Game Design: Avoiding Min-Maxing

[The Sands]

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

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

I got it. I was just expanding on it. I'm pro-geometric curve which is why most of my post was dedicated to the advantages of it but I think for meaningful discussion you also need to detail flaws you can see rather than pretending they don't exist or trying to sweep them under the rug (and no, I'm not saying you were trying to do that).

A linear-cg then linear-xp system would cut down on some of the min-maxing but I think it opens up too many other issues.

[bored]

I wasn't even explicitly suggesting linear-linear, though. My example was actually converting your CG points into XP according to your (presumably geometric, since I'm talking about fixing a broken system like oWoD or FS3) costs and then just letting people spend them.

Linear-linear is also fine, but only if your game has a more limited design where every point of every stat anywhere is valuable. IE, not generic kitchen-sink skill systems like WoD.

[The Sands]

@bored I know you weren't promoting linear-linear. Like I said, I was just expanding on your post, not saying why I thought it was wrong. I mentioned linear-linear in my last post simply to say why I didn't address it in my earlier post.

[ThatGuyThere]

@bored
I don't see how linear advancement eliminate the gain for min maxing, if Character A has ten points to spend and spends 4 on pie chart creation (wacky example skill) and spreads the other 6 around, and Character B spends his ten points on 8 pie chart creation and dumps the other two else where, at equal rate of XP advancement A will still never catch up he will always be 4 points down unless B decides to spend else where or hits a system imposed limit. the advantage of the min maxer is still there.

[The Sands]

@thatguythere True. If Character B always spend points on increasing Pie Chart Creation they will stay ahead, but that's just spending more points on a skill. That's not min-maxing.

Min-Maxing is when, after CG, Character B spends 4 points on other skills, Character A spends 4 points on Pie Chart Creation, and Character A still has a lower score than Character B because CG was linear while XP was geometric.

[D-bone]

The idea behind linear advancement isn't that you eliminate the gain- its that you make min-maxing accessible to everyone so that they can do it too, if it becomes a problem. (Caps exist for a reason too, so even min-maxers can't go too crazy and get brawl to 10 without still acquiring a massive opportunity cost even in a linear system. Like in nwod 2e)

If a player apps in to a system he knows nothing about- plays around, has fun but discovers he needs to retweak or retool their character.. like.. a total sheet rework isn't really a solution to the problem- its admitting that there is a problem. Without that sheet rework, in a multiplicative system that player is kind of screwed- just remake.

In a linear system- there is a very real possibility of solving these inadequacies.

[bored]

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

@bored
I don't see how linear advancement eliminate the gain for min maxing, if Character A has ten points to spend and spends 4 on pie chart creation (wacky example skill) and spreads the other 6 around, and Character B spends his ten points on 8 pie chart creation and dumps the other two else where, at equal rate of XP advancement A will still never catch up he will always be 4 points down unless B decides to spend else where or hits a system imposed limit. the advantage of the min maxer is still there.

First of all, I don't claim anywhere that these different approaches invalidate all value to min-maxing. Obviously, having the highest possible value of some useful skill (Swords 5, whatever) is always very valuable. Indeed, in almost every game, some mechanic will be the best and focusing on it will probably yield a more powerful (or narratively useful, a big issue in MU) character.

However, two points. First, see the bolded: many games do in fact impose system limits. In a basic WoD-clone mortal game, these limits are actually very low. This tends to be true in L&L games as well.

But point two is the more important thing here. You're looking at it backward. The issue isn't whether or not the generalist can (or should) catch up with the specialist. It's probably perfectly fine that they can't, and assuming there's infinite places to spend XP (possibly true in WoD with enough splat books), the specialist will stay ahead in either linear or geometric.

The issue is that in a mixed linear-CG exponential-XP game, the CG specialist can catch up with the CG generalist faster than the reverse. Because there often are skill caps (see above), this means that after a certain time period, the CG specialists cap out their peak skill, and then go back and buy all the generalist stuff. Because of the disparity between CG and XP costs, they do this much more cheaply, and will have all the skills the generalist does long before the generalist matches them in peak skill.

At that point, the generalists often find themselves pushed out of the story spotlight, because why bring the guy who can sneak, handle security systems, and negotiate, and is an OK marksman, when the elite sniper can also do all of those things.

[faraday]

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

The issue isn't whether or not the generalist can (or should) catch up with the specialist. It's probably perfectly fine that they can't, and assuming there's infinite places to spend XP (possibly true in WoD with enough splat books), the specialist will stay ahead in either linear or geometric.

And that, fundamentally, is the difference in our opinions. You see that as a problem. I see that as the system reflecting reality.

It's January 1st, 2018. You're an expert in Basketweaving - you've got ten years' experience and are a renowned expert. I have taken a few Basketweaving classes but I don't really know what I'm doing. My New Year's Resolution is to become a Basketweaving expert, so I devote all my time to that. While I'm playing catch-up, you decide you are going to take a Zumba class. You do that for a bit then take up Martial Arts. In your spare time you take a couple online Sketching classes.

Fast-forward six months. Have I made an appreciable dent in catching up to you? Probably not. But you've earned a few levels in all those other skills.

The expert will always be ahead of the generalist because they started off awesome.

The real issue is what you said here:

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

At that point, the generalists often find themselves pushed out of the story spotlight,

Don't let that happen. Set up your game with safety rails or faction-only plots or whatever else you want. But don't let that happen, because not only does that sort of issue affect the generalist playing catch-up, it also affects new players versus experienced ones.

For example, on BSGU it doesn't really matter if the Raptor Pilot spent their XP learning Firearms on the side. They still can't go on Marine missions. There's also a blocker on the transition between amateur and professional ratings (2-3 in 3rd edition) in certain specialty skills so you can't advance past that hurdle without formalized training. This preserves the utility of specialists so not everybody can take the place of a combat medic or a demolitions expert just because they had some extra XP to burn.

The solutions will vary depending on the game, but the point is - there are other ways to solve that problem.

[bored]

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

And that, fundamentally, is the difference in our opinions. You see that as a problem. I see that as the system reflecting reality.

Even assuming I agree with your version of reality (I don't, it reflects a really flawed understanding of human learning), 'reflecting reality' is a bad excuse for a design choice in any RPG . Doing it highly selectively (because I'm sure I can list hundreds of ways FS3 violates reality) in a way that promotes min-maxing and silently punishes people who aren't min-max inclined to realize it is still bad game design.

The expert will always be ahead of the generalist because they started off awesome.

And people will always min-max or be unwittingly punished, and then frustrated when they realize it.

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

At that point, the generalists often find themselves pushed out of the story spotlight,

Don't let that happen. Set up your game with safety rails or faction-only plots or whatever else you want. But don't let that happen, because not only does that sort of issue affect the generalist playing catch-up, it also affects new players versus experienced ones.

The history of MUing suggests it pretty much always happens, staff's best intentions aside. Partly because this is a social phenomenon, not a staff controlled process.

It certainly happens on FS3 games. It happened back when I played BSG games (I'm pretty sure I remember some boarding thing where pilots were shooting sidearms), and if it doesn't, it's only because the 'rails' you mention basically equal out to every plot being identical (Cylon shoot #132). By definition, if you create a variety of plots with diverse challenges, a variety of skills are going to be important. You really can't have that one both ways.

[Thenomain]

Linear vs. Scaled advancement costs.

• Linear is easier to think about, less math, more statistically pure.
• Scaled builds time-limits into the system, and the idea that the more you know the harder it is to get that much better.

Neither is bad. They each do their thing.

I know conversation has gone a bit beyond this, but I think this was important enough to say in just some quick bullet-points.

[The Sands]

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

And that, fundamentally, is the difference in our opinions. You see that as a problem. I see that as the system reflecting reality.
It's January 1st, 2018. You're an expert in Basketweaving - you've got ten years' experience and are a renowned expert. I have taken a few Basketweaving classes but I don't really know what I'm doing. My New Year's Resolution is to become a Basketweaving expert, so I devote all my time to that. While I'm playing catch-up, you decide you are going to take a Zumba class. You do that for a bit then take up Martial Arts. In your spare time you take a couple online Sketching classes.
Fast-forward six months. Have I made an appreciable dent in catching up to you? Probably not. But you've earned a few levels in all those other skills.
The expert will always be ahead of the generalist because they started off awesome.

Except that the expert in a lot of systems won't always be ahead of the generalist. They'll hit a skill cap limit and then the generalist can catch up. This isn't the specialist deciding to take Zumba classes. They can continue to be as focused on their skill as the system will allow and the generalist will catch up because the game is written so there's a cap.

That's not really min-maxing, though. That's an issue with systems having skill caps, something which is often necessary when you use a linear progression system.

With min-maxing your problem is this; Sam the specialist takes Brawl-5 while George the Generalist takes Brawl-2, Drive-1, Weaponry-1, and Firearms-1. Because you are using a linear system at CG it costs the exact same thing either way. Both of them put 5 points into physical skills. However, after CG both characters have earned 9 XP which is spent using the geometric (or at least pseudo-geometric) WoD scale. George spends his 9 XP to buy Brawl-3. Sam spends his 9 XP to buy Drive-1, Weaponry-1, and Firearms-1.

Both characters went through CG. Both characters have earned the same amount of XP. However, Sam has Brawl-5 while George only has Brawl-3 because Sam has taken advantage of a flaw in the system. Other than that they are completely identical.

[Ganymede]

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

Both characters went through CG. Both characters have earned the same amount of XP. However, Sam has Brawl-5 while George only has Brawl-3 because Sam has taken advantage of a flaw in the system. Other than that they are completely identical.

I follow what you're saying, and I agree. Mixing the two concepts leads to min-maxing. It's just a matter of mathematical optimization, and this benefits the veterans over the newbies.

So, as long as we continue to dodge value judgments, we can progress beyond the current quagmire, right?

[faraday]

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

Except that the expert in a lot of systems won't always be ahead of the generalist. They'll hit a skill cap limit and the generalist can catch up.

If the game runs for several years, yes. Just as I will someday catch up to my buddy the fourth degree black belt even though they had a several degree head start. Because the time between levels goes up exponentially and eventually we reach a practical plateau. Again, I file that under “operating as intended”.

Both characters went through CG. Both characters have earned the same amount of XP. However, Sam has Brawl-5 while George only has Brawl-3 because Sam has taken advantage of a flaw in the system. Other than that they are completely identical.

Again, as intended. Because even though they started with the same number of chargen points, they did not start off even.. That is the mathematical fact of a linear chargen system coupled with an exponential xp system. Whether you see that as a benefit or a flaw is a matter of perspective and opinion.

[Packrat]

@faraday Surely if this was your reasoning then you could just give older/more experienced characters more points rather than building weird linear/exponential traps between character generation and advancement? Otherwise the person who is the veteran expert and starts with Do Shit 8 is, long term, better off than the less specialised person who starts with Do Shit 5, Do Other Shit 2 and Do A Thing 1. In the short term though? That second person is actually better rounded which suggests greater life experience.

I find it far more nonsensical that the 22 year old 2nd lieutenant has better rounded life skills than the 40 year old major, if anything this encourages people making young idiot savant types.

[The Sands]

It seems to me like the best way to avoid min-maxing is to make your system 'investment based'.

What I mean by this is that you should at the very least theoretically be able to store every skill and stat as a sort of 'investment' (e.g. the amount of XP you've spent on a given skill). This does not mean you can instantly tell what a given skill is at just from looking at the investment but you could calculate it if you needed to.

As a completely hypothetical example, you could say that the cost for a given skill is (roughly) 4.64^Level where what you are spending is 'hours'. An average person can learn the first dot in a given skill in a class. An average person who has been working a job for 1 months would have about 3 dots in that skill. An average person who has been working at that job for 5 years (the mythical 10,000 hours) would have 6 dots. At any point you could take the log(hours invested) * 3 / 2 and that would tell you their skill.

Attributes might modify the investment. Your Dexterity is not added to your Drive skill. If you Drive is a 1 you pretty much suck at driving. However, if you have a good Dexterity you will learn faster. Your Dexterity might give you a x2 or x3 bonus on the experience. It doesn't reduce the cost but it multiplies the effect (so if your Dexterity changes you can become a better/worse driver even though your investment in Drive didn't change). Someone with an awesome Dexterity can become a passable driver very quickly, but they still need to invest at least some time in it.

At the end of the day it wouldn't be possible to min-max because if you spend 10 hours learning a skill, 100 hours learning another, and then 90 hours on the first skill again it would be no different than someone who spent 100 hours on the skill and then 100 hours on the second skill. Both totals would work out the same way.

[ThatGuyThere]

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

At that point, the generalists often find themselves pushed out of the story spotlight, because why bring the guy who can sneak, handle security systems, and negotiate, and is an OK marksman, when the elite sniper can also do all of those things.

My thought is the generalist will get pushed to the side anyway unless he is a far superior RPer.
For example lets say I make a face and put together a team for a shadow run, I am gonna look for the best street sam available, the best decker, the best mage etc, in most games regardless of the xp system generalists do get left by the wayside. Which is why people do tend to min max, if my character needs an X there is little reason not to seek out "Best at X" other than personal issues with "Best" (either IC or OOC) or I can't afford the resource cost of hiring the best. In most cases it is far better to be the best at X than be the good or even very good at X, Y and Z.
There is a reason that IRL a master electrician gets paid a crap ton more than the handy man who can do some wiring, do some plumbing, do some carpentry. the handy man might have a lot more job opportunities but he will also make a crap ton less on each job.

