Big Reveal is going to be and how incredibly cool everyone else if going to think they are for pulling all this off.

It isn't cool. It's like Rimmer's (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnold_Rimmer) "He could never get the other kids to call him Ace, no matter how much he let them beat him up". It's suborning the entire group's fun to one player's personal little Mary Sue fantasy.

My group runs with the basic idea that you can tell other players or not as wanted, but if it's not something that is minor you should probably tell the other players. I once had to rush some character development that ended up very flat as another character discovered the villain base before I'd intended them to (everyone in the group knew my character had built a geostationary space station with a death laser pointed at the city, but I was banking on about another two sessions until I found out). Meanwhile we don't know what another character is learning from her book, but it's probably not going to come up in game.


After chargen, the cost for going up becomes geometric. It is much cheaper to buy the first rank than to buy your way up into higher ranks. Optimal distribution of resources encourages getting things you want to be good at as high as they'll go at chargen, when vertical costs are linear. Then branch out to be "okay" at the other things you want with character advancement XP, because that'll get you more for your investment at that point.

This isn't true in CofD/nWoD2e, where all XP costs are static (so that fourth dot of resources costs the same as one dot of resources, 1XP). It leads to weird things like how Vampires should only raise Strength and Stamina once Vigor and Resilience are maxed out, and Disciplines are still roughly quadratic in power (although picking up level 1 and 2 disciplines is sorta useful, as all level 1s and a decent number of level 2s don't cost Vitae), but in general it works better because there's no reason to go 'five, one or zero dots' this time. Oh, and there's no downside to starting with five dots this time, unlike in nWoD1e.

[Jay R]

This is admittedly a side-track, but... how are undead not subject to illusions? There are only a few that are mind-affecting.

My mistake - I'm not used to 3.5e yet, and am accidentally applying 2e thinking. Despite that mistake, my point still stands:

In character design, you should always ask, "What will he do if this isn't available?"

[Segev]

I can understand having chargen and advancement be different if you want to encourage different styles to start and advance. If the goal of White Wolf games is to have characters start as highly specialized powerhouses in their bailiwicks, and to advance by filling in the cracks, it is designed perfectly for it. (Sadly, due to the admonishments to spread out your chargen resources, it's clear that wasn't the intent. White Wolf is oft guilty of designing mechanics that encourage one thing and then leaning on the Stormwind Fallacy to try to scold players into not doing what the mechanics encourage.)

[daniel_ream]

Indeed. I'm amazed how many different point-buy systems don't do this.

Any time you have a point-buy system that is anything but trivial, you have a Travelling Salesman problem that someone will eventually solve. Point-buy systems, generally, are a trap. For non-trivial costs of things, they can't be balanced and the costs don't really mean anything. The two things they promise they don't deliver.


[...]reign in some of the "supernatural beings control everything in the world" conspiracy crap, tone down the "blood gods" stuff with the eldest of Vampire elders, etc.

I have run several VtM campaigns based on the assumptions in the Antagonists section of VtM2eR - namely, that Disciplines greater than 5 dots don't exist. (You do have to slow the rate of advancement significantly to make this work, though)

[Anonymouswizard]

Any time you have a point-buy system that is anything but trivial, you have a Travelling Salesman problem that someone will eventually solve. Point-buy systems, generally, are a trap. For non-trivial costs of things, they can't be balanced and the costs don't really mean anything. The two things they promise they don't deliver.

Eh, they can work out, but you end up with something more like Fudge (or Fate), where the list of what's available is generated from the ground up to be suitable for the game. It's a lot more initial work than just opening Mutants and Masterminds and making a character, but if done correctly it leads to something much better balanced.

Now White Wolf stuff is generally poorly balanced for point buy, and balancing a non freeform point but game takes a lot of work, but it is theoretically possible.


I have run several VtM campaigns based on the assumptions in the Antagonists section of VtM2eR - namely, that Disciplines greater than 5 dots don't exist. (You do have to slow the rate of advancement significantly to make this work, though)

Level Six disciplines? Madness!

