So, I'm basically looking for the opinions of the gurus here (self-appointed or otherwise) as to what you see as the major design flaws in nWoD. I don't really care about the related games (V:tR, M:tA, ect.) ... well, at least not just yet (but feel free to throw those in as well -- I'll file it away for later use).
I like the basic resolution concept, but it has some flaws. But what I hate more than anything is the overall narrative of White Wolf (i.e., mandatorily-imposed melodramatic Emo-Sue b.s.).
From my limited experience (played 1 year-long game of V:tR), here's what I have:
- dice pools get fucking ridiculous (I was getting 18 to kill shit out of a mortal with only 30xp .... and then I got embraced)
- skills -- competence levels not granulated fine enough
I'm sure there's more, but it's just not coming to me at the moment.
So, in what ways has White Wolf been an example of what not to do when designing an RPG?
Problems with nWoD?
Moderator: Moderators
Problems with nWoD?
*WARNING*: I say "fuck" a lot.
"The most patriotic thing you can do as an American is to become filthy, filthy rich."
- Mark Cuban
"Game design has no obligation to cater to people who don’t buy into the premise of the game"
TGD -- skirting the edges of dickfinity since 2003.
Public Service Announcement
- Mark Cuban
"Game design has no obligation to cater to people who don’t buy into the premise of the game"
TGD -- skirting the edges of dickfinity since 2003.
Public Service Announcement
Thank you very much, sir.
I knew that this had to have been hashed out already; I just wasn't able to locate it.
Now to get on to some reading.
I knew that this had to have been hashed out already; I just wasn't able to locate it.
Now to get on to some reading.
*WARNING*: I say "fuck" a lot.
"The most patriotic thing you can do as an American is to become filthy, filthy rich."
- Mark Cuban
"Game design has no obligation to cater to people who don’t buy into the premise of the game"
TGD -- skirting the edges of dickfinity since 2003.
Public Service Announcement
- Mark Cuban
"Game design has no obligation to cater to people who don’t buy into the premise of the game"
TGD -- skirting the edges of dickfinity since 2003.
Public Service Announcement
@Wotmaniac: Requiem is actually a 'vampire superheroes' game. For example, Mage doesn't suffer from this problem. I have characters with over 125 XP in my chronicle, and only one reaches a DP of 11... On Science rolls with skill and Intelligence of 5, plus a specialty. I'm using a lot of hotfixes and patches to the basic rules though. And to be honest, Mage doesn't work the same way as Requiem - not enough bonus dice sources...
Mariusz "Kot" Butrykowski
"The only way to keep them in line is to bury them in a row..."
"The only way to keep them in line is to bury them in a row..."
good to know. thanks.
*WARNING*: I say "fuck" a lot.
"The most patriotic thing you can do as an American is to become filthy, filthy rich."
- Mark Cuban
"Game design has no obligation to cater to people who don’t buy into the premise of the game"
TGD -- skirting the edges of dickfinity since 2003.
Public Service Announcement
- Mark Cuban
"Game design has no obligation to cater to people who don’t buy into the premise of the game"
TGD -- skirting the edges of dickfinity since 2003.
Public Service Announcement
wait ... hold on ... I just realized what you said, Kot:
I was throwing 18 dice with basic WoD as a vanilla mortal! "vampire superheroes" have nothing to do with it.
I was throwing 18 dice with basic WoD as a vanilla mortal! "vampire superheroes" have nothing to do with it.
*WARNING*: I say "fuck" a lot.
"The most patriotic thing you can do as an American is to become filthy, filthy rich."
- Mark Cuban
"Game design has no obligation to cater to people who don’t buy into the premise of the game"
TGD -- skirting the edges of dickfinity since 2003.
Public Service Announcement
- Mark Cuban
"Game design has no obligation to cater to people who don’t buy into the premise of the game"
TGD -- skirting the edges of dickfinity since 2003.
Public Service Announcement
-
Username17
- Serious Badass
- Posts: 29894
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
On top of that, there is an entire branch of magic (enchanting) that doesn't do anything except dice pool accounting. There are Mage characters with a lot less than 125 XP who are throwing 60 dice and more.wotmaniac wrote:wait ... hold on ... I just realized what you said, Kot:
I was throwing 18 dice with basic WoD as a vanilla mortal! "vampire superheroes" have nothing to do with it.
I have no idea how you'd be stuck at 11 dice in your primary field at 125 XP. Even without a splatbook, you can have a stat and skill of 5, a relevant specialization, and generic equipment and roll 14 dice.
