Is Min/Max a bad thing?

[faraday]

@arkandel said in Is Min/Max a bad thing?:

You won't see much of anything rolled other than the specific archetypes the game - quite possibly inadvertently - promotes.

People often miss that this is a core facet of FS3 system design. The whole reason that "Action Skills" are separate from background skills is because it's an intrinsic social contract between the players and staff saying these are the skills that the game is going to focus on. The ones relevant to the central "action" of the game.

That's why FS3 works well in themes where, say, everyone's either a marine or viper pilot, and not so well in themes where you've got a huge variety of characters all expecting RP in equal measure.

@jennkryst said in Is Min/Max a bad thing?:

two characters start, one with 1/1/1/1, and the other with 4/0/0/0. Player one needs to spend 27 XP (6 + 9 + 12) to get to 4/1/1/1; player two needs to spend 9 XP (3 + 3 + 3).

For FS3 there's an article explaining this effect. In D&D terms, the 4/0/0/0 character essentially started at a higher level. As long as the two PCs are earning XP at the same rate, the 4/0/0/0 char will always be ahead. YMMV obviously. Many would say that you shouldn't let characters start at different levels, but as long as you understand the way a system is designed, it's not inherently a bad thing.

[kk]

My feeling is that important thing is that rules for people on min/maxing be the same for everyone.

Meaning If one wants to limit it, limit it for everyone in the game in and have clear rules.

Like maybe allowing people to start with only one stat at 4+, but having that rule be the rule for everyone.

It is too easy for staff/gms to accidently favor their friends and look the other way if their friends min/max, but not stop people they don't know from doing such.

Also if one is going to min/max than make sure to really play the min staff like a flaw. Such as play a strength 1 character as weakling.

For the most part I don't care about min/maxing. I only really care if some people are allowed to min/max and others not allowed.

Min/maxing often becomes an xp discount as in many game systems it is cheap and easy to later raise strength to 2, but hard and expense to raise strength later from 4 to 5.

[Seraphim73]

I'm going to agree with a great many people on this thread and say, "It depends." And I'm going to agree with a lot of people on this thread and say, "It depends on what the group is trying to do." I played in a tabletop short campaign where everyone was min-maxed, high-Karma Shadowrunners going into the Renraku Arcology shortly after Shutdown. It was bloody and it was awesome. I have also seen both MUSHes and tabletop games screwed up because one portion of the players thought they were playing an RP game, and the other portion thought they were playing a Roll More Dice game. The problem here usually comes when the GMs/Staff allow the latter group to steamroller the former through the weight of their dice pools.

This is why I love the skill/scan command on FS3 games and the Skill Distribution/Skill Census/whatever you want to call it page on an FS3 game's web portal (I'm being specific here because I believe that both commands are only available on FS3 games, and not any Ares game, but I could be wrong). It's a fantastic way to see what type of game is being run. Are the 'badass fighters' running around with 7 Composure, 8 Ranged, and 8 Melee? Are the 'badass diplomats' running around with 8 Composure and 8 Influence? Or do people have a 5 or a 6 in their area of specialty? The distribution of action skills (and the background skills taken by people) can tell you a LOT about a game -- and help you fit in with whichever side of the scale the game falls on.

I enjoy playing characters with large dice pools. Some of this is because I love posing people doing awesome things, and some of it is because I have to make up for my generally horrid dice luck. But as long as my character is within the same range as other PCs at what they're supposed to be good at, that's plenty good for me. Because posing utter incompetence can be entertaining too, as long as you know that's what you're in for.

So yeah, I don't think that min-maxing is inherently bad, but I do think that you need to have everyone on the game on the same page as to how powerful the PCs are supposed to be. It's when they aren't, and the assholes with the high dice pools (or even the normally-considerate folks with high dice pools who get excited to be able to THEIR THING) suck the fun out of the scene because they're the only ones who can do everything or they can do everything all on their own, that you have problems.

[Ganymede]

@seraphim73

Yeah, the census command is awesome. It allowed me to create a character that was pretty unique, even on a game with a standard set of action skills for particular roles.

[Coin]

No, unless the general culture of the game is inclined towards not.

That is to say, if you go on a game and everyone is super chill with stats and no one has gone super hard into one of them, then it's pretty poor form to immediately chargen with Melee 1 Billion.

Conversely, if you join a game where everyone is trying to maximize their stats, you're gonna have a bad time come dice time if you don't (which has happened to me occasionally).

Of course there is no game in which these extremes are true; there's always a mix, but tendencies are pretty easy to find, especially if you have access to other people's sheets to check.

[Pyrephox]

@seraphim73 said in Is Min/Max a bad thing?:

I enjoy playing characters with large dice pools. Some of this is because I love posing people doing awesome things, and some of it is because I have to make up for my generally horrid dice luck. But as long as my character is within the same range as other PCs at what they're supposed to be good at, that's plenty good for me. Because posing utter incompetence can be entertaining too, as long as you know that's what you're in for.

As I've gotten older, this is one reason I've become more and more a fan of systems with some sort of metacurrency that lets you counter dice luck when it REALLY matters. Hero points, Fate points, Luck, whatever. There's nothing more frustrating than finally getting a chance to shine in your character's area of expertise only to roll a gigantic pool of NOTHING, or a Nat 1, or whatever outcome represents embarrassing failure.

And honestly, that's more a MU* thing. In a tabletop, I know that I'll get more chances to let my character shine. But in a MU* with a lot more players and a lot less attention to go around, there might be months between chances to Do My Thing, and of course all anyone's going to remember about my character from now on is that they Botched That Thing.

[insomniac7809]

@jennkryst said in Is Min/Max a bad thing?:

Obligatorally chiming in because I half-min-max... but it's rarely for combat efficiency or the like. It's almost always done when a game's chargen and xp advancement ratio is different. To explain to the five people on the forum who dont know the concept, and to use the nWoD math... two characters start, one with 1/1/1/1, and the other with 4/0/0/0. Player one needs to spend 27 XP (6 + 9 + 12) to get to 4/1/1/1; player two needs to spend 9 XP (3 + 3 + 3).

And I hate--hate--this because it means that...

So, okay, I want to make a PC who's an unquestioned master of the blade, educated in natural philosophy, and disarmingly erudite, but I don't have the starting character resources. Fair enough! I'll make a character who's an expert at the blade, familiar with natural philosophy, and an apt conversationalist, and work from there.

Except... if I make an unquestioned master of the blade who's about as educated as an especially oblivious rock and with half the charm, I'll be playing the character I actually want to be playing in half the time. Making a less-good version of the character I want to play, rather than a different character who can become the PC I wanted in the first place with time and character resource investment, is the wrong decision and I can prove it mathematically.

Which, generally, is my problem with Min/Max-ing. Not that it's a bad thing to want your PC to be good at the thing they're good at, but I would like to have a character who is a functional human being also, please and thank you. And technically, sure, no one's making me min/max my own PC, but if it's established as an expectation in a given game the options amount to keeping up or falling behind; excuse me if I'm embittered by the fact that making a starting PC with a range of skills to reflect a lived experience in-setting is strictly inferior to rolling up a monosyllabic illiterate who always smells faintly of bad eggs but is really good at shooting.

Although, to be clear, my first snark will always be toward the game system, rather than the players who choose to make the clearly optimal choice.

(Last, perhaps peevishly, I might suggest that if I'm to see familiarity with the game system as a positive good, as the Reddit link suggests, the DM should be running something better than D&D5 oh snap indeed i went there)

[Tinuviel]

@insomniac7809 Even worse is when you make that erudite natural philosopher that's so-so at the blade, and it turns out every "investigation" or "diplomatic" scene winds up with combat because the ST doesn't know how to do anything other than say roll initiative.

[insomniac7809]

@tinuviel Oh, yeah, a whole other thing--where some of the theoretically-equivalent character options wind up made useless because of the "metagame."

I have come to appreciate, more and more, the way some games will clearly delineate between "game focus" skills and "other." LANCER, for instance--an RPG about giant robot pilots--has PC abilities that relate to giant robots fighting each other on the grid map, and entirely different (extremely loose) character abilities purchased with different resource points for when you aren't in the robot.

[Tinuviel]

@insomniac7809 Yeah, unfortunately difficult on games that try to do all the things. I'm like... the anti-min/maxer. I have the attention span of a gnat drowning in a vodka & redbull. I want to do the social and the political and the thinky thinky and sometimes the fighty and I want to do it all but ooh there's this merit that sounds really neat even if it never comes up in play and then there's like eighty specialties I could buy for my skills...

It's a thing.

[Arkandel]

@tinuviel said in Is Min/Max a bad thing?:

@insomniac7809 Even worse is when you make that erudite natural philosopher that's so-so at the blade, and it turns out every "investigation" or "diplomatic" scene winds up with combat because the ST doesn't know how to do anything other than say roll initiative.

That's the thing about MU*, too. Making combat-oriented character pays off.

It's simple logistics. Creating a plot about fighting evil orcs is easy, and it's hard to disappoint your audience.

On the other hand creating a plot based on politics is hard since the GM needs to know the setting well, and possibly coordinate with factions and/or staff. Creating a plot tailored to specific characters requires talking to them first, becoming familiar with their backgrounds. Etc.

Ergo, most plots will have the party fighting Orcs of some sort. So if you create a character able to do so well, you'll fit in and be useful in most of those plots.

Extra points on MU* - your fighty character with low social/mental stats can be charming anyway. It's not even cheating (well, not necessarily). A great RPer can make playing with their well-meaning dimwit a blast, whereas an iffy one's suave noble can come across as dull through their actual poses. So you might not even be giving anything up to play that master of the blade.

[Pyrephox]

@arkandel That last paragraph is a key piece, I think. I've definitely had the thought of "Why am I bothering to buy these social/intellectual skills or stats, when I know that I'll never get to roll them to do anything, anyway, without someone screaming 'social skills are not mind control' at me? Why not just stack up on combat skills and recognize that my character will always only be as effective as other people and the GM want them to be in the social arena, no matter what skills or abilities they supposedly have."

And then I go ahead and buy the social skills anyway, because I carry the tiny hope in my heart that somehow, someway, this game will be different.

[faraday]

@arkandel said in Is Min/Max a bad thing?:

So you might not even be giving anything up to play that master of the blade.

Yeah, but... so what?

Combat scenes have been a staple of RPGs since their invention. Virtually every character class/archetype/etc. in every TTRPG/MMO I've ever seen has abilities to make them effective in combat, either directly (guns and fireballs) or indirectly (buffs and healing).

MU players are the only ones who seem determined believe things are different.

If you're honest with yourselves and your players, this isn't a problem. Unless you've got some grand scheme to sustain non-combat RP plots across your playerbase, just tell them up front that combat/adventure is going to be the main focus and make sure your chargen/approval process is structured accordingly. If someone REALLY wants to play a chef despite all that, make sure they understand that they'll be sandboxing their own fun.

It's all about expectations.

[kk]

It can be hard to play a combat character if one is on a game with limited invites into the fight scenes and in a lot of ways more comfortable to be a non-combat character at least for me.

That is because if I have this bad ass with high strength and weapons and etc who is supposed to be all brave, going lol I didn't attend the battle and am drinking in a bar instead, I feel my character is being pretty lame or kind of failed.

Where as if I am a cute little social character - I am lot more like oh, whatever, I can still have fun cheering on the heroes who did go on the mission/battle and I feel like their lack of bravery, and not being there to help defend is not such a big deal or an over all failure of that character at being well the character they were designed to be or they can more easily slide into a supporting/minion role if they are not getting into the main action.