[Pugwampy]

. Like right now we're playing a New World of Darkness game and my guy is built around interrogation tactics and social investigation (Politics + Manipulation + Status (City)), and I'm sure I'd shine in a situation where these might be applicable, but at present I'm just sitting here, twiddling my thumbs because there's not really anything I can do

As much as you would like to play so and so , you really must ask DM whats his playing style and fave monsters and gel with that. Knowing your DM and adapting or even specializing to his play style would make you shine . DM might give your super specialist a once over for all your skills to be used but 9 out of 10 times he will do his own session idea,s



(Honestly I'm tempted to do something bonkers in game to warrant more of a spotlight on me, though that would likely end with my character dying very quickly).

And doing something like that because you are a bored unsatisfied player will turn you into "THAT GUY " , you know the one who ruins everyones fun at the table and kills great campaigns and stalls the game for months on end because your fellow players are uncomfortable with your BS. Not to mention wont be invited next time.

[CharonsHelper]

Any time you have a point-buy system that is anything but trivial, you have a Travelling Salesman problem that someone will eventually solve. Point-buy systems, generally, are a trap. For non-trivial costs of things, they can't be balanced and the costs don't really mean anything. The two things they promise they don't deliver.

That's actually why I generally prefer hybrid class/point-buy systems. The classes are mostly a chassis for point-buy in different categories, so you retain most of point-buy's customization but don't fall into that sort of trap.

[Max_Killjoy]

Any time you have a point-buy system that is anything but trivial, you have a Travelling Salesman problem that someone will eventually solve. Point-buy systems, generally, are a trap. For non-trivial costs of things, they can't be balanced and the costs don't really mean anything. The two things they promise they don't deliver.


That's a heck of a statement, do you have anything empirical to back it up?

Also... even if it's absolutely true, I'd still take point-buy over level-and-class or similar, 100 times out of 100.

I lost all tolerance for pigeonhole design and railroaded character advancement about 20 years ago, and I'm not going back or giving it another chance to ruin a gaming opportunity. Even L5R's "schools" are just classes by a different name, and Insight Rank is just an flipped level system.




I have run several VtM campaigns based on the assumptions in the Antagonists section of VtM2eR - namely, that Disciplines greater than 5 dots don't exist. (You do have to slow the rate of advancement significantly to make this work, though)


Why would you need to slow the rate of advancement? Barring Diablerie, there's no way for players to get level 6+ Disciplines regardless of the rate.


****


I can understand having chargen and advancement be different if you want to encourage different styles to start and advance. If the goal of White Wolf games is to have characters start as highly specialized powerhouses in their bailiwicks, and to advance by filling in the cracks, it is designed perfectly for it. (Sadly, due to the admonishments to spread out your chargen resources, it's clear that wasn't the intent. White Wolf is oft guilty of designing mechanics that encourage one thing and then leaning on the Stormwind Fallacy to try to scold players into not doing what the mechanics encourage.)

Here's where you'll get some agreement from me on mechanics having a heavy influence on player decisions -- character build and advancement. And yes, WW has a long history of disconnect between what the math encourages, and what they admonish players to do.

[Silus]

As much as you would like to play so and so , you really must ask DM whats his playing style and fave monsters and gel with that. Knowing your DM and adapting or even specializing to his play style would make you shine . DM might give your super specialist a once over for all your skills to be used but 9 out of 10 times he will do his own session idea,s




And doing something like that because you are a bored unsatisfied player will turn you into "THAT GUY " , you know the one who ruins everyones fun at the table and kills great campaigns and stalls the game for months on end because your fellow players are uncomfortable with your BS. Not to mention wont be invited next time.

Luckily I has spoken with the DM and have formulated a plan that, should it succeed, not only distribute the attention, but also shake things up and bring certain players down a few notches on the 'ol ego ladder.

