New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 6 of 11 FirstFirst 1234567891011 LastLast
Results 151 to 180 of 307
  1. - Top - End - #151
    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 icefractal View Post
    That one is especially difficult to solve, because it's not just conflicting mechanics and fiction, it's conflicting pieces of fiction!
    A) A knife to the throat is a deadly threat.
    B) The protagonists get snuck up on sometimes, and sometimes sneak up on the BBEG.
    C) Neither the protagonists nor the BBEG are summarily killed by a sneaky guy with a knife shortly after appearing.

    Those three don't work together, unless events go just right. And in single-author fiction, they do go just right, because the author controls exactly what happens. But in a game (at least one without heavy narrative-control elements), not so much.
    Really... I've always found this to be one of the easier situations to resolve.

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

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

    I would model it(and do in my game) as an automatic critical hit called shot to the neck. For any generic commoner this is likely a death sentence, as he would probably bleed out within a few rounds, without outside help.

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

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

  2. - Top - End - #152
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    Planetar

    Join Date
    Feb 2016

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Ultron View Post


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

    Now the player that is not bogged down by all the rules and numbers, and is just basing their actions on what they want the character to try and do, has the amazing ability to at least try anything. So they literally roll the dice and take their chances.
    Except that what this is, is a question of how much they can estimate their chances. If you give them no estimation, it's whatever their internal assumption is, and now some people are going to assume every gap is nightmare ridge, better walk away, sure hope this is a hexcrawl and not a railroad, because this plot died.

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

  3. - Top - End - #153
    Troll in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2010

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Ultron View Post
    (grognards.txt outtakes snipped)
    3.It worked great for years, until the happy group hug of the 2000's, that is now fading away.
    When did you start playing D&D? Because I played in the 80's, and I can assure you everyone at our table had read through the DMG at least once. (Because it was COOL.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Ultron View Post
    This is only true of games that are NOT RPGs. The problem is that RPGs have a player ''being a character in a living real fictional world'', and not just ''a token on a board''.

    Knowing the rules does players more harm then good: most players can't handle the rules and play the game.
    "You want the rules? YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE RULES!" 9_9

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Ultron View Post
    My classic example is the player knows the DC of something is 15, and their character only has a ''+2'' to do that. All to often that player just breaks down, cries and goes and sits in the corner as they ''can't play their character '' as ''what they are trying to do is impossible''. And yes that is a ''hard'' or ''unlikely'' roll to make, but it's not impossible. But the player that is playing by the numbers will just shut down.
    Your players sound horribly damaged. I hope it wasn't your fault.

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Ultron View Post
    Now the player that is not bogged down by all the rules and numbers, and is just basing their actions on what they want the character to try and do, has the amazing ability to at least try anything. So they literally roll the dice and take their chances.
    "They are FREE to commit suicide by ignorance!" I know you love failure, but don't you think PCs should at least have a vague approximation of their ability to guess their chances that people have in real life? I presume you haven't tried to fly by flapping your arms really hard recently....

    Quote Originally Posted by MeimuHakurei View Post
    People already complain things are "too anime" when they're not almost dying trying to walk up a flight of stairs or getting kicked in the shin by a toddler.
    "Too anime"? Like the Knights of the Round Table or Beowulf?
    If they want to play E6 (or Call of Cthulhu might suit them better), that's fine, but I can see why you'd get bored with it.

    Quote Originally Posted by icefractal View Post
    And ironically (since you describe it as a "new school" attitude), the concept of "The rules say you're probably going to fail ... so avoid rolling anything and try to make the situation more advantageous instead." is pretty classic old-school strategy.
    Yup. "Old School" seems to be largely about playing Mother-May-I with the GM to avoid actually using the rules as much as possible. (Not that that's only an Old School thing - My first 3rd ed game, I had such bad luck that eventually decided 'if I have to roll dice, I've already failed'.)

