@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?
@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.
@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
@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)
@surreality said in Repurposing a Tabletop RPG for MU* Play:
There are real reasons the LARP rules are different from the tabletop rules.
Totally agree with the whole post. Look at how people actually play (and how you want them to play for a hypothetical new MUSH) and then figure out which parts of the tabletop system support that and which parts you need to throw out.
Like - I love Shadowrun but the base rulebook is hundreds of pages with hundreds of "it does this... except when it doesn't" type of twists and turns. That's an utterly absurd level of mechanics for a MUSH where people are running around doing BarRP and political plots with an occasional gang fight.
Strip it down. Way down. Reminds me of this scene from Armageddon where they're taking all the useless junk out of the Armadillo. Then you'll have something that's more suited for strangers interacting without a GM on the internet.
@ganymede said in Game Design: Avoiding Min-Maxing:
Intelligence 3 and Medicine 3.
While I appreciate the clarification, I think you missed my point. (Or were being facetious :))
It's all well and good for staff to be able to answer that question, but I'm saying that the answer to that question (and a million similar questions for every character who comes through chargen) should be obvious from the skill system description.
(Incidentally, I played on a mortal-Storyteller game where 1 meant First Aid, 2 was Paramedic, 3 was Doctor-in-Training and it would've been perfectly appropriate for someone like Cate to have a 4. You never know.)
It's like FS3, where I kept having to reject people for their background skills being too high. I'd ask them: "Did you really mean to be good enough to be paid symphony violinist?" And they'd be like: "Oh - no - I just wanted to have more dice."
If the dice have meaning in term of training, then the system should make it clear what levels are appropriate for a junior doctor, or a pilot fresh out of flight school, or a casual hobbyist violinist.
If the dice don't have meaning, then I should be able to give Cate Medicine 4 just for kicks, and the violinist character shouldn't get grief just because it's "too high".
Either way, the help files should offer guidance about what staff wants beyond "just go by the dice pool".
@ganymede said in Game Design: Avoiding Min-Maxing:
It sounds more complex that it is, but, really, the Silhouette system is light and very versatile.
I agree with what you've said about Sihlouette and Storyteller being pretty simple systems to grok. What I'm saying though is different. It's not about the mechanics.
Cate is a 3rd year Emergency Room resident physician who's pretty talented but not top of her class or anything. She's a little smarter than average - she got through medical school ok, but she's no genius.
What ratings are appropriate for that character's Medicine and Intelligence?
I can't answer that question by looking at dice and statistics. Is it 2 dots in Medicine? or 3? or 4? I'm not really sure. It kinda depends on whether you view 1 as "First Aid" or "Medical Student". What about intelligence - is what I described a 3? 4? I'm honestly not sure. (I'm trying to use WOD examples there for common ground but you could ask the same question with FS3 or any other system.)
If I pick wrong compared to what staff expects - my character is going to get bounced back to me, delaying my entry to the game. If I pick wrong compared to what other characters have chosen, I may be severely disadvantaged in plot scenes. And either way, I feel like I'm on shaky, uncertain ground, not confident in my chargen choices.
Skill census helps a bit, but it's not a magic bullet because you lack the context of those chars' backgrounds.
I'm not saying everyone needs to care about this issue. I'm just saying that some people care about this issue very much when they make up their characters. If your game doesn't have descriptions for what the levels actually are intended to mean - or worse, it has descriptions but they're wrong and/or everyone ignores them - then there's some percentage of players who are going to be drastically frustrated and/or led astray.
@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.
@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.
@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.
@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.
@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>
@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.
@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 Yes I agree. As you know (but not everyone may), that's one of the things I adjusted in FS3 3rd Ed. The level 1 skill is expressly named "Everyman" and everybody starts there. The idea was to make it more obvious that even though you don't have Drive or Brawl on your sheet, you can still drive your car to work and try to throw a punch. You won't be particularly good at those things under stress, but nor do you live under a rock.