[Segev]

Luckily I has spoken with the DM and have formulated a plan that, should it succeed, not only distribute the attention, but also shake things upAwesome! Sounds like you've got a good plan--


and bring certain players down a few notches on the 'ol ego ladder.

---oh. Er. Be careful here. You don't want to ruin his fun to "teach him a lesson." That said, having some things show up to demonstrate that he's not all-powerful or that he needs others isn't a bad thing. Just...be careful how it's done, so it doesn't come off as "you're enjoying yourself too much. Stop having fun."




As to point-buy...it does what it means to in GURPS and BESM (and note that I'm not a fan of GURPS): it provides a cap to how much you can do, how well. Whether you agree that the point values are properly balanced or not, they do provide a cost function which ensures that nobody can do everything. Assuming there are not too many points handed out for the scale of costs.

Calling it a Traveling Salesman problem is a little...off, to me. You might have some argument in "how"-based systems like GURPS, where the same effect can be achieved through different methods with different costs, but "what"-based systems like BESM and M&M 3e definitely aren't traveling salesman problems. That's about optimizing a route.

There are certainly optimizing tricks one can use, and many points-based systems can be horribly broken by efficiency-grabbing tools. (BESM 3e has Companions which explode points invested in them and a flaw that lets you make attributes only work when you give them to others. Companions with all their cool attributes bearing that flaw can donate them to you and get you way overpowered for the point investment.) But to say that points-based powers are inherently impossible to cost meaningfully? That's a dive down the slippery slope argument.

[daniel_ream]

[...] if done correctly it leads to something much better balanced.[...] balancing a non freeform point but game takes a lot of work, but it is theoretically possible.

"Balance" is a canard. Always has been. It makes people feel good to think that no one else at the table has a "better" character than they do, or that the encounters are somehow "fair", but five minutes of actual play in any game will demonstrate that this isn't true and can't be true due to the nature of RPGs as a hobby (for that matter, even hardcore wargamers outright admit that you can't balance armies with point costs).

When people say "balance", they usually mean "spotlight time" or sometimes "perceived challenge".


That's actually why I generally prefer hybrid class/point-buy systems.

I should point out that 3.x/PF is absolutely a form of point buy system. It's just that costs are fixed (each Feat costs the same) but effectiveness varies, rather than the other way around.


Also... even if it's absolutely true, I'd still take point-buy over level-and-class or similar, 100 times out of 100. I lost all tolerance for pigeonhole design and railroaded character advancement

You're conflating point buy with character variability. They're not synonymous.


Why would you need to slow the rate of advancement? Barring Diablerie, there's no way for players to get level 6+ Disciplines regardless of the rate.

Because if you don't throttle way, way back on the XP you give the players, they will have Primogen-level Disciplines and Skills after a relatively short period of play.


Calling it a Traveling Salesman problem is a little...off, to me. You might have some argument in "how"-based systems like GURPS, where the same effect can be achieved through different methods with different costs, but "what"-based systems like BESM and M&M 3e definitely aren't traveling salesman problems. That's about optimizing a route.

M&M3E was a particularly poor example; although it isn't as broken as 2E, there are still parts where the costs don't net out correctly (specifically, you are almost always better off selling down your Attributes or leaving them at +0 and buying the bonuses they give you elsewhere in the system, because you can buy every single situational bonus from an Attribute elsewhere in the system, for a net total cost that's less than buying the Attribute itself).

And if you have variable costs, a value per choice and prerequisites, then you have a graph, and proving the optimal route through a graph is a form of the Travelling Salesman problem. Admittedly the canonical TS problem has a couple of restraints that make it harder, but similar restraints will exist in most RPG chargen systems.


But to say that points-based powers are inherently impossible to cost meaningfully? That's a dive down the slippery slope argument.

Nope, I stand by it. Wargames, for instance, can't cost out armies meaningfully because the combined arms effect means that what else you take in your army has a knock-on effect on the effectiveness of any individual unit. No matter how you cost out artillery, infantry, and mobile armor (for instance), a mixed force will always be more effective than a force consisting entirely of one unit. The units differ qualitatively, not quantitatively. And that doesn't even take into account the terrain you're playing on, which will dramatically affect the utility and mobility of different troops, nor the specific scenario you might be playing (a blitzkrieg scenario will value units very differently than a take-and-hold-territory scenario, for instance).

And that's just wargames, which have a very limited number of variables in play (terrain, scenario, unit types) compared to RPGs.

Costs don't tell you anything in isolation (something's cost isn't a meaningful measure of its utility) and they don't tell you anything in comparison (relative costs aren't a meaningful measure of relative utility) because utility is so situationally dependent.

TL;DR: they can't be balanced and the costs don't mean anything.

[Segev]

TL;DR: they can't be balanced and the costs don't mean anything.

Not ignoring the rest of your post, just quoting only the end for brevity. I stand by my rejection of your claim. They can be balanced, especially if you define "balance" loosely enough that it has meaning, in the same sense that you hinted at when you discussed what people "really mean" by it.

In the end, what people care about is that they have a chance to shine. That is a combination of "spotlight time" and being able to meaningfully contribute and get things done in the game. When players feel their characters are "too weak" or another player's character is "too strong," they're really saying that their character is so ineffective in the game that it's not fun, or that the other character is doing so much that he's stepping on other PCs' toes and making them question why they bother playing.

In that regard, points (like anything else) are rarely perfect for balance, but to say that they can't be balanced is sliding down a slippery slope (where "difficult" becomes "impossible") and to say that the costs mean nothing is a canard.

Simply by having it be impossible for anybody to do everything, the system achieves the most rudimentary form of balance - a chance for all characters to have different strengths and weaknesses and thus ways to contribute that aren't automatically overshadowed by the "better" character. Better-designed (i.e. more balanced) points-based systems do a better job of identifying which capabilities are useful more often and to what degree, and cost them appropriately.

Certainly, it is possible - even probable - that some abilities will have synergies which were not accounted for, and be better designs. Or that certain synergies WERE accounted for, and the costs assigned assuming they'd be in force (making NOT exploiting them a sub-optimal choice).

But just because balance is difficult doesn't mean it's impossible. And even a "less mechanically powerful" build can, under the right circumstances, be totally balanced - in the sense that the players all feel like they contribute meaningfully - in the game. The GM may have more to do with that then the mechanics, but good mechanics make it easier for the GM to achieve.

And the discussion above flat-out refutes the notion that costs are inherently meaningless. Heck, your own complaint about M&M having it be better to buy all the individual bonuses that attributes earn you than it is to buy the attributes is a discussion of how costs are meaningful. If costs were meaningless, then it wouldn't matter that it was poorly designed by the metric you used to judge it.

[Max_Killjoy]

"Balance" is a canard. Always has been. It makes people feel good to think that no one else at the table has a "better" character than they do, or that the encounters are somehow "fair", but five minutes of actual play in any game will demonstrate that this isn't true and can't be true due to the nature of RPGs as a hobby (for that matter, even hardcore wargamers outright admit that you can't balance armies with point costs).

When people say "balance", they usually mean "spotlight time" or sometimes "perceived challenge".


No, they mean balance, even if pretending they mean something else would be more convenient for pushing your position.




I should point out that 3.x/PF is absolutely a form of point buy system. It's just that costs are fixed (each Feat costs the same) but effectiveness varies, rather than the other way around.


That's not point buy -- the main features are all class-dependent, with a Feat to chose here or there as a tack-on.




You're conflating point buy with character variability. They're not synonymous.


When compared just to class-and-level, point buy is functionally synonymous with character variability. There are some other ways of doing characters builds that offer different levels of variability, but the context was just comparing class-level and point-buy.




Because if you don't throttle way, way back on the XP you give the players, they will have Primogen-level Disciplines and Skills after a relatively short period of play.


This sounds more like you have your own rather customized (and relatively weak) setup for what's "Primogen-level", or are using a standard for "short period of play" or "normal XP" that's unusual.

