Game Design: Avoiding Min-Maxing

[faraday]

@ganymede said in Game Design: Avoiding Min-Maxing:

So, yes, my experience (Level 3!) guides me, but determining what levels you have in attributes and skills can be accomplished just be reading the source material, in my opinion.

That's all I'm asking for, really. If your source material tells me what a doctor should have, then groovy. The reason I brought it up is because multiple people in this thread have said "the descriptions in WoD suck so just ignore them" and it sounded like you were agreeing with them and saying that the mechanic alone should tell you what you need to know. If that wasn't your intent, then it's my misunderstanding.

ETA: To be clear - this is not a WOD-specific problem. The skill descriptions in many systems suck and people ignore them. And even when they don't suck, often people ignore them anyway. I've been on more than a few FS3 games where people have told me I've taken the wrong skills for my character based on THEIR interpretation of what the levels mean when there's in fact no house rule in place to contradict the standard skill levels. (LOL)

[bored]

@packrat The linear vs. exponential CG thing is just it's own category of problem, and one that game designers should have learned better by now (sorry @faraday). Or maybe they have learned, but its the easier option. Path of least resistance.

This one is at least easy to fix: just don't do it! Heck, you can convert any game that does it into a game that doesn't do it trivially. Create a specialized character at the maximum level of min-max god you would approve out of CGen, reverse engineer their XP value, give everyone that much instead of dots. Congrats, your game now isn't punishing everyone who doesn't twink their heart out!

Everything else, I think it does come down to just figuring out what is valuable in your game and only including those stats, as people have mentioned. WoD (and most generic skill-based systems) are shitty games because they're vague real life simulators and tell you to make 'a realistic human' (or former human) with no acknowledgement that the realistic retired Special Forces / Olympic Fencer / Occult nerd is more useful than the former Pastry Chef.

Mostly all MUs are guilty of this and despite the WoD-fetish, again, you can fix it: edit your skill lists.

On the less being mean to @faraday front (sorry!), I totally agree about all the car / skill level stuff. It's another reason I kind of eyeroll at skill based systems. Even the idea of hashing out whether 'medical intern' is Medicine 2 or 3 is pretty ridiculous, because the statistical difference between those levels in terms of results is really low.

In a 'your real life simulator fails at simulating real life' note, it's insane to even put First Aid and Doctor on the same skill with only 5 degrees of granularity unless those skill levels come with huge costs and returns. Being true to WoD math, First Aid should probably be its own skill (with 4-5 being something for EMTs, trained combat medics, whatever) and 'being a doctor' would be a whole laundry list of skills from various (much more specialized) Knowledges to 'Surgery' etc etc etc.

Of course that would be a pain in the ass to deal with on a game. But it kind of illustrates why these things work so poorly.

[D-bone]

I think a lot of this has been covered pretty well all ready.. er.. but I'll just add this in..

I am encouraged to min-max if the opportunity cost is that I will be subjected to unrealistic costs in game.This is just to pursue a set of stats that a normal character would end up specializing in during the course of play but ultimately unable to afford due to how xp spend costs work out.

So in systems like Faraday/WoD/L5R/Etc I tend to always min-max because they have multiplicative xp costs. This is justto get what I want to get out of cgen. I then try and fill in the cheaper gaps and flesh out a sheet. If the system is designed with a flat additive systems where everything costs the same amount at all times, then I'm willing to 'waste' points on skills that won't make me the most super optimized at everything. This is contingent on the expectation that as a player I can achieve my goals during the course of play.

SO yah.. if a system is inadvertently designed to punish players so that they don't have a realistic expectation to become that brawler monster or stealth master out of cgen, then not only should players min-max, they should be encouraged to do so. If they don't they will constantly be forced to invest xp sub-optimally in comparison to a player like me, who would min-max HARD in cgen, and then fill out the rest of the sheet.