[Packrat]

@thatguythere I figure that depends on if there is possible 'synergy' between skills or if the system rewards different skills in different circumstances that can change at any given moment.

I mean to use a combat example, in a lot of game systems it does not really matter much what melee weapon you are using, a knife, a sword, a club, etc. Maybe they have slightly different stats, or one is clearly superior to another, etc. A lot of games then inexplicably have separate skills for them.

In that instance yes, there is no reason to take Sword 6/Polearm 6 guy over Sword 8 guy.

But what if poleaxes are awesome vs people in heavy armour and in open spaces on foot, but you cannot use them on horseback or easily indoors, plus they are a pain to carry. Swords are easy to carry and great vs people without good armour plus take up less space. You are going to storm Baroness Von Evil's castle to rescue the sexy prince who was kidnapped and is being forced into marriage.

In a lot of systems you obviously take Sword 8 guy, because Sword 8 guy is better at fighting. If different skills actually let you do different stuff though? Sword 6/Polearm 6 person might well shine over Sword 8 guy when you fight Baroness Von Evil's demonic knights in the courtyard then be less effective after you hack your way inside and battle up the stairs of the Evil Iron Citadel against tentacle demons.

[The Sands]

@thatguythere I think you're missing the point. It isn't that the Generalist will get pushed to the side because the Specialist has skills that are higher than the Generalist. It's that all the Specialist's skills end up higher (or as high) as the Generalist.

Look at my example above about the two characters who leave CP and after a bit of XP the Specialist is able to catch up on the skills they missed while the Generalist is still stuck behind the Specialist. That kind of system encourages people to be exiting CG with highly specialized idiot-savants who are the greatest snipers in the world but who can't tie their shoes or string together two sentences, which would be fine if that were their actual character design but after they gain just a modicum of XP they suddenly learn these skills which have eluded them the past 20 years.

[Sockmonkey]

Goodness.

I threw this thing out here late at night and .. kaboom! I fully admit that I haven't read every single reply. Because I am a horrible person, probably. Also because I am a broad strokes kind of person and getting into the nitty-gritty details of math I don't understand is beyond me.

But..

My original proposal wasn't meant as an attempt to fix the nWoD system (even though I borrowed nWoD attributes). I'm mostly just trying to imagine an original game that I would like to play and what that would look like.

Attributes. I used nWoD as an example but I would probably come up with my own list. Still broken down in Mental/Physical/Social most likely.

Core Skills. These would be general life skills, broad subjects your learned in high school, etc.

Refinement Skills. Just a shit ton -- I mean a shiiiiiiit ton -- of finer detail skills. Partly because I want to toss out the concept of merits, also because I want folks to be able to design exactly what they want, also so there is a greater variety of the type of character.

+census. So everyone can see where everyone else are putting their blocks.

CG? I dunno. Initially I was thinking that there would be some rules around it but the more I look in on this thread, the more I think -- open CG. Just .. make whatever you want to make. If you want to make a nuclear astrophysicist underwear model genius super soldier who runs an animal shelter then .. go ahead. Perhaps, also, leave the sheets open always, do away with XP altogether. You feel like your character has learned something? Improved a skill? Change your sheet to reflect that.

Maybe in the beginning there would be a flood of OH I CAN DO ANYTHING?! characters but hopefully over time, folks would calm down and just make characters that are interesting to them. Or am I just being too naive and everyone would just max out everything forever and always?

I guess the key would be to -- and I forget who said it (edit: @Lithium! Thanks!), I will scroll back and find it on edit -- create an environment that doesn't incentivize min-maxing. Although I am not sure what that would look like. Physical/Social combat systems that have been broadly simplified? I like danger and risk, I like for RP to mean something -- so I wouldn't want to neutralize things too much. I do like +rolling but I usually do it so enhance my RP, possibly throw a wrench into it. Maybe incentivize failure? Like, it's not about winning, it's about creating interesting stories and sometimes fucking up creates really great and unexpected avenues for RP.

I dunno. I am rambling at this point.

[ThatGuyThere]

@packrat
My question in your example is unless there is an outside limiter on how many people you can bring with storming the castle bring Sword 8 guy and find a Polearms 8 guy Let the pole arms 8 guy handle the courtyard fight while you and Sword 8 guy move on into the castle.
To me i have just never seen the point of the generalist in most game systems, either they become ineffective against the difficulty levels the game has due to lack of specialization or they become oh I don't need a party I can do all things, in which case I would wonder why they bothered with dealing with others and just didn't do the things themselves.