Of course, the original comment was not about "Primogen-level" Disciplines and Skills, it was about the level 6+ Disciplines... but we'll avoid the question of moving goalposts... for now.




TL;DR: they can't be balanced and the costs don't mean anything.


This sounds more like an absolute philosophical/ideological stance that's being argued backwards from, rather than an end conclusion.

.

[Silus]

Awesome! Sounds like you've got a good plan--



---oh. Er. Be careful here. You don't want to ruin his fun to "teach him a lesson." That said, having some things show up to demonstrate that he's not all-powerful or that he needs others isn't a bad thing. Just...be careful how it's done, so it doesn't come off as "you're enjoying yourself too much. Stop having fun."



The guy in question falls into that category of "untouchable troublemaker". The kinda player that plots and schemes against everyone and nobody can IC deal with him because he's got something on everyone and covers his trail well.

It's one of those things where he's gotten just about everyone at the table and an opportunity has presented itself to return the favor that is logical IC and very satisfying OOC (He's been breaking the Prince's express rules and had a direct hand in a recent attempted Carthian coup). The only thing I have in my favor is that I'm not suspected of anything as I usually tune out during the solo mission stuff and am regarded as the type of guy that solves problems with judicius use of explosives and fire.

[Anonymouswizard]

"Balance" is a canard. Always has been. It makes people feel good to think that no one else at the table has a "better" character than they do, or that the encounters are somehow "fair", but five minutes of actual play in any game will demonstrate that this isn't true and can't be true due to the nature of RPGs as a hobby (for that matter, even hardcore wargamers outright admit that you can't balance armies with point costs).

When people say "balance", they usually mean "spotlight time" or sometimes "perceived challenge".

Okay, now we're getting into the fact that sometimes balanced characters can lead to an unbalanced game, and that balance isn't always desirable (both of which I agree with), but in general I prefer a balanced campaign.

This means I don't care if character A is slightly better than character B, but do care if character A is competent but character C is borderline useless. It also means that I don't care who gets the spotlight or solves more problems each session, as long as it roughly balances out over the course of the game.

Explain what you understand by balance. In my view it's where every character's area of expertise is applicable to the game as a whole. So in D&D the bookish scholar who specialises in research (and does not have magic), the cleric of the god of burning things, and the master knight aren't balanced because the latter two are much more likely to be useful in an average session/campaign, whereas if I'm running a game based on courtly intrigue with Fudge it could be perfectly balanced. This mans that it's nigh impossible for a game to have true balance, most point buy systems get unbalanced as soon as you leave their intended use (actually easy to do accidentally), but a game can easily give you tools for keeping rough balance (such as the GM/group determined skill lists in Fudge and Fate*, which means if combat is a side note in your game you can leave it as a skill, or instead of 'Fight' and 'Shoot' your courtly intrigue game could have 'Warfare' and 'Dueling').

[CharonsHelper]

I should point out that 3.x/PF is absolutely a form of point buy system. It's just that costs are fixed (each Feat costs the same) but effectiveness varies, rather than the other way around.

I disagree entirely. It's not a pure class system as it has some level of customization, but it's certainly nowhere near a point-buy.

If the two are the extreme points on a line, 3.x/PF is solidly on the class side of the spectrum.

[Max_Killjoy]

Okay, now we're getting into the fact that sometimes balanced characters can lead to an unbalanced game, and that balance isn't always desirable (both of which I agree with), but in general I prefer a balanced campaign.

This means I don't care if character A is slightly better than character B, but do care if character A is competent but character C is borderline useless. It also means that I don't care who gets the spotlight or solves more problems each session, as long as it roughly balances out over the course of the game.


Hmmm... one has to wonder if we're looking at an instance of "perfect balance cannot exist, there's no such thing as balance". The same sort of argument against sim-leaning rules is sometimes made -- "Because you can't perfectly simulate every last detail perfectly, simulating anything is impossible". (Not that you are making that argument, but rather, that you're responding to a possible instance of that argument.)