    Quote Originally Posted by icefractal View Post
    Ok, but what's the alternative? Being "good at fighting with two weapons" is as much of this hypothetical character's concept is being or not being agile is, so if you go with low Dexterity and are then unable to use two weapons effectively, that's just as much of a disconnect. I think sacrificing some immersion during char-gen for greater immersion during gameplay is generally the better option.
    How the heck do you get "immersion" during chargen? Just write your character's concept and backstory without using any icky NUMBERS, and let the GM interpret it without telling you?
    Last edited by Arbane; 2018-01-28 at 05:10 PM.
    Imagine if all real-world conversations were like internet D&D conversations...
    Protip: DnD is an incredibly social game played by some of the most socially inept people on the planet - Lev
    I read this somewhere and I stick to it: "I would rather play a bad system with my friends than a great system with nobody". - Trevlac
    Quote Originally Posted by Kelb_Panthera View Post
    That said, trolling is entirely counterproductive (yes, even when it's hilarious).

  4. - Top - End - #154
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by Arbane View Post
    Yup. "Old School" seems to be largely about playing Mother-May-I with the GM to avoid actually using the rules as much as possible. (Not that that's only an Old School thing - My first 3rd ed game, I had such bad luck that eventually decided 'if I have to roll dice, I've already failed'.)
    That will probably get us all into and argument without end. Being good at a game by finding ways to ignore the rules and technically still stay within the boundaries of said rules is just sad. Itīs like saying that I'm good at Texas Holdem because I have a very high alcohol tolerance and know that itīs cheaper for me to order some rounds of shots instead of losing.

  5. - Top - End - #155
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Apr 2013

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

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

    Of course, when players know the rules, it brings up the terrifying spectre of the Player That Dares To Question The God-King GM, but since I play with non-douchebags, I'm actually OK with that.
    Re: 100 Things to Beware of that Every DM Should Know

    Quote Originally Posted by Jay R View Post
    93. No matter what the character sheet say, there are only 3 PC alignments: Lawful Snotty, Neutral Greedy, and Chaotic Backstabbing.

  6. - Top - End - #156
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Max_Killjoy's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    The Lakes

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Arbane View Post
    When did you start playing D&D? Because I played in the 80's, and I can assure you everyone at our table had read through the DMG at least once. (Because it was COOL.)
    I started gaming in the mid 80s, and one of the first books I bought and read cover-to-cover was the DMG... if there was a time when it was regarded as bad form or "cheating" for players to know all the rules, or when DMs were considered a special elite class with access to special secret knowledge of the systems... it was certainly before my time, or part of an entirely different region's "subculture".

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


    Quote Originally Posted by Arbane View Post
    "You want the rules? YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE RULES!" 9_9

    'Living real fictional world' is an oxymoron. I've never been so rapturously engrossed in an RPG that I've forgotten I'm sitting around a table rolling dice with my fellow nerds, and if I did, I might be a bit worried about my mental state afterwards.
    This is another one of those instances when seemingly disparate interests will push an extreme straw-filled definition of a gaming term in order to base their arguments on it.

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

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


    Quote Originally Posted by Arbane View Post
    "They are FREE to commit suicide by ignorance!" I know you love failure, but don't you think PCs should at least have a vague approximation of their ability to guess their chances that people have in real life? I presume you haven't tried to fly by flapping your arms really hard recently....
    Yeah, the idea that players should be ignorant of the chances of success is an argument that their PCs should be ignorant of the chances of success, even though they've grown up and lived and worked and adventured and whatnot in very same "secondary world" that the events of the campaign are not taking place in.


    Quote Originally Posted by Arbane View Post
    Yup. "Old School" seems to be largely about playing Mother-May-I with the GM to avoid actually using the rules as much as possible. (Not that that's only an Old School thing - My first 3rd ed game, I had such bad luck that eventually decided 'if I have to roll dice, I've already failed'.)
    As much as I like the setting and overall really like the game, the Mayhem Cards in Planet Mercenary are a giant "perverse incentive" to avoid rolling the dice in favor of working to set up foregone conclusions.

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


    Quote Originally Posted by Arbane View Post
    How the heck do you get "immersion" during chargen? Just write your character's concept and backstory without using any icky NUMBERS, and let the GM interpret it without telling you?
    That's actually a really good question...
    It is one thing to suspend your disbelief. It is another thing entirely to hang it by the neck until dead.

    Verisimilitude -- n, the appearance or semblance of truth, likelihood, or probability.