[Ganymede]

@faraday said in Game Design: Avoiding Min-Maxing:

If your source material tells me what a doctor should have, then groovy. The reason I brought it up is because multiple people in this thread have said "the descriptions in WoD suck so just ignore them" and it sounded like you were agreeing with them and saying that the mechanic alone should tell you what you need to know.

... but they do suck, and they are misleading.

Let's take Cate, for a moment. Based on your description, she should have Intelligence 3 and Medicine 3. That gives you a pool of 6 dice. But let's say Erin is really, really smart and gorgeous, like her player, but she hasn't the same training. So, she has Intelligence 5 and Medicine 1, which also gives her a pool of 6 dice. The skill description for Medicine at 1 is "Novice", Erin has the same pool as Cate, who is "Experienced." Thus, it is easy to get misled looking at the skill description and this is because the attributes are put on equal footing with them, in this system. The only way to figure out who is better in the Storyteller System (statistically speaking) is to look at what pool you have doing what.

Going to Bored's example of first aid response versus surgery, the Silhouette System does consider this disparity in its skills (even though, you could, as suggested, make two different skills). A First Aid Responder might be highly skilled at resolving basic injuries (high Skill Level, low Skill Complexity), whereas a Doctor might have less expertise, but can handle treating more complicated injuries with more complicated medical techniques (medium Skill Level, high Skill Complexity). This sort of complexity isn't easy to reflect in the Storyteller System, but that's also why, before 2E, there were Secondary Skills, for which GMs were directed to lower the difficulty for rolls.

---

@d-bone said in Game Design: Avoiding Min-Maxing:

So in systems like Faraday/WoD/L5R/Etc I tend to always min-max because they have multiplicative xp costs.

WoD 2E fixes this by making costs linear.

[ThatGuyThere]

@d-bone said in Game Design: Avoiding Min-Maxing:

So in systems like Faraday/WoD/L5R/Etc I tend to always min-max because they have multiplicative xp costs. This is justto get what I want to get out of cgen. I then try and fill in the cheaper gaps and flesh out a sheet. If the system is designed with a flat additive systems where everything costs the same amount at all times, then I'm willing to 'waste' points on skills that won't make me the most super optimized at everything. This is contingent on the expectation that as a player I can achieve my goals during the course of play.

I tend to be the opposite, regardless of system I first build a character that is competent at their primary task as priority one but in systems with multiplicative costs I spread points around more with xp because the side things are relatively cheap. If the coast is flat I just keep piling point into the core skills for the character until I hit the limit either imposed by the system or the person running the game, because if everything costs the same there is no sane reason not to spend on what you will be rolling the most, because for any skill in existence I can come up with a perfectly IC reason for a character not to have it.

[D-bone]

@ThatGuyThere

What? So in a cgen with multiplicative costs you make yourself competent only ant what you want then waste points?

Then in flat additive you drop all your xp into one thing?

I mean, that is different sure, but that is highly inefficient and sort of to the point of being almost a joke... and clearly the reverse of how a decent min-maxer would do their sheet.

Edit: So apparently, what has gone on here, is I am so confused by your post.. that what you were saying is literally what I said... except that you don't do the most xp efficient thing on the planet in a multiplicative xp system. So by definition you arn't min-maxing then in cgen? You know where min-maxing tends to be the most problematic and obvious?

[Thenomain]

@ganymede said in Game Design: Avoiding Min-Maxing:

WoD 2E fixes this by making costs linear.

Thus making it trivial to dominate a stat pool.

I know you know this, but I'm using this for everyone as a way to say: Do not look at just one part of a system as a way to fix a problem with a system. The second thing nWoD did was reduce the XP gain. By four fifths.

And more or less doubled the number gained per session.

So what got changed wasn't the number of xp spent, but the entire xp gain and spend system.

[faraday]

@bored said in Game Design: Avoiding Min-Maxing:

@packrat The linear vs. exponential CG thing is just it's own category of problem, and one that game designers should have learned better by now (sorry @faraday). Or maybe they have learned, but its the easier option. Path of least resistance.