At best, it's letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.

At worst, it's a strawman on the part of those making the argument, because the impossibility of perfection makes an easy target.

[Segev]

Hmmm... one has to wonder if we're looking at an instance of "perfect balance cannot exist, there's no such thing as balance". The same sort of argument against sim-leaning rules is sometimes made -- "Because you can't perfectly simulate every last detail perfectly, simulating anything is impossible". (Not that you are making that argument, but rather, that you're responding to a possible instance of that argument.)

At best, it's letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.

At worst, it's a strawman on the part of those making the argument, because the impossibility of perfection makes an easy target.

A good point to remember when discussing any sort of model or mechanics to achieve a specific goal.

[kyoryu]

Eh, they can work out, but you end up with something more like Fudge (or Fate), where the list of what's available is generated from the ground up to be suitable for the game.

Well, that's a good idea, but it's also worth noting that Fate is neither (in most implementations) point-buy nor class/level.

You get a slot at +4, two at +3, three at +2, and four at +1. There's no mucking with these - you can't forego two +1s to get another +2, for instance.

This allows for varied characters without running into at least one of the common min/max areas.

[CharonsHelper]

Hmmm... one has to wonder if we're looking at an instance of "perfect balance cannot exist, there's no such thing as balance". The same sort of argument against sim-leaning rules is sometimes made -- "Because you can't perfectly simulate every last detail perfectly, simulating anything is impossible". (Not that you are making that argument, but rather, that you're responding to a possible instance of that argument.)

At best, it's letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.

At worst, it's a strawman on the part of those making the argument, because the impossibility of perfection makes an easy target.

I pretty much agree. Perfection should always be the goal even when, from a practical perspective, you know that it's technically impossible. It's all about getting as close as you can to that goal.

(Not that every system needs to have the same goals which they're striving to perfection on.)

[Anonymouswizard]

Well, that's a good idea, but it's also worth noting that Fate is neither (in most implementations) point-buy nor class/level.

You get a slot at +4, two at +3, three at +2, and four at +1. There's no mucking with these - you can't forego two +1s to get another +2, for instance.

This allows for varied characters without running into at least one of the common min/max areas.

Eh, as long as you keep the columns right using skill points you can have whatever you want. It's true that I've generally seen the Skill Pyramid favoured, but as long as the columns work then there's nothing stopping you from forgoing two +1s to get another +2 (although I believe 20 skill points has a limited range, because it's impossible to have three skills at Great).

[Silus]

Well update on the situation I mentioned previously. The TL;DR version, me and my friend's characters are dead and the Obfuscate Monkey is still alive.

The short of it is that we made a deal with the Prince to get information that they could use against the Obfuscate Monkey as cause to pull him in for questioning. We knew he had someone sire a kin for his own use and we knew where it was being kept. As we're about to thermite through the floor, the team lead, against who we were previously plotting, decides to call up the Obfuscate Monkey and tell him "Hey we need your juice box because if we don't bring it to the prince then all our heads are on a platter". Well the Obfuscate Monkey triggers a...thing from like half the city away and traps all of us in an obfuscate trap (we couldn't percisve the doors or each other). He then comes back, the team lead rats out me and my friend, and we get eaten. Well my friend does, I get killed by a random chance die.

So now I'm fuming here at work pissed off at the team lead for being a friggin' snake, the Obfuscate Monkey for being a *Insert string of expletives* and somehow endeding up with 6 dots in Obfuscate (yes, 6), and the ST for allowing the Monkey to get that OP.

[Max_Killjoy]

Well update on the situation I mentioned previously. The TL;DR version, me and my friend's characters are dead and the Obfuscate Monkey is still alive.