    The concern is not realism in speculative fiction, but rather the sense that a setting or story could be real, fostered by internal consistency and coherence.

    The Worldbuilding Forum -- where realities are born.

  7. - Top - End - #157
    Troll in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2010

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Max_Killjoy View Post
    I started gaming in the mid 80s, and one of the first books I bought and read cover-to-cover was the DMG... if there was a time when it was regarded as bad form or "cheating" for players to know all the rules, or when DMs were considered a special elite class with access to special secret knowledge of the systems... it was certainly before my time, or part of an entirely different region's "subculture".
    Well, in Paranoia, the GM's section is Ultraviolet Clearance, so Troubleshooters knowing the rules is Treason. This just means you have not mention the rules IN PLAY, and Paranoia is not exactly a good example of How To Play anything but Paranoia.
    Imagine if all real-world conversations were like internet D&D conversations...
    Protip: DnD is an incredibly social game played by some of the most socially inept people on the planet - Lev
    I read this somewhere and I stick to it: "I would rather play a bad system with my friends than a great system with nobody". - Trevlac
    Quote Originally Posted by Kelb_Panthera View Post
    That said, trolling is entirely counterproductive (yes, even when it's hilarious).

  8. - Top - End - #158
    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
    D&D tends to suck at Combat as War because of the power curve.
    Quote Originally Posted by Boci View Post
    Even then, with a CR of 1-20, its still going to be based off the party unfortunatly, you need a game with much level power range to pull off the aproach you're describing.
    So, food for thought: there's an online game (I forget the name, I've never played it) where you are a circle. When two circles touch, the larger one absorbs the smaller one, and gets bigger. PvP, much sharper power curve than d20, works just fine.

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Ultron View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Ultron View Post
    Unless your talking about being an adversarial player where you will demand that things can only be changed in ways and such that you agree with personally.
    How about, "ways that follow the rules, and common sense. Ways that give the players the agency to detect and investigate these changes. Ways that you, as a GM, would be comfortable with the players changing things."?

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Ultron View Post
    I agree with you there...but I find few players have the will to role play out such things.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Ultron View Post
    My problem with people that say this that they only want positive stats to matter. Their character is super smart, so they must have an intelligence of 20. But, amazingly, they will never, ever, want to do the opposite: have a dumb character with an intelligence of 7.
    Well, now, there's two issues here. It sounds like you're trying to say that you're accustomed to playing with people who only want advantages, and don't like when they have to deal with disadvantages. I'm sorry for your luck. While I'm not a fan of GMs who focus too hard / exclusively on disadvantages, as one could expect from the fact that my description of my signature character is "Tactically inept (disadvantage) verbose (neutral) academia mage (advantage)", I'm personally a fan of a realistic balance.

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Ultron View Post
    I thought I was clear that the world should be a mix of easy, challenging and hard encounters.....and maybe a few trivial and impossible ones.
    That's good. But you don't have to predetermine which is which. Just make encounters, and let the party encounter them.

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Chaosticket View Post
    Well I think 80+ percent of the responses to this thread have nothing to do with the opening post.
    Just because posts aren't directly responding to the opening question doesn't mean that they aren't related.

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

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Chaosticket View 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.
    That seems a silly assumption to make, especially given that, IME, it's usually not true.

  9. - Top - End - #159
    Troll in the Playground
     
    WhiteWizardGirl

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Gender
    Male

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

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

  10. - Top - End - #160
    Orc in the Playground
     
    MindFlayer

    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Arbane View Post
    Well, in Paranoia, the GM's section is Ultraviolet Clearance, so Troubleshooters knowing the rules is Treason. This just means you have not mention the rules IN PLAY, and Paranoia is not exactly a good example of How To Play anything but Paranoia.
    Knowledge of the security clearance of the GM's section is Treason. Please report to Friend Computer for reeducation, traitor.

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

    If you're the barbarian who can wrestle seven bears before breakfast but not count how many he wrestled, I expect to see that roleplayed.
    If I don't say that I'm shouting, please don't feel like I'm shouting at you.