[GreenFlashlight]

I remember about ten years ago, I was looking into joining a Legend of the Five Rings MUSH. Wasn't actually a MUSH--I think it was on some kind of chat program?--but it seemed to function enough like a MUSH that I didn't mind calling it that. I built a courtier and was chatting with some people in a pre-launch soft RP session, when I noticed that I was the only courtier. Literally everyone else was a bushi or a shugenja.

I asked why that was, and I was told straight to my face with refreshing honesty, "Because bushi and shugenja can roleplay talking, but courtiers can't roleplay fighting."

[Jennkryst]

@insomniac7809 My 'have not run all the numbers but quick solution' is just give people XP and let them spend it on what they will. You will get your hyper-focused min-maxers, because they exist. But this method actually encourages jack-of-all-trades builds, because you can spread out and get MORE dots than someone who focused at the expense of everything else.

... also, this is really WoD focused, so ymmv with other systems.

@greenflashlight said in Is Min/Max a bad thing?:

I asked why that was, and I was told straight to my face with refreshing honesty, "Because bushi and shugenja can roleplay talking, but courtiers can't roleplay fighting."

This is just the social combat argument again, bushi/shugenja faking they have good social stats and only spending XP on combat... and I wasn't the one to bring it up! Tangentially related, this is actually addressed in the FFG L5R ruleset, courtiers get specific THINGS they, and only they, can do.

Edit to add - interestingly, when I am doing the min-max Boogaloo, I rarely max out combat stats. It's almost always the subterfuge or lying skills, to justify... you know. Lying perfectly in those poses that are totally true and not a lie, the dice say so, you have to believe me.

[Arkandel]

@jennkryst said in Is Min/Max a bad thing?:

This is just the social combat argument again, bushi/shugenja faking they have good social stats and only spending XP on combat... and I wasn't the one to bring it up!

I want to object to this very specific point.

No one says combat characters need to fake having good social skills. They can certainly mix it up, play to their weaknesses, commit the occasional blunder or put their foot in their mouth and it can be fun for everyone involved. After all it's fairly rare for someone to catastrophically damage their character's prospects simply by not being good at the talkytalk stuff. Sure, you can come off as an idiot or the Duchess might facepalm but even that can be an opportunity to create more RP down the line.

I'd assert it's in combat where this problem is, not the social arena. It's fights which, very damn often on MU*, are fought to the death - and you can lose your character to some thug in an alley if you aren't careful. In nWoD for example once there are enough dice out there a less capable character can get one-shot quite easily; all it takes is for the ST to tailor the encounter for your Brujah friend but make one of those monsters target your PC before it's lights out.

In other words a min/maxed warrior type can get very decent mileage out of social situations even if they play their low stats very appropriately - no faking involved. A min/maxed scholar can get their ass handed to them in very short order.

[faraday]

@arkandel said in Is Min/Max a bad thing?:

In other words a min/maxed warrior type can get very decent mileage out of social situations even if they play their low stats very appropriately - no faking involved. A min/maxed scholar can get their ass handed to them in very short order.

I think it runs deeper than that. Even on my FS3 games, where there is expressly no coded combat death, the games are PVE, there are free background skills to let you be well-rounded, and really no social combat stats to speak of - you still have people min/maxing combat skills.

Why? Because they want to be a badass. More specifically, they want to be the baddest of the badasses.

I don't think this phenomenon is exclusive to combat chars either, because I've seen it on other games. Con artists and politicians will min/max their manipulation skills; investigators will min/max their investigation skills. It is a rare player indeed who wants to suck at their character's "thing", whatever that may be.

[Coin]

And this is why my one character has Composure 8 and Influence 8.

Wait.

Did I do it wrong.

[Tinuviel]

@coin said in Is Min/Max a bad thing?:

And this is why my one character has Composure 8 and Influence 8.

Wait.

Did I do it wrong.

Can't die in combat if you just maintain a stiff upper lip and simply tell the bullets to, politely, fuck off.