The short of it is that we made a deal with the Prince to get information that they could use against the Obfuscate Monkey as cause to pull him in for questioning. We knew he had someone sire a kin for his own use and we knew where it was being kept. As we're about to thermite through the floor, the team lead, against who we were previously plotting, decides to call up the Obfuscate Monkey and tell him "Hey we need your juice box because if we don't bring it to the prince then all our heads are on a platter". Well the Obfuscate Monkey triggers a...thing from like half the city away and traps all of us in an obfuscate trap (we couldn't percisve the doors or each other). He then comes back, the team lead rats out me and my friend, and we get eaten. Well my friend does, I get killed by a random chance die.

So now I'm fuming here at work pissed off at the team lead for being a friggin' snake, the Obfuscate Monkey for being a *Insert string of expletives* and somehow endeding up with 6 dots in Obfuscate (yes, 6), and the ST for allowing the Monkey to get that OP.

1) Obfuscate's all or nothing mechanic vs Auspex s bad. WW's bad power design strikes again.
2) Your ST may be a goober.
3) PvP gets ugly, better to give players reasons to work together.
4) Random chance Die?

[Silus]

1) Obfuscate's all or nothing mechanic vs Auspex s bad. WW's bad power design strikes again.
2) Your ST may be a goober.
3) PvP gets ugly, better to give players reasons to work together.
4) Random chance Die?

1) the one guy that had Auspex opted to not use it.
2) Yeah, gonna give him a piece of my mind come morning.
3) It wasn't even PvP. He obfuscated and killed us without any way for us to fight back.
4) A "cosmic chance die". Basically when a random thing needs to happen and you determine if it's good or bad via the roll. I got impaled by...like an evil map thing? No idea, but at least I didn't give the Monkey the satisfaction of doing me in.

[Anonymouswizard]

1) the one guy that had Auspex opted to not use it.
2) Yeah, gonna give him a piece of my mind come morning.
3) It wasn't even PvP. He obfuscated and killed us without any way for us to fight back.
4) A "cosmic chance die". Basically when a random thing needs to happen and you determine if it's good or bad via the roll. I got impaled by...like an evil map thing? No idea, but at least I didn't give the Monkey the satisfaction of doing me in.

1) Which edition are you playing? Because if it's 2e then the first use of the lower level Auspex powers each scene is free (but yeah, it's bad design, either Auspex renders Obfuscate useless, or you need Auspex not to be shanked by a Nossie or Mekhet).
2) Do it, this really isn't acceptable.
3) Oh no, this was PVP, you just discovered the reason it's not highly thought of. My current group occasionally engages in social PVP to keep secrets in-character, and has had one example of combat PVP when my character decided to go bad, but that was planned out even if it happened a fortnight before I planned, but I was fine with my character being beaten and still fought fair (by which I mean I used a giant orbital death laser and floated out of the melee character's range, because if I did that and beat the group while a member was away I could have won).
4) Run! You should only be rolling a chance die if your dice pool is less than 1! Okay, luck dice have occasionally been important thing in my games where skill doesn't play into the situation but both success and failure are interesting, and I assume you mean something like that, but having one of those kill a character is very bad form. I'd probably leave the game unless it had shown itself to be fun beforehand.

[Silus]

1) Which edition are you playing? Because if it's 2e then the first use of the lower level Auspex powers each scene is free (but yeah, it's bad design, either Auspex renders Obfuscate useless, or you need Auspex not to be shanked by a Nossie or Mekhet).
2) Do it, this really isn't acceptable.
3) Oh no, this was PVP, you just discovered the reason it's not highly thought of. My current group occasionally engages in social PVP to keep secrets in-character, and has had one example of combat PVP when my character decided to go bad, but that was planned out even if it happened a fortnight before I planned, but I was fine with my character being beaten and still fought fair (by which I mean I used a giant orbital death laser and floated out of the melee character's range, because if I did that and beat the group while a member was away I could have won).
4) Run! You should only be rolling a chance die if your dice pool is less than 1! Okay, luck dice have occasionally been important thing in my games where skill doesn't play into the situation but both success and failure are interesting, and I assume you mean something like that, but having one of those kill a character is very bad form. I'd probably leave the game unless it had shown itself to be fun beforehand.