  11. - Top - End - #161
    Troll in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2010

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    CaW D&D requires a party that cares about intel, that has contingency plans, and is fully prepared to run away.
    The problem being that there are a lot of things in D&D that if you can't outfight them, you probably can't outrun them, either. (But hey, as long as you can outrun at least one other PC, all is good.)
    Imagine if all real-world conversations were like internet D&D conversations...
    Protip: DnD is an incredibly social game played by some of the most socially inept people on the planet - Lev
    I read this somewhere and I stick to it: "I would rather play a bad system with my friends than a great system with nobody". - Trevlac
    Quote Originally Posted by Kelb_Panthera View Post
    That said, trolling is entirely counterproductive (yes, even when it's hilarious).

  12. - Top - End - #162
    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 Arbane View Post
    The problem being that there are a lot of things in D&D that if you can't outfight them, you probably can't outrun them, either. (But hey, as long as you can outrun at least one other PC, all is good.)
    Which is just why you allow that annoying halfling to tag along. He may eat all the food but you don't have to outrun the enemy, you just have to outrun him.
    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.

  13. - Top - End - #163
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Apr 2013

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

    Quote Originally Posted by RazorChain View Post
    Which is just why you allow that annoying halfling to tag along. He may eat all the food but you don't have to outrun the enemy, you just have to outrun him.
    A use for kender!
    Re: 100 Things to Beware of that Every DM Should Know

    Quote Originally Posted by Jay R View Post
    93. No matter what the character sheet say, there are only 3 PC alignments: Lawful Snotty, Neutral Greedy, and Chaotic Backstabbing.

  14. - Top - End - #164
    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 Darth Ultron View Post

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

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

    Now the player that is not bogged down by all the rules and numbers, and is just basing their actions on what they want the character to try and do, has the amazing ability to at least try anything. So they literally roll the dice and take their chances.
    The solution is to teach that player he can try anyway and look beyond the numbers. It's a player flaw to be overcome, not evidence that knowing rules is bad.
    Quote Originally Posted by OvisCaedo View Post
    Rules existing are a dire threat to the divine power of the DM.

  15. - Top - End - #165
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Max_Killjoy's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    The Lakes

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

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

    And yet some people seriously think it's laudable for players to remain ignorant of the rules of RPGs, as if that keeps them pure and uncompromised or something.
    It is one thing to suspend your disbelief. It is another thing entirely to hang it by the neck until dead.

    Verisimilitude -- n, the appearance or semblance of truth, likelihood, or probability.

    The concern is not realism in speculative fiction, but rather the sense that a setting or story could be real, fostered by internal consistency and coherence.

    The Worldbuilding Forum -- where realities are born.

  16. - Top - End - #166
    Troll in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2010

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Max_Killjoy View Post
    And yet some people seriously think it's laudable for players to remain ignorant of the rules of RPGs, as if that keeps them pure and uncompromised or something.
    [white wolf circa 1990]Numbers BAD![/wwc1990]

    (Was it Changeling the Dreaming that acted like knowing math was damaging to the delicate magic of the faerie soul? 9_9 )
    Imagine if all real-world conversations were like internet D&D conversations...
    Protip: DnD is an incredibly social game played by some of the most socially inept people on the planet - Lev
    I read this somewhere and I stick to it: "I would rather play a bad system with my friends than a great system with nobody". - Trevlac
    Quote Originally Posted by Kelb_Panthera View Post
    That said, trolling is entirely counterproductive (yes, even when it's hilarious).

  17. - Top - End - #167

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

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

  18. - Top - End - #168
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    DrowGuy

    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    toulouse
    Gender
    Male

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

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

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

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

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

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

    example: skillmonkey inquisitor. probably the second weakest optimization configuration for that pf class, still an integral part of the team, since the rest are specialists. that character has got all the sneakiest skills optimized, but that's more because i've got too many skill points and i don't know what to do with them and less out of a desire to powergame. generalist role tailored to the group's needs and the dm's playstyle.

    now, here's where i really start to optimize: team synergy. it's not about killing dragons. it's about solving the plot and the encounters the dm throws at the team and solving it as a team. that paladin needs a bit more "oomph"? the cleric casts bull's strength on him, and i flank the boss to grant him extra leeway in how he fights. i've read too many theoretical optimization threads on how to frag the tarrasque to care about "masters of math". what happens when your team is 5 individuals rather than one unit? tucker's kobolds happen. that's what. also, arguments and bad blood.

    i always described pen and paper as "teambuilding and group problem solving", and although there is some math and luck involved, at its core, that's all that roleplaying is: dm throws large monster in front of you. you want its treasure. what does the group do to get the treasure?

    -kill the monster to death, loot the corpse.
    -charm/bribe/befriend the monster, loot the treasure.
    -bypass the monster by throwing a very large steak in the opposite direction, loot the treasure.
    -surrender to the monster's mightiness, become its minions, loot more treasure in his name and bring it back to him.
    -commit a genocide because that orphanage looks a lot less tough than the monster, forget about the treasure.
    -other left-field solution. perhaps involving going to the bar and commandeering a twin-linked automatic combat goat-motorcycle hybrid.

    i'm sure you get the idea. there is no good or bad way of playing, until "fun" and "necessity" get mixed. i avoid playing rules-heavy systems because that takes the fun away from me, i avoid survival-horror for the same reasons. spending 18 hours on character creation is a necessity in certain systems, and that's fine. not my cup of tea, but fine. fun is my necessity and if me or my group is not having fun, then it's no fun for anyone anymore.
    Spoiler: quotes
    Show
    regarding my choice of sustenance:
    Quote Originally Posted by Raimun View Post
    I'm going to judge you.
    My judgement is: That is awesome.
    Quote Originally Posted by DigoDragon View Post
    GM: “If it doesn't move and it should, use duct tape. If it moves and it shouldn't, use a shotgun.”
    dm is Miltonian, credit where credit is due.

    when in doubt,
    Quote Originally Posted by Anonymouswizard View Post
    Ask the beret wearing insect men of Athas.

  19. - Top - End - #169
    Banned
     
    RedWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Dec 2015

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Max_Killjoy View Post
    The second game I learned, WEG's Star Wars, didn't have a separate DMG at all.
    It's practical issues like this that sink the "some stuff is DMs only" school of thought. Pretty much every RPG that isn't D&D can't get away with requiring three books for you to play. So they don't. Which means that you can't even have the dubious barrier of "it is in a book you might not personally own" to keep players out of the DM sections.

    Quote Originally Posted by jindra34 View Post
    Paranoia is definitely a very distant outlier. Also I think the GM's section/guide thing is for other reasons...
    Paranoia is a work of parody within the genre of RPGs, in the same way that Blazing Saddles is a work of parody within the genre of Westerns. As such, part of the point of the exercise is to screw with the rules of the genre and generally do things in the service of humor that you couldn't get away with in a serious setting. Just as you wouldn't expect serious Westerns to succeed by aping Blazing Saddles, you shouldn't expect serious RPGs to succeed by aping Paranoia.
    Last edited by Cosi; 2018-01-29 at 01:14 AM.

  20. - Top - End - #170
    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 Max_Killjoy View Post
    Anyone who suggested that players shouldn't know the rules would get laughed out of the room if they were talking about any card game, board game, sporting or athletic competition, or any other "game".
    While I agree that rules should usually be transparent, I'll posit the exception for Betrayal at House on the Hill, which makes it a selling point that one player knows one set of rules, and the rest of the players knows a different set of rules. It's an interesting tension, when the traitor and the heroes don't know what the other is doing or how they're doing it.

    Mao is also a card game that seems rather similar to Darth Ultron's games, where half the charm is the incomprehensible but consistent rules that you're never told, and punished for breaking. The learning process is actually fun (given a good group of people to play with), and becoming the dictator is an achievement that justifies the game.
    Used to be DMofDarkness
    Old avatar by Elagune.
    Spoiler: Collection of Signature Quotes
    Show

  21. - Top - End - #171
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    30.2672° N, 97.7431° W
    Gender
    Male

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

    Some would say, that if you NEED to min-max in order to play, you have already lost.
    "Sleeping late might not be a virtue, but it sure aint no vice. The old saw about the early bird and the worm just goes to show that the worm should have stayed in bed."

    - L. Long

    I think, therefore I get really, really annoyed at people who won't.

