@sockmonkey said in Game Design: Avoiding Min-Maxing:
Should there be +census for attribute and skills so players get a sense of what the actually playerbase spread is?
Fallcoast does have this at least in regards to certain stats.
@the-sands said in Game Design: Avoiding Min-Maxing:
but if they are just average people and they didn't take it then you shouldn't blame them because you did something wrong.
That's absurd. If the rules say "Drive 1 means the average person who can drive well enough to get to the grocery store without incident" and I take that level because that describes my character then I haven't done anything wrong. New players can't be expected to psychically know which rules to follow and which rules not to follow. It's a game designer's mistake for writing the rules that way and a staff mistake for not saying in their house rules "this rule as written is stupid and we're ignoring it" but in no way, shape or form is it a player mistake.
@the-sands said in Game Design: Avoiding Min-Maxing:
Again, my real point is that you can't blame the person who didn't take Drive (which was what was initially being implied).
I'm not blaming them. I'm just saying that gives them an advantage over the player who tried to play the game with the rules as written. I don't see how that's really debatable. Your RP your character as "an average day to day driver" and so do I. But I paid two extra points for it. That means your character is two points better at things that actually matter in the game.
Also, if the staff really does mean the rules as written (which some places do), then RPing being an average driver when the rules say you aren't is cheating. It's no different than RPing a doctor-level medicine knowledge when you have First Aid 1.
@seraphim73 said in Game Design: Avoiding Min-Maxing:
It's when every point on the sheet except for the bare minimum has been poured into being very good at one thing (usually combat, but sometimes social or medical)... that's when I start to have a problem with the character.
Honestly, I meet a lot of people like that at my University, to me min-maxed characters are more realistic. I deal with a LOT of students who have all of their points plunked into (Name grad program here) and like 0 into computer use or pretty much anything other than boiling Mr. Noodles. I'm amazed some of our students can survive in the world, but boy oh boy can they talk about permafrost / groundwater composition / fracking / you name it once they're wound up.
@sg said in Game Design: Avoiding Min-Maxing:
I deal with a LOT of students who have all of their points plunked into (Name grad program here) and like 0 into computer use or pretty much anything other than boiling Mr. Noodles.
Really? None of them read? None of them do a sport at some modest level? None of them have hobbies? Or interpersonal skills?
Most of us talking about rounding out characters aren't suggesting that you need pro levels at 7 different jobs, just that characters should have the skills that a functional human being would have in that world.
@sockmonkey said in Game Design: Avoiding Min-Maxing:
'Hey, your character is good at this stuff, your character kind of sucks at this stuff. With that in mind, here's the world: role play.'
A system like this would probably work well with a list of skills. You start at average, and you get 3 points to be above average, because RPG character. Then, you have to start sucking at specific things to be really great at other specific things.
@faraday said in Game Design: Avoiding Min-Maxing:
Really? None of them read?
I ask myself this on a daily basis.
@sockmonkey said in Game Design: Avoiding Min-Maxing:
Should there be +census for attribute and skills so players get a sense of what the actually playerbase spread is?
Unsurprisingly, Faraday's code has this.
@sunny said in Game Design: Avoiding Min-Maxing:
How is a newbie supposed to know that the stats of the pistol there DON'T represent what the game says it does? They are a newbie.
I believe The Sands is operating from the premise that you should not take the skill descriptions for the Storyteller System as indicative of true meaning within the system because the system is understandable absent those descriptions. That is, if you have Strength 2 and Melee 1, your total pool is 3 of a possible 10 dice, which is the same if you had Strength 1 and Melee 2. So, the skill descriptions in the Storyteller System are patently and obviously misleading, if you rely on them alone.
This does not mean I agree with The Sands, though. I don't put the blame on the Newbie; I put the blame on the stupid people at White Wolf that came up with the idea of skill descriptions. As a veteran, I will tell you that they are patently misleading; all you need to know is: (1) having a 0 in a skill will result in a penalty to such rolls, either -1 or -3; (2) 4 is the supposed average for a person considered "skilled"; and (3) look at the total pool.
“It is better to live doing the things that you like. It is foolish to live within this dream of a world seeing unpleasantness and doing only things that you do not like.” -- Yamamoto Tsunetomo.
@sockmonkey said in Game Design: Avoiding Min-Maxing:
I suppose I am conceptualizing a super broad design that is low on complex systems (physical combat, social combat, etc) that ends up being much more freeform:
'Hey, your character is good at this stuff, your character kind of sucks at this stuff. With that in mind, here's the world: role play.'
My suggestion for this is super-broad skills (like Savage Worlds). If there are like... 5-6 skills (maybe Athletics, Alertness, Technical, Social, Ranged, Melee (or even just Combat)) and no one can be great at everything? That prevents some min-maxing (especially if you don't get points back for 'lowering' skills), because if you want to be good at any of the stuff in that category, you have to be good at the category, and it (hopefully) encourages players to decide for themselves what part of that category their character is good at. Do they always use a sword even though the system says they're just as good with a lance, axe, mace, or martial arts? That's character-driven!
The more of a system there is, the more emphasis there will be on the system.
@surreality Ares has that too. You can drop a skill to Unskilled from Everyman. You just don't get points back for it, which I think is great.
@sockmonkey said in Game Design: Avoiding Min-Maxing:
Should there be +census for attribute and skills so players get a sense of what the actually playerbase spread is?
This is one of my favorite things about Ares. You can see what other characters have for all Action Skills, and for any Background Skills that at least 3 characters already have. It's awesome (for Staff too, making sure that they're being consistent in what they allow onto the grid.
@ganymede said in Game Design: Avoiding Min-Maxing:
That is, if you have Strength 2 and Melee 1, your total pool is 3 of a possible 10 dice, which is the same if you had Strength 1 and Melee 2.
This is what I would do differently if I did skill descriptions again for a game (besides putting in Everyman ratings appropriately). The numbers wouldn't be your skill rating, the numbers would be your dice pool. Because as you say, someone with 5 Reflexes and 1 Sword is just as skilled as someone with 1 Reflexes and 5 Sword.
@ganymede said in Game Design: Avoiding Min-Maxing:
This does not mean I agree with The Sands, though. I don't put the blame on the Newbie; I put the blame on the stupid people at White Wolf that came up with the idea of skill descriptions. As a veteran, I will tell you that they are patently misleading; all you need to know is: (1) having a 0 in a skill will result in a penalty to such rolls, either -1 or -3; (2) 4 is the supposed average for a person considered "skilled"; and (3) look at the total pool.
Yeah, and the concern would be pretty much solved by just having that last sentence of yours on a chargen helpfile somewhere.
@seraphim73 said in Game Design: Avoiding Min-Maxing:
Because as you say, someone with 5 Reflexes and 1 Sword is just as skilled as someone with 1 Reflexes and 5 Sword.
That was always my biggest beef with WOD though.
Someone with Medicine 2 (First Aid) + Int 4 SHOULD NOT IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM have equivalent skill to someone with Medicine 4 + Int 2. I don't care what the dice say - some skills have knowledge attached.
</petpeeve>
@faraday said in Game Design: Avoiding Min-Maxing:
@seraphim73 said in Game Design: Avoiding Min-Maxing:
Because as you say, someone with 5 Reflexes and 1 Sword is just as skilled as someone with 1 Reflexes and 5 Sword.
That was always my biggest beef with WOD though.
Someone with Medicine 2 (First Aid) + Int 4 SHOULD NOT IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM have equivalent skill to someone with Medicine 4 + Int 2. I don't care what the dice say - some skills have knowledge attached.
</petpeeve>
Yeah, I very much like systems where your stat/attribute and skill have different weights in the roll. And I like skill being the one that has more weight. It feels more accurate to life.
@ganymede said in Game Design: Avoiding Min-Maxing:
look at the total pool.
There are a few problems with that though:
It expects that people will be familiar with the dice mechanic and associated statistics to figure out what those pools give them in practice, which is often not at all obvious when you factor in modifiers, merits, etc. Especially for new people.
It doesn't provide any consistency across players. Two people may intend for their characters to be comparably skilled (let's say... both modestly successful pilots fresh out of flight school) and end up with wildly different dice pools completely by accident because they're just not on the same page as to what's appropriate.
So I get why people don't like to rely on the skill descriptions, because they're often wrong. (Apparently in WoD they're always wrong, but that's not true for all game systems and this isn't a WoD-only discussion.) But I think that they can provide a lot of value if you can manage to get them right.
I'd hazard to say that discussing stats initially outlined in a way that isn't how WoD works (even if they are the WoD attributes as the example set), by default we are explicitly talking about something nonWoD, so the hyperfocus on WoD is doubly sighsome.
@faraday said in Game Design: Avoiding Min-Maxing:
That's absurd. If the rules say "Drive 1 means the average person who can drive well enough to get to the grocery store without incident" and I take that level because that describes my character then I haven't done anything wrong.
Except the rules don't say that. The rules say that you add your attribute and your skill to get your die pool whenever you try something. Ever since first edition they have used wording such as 'with each score suggesting your character’s relative level of proficiency and knowledge in that area.' Suggesting not defining (this particular quote was from WoD 1e but the same basic terms have been used ever since V:tM 1e).
New players can't be expected to psychically know which rules to follow and which rules not to follow. It's a game designer's mistake for writing the rules that way and a staff mistake for not saying in their house rules "this rule as written is stupid and we're ignoring it" but in no way, shape or form is it a player mistake.
What you're talking about isn't a rule. You can keep saying it is, but it isn't. It's badly written fluff.
I'm not blaming them. I'm just saying that gives them an advantage over the player who tried to play the game with the rules as written.
Not a rule. What you're doing is complaining that someone made a better character than you because they know the rules. I honestly have no real idea how to respond to that. Yes, there are cases where people abuse the system by finding loopholes, but this isn't one of them. This is a case of someone knowing 'that's fluff and has no direct bearing'.
I don't see how that's really debatable. Your RP your character as "an average day to day driver" and so do I. But I paid two extra points for it. That means your character is two points better at things that actually matter in the game.
And if I bought 5 dots in Expression and say my character is "an average speaker" you would have three points more than me at things that actually matter in game. My decision to do that means I made a mistake.
Also, if the staff really does mean the rules as written (which some places do), then RPing being an average driver when the rules say you aren't is cheating.
Yes, but again, not a rule.
It's no different than RPing a doctor-level medicine knowledge when you have First Aid 1.
If I've got a 5 Int and Medicine 1 then I absolutely am allowed to RP as if I have a 6 die pool. If you want to argue that a 6 die pool isn't sufficient to be a Doctor that's up to you but that's how the game works.
It seems like you want to complain people aren't following the rules but what you really want is for people to follow rules that don't exist and I'm sorry, but I can't "be expected to psychically know" to follow rules that don't exist anywhere.
(incidentally, just to illustrate how utterly pointless your argument is, "The Drive Skill allows your character to operate a vehicle under difficult or dangerous conditions. Characters don’t need this Skill simply to drive a car. It’s safe to assume in a modern society that most individuals are familiar with automobiles and the rules of the road." (WoD p. 69). It's been a rule for 14 years that you don't need Drive to operate a car.)
@the-sands We're not talking exclusively about WoD here and many systems do make express claims about what certain skill levels represent. Argue about it all you want, it doesn't change what some rulebooks actually say.
@roz said in Game Design: Avoiding Min-Maxing:
Yeah, I very much like systems where your stat/attribute and skill have different weights in the roll. And I like skill being the one that has more weight. It feels more accurate to life.
Agreed, but that is not the system being discussed. There are quite a few things I don't like about the WoD/CoD system and one of them is the relative cost and balance between skills and attributes. However, it's the system in use in most places.
@the-sands said in Game Design: Avoiding Min-Maxing:
@faraday said in Game Design: Avoiding Min-Maxing:
New players can't be expected to psychically know which rules to follow and which rules not to follow. It's a game designer's mistake for writing the rules that way and a staff mistake for not saying in their house rules "this rule as written is stupid and we're ignoring it" but in no way, shape or form is it a player mistake.
What you're talking about isn't a rule. You can keep saying it is, but it isn't. It's badly written fluff.
It's badly written fluff in the rulebook. If people new to the system should be disregarding the descriptions of skill levels, then I reiterate that it should be documented somewhere in a game's chargen helpfiles. The fact that every WoD veteran knows to disregard these descriptions is not helpful for someone new to a system. The idea that it's a beginner's own fault for not understanding where the contradictions or misleading text is in a sourcebook is a wildly unwelcoming attitude.
It seems like you want to complain people aren't following the rules but what you really want is for people to follow rules that don't exist and I'm sorry, but I can't "be expected to psychically know" to follow rules that don't exist anywhere.
The complaints are about the idea that newbies should know which text in a sourcebook to take to heart and which to disregard without any guidance from a game's staff or veterans. We're saying that it's a bad attitude to have and that it's unwelcoming to newcomers.
@the-sands said in Game Design: Avoiding Min-Maxing:
@roz said in Game Design: Avoiding Min-Maxing:
Yeah, I very much like systems where your stat/attribute and skill have different weights in the roll. And I like skill being the one that has more weight. It feels more accurate to life.
Agreed, but that is not the system being discussed. There are quite a few things I don't like about the WoD/CoD system and one of them is the relative cost and balance between skills and attributes. However, it's the system in use in most places.
Uh, as Faraday said, WoD is not the only system we're allowed to discuss in this thread. This is not a WoD thread.
@faraday If you want to complain about people in other systems using skills that they aren't allowed to then by all means. Maybe you should pick a different example and stop trying to defend this one. I will actually support your argument if people are really using skills they don't have in a game (much as I have repeatedly said that the NASCAR driver without drive is a bad player, because even if he never has to roll the skill he is still roleplaying a stat he doesn't have) but the example you're using is flawed.
@the-sands said in Game Design: Avoiding Min-Maxing:
Maybe you should pick a different example and stop trying to defend this one.
Or maybe you should read what I've actually written in multiple posts and stop assuming (incorrectly) that I'm only talking about WOD - a game system that I don't even actually play.
@roz said in Game Design: Avoiding Min-Maxing:
It's badly written fluff in the rulebook.
It's really not. People are dredging up ghosts of Christmas long past. It's not in the book at all anymore.
The idea that it's a beginner's own fault for not understanding where the contradictions or misleading text is in a sourcebook is a wildly unwelcoming attitude.
It isn't a good attitude to have, you're right, and I apologize. Somehow I am failing to make myself clear but I'm really not trying to say 'too bad, so sad. Should have read the books more carefully'.
What I am trying to say is that blaming other people for having better stats than the newbie because the newbie made mistakes is an even worse attitude to have.
Uh, as Faraday said, WoD is not the only system we're allowed to discuss in this thread. This is not a WoD thread.
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.
