New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 4 of 11 FirstFirst 1234567891011 LastLast
Results 91 to 120 of 307
  1. - Top - End - #91
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2011

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Boci View Post
    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!

    Quote Originally Posted by RazorChain View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Ultron View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Ultron View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Ultron View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Ultron View Post
    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.

  2. - Top - End - #92
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    SamuraiGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    The Frozen North
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Chaosticket View Post
    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.
    Last edited by RazorChain; 2018-01-26 at 09:53 PM.

  3. - Top - End - #93
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    ElfRangerGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2014

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

    * Popcorn time has come! *

    Quote Originally Posted by Kaptin Keen View Post
    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.

  4. - Top - End - #94
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Chaosticket View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by martixy View Post
    * Popcorn time has come! *
    Sir, it's been popcorn time. There was no chance of this topic going any other way.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fable Wright View Post
    * Grabs popcorn *
    Used to be DMofDarkness
    Old avatar by Elagune.
    Spoiler: Collection of Signature Quotes
    Show

  5. - Top - End - #95
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2011

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

    Quote Originally Posted by martixy View Post
    * 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.
    Last edited by Quertus; 2018-01-26 at 10:28 PM.

  6. - Top - End - #96
    Banned
     
    RedWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Dec 2015

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

    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.

  7. - Top - End - #97
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    SamuraiGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    The Frozen North
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    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!
    Optimizing vs Roleplay
    If the worlds greatest optimizer makes a character and hands it to the worlds greatest roleplayer who roleplays the character. What will happen? Will the Universe implode?

    Roleplaying vs Fun
    If roleplaying is no fun then stop doing it. Unless of course you are roleplaying at gunpoint then you should roleplay like your life depended on it.

  8. - Top - End - #98
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2011

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

    Quote Originally Posted by RazorChain View Post
    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. 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.

  9. - Top - End - #99
    Orc in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Location
    Springfield, MO

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Fable Wright View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Chaosticket; 2018-01-27 at 11:10 AM.

  10. - Top - End - #100
    Titan in the Playground
     
    DrowGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2008

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    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.
    "It doesn't matter how much you struggle or strive,
    You'll never get out of life alive,
    So please kill yourself and save this land,
    And your last mission is to spread my command,"

    Slightly adapted quote from X-Fusion, Please Kill Yourself

  11. - Top - End - #101
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2011

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Boci View Post
    You also ignored the whole "monster not being interesting against this party" point.
    Ok, back to that point.

    Quote Originally Posted by Boci View Post
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Ultron View Post
    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?
    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    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:

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    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?
    Last edited by Quertus; 2018-01-27 at 11:22 AM.

  12. - Top - End - #102
    Titan in the Playground
     
    DrowGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2008

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Boci; 2018-01-27 at 11:42 AM.
    "It doesn't matter how much you struggle or strive,
    You'll never get out of life alive,
    So please kill yourself and save this land,
    And your last mission is to spread my command,"

    Slightly adapted quote from X-Fusion, Please Kill Yourself

  13. - Top - End - #103
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Beholder

    Join Date
    Mar 2016

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

    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.

  14. - Top - End - #104
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Chaosticket View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chaosticket View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chaosticket View Post
    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.
    Used to be DMofDarkness
    Old avatar by Elagune.
    Spoiler: Collection of Signature Quotes
    Show

  15. - Top - End - #105

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Mechalich View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mechalich View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mechalich View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mechalich View Post
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chaosticket View Post

    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.

  16. - Top - End - #106
    Ettin in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Berlin
    Gender
    Male

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

    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.

  17. - Top - End - #107
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2011

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Boci View Post
    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".
    Last edited by Quertus; 2018-01-27 at 03:27 PM.

  18. - Top - End - #108
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Pex's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2013

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Rhedyn View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Pex; 2018-01-27 at 03:58 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by OvisCaedo View Post
    Rules existing are a dire threat to the divine power of the DM.

  19. - Top - End - #109
    Titan in the Playground
     
    DrowGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2008

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    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).
    Last edited by Boci; 2018-01-27 at 04:23 PM.
    "It doesn't matter how much you struggle or strive,
    You'll never get out of life alive,
    So please kill yourself and save this land,
    And your last mission is to spread my command,"

    Slightly adapted quote from X-Fusion, Please Kill Yourself

  20. - Top - End - #110
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    SamuraiGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    The Frozen North
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Boci View Post
    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.
    Optimizing vs Roleplay
    If the worlds greatest optimizer makes a character and hands it to the worlds greatest roleplayer who roleplays the character. What will happen? Will the Universe implode?

    Roleplaying vs Fun
    If roleplaying is no fun then stop doing it. Unless of course you are roleplaying at gunpoint then you should roleplay like your life depended on it.

  21. - Top - End - #111
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2011

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Ultron View Post
    Seems very dumb and very stuck in the mud. Nothing can chance ever?
    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Ultron View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Ultron View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Quertus; 2018-01-27 at 06:28 PM.

  22. - Top - End - #112
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2011

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Boci View Post
    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.

  23. - Top - End - #113
    Titan in the Playground
     
    DrowGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2008

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    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.
    "It doesn't matter how much you struggle or strive,
    You'll never get out of life alive,
    So please kill yourself and save this land,
    And your last mission is to spread my command,"

    Slightly adapted quote from X-Fusion, Please Kill Yourself

  24. - Top - End - #114

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    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''.

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    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.

  25. - Top - End - #115
    Orc in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Location
    Springfield, MO

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

    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.
    Last edited by Chaosticket; 2018-01-27 at 07:20 PM.

  26. - Top - End - #116
    Titan in the Playground
     
    2D8HP's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    San Francisco Bay area
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Pex View Post
    ...There are also DMs who don't want players to know the rules....



    That's considered a bad thing now?

    Spoiler: DM's eyes only
    Show
    You are a DM aren't you? Because
    Quote Originally Posted by page 8 of the 1979 DUNGEON MASTERS GUIDE
    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.
    Extended Sig
    D&D Alignment history
    Quote Originally Posted by JoeJ View Post
    Does the game you play feature a Dragon sitting on a pile of treasure, in a Dungeon?
    Quote Originally Posted by Ninja_Prawn View Post
    You're an NPC stat block."I remember when your race was your class you damned whippersnappers"
    Snazzy Avatar by Honest Tiefling!

  27. - Top - End - #117
    Titan in the Playground
     
    DrowGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2008

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

    Quote Originally Posted by 2D8HP View Post


    That's considered a bad thing now?

    Spoiler: DM's eyes only
    Show
    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.
    "It doesn't matter how much you struggle or strive,
    You'll never get out of life alive,
    So please kill yourself and save this land,
    And your last mission is to spread my command,"

    Slightly adapted quote from X-Fusion, Please Kill Yourself

  28. - Top - End - #118
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    ElfRangerGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2014

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

    Quote Originally Posted by RazorChain View Post
    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.

  29. - Top - End - #119
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Clistenes's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Boci View Post
    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...
    Last edited by Clistenes; 2018-01-27 at 09:50 PM.

  30. - Top - End - #120
    Troll in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jul 2015

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Boci View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by martixy
    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.
    Now publishing a webnovel travelogue.

    Resvier: a P6 homebrew setting

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •