Game Design: Avoiding Min-Maxing
-
@the-sands said in Game Design: Avoiding Min-Maxing:
But the example given is WoD. Faraday quite literally was presenting the position that the other players should be expected to buy Drive in WoD so they wouldn't have an advantage over the newbie, despite the fact that the WoD rules say that they don't need it.
No, it really really really isn't. I mentioned Drive way back on one of the first pages of the thread and it was not system specific. (Actually it was in a post with mostly FS3 examples.)
Yes, I made an example at one point piggy-backing off off @ThatGuyThere's comment about 2 dots being needed for driving a Manual Transmission. If that's not in the latest edition of WOD - fine. I don't care. I don't play WOD. It doesn't change the fact that different people have different interpretations of what Drive 0 represents in different games. If a rulebook states it clearly - then great, there's no problem for that game. If a rulebook states it wrong, or doesn't state it at all, then that is the issue we're talking about.
Seriously. Re-read. This discussion is not in any way shape or form system specific.
-
What's wrong with min-maxing? If players enjoy doing that, why keep them from it?
Obfuscating things leads to people not understanding and not wanting to use your system. Players want to feel like they are in control of their decisions, and to do that they need all the information on the rules and state of the game.
I think what you really want to do is make min-maxing less effective as a strategy. Break your stats down into tiers, for instances 0-33 is tier 1, 34-66 is tier 2, 67-100 is tier 3. Stat comparisons can use the tiers as the main weight, with the actual stat values being a minor modification to that. An 80 and a 100 would both be tier 3, but the 100 would perhaps have a small advantage that scales with diminishing returns.
-
So in the traditional communication cycle, which is a cycle, the "feedback" step is used to discover and hopefully correct errors in communications.
I'm just throwing this out here. You know. No reason.
-
@the-sands said in Game Design: Avoiding Min-Maxing:
However, [WoD/CoD] the system in use in most places.
I would bet that it's not. The plurality of places, perhaps, but not the majority. It's just MSB that is soaked in WoD.
-
@seraphim73 And this kind of hassle and head-desk-inspiring circle-jerking is exactly why a number of us are interested in writing our own damn systems instead of using WoD.
At least:
- You know who to yell at if the reality and the wording don't match.
- Ideally, that person will give enough of a damn to fix it in one direction or another.
- The author's sitting right there and can answer you so you're not guessing blindly in the dark about 'what was the author's intent', which a lot of this is boiling down to (again, surprise surprise).
Oh fucking well.
-
@surreality Additionally there's just the fact that it is a problematic system. It was designed for friends gathered around a table. Granularity is fairly abysmal, there is a terrible balance between skills and attributes, and several skills are far too broad (Crafts and Expression being the biggest criminals in the lot).
-
@the-sands That'd be the biggie, yes. WoD sucks so, so hard for this hobby in particular (from my perspective) that it boggles my mind sometimes how widespread it is.
Oh fucking well.
-
@surreality I suspect that its because A) a lot of people like the overall setting and B) there's lots of code support for it.
-
Every time we have one of these conversations, these are exactly the attitudes that confirm why I tried WoD twice and now never shall again.
-
@saosmash Actually, I'm not sure these arguments (assuming you mean the whole Drive thing) are a good reason to avoid WoD/CoD. There are plenty of good reasons to maybe look at something else (many listed just above) but the fact that people argue over a stat like Drive and fluff is probably endemic to most systems.
-
@the-sands Not so much.
And definitely not when the author is sitting right there and can tell them: "Knock it off, you're being obnoxious, deliberately obtuse asshats," when people get into it. Or, you know, if it actually is too vague, there's a snowball's chance in hell of it actually being properly and promptly clarified in the direct source material, rather than in some rambling forum thread from six years ago, twelve pages into the same stupid argument, after which someone says: "Just go whichever way you want on it for your table," -- which is roughly as helpful as a jug of salt water to someone dying of dehydration.
-
@saosmash said in Game Design: Avoiding Min-Maxing:
Every time we have one of these conversations, these are exactly the attitudes that confirm why I tried WoD twice and now never shall again.
Sometimes it's hard living down sharing a space with other fans, isn't it.
-
Just not the case. The conflict between sourcebooks and helpfiles only exists in rulesets where the systems are not purpose built for MU** play.
-
@the-sands said in Game Design: Avoiding Min-Maxing:
@saosmash Actually, I'm not sure these arguments (assuming you mean the whole Drive thing) are a good reason to avoid WoD/CoD. There are plenty of good reasons to maybe look at something else (many listed just above) but the fact that people argue over a stat like Drive and fluff is probably endemic to most systems.
Note that she said attitudes, not arguments.
-
@roz I have seen more arguments (tabletop and online) over WoD than everything else combined, truth be told.
They contradict themselves... a lot. And are vague. CoD is slightly less WTF on this front than oWoD, but not enough that it isn't an issue.
I am sadly entirely sober, or I would tell the story about what happened when I asked one of the old school devs about something only the most painfully obstinate amongst the deliberately obtuse could interpret in a certain way, yet everybody online sure did.
I cannot tell that story sober any more. I just can't.
Oh fucking well.
-
@surreality I'm sure. My big objection in this particular argument isn't really about the system. It's about the attitude of "blame the newbie for not knowing the 'common sense knowledge' that WoD vets have."
-
@roz Yeah, that's.... nngh. Again, another reason I'm into systems that are OT/OS and everything can be on the wiki, so everyone has equal access to all the info available.
-
@roz said in Game Design: Avoiding Min-Maxing:
@surreality I'm sure. My big objection in this particular argument isn't really about the system. It's about the attitude of "blame the newbie for not knowing the 'common sense knowledge' that WoD vets have."
I once exploded at staff who were being smug at me on Dark Metal (surprise, I know, right?) because I wasn't doing something right, and was being more-or-less punished for it.
I told them that it's staff's responsibility to make sure that the game is being played in the way that staff wants it to be played.
That was over a decade before. I only think it's more true today.
“If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe.”
― Carl Sagan, Cosmos -
@thenomain I half recall a few instances of that as well from there. Like... how the heck am I supposed to know that <blah blah blah blah> unless it's written down somewhere on the game if it's not something from the books?!
Obligatory psychic talent: required of oWoD players, apparently.
-
@the-sands said in Game Design: Avoiding Min-Maxing:
@surreality Additionally there's just the fact that it is a problematic system. It was designed for friends gathered around a table. Granularity is fairly abysmal, there is a terrible balance between skills and attributes, and several skills are far too broad (Crafts and Expression being the biggest criminals in the lot).
Kinda disagree about the last point, at least in its native environment; I'm pretty cool with games that have broad skills outside of the narrative focus of the game. How much you know about the gribblies and horrors is central, so Occult gets its own skill; painting and auto repair are less so, so they get lumped together in broad strokes.