-Username17
@Wotmaniac: Well, none of my players is powergaming that way, and noone was when we played the mortal-based campaign. I wouldn't allow it even though. As for now, they're capped below 10 dice on spellcasting rolls, with low (1-2) Gnosis, no Arcana above 3, and a handful of starting Rotes. I think I might come up with a way of squeezing 18 dice as a mortal, but the question stands - why? To be a one trick expert? The way we play that kind of specialization does you no good. Not every game is about shooting things with a gun.
@Frank: By having Intelligence 5 and Science 5 with a few specialities? He's a genius in that field, mind you. Those kind of rolls don't get many bonus factors, and the character in question is an Obrimos, with no facilities and no expertise in buffing his shtick with magic (not the best Path for it). If there's any equipment in the corebook that boosts Science rolls, I must have missed it.
But I'm ending up having to introduce bonus dice for Imago descriptions and Ritual design, so they have enough dice to cast basic spells, so I'm probably not playing 'by the book'. I never considered that the possibility of munching your dicepools to 60 means it's compulsory to do so.
Besides, the story is more about a group of mages learning arcane secrets along while they bond into a cabal of Urban Magic Archaeologists, not about slapping enemies with the Moon. I've had the doubtful pleasure of reading Masters of the Arts, and I really don't want that kind of game.
@Frank: By having Intelligence 5 and Science 5 with a few specialities? He's a genius in that field, mind you. Those kind of rolls don't get many bonus factors, and the character in question is an Obrimos, with no facilities and no expertise in buffing his shtick with magic (not the best Path for it). If there's any equipment in the corebook that boosts Science rolls, I must have missed it.
But I'm ending up having to introduce bonus dice for Imago descriptions and Ritual design, so they have enough dice to cast basic spells, so I'm probably not playing 'by the book'. I never considered that the possibility of munching your dicepools to 60 means it's compulsory to do so.
Besides, the story is more about a group of mages learning arcane secrets along while they bond into a cabal of Urban Magic Archaeologists, not about slapping enemies with the Moon. I've had the doubtful pleasure of reading Masters of the Arts, and I really don't want that kind of game.
Mariusz "Kot" Butrykowski
"The only way to keep them in line is to bury them in a row..."
"The only way to keep them in line is to bury them in a row..."
*sniff-sniff*
I think I smell some Stormwind.
I think I smell some Stormwind.
*WARNING*: I say "fuck" a lot.
"The most patriotic thing you can do as an American is to become filthy, filthy rich."
- Mark Cuban
"Game design has no obligation to cater to people who don’t buy into the premise of the game"
TGD -- skirting the edges of dickfinity since 2003.
Public Service Announcement
- Mark Cuban
"Game design has no obligation to cater to people who don’t buy into the premise of the game"
TGD -- skirting the edges of dickfinity since 2003.
Public Service Announcement
-
...You Lost Me
- Duke
- Posts: 1854
- Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 5:21 am
So your point is that the game is not the way it is because you have unspecified houserules that change it from the way it is?
DSMatticus wrote:Again, look at this fucking map you moron. Take your finger and trace each country's coast, then trace its claim line. Even you - and I say that as someone who could not think less of your intelligence - should be able to tell that one of these things is not like the other.
Kaelik wrote:I invented saying mean things about Tussock.
-
Judging__Eagle
- Prince
- Posts: 4671
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
- Location: Lake Ontario is in my backyard; Canada
wotcmaniac; you need to be more specific, Kot probably has no clue what the Stormwind Fallacy is. If not they wouldn't be making it.
Kot, you're pulling the stormwind fallacy. I suggest googling it, but it basically boils down to
Powergamers aren't exclusive from good roleplayers.
The gaming den is the most stupid place to ever do that, mostly because the story writing levels tend to leave most "roleplayers" looking like pretentious hacks, and their powergaming levels make them consider "rollplayers" to be nubcakes.
I could throw a handful of beanbags into a crowd of denners and hit more individuals who are better roleplayers and powergamers than I'd see at almost any gaming group, gaming convention or gaming club.
Also, that "scientist" character in your campaign who "didn't" powergame.... is optimizing, after all, they tried to 'max' out their character's relevant attributes. It's not all about combat.
The funny thing is that you try to have it both ways; first claiming that a min-maxer in your game isn't a munchkin; and then claiming that anyone who tries to max out their dice pools is a munchkin.
Kot, you're pulling the stormwind fallacy. I suggest googling it, but it basically boils down to
Powergamers aren't exclusive from good roleplayers.