    "A plucky band of renegade short-order cooks fighting the Empire with the power of cheap, delicious food and a side order of whup-ass."

  22. - Top - End - #172
    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?

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

    And yet some people seriously think it's laudable for players to remain ignorant of the rules of RPGs, as if that keeps them pure and uncompromised or something.
    Non-RPGs have rules that are completely self-contained, defining and limiting any move or action you can make with them. The fun part of RPGs is the freedom to more or less do anything you want and have the tools to handle that, for example by coming up with new rulings or the gm making a judgment call/introduce a new house rule, and so on.

    Itīs not like you shouldn't know the rules and the resolution mechanics that the game uses, but especially "crunch heavy" game systems can give the impression that you can only do what is already covered by the rules themselves. So what you get are players that donīt even try things because itīs either not explicitly written on their character sheet or they only try things they know they will succeed at because they know their numbers. Itīs not like you need a "Face" with an exceptional Diplomacy skill to strike up a conversation with a NPC, or your character canīt have sexual intercourse in D&D because there's no supporting mechanic for this.

    Another aspect is handling rules dysfunctions. I guess we all mostly assume that physics and such work as we know it and using rules by RAW often lead to results that are either not plausible or outright stupid, like thieves not being able to climb over a simple fence or a cooking skill that will always lead to deadly food poisoning.

    So, overall itīs a bit like a Zen exercise: "Learn the rules, then forget the rules".

  23. - Top - End - #173
    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
    CaW D&D requires a party that cares about intel, that has contingency plans, and is fully prepared to run away. CaW D&D is not terribly comparable with beer and pretzels, kick in the door play.
    No, its not terrible, it is just different. However it does require the DM to adjust their game to the party level. I don't know why you are so reluctant to knowledge that. What contingency plans do you imagine a level 3 party is going to have for a CR 10 random encounter, which can totally happen if the DM doesn't take the party's level into consideration.
    "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 - #174

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Boci View Post
    Na uh, your assumption is false and very much what is wrong with a lot of old-school gamers. I have a basic understanding of how the real world works, and I don't put myself in danger on a regular basis. A lot of the complaining about players knowing the rules in my expirience is often DMs salty that they now have to justify arbitarily changing the rules on the fly, which I have never found to be a limitation when I DM.
    As any Old School DM can tell you: they don't care if the players know the rules as.....the rules don't even matter.

    Oh, and leave your safe space from time to time and put your self out in the world...it's amazing out here.

    Quote Originally Posted by Boci View Post
    Sure, the DM needs to know more than the players, that will never change, barring some very niche game designs. But if you can only DM when the players next to nothing, I dunno, makes you sound a little limited to me.
    Luckily, the vast majority of player know next to nothing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cosi View Post
    Please explain to me how telling 80% of your playerbase not to buy somewhere between half and two-thirds of books is a good idea from an economic perspective. I'm eager to hear how that makes any sense at all to you.
    It's simple enough:

    For a DM only book, you simply make less of them. So small, limited runs. Also as DM's are a lot less likely to care about ''Coolz Art'' and ''fancy paper'' you can make the DM books much cheaper as they won't have tons of art.

    Player books you print more of them and fyou fill with ''awesome coolz video game/anime art''.

    Then, you expand your business model at bit to ''not just sell books'', but sell ''RPG stuff''.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cosi View Post

    As someone who has both played and DM'd, it is news to me that there is a fundamental divide between those two positions.
    A Jack of all Trades is a Master of None.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cosi View Post
    I think your problem is that you play exclusively with people who don't understand how math works. That sounds like 0% a problem with "players have an accurate understanding of how the world behaves" and 100% a problem with "players are unable to figure out the odds of rolling 13 or higher on a d20".
    Though again, that is everyone. People think that like 50% means if they roll once and fail, they will automatically succeed on their next roll as that is how math works.

    And very, very, very few people understand odds, as gambling will clearly show you. People spend $100 buying scratch off tickets all month and then get super excited when they win big and get $50.

    Quote Originally Posted by icefractal View Post
    But they'd be perfectly happy with the situation if they didn't know the DC, tried it, rolled a 12, and failed? I don't think the players knowing the rules is the problem there, it's players being overly cautious.
    No, all most anyone will be unhappy if the fail a roll....but that is not the point.