Or here's another possibility - that we're well aware of the effect you're describing, but decide that the pros of such a system outweigh the cons after a well-reasoned analysis. Because different people want different things out of a game. I know - inconceivable, right? It's far more likely that we're just incompetent idiots who fail to comprehend simple math.

@d-bone said in Game Design: Avoiding Min-Maxing:

if a system is inadvertently designed to punish players so that they don't have a realistic expectation to become that brawler monster or stealth master out of cgen, then not only should players min-max, they should be encouraged to do so.

The expectation with FS3 is similar - if you want to be an expert then start the game as an expert. Not because it's a punishment, but because it's my game system and going from zero-to-hero in the typical lifespan of a game is a cruel destruction of my suspension of disbelief.

To that end, I don't mind if people max out the skills they care about as long as they don't leave critical gaps in skills that they logically should have (like the aforementioned pilot who should have basic military skills and an area of interest from college along with Piloting:6).

But y'know, FS3 is configurable. All it takes is tweaking one attribute to change the XP costs from exponential to flat. The fact that most games don't - and several published game systems work this way too - indicate that many people do not find it such a reprehensible decision.

&XP_PER_LEVEL FS3 XP Data=0:1 1:2 2:2 3:4 4:4 5:4 6:8 7:8 8:8 9:12 10:12 11:12

[D-bone]

@Faraday Except isn't that like a standard trope.. of literally every bit of fiction that has existed? Like isn't all media based on the idea that is breaking your 'suspension of disbelief'?

Not everyone starts out as a mecurtio. some of us are just plain old dudes, who don't know what the hell we are doing, train hard for a couple of months, get beat down but show remarkable development in our first major fight against the champ who was just looking for a publicity stunt match, then go on to beat the Russian, and have 3 other movies of varying quality before getting a soft reboot where we play the son of the dude who first beat our original protagonist character and train him via chicken catching.

There is something fun about starting only barley competent at something, or even more fun, incompetent, then becoming decent.. then even good at it. It allows players to have a history like... oh god I hope I don't accidentally crash this ship into the same mountain like I did last year.. but luckily, I've trained so much that is highly unlikely!

[Arkandel]

@faraday said in Game Design: Avoiding Min-Maxing:

The expectation with FS3 is similar - if you want to be an expert then start the game as an expert. Not because it's a punishment, but because it's my game system and going from zero-to-hero in the typical lifespan of a game is a cruel destruction of my suspension of disbelief.

I obviously can't say anything about a system that's working the way its designer intended it to, since that'd be a silly thing to do. That's what you wanted, and your reasons are your own.

But I feel realism isn't the only vector in games where themes of self-improvement - a hero's journey, mentorship montages, fantasy training tropes, magic academics, comic-book sidekicks, etc - all so prevalent. Sure, it'd have taken Robin many years before he was good enough for a teenager to mow through bad guy mooks, and Luke sure started deflecting those bolts mighty quickly on the Falcon, but those sure were fun... and they make us want to play something like that too. I mean, it's part of why we got into these genres in the first place isn't it? Getting to play the stuff out that we're reading and watching?

Don't take this as criticism, it's not. Just a counterpoint.

[Ganymede]

@thenomain said in Game Design: Avoiding Min-Maxing:

Thus making it trivial to dominate a stat pool.

Well, it is an arms' race, I guess. But the linear progression makes sense for a system that draws successes from pools of dice. The Silhouette system uses a single determinant for success, as does the L5R system, so I feel it more appropriate to apply an exponential progression system.

Just my thought on the matter.

Poopyhead.

[The Sands]

@bored said in Game Design: Avoiding Min-Maxing:

The linear vs. exponential CG thing is just it's own category of problem, and one that game designers should have learned better by now (sorry @faraday). Or maybe they have learned, but its the easier option. Path of least resistance.

There are huge advantages to an exponential system. The biggest is that it helps to minimize the gap between your dinos and your (relatively) new players. For an example if your system assumes you're using a simple 2^X system for the amount of XP required to gain a level than a person who has been playing for 2 years has a 1 point advantage over someone who has been playing for 1 year and a 2 point advantage over someone who has been playing for 6 months.