Originally Posted by Tempest Stormwind
Tempest Stormwind
05-15-06, 03:58 PM
I still stand by the argument that this is a fundamental difference between old school (basic D&D: 1 race/class, AD&D: very limted multi-classing) vrs new school (I buy a book and there is a class in their and I want it gimmie gimmie). The trend I see is old school = roleplayers, new school = optomizers.
Note to New school people: Don't listen to what you hear, you aren't a dork if you roleplay. It is ok to indulge in what D&D is all about, roleplay. If you try it and have a good DM, I guarantee you'll have a blast and won't care so much about optomizing.
Okay, that's it.
I'm hereby proposing a new logical fallacy. It's not a new idea, but maybe with a catchy name (like the Oberoni Fallacy) it will catch on.
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy
Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa.
Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game.
Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse roleplayer if he optimizes, and vice versa.
Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically roleplayed better than an optimized one, and vice versa.
(I admit that there are some diehards on both sides -- the RP fanatics who refuse to optimize as if strong characters were the mark of the Devil and the min/max munchkins who couldn't RP their way out of a paper bag without setting it on fire -- though I see these as extreme examples. The vast majority of people are in between, and thus the generalizations hold. The key word is 'automatically')
Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's gameplay. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Roleplaying deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else.
A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other.
Claiming that an optimizer cannot roleplay (or is participating in a playstyle that isn't supportive of roleplaying) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
How does this impact "builds"? Simple.
In one extreme (say, Pun-Pun), they are thought experiments. Optimization tests that are not intended to see actual gameplay. Because they do not see gameplay, they do not commit the fallacy.
In the other extreme, you get the drama queens. They could care less about the rules, and are, essentially, playing free-form RP. Because the game is not necessary to this particular character, it doesn't fall into the fallacy.
By playing D&D, you opt in to an agreement of sorts -- the rules describe the world you live in, including yourself. To get the most out of those rules, in the same way you would get the most out of yourself, you must optimize in some respect (and don't look at me funny; you do it already, you just don't like to admit it. You don't need multiclassing or splatbooks to optimize). However, because it is a role-playing game, you also agree to play a role. This is dependent completely on you, and is independent of the rules.
And no, this isn't dependent on edition, or even what roleplaying game you're doing. If you are playing a roleplaying game with any form of rules or regulation, this fallacy can apply. The only difference is the nature of the optimization (based on the rules of that game; Tri-Stat optimizes differently than d20) or the flavor of the roleplay (based on the setting; Exalted feels different from Cthulu).
Conclusion: D&D, like it or not, has elements of both optimization AND roleplay in it. Any game that involves rules has optimization, and any role-playing game has roleplay. These are inherent to the game.
They go hand-in-hand in this sort of game. Deal with it. And in the name of all that is good and holy, stop committing the Stormwind Fallacy in the meantime.
I could throw a handful of beanbags into a crowd of denners and hit more individuals who are better roleplayers and powergamers than I'd see at almost any gaming group, gaming convention or gaming club.
Also, that "scientist" character in your campaign who "didn't" powergame.... is optimizing, after all, they tried to 'max' out their character's relevant attributes. It's not all about combat.
The funny thing is that you try to have it both ways; first claiming that a min-maxer in your game isn't a munchkin; and then claiming that anyone who tries to max out their dice pools is a munchkin.
@Wotmaniac: Well, none of my players is powergaming that way, and noone was when we played the mortal-based campaign. I wouldn't allow it even though. As for now, they're capped below 10 dice on spellcasting rolls, with low (1-2) Gnosis, no Arcana above 3, and a handful of starting Rotes. I think I might come up with a way of squeezing 18 dice as a mortal, but the question stands - why? To be a one trick expert? The way we play that kind of specialization does you no good. Not every game is about shooting things with a gun.
@Frank: By having Intelligence 5 and Science 5 with a few specialities? He's a genius in that field, mind you. Those kind of rolls don't get many bonus factors, and the character in question is an Obrimos, with no facilities and no expertise in buffing his shtick with magic (not the best Path for it). If there's any equipment in the corebook that boosts Science rolls, I must have missed it.
But I'm ending up having to introduce bonus dice for Imago descriptions and Ritual design, so they have enough dice to cast basic spells, so I'm probably not playing 'by the book'. I never considered that the possibility of munching your dicepools to 60 means it's compulsory to do so.
Besides, the story is more about a group of mages learning arcane secrets along while they bond into a cabal of Urban Magic Archaeologists, not about slapping enemies with the Moon. I've had the doubtful pleasure of reading Masters of the Arts, and I really don't want that kind of game.