My issue with folks just ignoring the "nonsense" skill descriptions as @The-Sands has suggested is that some people actually pay attention to them. If I've never played WoD before, how the devil am I supposed to know that the skill descriptions are BS? I read the rulebook, it says (as @ThatGuyThere pointed out) "1 dot in drive means you can drive normally and 2 dots in drive are required to drive a stick shift". I'm gonna think "Oh - well then I probably should have Drive: 2".
That now means I'm now 2 dots "behind" someone else who comes along and ignores the skill descriptions and plays a driver without the Drive skill. It creates a situation that is inherently unfair between those who follow the rules and those who don't.
So @Arkandel - I don't see that as a strawman argument at all. It's a very real problem that creates an imbalance between the PCs.
But I agree with @Seraphim73 that the "max" part of min-maxing isn't the problem. I frankly don't care if you want to play an ace fighter pilot with exceptional reflexes. If that's your thing - go for it. I do however mind if that's all they can do, because I think it's silly. Even an ace fighter pilot went through basic training and knows how to pick up a pistol, has to pass physical fitness tests, and went through the military academy where they took something as their major. Those skills should be reflected on their character sheet, even if they're low. My definition of well-rounded is "not one-dimensional". It doesn't mean "one man army who can do All The Things".
@the-sands said in Game Design: Avoiding Min-Maxing:
In other words, most games are designed around the idea that if you 'should' know how to do something you already do. You don't lack the points to buy everything you 'should' have because you've already got everything you 'should' have for free.
I'm just saying that if you actually read the game system's descriptions, that's actually simply not true. It's a disconnect between the descriptions and the way people play, which I feel leads to issues. But apparently I'm in the minority and don't really feel like arguing about it any more.
@kanye-qwest It depends on the system obviously, but I've seen countless cases where one person will say: "Well I'm not a stunt driver - I don't need Drive" and someone else will say: "Well, you don't have the Drive skill so you never learned how to drive."
I remember on B5MUSH back in the day - if you didn't have Swimming it meant, literally, you couldn't swim. We had a lot of people who min/maxed that away (since how likely was it you'd actually need swimming on a space station game) and had some lulz when the garden flooded from a water main break and nobody could swim.
This issue is compounded by the systems themselves. Many systems have specific descriptions for what the different levels mean and people generally just ignore them. This actually penalizes people who actually pay attention to them and try to make their character "fairly".
For example, I'll pick on @Seraphim73 (because he knows we're pals :)) and the 100's skill descriptions, where there were things like:
Resolve:
1 - Someone who might turn down a knuckle sandwich.
2 - Someone who can go hungry for a few hours without complaining.Alertness:
1 - Someone who notices when someone close to them shaves their head.
2 - Someone who notices when someone close to them gets a haircut.Deception
1 - You told a lie once.
2 - You told a lie once — and it was believed.
Seriously - can you imagine a single MUSH character that wouldn't have at least Resolve-3 / Alertness-3 / Deception-3 ? I can't.
I tease 100 but it's by no means unique to them. Has anybody actually taken time to read what the dot levels or skill examples are in WoD or other systems? If you actually follow what they say, people would have low level skills in a lot of things.
But most people think "If it's not on my sheet, it just means I'm not particularly good at it" not "If it's not on my sheet, it means I don't notice when my BFF just shaved his head and literally cannot tell a lie to save my life."
@arkandel said in Game Design: Avoiding Min-Maxing:
As such I wouldn't think a system is getting in my way when I do this but rather that it attracts me.
I think we're talking apples and oranges. I'm talking about people who come in with a particular character vision in mind - "I want to be a badass archer who grew up on a farm" or "I want to be a doctor with an interest in child psychology" or "I want to be a fighter pilot who played the violin when they were younger". You might be surprised how freaking hard it is to make well-rounded characters who don't suck (or are at an extreme disadvantage compared to their companions) in some games, especially when systems throw in a lot of skills that everyone should have to some extent, like Athletics, Persuasion, Awareness, Driving, etc. You never have enough points to get all the things you "should" have, so you are basically forced to min/max.