Well with regards to the chance die, it's not a bad thing IMO. We're doing 2nd edition and should anyone roll a 1, everyone gets a beat and the results are generally interesting and shake up the usual dull "the Nosferatu is sneaking about again" business.

[Anonymouswizard]

Well with regards to the chance die, it's not a bad thing IMO. We're doing 2nd edition and should anyone roll a 1, everyone gets a beat and the results are generally interesting and shake up the usual dull "the Nosferatu is sneaking about again" business.

Bare in mind that you can always choose to make a failure a dramatic failure for a beat, it's meant to encourage dramatic failures appearing despite the fact that the only time I'd really risk a chance die being when I'm already in serious trouble and there's no other way out. It seems like a solution for something the games has an (admittedly not great) solution for, a one in ten chance of random bad stuff whenever the GM feels like it is bad form.

Really, I suspect part of the problem is too rapid XP gain and not limiting the ability to spend XP (as well as the standard WW poor design). But anyway, people's views of things differ, I was just giving mine :smallwink:

[Silus]

Bare in mind that you can always choose to make a failure a dramatic failure for a beat, it's meant to encourage dramatic failures appearing despite the fact that the only time I'd really risk a chance die being when I'm already in serious trouble and there's no other way out. It seems like a solution for something the games has an (admittedly not great) solution for, a one in ten chance of random bad stuff whenever the GM feels like it is bad form.

Really, I suspect part of the problem is too rapid XP gain and not limiting the ability to spend XP (as well as the standard WW poor design). But anyway, people's views of things differ, I was just giving mine :smallwink:

With regards to the Obfuscate Monkey, I'd chalk it up to the DM being too free with the out-of-session activities and not paying attention to the power-growth.

If I'm lucky I might be able to use the GM's lax attitude about the player, and the negative effect it had on some of the party members, as ammunition to have him greenlight a splat I've been looking at playing for a while.

[Mr Blobby]

This is a problem which is mainly the ST's, and slightly your own, Silus.

As an ST, I nearly always end up having polite arguments with my players in creation - the #1 reason for this is to stop their PC's becoming over-specialised. Being/becoming specialised is fine, but I try my best to make sure every PC has at least 2/3 strings to their bow so they don't end up sitting on the sidelines for most of the game. Your ST *should* have done a 'viability check' on every PC before entering play. Also, they should have taken the bents of the PC's and the TPO's interests into account when dreaming up their stories.

It's slightly your fault because you didn't think of this before entering play. But only slightly, mind. But we live and learn - I did after making a PC I really liked but was simply too specialised for the campaign the ST had in mind, and therefore sat around doing sod all for 90% of the time.

[daniel_ream]

Learn to embrace the power of looking the GM in the eye and saying "No, that didn't happen."

[Segev]

I think you really need an OOC discussion about expectations for the game. What do the players - obfuscate monkey and everybody else - expect it to be like? The primary problem you brought to this thread initially was that it was essentially a solo game for the obfuscate monkey while everybody else sat around. You did plan to attack him, so I can't blame him for turning around and ganking you for it, but the ludicrousness is that the obfuscate monkey is essentially being allowed to play a 10th level wizard when nobody else is playing 5th level gishes. He's the one who's over-specialized, but he did it in such a way that is omni-applicable because he reshapes the encounter to fit his schtick.

If this is how the game is to be played, then build a character who can fight back. And make sure the idiot with auspex actually uses his powers. Geeze. "I have a solution that will prevent us from dying, but I elect not to use it."

That said, the first problem is the biggest; the others are big and come together to be brought to the surface when the first is tackled. You need to figure out if this is a game with expected PvP; if so, build for it, and demand ST attention so you can set yourself up rather than having one player dominate due to getting all the screen time and thus being months of planning ahead of everyone else. If not, then discuss how to work together, and not screw each other over. And finally, hammer out how to shift things so that everybody actually gets to play on screen.