    The Rule Obsessed Roll Player won't even try. If they ''think'' by the numbers that it's ''impossible'', they won't even try to play the game. "I only have a 45% of making the roll..why bother''. If the Rule Obsessed Roll Player does not have a 100% of making the roll, they won't even try.




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

  25. - Top - End - #175
    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 Darth Ultron View Post
    The Rule Obsessed Roll Player won't even try. If they ''think'' by the numbers that it's ''impossible'', they won't even try to play the game. "I only have a 45% of making the roll..why bother''. If the Rule Obsessed Roll Player does not have a 100% of making the roll, they won't even try.




    Ok, but what's the alternative? Being "good at fighting with two weapons" is as much of this hypothetical character's concept is being or not being agile is, so if you go with low Dexterity and are then unable to use two weapons effectively, that's just as much of a disconnect. I think sacrificing some immersion during char-gen for greater immersion during gameplay is generally the better option.
    That's still a player flaw, not an issue of knowing the rules. Try to teach him otherwise. Show by example. Have another player try something against the odds. When it doesn't work show it wasn't a colossal failure game over. When it does work emphasize the heroic success. Repeat as necessary until the Rollplayer gets it.
    Quote Originally Posted by OvisCaedo View Post
    Rules existing are a dire threat to the divine power of the DM.

  26. - Top - End - #176
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Max_Killjoy's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    The Lakes

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Pex View Post
    That's still a player flaw, not an issue of knowing the rules. Try to teach him otherwise. Show by example. Have another player try something against the odds. When it doesn't work show it wasn't a colossal failure game over. When it does work emphasize the heroic success. Repeat as necessary until the Rollplayer gets it.
    Given DU's past statements on related issues, it probably IS "game over" for a PC when they try something and fail...
    It is one thing to suspend your disbelief. It is another thing entirely to hang it by the neck until dead.

    Verisimilitude -- n, the appearance or semblance of truth, likelihood, or probability.

    The concern is not realism in speculative fiction, but rather the sense that a setting or story could be real, fostered by internal consistency and coherence.

    The Worldbuilding Forum -- where realities are born.

  27. - Top - End - #177
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Beholder

    Join Date
    Mar 2016

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

    If your skill rules weren't bad, then this problem doesn't happen.

    45% chance and no rerolls to climb something? Yeah that is bad, an immersed player goes and finds a rope or a ladder, or they already have one because they know how useful such things are because the rules told them so.

    I can maybe agree that players shouldn't know bad rules that the GM has to change anyways. But that is because bad rules are bad.

  28. - Top - End - #178
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Max_Killjoy's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    The Lakes

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Florian View Post
    Non-RPGs have rules that are completely self-contained, defining and limiting any move or action you can make with them. The fun part of RPGs is the freedom to more or less do anything you want and have the tools to handle that, for example by coming up with new rulings or the gm making a judgment call/introduce a new house rule, and so on.

    Itīs not like you shouldn't know the rules and the resolution mechanics that the game uses, but especially "crunch heavy" game systems can give the impression that you can only do what is already covered by the rules themselves. So what you get are players that donīt even try things because itīs either not explicitly written on their character sheet or they only try things they know they will succeed at because they know their numbers. Itīs not like you need a "Face" with an exceptional Diplomacy skill to strike up a conversation with a NPC, or your character canīt have sexual intercourse in D&D because there's no supporting mechanic for this.

    Another aspect is handling rules dysfunctions. I guess we all mostly assume that physics and such work as we know it and using rules by RAW often lead to results that are either not plausible or outright stupid, like thieves not being able to climb over a simple fence or a cooking skill that will always lead to deadly food poisoning.

    So, overall itīs a bit like a Zen exercise: "Learn the rules, then forget the rules".
    Which is why I want a rules set that's internally consistent and doesn't conflict with the setting/"fiction".