The Gaming Den; where Mathematics are rigorously applied to Mythology.
While everyone's Philosophy is not in accord, that doesn't mean we're not on board.
While everyone's Philosophy is not in accord, that doesn't mean we're not on board.
Well, that was all according to his character concept, so I allowed it, even if I usually don't do that (to leave some room for improvement). And with the kind of story we're playing, he's bound to regret it a bit, since he can't be a Free Council mage without being the cabal outcast (they're mostly Mysterium, plus a Adamantine Arrow oath-bound to one of the NPC members) and loosing a lot of fun. I know, that's a bit arbitrary on my side, but to be honest, he's a fresh player in a freshly consolidated gaming group. We're still trying to work things out.
I could be considered to be a 'powergamer' too (I love finding ways to improve my character within the rules), but I always find some way to fit it into the story, and never do anything for the sake of 'having the largest dice pool/damage/whatever'. That's silly at best.
As for the accusation of 'trying to have it both ways', it's true, sure (I'm not claiming that anyone doing it is a munchkin, though). But trying to find some balance between optimizing your character, and exploiting the game for one-shot wonders isn't a bad thing. These discussions (arguments
) gave me something to think of...
In the previous Mage campaign I've GM'd one player made up three min-maxed characters. One he just decided is not fun to play anymore, the second one walked into an obvious trap alone and couldn't best his opponents, and the third one couldn't really fit into the party. But maybe he just wasn't good at min-maxing. I don't know. What I do know, is that if he made those characters considering themselves, the story and other players, with or without min-maxing, he still would play the first one he made up. Just as he does this time.
So, if you can dish out 60 dice on your character's trick, you're a silly munchkin. But if you can do it without making said character seem a puppet with just having 60 dice in 'trick x', that's another story. I just don't find the idea of 'Minmax the Unstoppable Warrior' funny, except for the webcomic it comes from. And I bet the party doesn't too. Especially when for example combat is dominated by the guy with 60 dice, and all they have to do is sit back and watch him rolling, hoping they won't get caught in the blast (or that he'll somehow will be down before his Initiative comes up).
I could be considered to be a 'powergamer' too (I love finding ways to improve my character within the rules), but I always find some way to fit it into the story, and never do anything for the sake of 'having the largest dice pool/damage/whatever'. That's silly at best.
As for the accusation of 'trying to have it both ways', it's true, sure (I'm not claiming that anyone doing it is a munchkin, though). But trying to find some balance between optimizing your character, and exploiting the game for one-shot wonders isn't a bad thing. These discussions (arguments
) gave me something to think of...In the previous Mage campaign I've GM'd one player made up three min-maxed characters. One he just decided is not fun to play anymore, the second one walked into an obvious trap alone and couldn't best his opponents, and the third one couldn't really fit into the party. But maybe he just wasn't good at min-maxing. I don't know. What I do know, is that if he made those characters considering themselves, the story and other players, with or without min-maxing, he still would play the first one he made up. Just as he does this time.
So, if you can dish out 60 dice on your character's trick, you're a silly munchkin. But if you can do it without making said character seem a puppet with just having 60 dice in 'trick x', that's another story. I just don't find the idea of 'Minmax the Unstoppable Warrior' funny, except for the webcomic it comes from. And I bet the party doesn't too. Especially when for example combat is dominated by the guy with 60 dice, and all they have to do is sit back and watch him rolling, hoping they won't get caught in the blast (or that he'll somehow will be down before his Initiative comes up).
Mariusz "Kot" Butrykowski
"The only way to keep them in line is to bury them in a row..."
"The only way to keep them in line is to bury them in a row..."
Dude -- why are you still stormwinding? Stop that shit.
We get it -- you don't like games with powerful characters. Whatever; it's completely irrelevant.
Let's get this straightened out right now:
"level of immersion" and "character power/usefulness" are 2 completely separate scales that operate completely independent of each other. The sooner you are able to disentangle this in your head, the better off you'll be.
We get it -- you don't like games with powerful characters. Whatever; it's completely irrelevant.
Let's get this straightened out right now:
"level of immersion" and "character power/usefulness" are 2 completely separate scales that operate completely independent of each other. The sooner you are able to disentangle this in your head, the better off you'll be.
*WARNING*: I say "fuck" a lot.
"The most patriotic thing you can do as an American is to become filthy, filthy rich."
- Mark Cuban
"Game design has no obligation to cater to people who don’t buy into the premise of the game"
TGD -- skirting the edges of dickfinity since 2003.