It also means that while there's an advantage to being specialized but it isn't overwhelming. My knight has spent all of his points on Sword and nothing else. He's got an advantage over someone else who has spent half their points on Sword and the other half has been split up between Axe, Crossbow, and Lance, but his advantage isn't overwhelming and in fact there's every opportunity he will lose in a fight (because a smart opponent will stand back and shoot me. Why engage me in the skill I spent all my point on?)

You'll have to tune aspects of your game so that a 1 or 2 point advantage ends up about where you want, of course. If the Challenge Resolution System is roll 1d6 and add your score than a 2 point advantage is pretty significant. If it is roll 1d100 and add your score than the advantage is miniscule. I'm a huge fan of using a sigmoidal probability curve, but that's a whole different thing.

The problem that this system has is the math is harder than simple linear math. If your using 2^X it's pretty simple but you may discover that 1.5^X or 2.8^X works better for the progression that you want. I'll be real honest and say that this is a component I would normally 'hide' from the players. I would just have them dump XP into the stat as they want. Of course this means you have to use a discontinuous system (meaning having a skill with a value of 3.42 actually means something, so most systems where you are rolling X dice go right out the window).

The other thing you really can't do is use a linear system for character generation. You need to use a system more along the lines of 'everyone starts with 1 year of XP, buy your stats'. Otherwise you will absolutely have people min-max the Hell out of the system. It's not that they are bad people. You've created a system that encourages that.

Incidentally, if I absolutely had to build a MU system from scratch this is probably the position I would start from. Attributes would never add directly to a skill to determine if you successfully used the skill. Instead they would modify the XP that has been spent. The most dexterous guy in the world is still going to suck pretty badly the first time he tries to drive because he has absolutely no skill at it, however it won't take him very much XP before he has a high enough score to qualify for a license. Since the system is geometric people won't end up sacrificing much from their 'critical skills' so they can handle basic tasks like driving, reading, or doing basic math.

Sure, if someone wants to sacrifice those skills so that they can get an edge on being a swordsman they could, but the gain would be pretty minimal. More importantly, if they decide to 'buy off' the fact they are missing those skills they will end up at the same point as someone who started with them and took slightly lower critical skills. There is no incentive to sacrifice something and then immediately buy it off after you've cleared CG. Sacrifice it and keep the sacrifice? Sure. Not take the skill at CG because you know you'll have the XP in a week to buy it and you'll end up with higher stats? Not so much.

[faraday]

@arkandel said in Game Design: Avoiding Min-Maxing:

I mean, it's part of why we got into these genres in the first place isn't it? Getting to play the stuff out that we're reading and watching?

Nope. I didn't get into these genres to play (or watch other people play) the sort of over-the-top fantasy tales that permeate some fiction. I prefer the other fiction where the situations may be exaggerated (lordy, the crew of Chicago Fire this season has probably faced more interesting calls than all fire departments across America put together) but the people are realistic.

I also am pissed off by most tabletop RPGs or MMOs where you're forced to start at a level 1 clueless newbie. I want to play the expert from the start. So FS3 is designed to let you do that without being penalized.

And I hate the "dino effect" on games where someone who's been playing for a couple years leaves a new player in their dust. I prefer horizontal advancement over vertical advancement.

But hey - that's just my jam. That's how I run my games. FS3 is configurable for a reason, but it's optimized for what I like. People forget - I didn't try to design a GURPs-like system that could work for anyone. I designed a system for myself and then was nice enough to share it.

[D-bone]

That reads as incredibly puriticanal thing... I mean, like..

"everyone should come from the womb as fully formed adults capable of everything, character development and improvement, both in terms of skill, type of character, and general back ground, history and experiences should be established before getting into the game..." Like.. but..

Rosebud?
Growing, both in terms of skill and interactions.. is a very real part of life (childhood anyone?) and literature is reflecting real life in that regard. Is it unrealistic that MMorpgs have you start at level 1? Yes, but the faraday system isn't about magic and murdering dragons, and 90 levels of progression, it's learning to use a sword from beginner to expert.

[faraday]

@d-bone You like the hero's journey in Star Wars where Luke goes from zero-to-jedi in 5 minutes. I like Die Hard where John McClane is pretty much the same guy in movie 1 as he is in movie ... 4? 5? I kinda lost track. I'm not attacking you for your preferences. Should I be attacked for mine just because I shared my game system?

[D-bone]

Actually I like a story where an abused small child develops into an idealistic young man, who tries to follow strong guidelines, but as he becomes more and more skilled at writing journalistic pieces becomes a wealthy, cynical jackass who ruins peoples lives, or ends them and eventually becomes not unlike the monster that set his entire life into motion. His development and ability to manipulate people improving from his originally vulnerable state where he was nothing but a victim, to the very person he was rescued from.

Also Luke spends half of the empire strikes back literally talking to a puppet, learning how to be a jedi. Only at the beginning of 3 is he even remotely like a jedi... and then he beats the shit out of Vader and sees the puppets prophecy coming true and pulls back from the brink, because his character development was linked to his skill development.. and that process of training informed his decisions.

THe die hard movies has schlubby, regular john mcclain as a competent dude, sure but like.. its a realistic situation where its wrong place at the wrong time and only he can do something about it.

In 4 and 5 he's literally crashing helicopters into shit, well and beyond what the Mclain in Die hard one could of ever of done. In 1, he's a recognizable every man, hes better at a alot of things then the every man, but he is still 'human'. As the movies go on he become like this super weird monster.

[faraday]

@d-bone Groovy. As long as you don't want him to go from 'never picked up a pen' to 'God's gift to journalism' overnight you can absolutely do that sort of story in on of my FS3 games. You can go from 0 to "Good" in 6 months of determined XP spends, which I find more than reasonable for the "I never picked up a gun but now it's the zombie apocalypse and I'm forced to survive" type situations. The jumps are only big at the higher levels.

(And yeah, I probably should've stopped with movie 3 for the Die Hard example because after that the movies got utterly insane. No analogy is perfect.)

But this is all probably way off-topic so I feel bad now for helping to take the thread off on a tangent.

[ThatGuyThere]

@d-bone
No in chargen I first focus on being good at what matters to the character concept regardless of systems, which usually results in a fairly specialized sheet.

The difference is that with multiplicative xp costs I use xp to round out because the low skills cheaper than the one I am already high in, but when the xp is the same yes I dump it all into the things I use most which also tend to be the things I bought up high in c-gen.
To me the flat xp cost encourages the specialization more because there is no point of diminishing returns.
Doe example lest say my char has computer 0 and brawl 4, in a multiplicative set up I am much more likely to by computer 1 over brawl five because it is a lot cheaper. In a system where the fifth point of Brawl cost as much as that first dot in computer I see no reason to buy that dot in computer until I have maxed out the allowable number for brawl at least.

[D-bone]

AH I getcha, that makes more sense, sorry, @ThatGuyThere

[bored]

@the-sands said in Game Design: Avoiding Min-Maxing:

The other thing you really can't do is use a linear system for character generation. You need to use a system more along the lines of 'everyone starts with 1 year of XP, buy your stats'. Otherwise you will absolutely have people min-max the Hell out of the system. It's not that they are bad people. You've created a system that encourages that.

This is precisely the point my post, why did you bother to write the rest of that?

Edit: @faraday I honestly don't know what pros you think there are that can't be replicated in an all XP system.

You constantly use throwaway lines about not wanting to play 'level 1'/noobie etc types and wanting to enable older characters. You can do that with XP. Read my bit about converting between the two; anything your CG allows, can also be done with XP. However, your version makes anyone who doesn't min-max to the extreme on your games permanently at massive statistical disadvantage (and that part is numerical fact).