    If the rules are the "map" of the setting and character and events "territory", and the mapping is done consistently and clearly, then when you go into territory off the map you can draw more map and people don't suddenly get lost -- the map is still to the same scale, still uses the same symbology, etc. GM rulings and house rules are more likely to be fair and consistent because they can extend an existing structure and pattern that's already consistent, both with itself and with expectations that arise out of "the fiction".
    It is one thing to suspend your disbelief. It is another thing entirely to hang it by the neck until dead.

    Verisimilitude -- n, the appearance or semblance of truth, likelihood, or probability.

    The concern is not realism in speculative fiction, but rather the sense that a setting or story could be real, fostered by internal consistency and coherence.

    The Worldbuilding Forum -- where realities are born.

  29. - Top - End - #179
    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 Guizonde View Post
    now, here's where i really start to optimize: team synergy. it's not about killing dragons. it's about solving the plot and the encounters the dm throws at the team and solving it as a team. that paladin needs a bit more "oomph"? the cleric casts bull's strength on him, and i flank the boss to grant him extra leeway in how he fights. i've read too many theoretical optimization threads on how to frag the tarrasque to care about "masters of math". what happens when your team is 5 individuals rather than one unit? tucker's kobolds happen. that's what. also, arguments and bad blood.
    There was so much great stuff in this post, it was hard to know what to respond to. However, I will add that "5 individuals" gives interesting role-playing opportunities, and too much perfect team synergy can create the Determinator of parties rather than a good role-playing experience.

    Quote Originally Posted by Boci View Post
    No, its not terrible, it is just different. However it does require the DM to adjust their game to the party level. I don't know why you are so reluctant to knowledge that. What contingency plans do you imagine a level 3 party is going to have for a CR 10 random encounter, which can totally happen if the DM doesn't take the party's level into consideration.
    Having played in and run numerous games where the GM did not adjust the world to the party's level, I can state with great certainty that no, that isn't actually a requirement. So, "Experience" is the reason I'm so reluctant to acknowledge that falsehood as truth.

    As for contingency plans? How about horses with Horse Shoes of the Zephyr, and maybe a sacrificial mule or two? Or a scroll of teleport, alongside prepared BFC spells? Potion of Invisibility or Wraithform? Having a high level Wizard cast an actual Contingency? Possession of a (2e) Succor charm? Or, heaven forbid, actually wanting to adventure with higher level characters? EDIT: a good BFC Chain Tripper build can also greatly help here.

    However, don't forget that that list is a list of contingency plans - a last resort for when gathering intel, doing divination, and picking the safest path have still led you into impossible odds.
    Last edited by Quertus; 2018-01-29 at 11:14 AM.

  30. - Top - End - #180
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Daemon

    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Corvallis, OR
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    As for contingency plans? How about horses with Horse Shoes of the Zephyr, and maybe a sacrificial mule or two? Or a scroll of teleport, alongside prepared BFC spells? Potion of Invisibility or Wraithform? Having a high level Wizard cast an actual Contingency? Possession of a (2e) Succor charm? Or, heaven forbid, actually wanting to adventure with higher level characters? EDIT: a good BFC Chain Tripper build can also greatly help here.

    However, don't forget that that list is a list of contingency plans - a last resort for when gathering intel, doing divination, and picking the safest path have still led you into impossible odds.
    And does said level 3 party have any chance of having those things, or the caster level needed to actually affect a CR 10 creature? Not a chance. It can out move you, it is immune to anything you can throw, can probably 1-hit-kill you, and has no save, just die abilities. I'm assuming 3.5 here due to your comments. 5e might actually be somewhat survivable/escapable in that situation, assuming you know early enough. And low level parties don't have the divination capabilities to know that their getting in over their heads. If you just mix the CRs too much, you have an unacceptably high (to me at least) chance of random, unavoidable TPK that kills a game. And that's no fun.

    The truth is, the DM must always pull their punches, otherwise the party can't survive at low levels. And even at high levels, the DM can always win if he wants to.
    Dawn of Hope: a 5e setting. http://wiki.admiralbenbo.org
    Rogue Equivalent Damage calculator, now prettier and more configurable!
    5e Monster Data Sheet--vital statistics for all 693 MM, Volo's, and now MToF monsters: Updated!
    NIH system 5e fork, very much WIP. Base github repo.
    NIH System PDF Up to date main-branch build version.

Posting Permissions

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