Your approach of making a numerically-optimized character just for the fun/challenge of it is a completely different approach so my statement doesn't really apply to you. Nevertheless, in my experience the former has been far more common.
I've played around with skill systems a LOT - both with FS3 and other things, so I'll share my experiences.
The #1 reason people min/max IMHO? Players have a vision and your system gets in the way.
They know what they want their character to be - either immediately or down the road if they envision a "Hero's Journey". If your system prevents them from achieving that vision - they'll rail against it in the form of min/maxing to get as close to that vision as possible.
Ironically, many systems try to limit chargen points to prevent min-maxing, but this ends up just encouraging min-maxing instead.
For example: On one game I wanted to play a good, veteran archer. I went through chargen the way I thought my character should be, well-rounded and all, and was way overboard on points. It then became an exercise in "what can I live without?" And guess what? A good, veteran archer can live without Persuasion. They (quite literally) can't live without combat skills at a decent level. Is that min/maxing? Absolutely. It's also Common Sense. I am not a min-maxer by nature; I would have been happier to make my character more well-rounded. But I'm not going to hamstring her in relation to other characters by doing so.
You can try to combat that by forcing people to be well-rounded. Make them take background skills or Persuasion at a minimum level, etc. I'm all for that, actually. It's what I did on BSGU. But it doesn't fix min/maxing, it just curtails the degree by which they are able to min/max.
I did an interesting experiment once of having a chargen that was unbounded by points. Players were free to pick whatever skills they felt were appropriate to their characters. Of the few dozen people who went through chargen, I had one that went overboard and needed to be told to tone it down. In contrast, there were several characters who I felt had undervalued their skills based on their background and I suggested raising some. There were way more 'useless' skills on sheets than you'd find on typical games because they were free to take them without essentially penalizing themselves.
That was one game and one very extreme experiment (that I don't really recommend for other reasons), but it supports my main point: I really don't think most players inherently min/max. Some do, sure, but I think most of the min/maxing we see in the hobby comes from people chafing against arbitrary system constraints.
One other tip from my experience: Players Ares Confused By Stat Descriptions. Ask ten players what "Good" means and you'll get 20 different answers. The fact that different skill systems are wildly different compounds this problem. "Good" in D20 gives a very different success chance than "Good" in WoD which is again different from "Good" in FUDGE. I once had a system that used only descriptions - no numbers whatsoever, and everyone was super-frustrated because they didn't know what levels they should take.
With no universal agreement on the words, players fall back to choosing stats based on their perceived value. What can I do with "Fair" Riding and do I think it will come up a lot?
@mietze I think you're missing my point, or I wasn't clear. Every roll of the dice does not take away my agency. Only the ones that override what I feel my character's thoughts and decisions should be. Rolling to make a fire in the wild? Failing that doesn't deprive me of player agency. Nor does failing a drive roll. Or a knowledge roll (I don't mean facts when I say thoughts). Or a million other rolls.
Social rolls don't take away agency either when they're treated as performance rolls and not mind control rolls. Your social roll can tell me that your character sounds sincere. How I have my character react to that is agency.
Agency also doesn't mean I get to put my own OOC desires above what's IC. If you roll well on a bluff roll and my character has no reason to doubt you then my character should be bluffed.
None of this renders social rolls useless. It makes them work differently than combat rolls, yes, but it doesn't invalidate them IMHO.
ETA: To your point about damage... I can have my character decide to try to get up even though the +damage says she's too injured to succeed. That's not a loss of agency. A loss of agency would be if the damage system says something like: "your only possible action is to lie there blubbering and not even try to move" because it's then telling me what my character has decided to do. Code and rolls should set up situations (a rock falls on you; the car crashes; you've been shot in the leg and it hurts terribly and you can't use it effectively). Players should decide how their characters react to those situations.