Public Service Announcement
- Mark Cuban
"Game design has no obligation to cater to people who don’t buy into the premise of the game"
TGD -- skirting the edges of dickfinity since 2003.
Public Service Announcement
-
Judging__Eagle
- Prince
- Posts: 4671
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
- Location: Lake Ontario is in my backyard; Canada
Kot, Seeing as I have played a character that seemed like "min-max the unstoppable warrior" to other denners, on this very forum, I feel like I should interject and say that your definition is bullshit.
Even if I had a character whose abilities were "cannot be killed in battle by non-plot forced attacks or events" and "kills the toughest monster in the game with a single scratch from their weapons"; that does not mean such a character is not going to roleplay. If anything, they might roleplay more than the people who constantly struggle with the game.
Why can I say that? Because I just defined my Skyrim triple-crafter right there. When you can make a blacksmith's apron with the enchantment "+87607% better Smithing", and you can upgrade any single piece of armour beyond the "soft armour cap of 800 pts" by wearing a single 4600 armour helmet that makes all of your 'damage' and 'healing' spells cost 875502% less mana, and your most primitive bow does 104,000 damage per hit...... you have obviously bypassed the settings assumed limits of things like decency when it comes to damage or damage mitigation.
However, that doesn't mean that this character goes around on town-killing rampages. Although as a player and as my character I've been very tempted to have my decapitated lizardman just kill most, or all, of the stupid NPCs and their annoying factions. Unfortunately Skyrim doesn't allow the player to raise armies, so the Argonian Crusade of Skyrim can't happen, ever, even if I personally kill every NPC one at a time.
Seriously, you're going to have to check your prejudices against combat focused, or just plain old competent characters at the door.
"The ability to not give a shit about your [whatever type of] challenges because they've gone beyond the supposed competence cap for the setting" =/= "The inability to roleplay a deeply complicated character".
Of course, a lot of this has to do with the fact that most of my characters are defined as having "Hedonistic" tendencies, and want to get into all parts of the game system whenever possible, and possibly make my characters as competent as the system allows me to make those characters at their various abilities. I get bored easily, and want to explore the game and do new and exciting things.
Being able to say "yeah, I win this combat encounter" means that as a player I can get back to the roleplaying that I'm actually interested in.
Even if I had a character whose abilities were "cannot be killed in battle by non-plot forced attacks or events" and "kills the toughest monster in the game with a single scratch from their weapons"; that does not mean such a character is not going to roleplay. If anything, they might roleplay more than the people who constantly struggle with the game.
Why can I say that? Because I just defined my Skyrim triple-crafter right there. When you can make a blacksmith's apron with the enchantment "+87607% better Smithing", and you can upgrade any single piece of armour beyond the "soft armour cap of 800 pts" by wearing a single 4600 armour helmet that makes all of your 'damage' and 'healing' spells cost 875502% less mana, and your most primitive bow does 104,000 damage per hit...... you have obviously bypassed the settings assumed limits of things like decency when it comes to damage or damage mitigation.
The result is that this character plays at the highest difficulty setting, and pops "elder" dragons as if they were water balloons with any of their weapons.
Of course, this also means that the character has to be really careful when attacking in Skyrims 'stupid' combat system and make sure that they don't catch an ally with a weapon attack because it will drop NPCs in one shot as well.
The ability to one-shot kill any target is a game changing dynamic. Changing the game from one of "swing non-stop like a moron and try to bash through Master-difficulty NPC regeneration" to "make sure you never hit a non-target ever". Turning the frenetic pace of Skyrim combat into something more like the calculated planning of a wargame is interesting.
I've also realized that I've shifted away from melee and towards bows due to increased control over where 'lines' of attack will move, I've already accidentally killed an NPC ally who was standing a bit too close to my melee arm in mid-swing (standing beside me, not in front of me).
Of course, this also means that the character has to be really careful when attacking in Skyrims 'stupid' combat system and make sure that they don't catch an ally with a weapon attack because it will drop NPCs in one shot as well.
The ability to one-shot kill any target is a game changing dynamic. Changing the game from one of "swing non-stop like a moron and try to bash through Master-difficulty NPC regeneration" to "make sure you never hit a non-target ever". Turning the frenetic pace of Skyrim combat into something more like the calculated planning of a wargame is interesting.
I've also realized that I've shifted away from melee and towards bows due to increased control over where 'lines' of attack will move, I've already accidentally killed an NPC ally who was standing a bit too close to my melee arm in mid-swing (standing beside me, not in front of me).
Seriously, you're going to have to check your prejudices against combat focused, or just plain old competent characters at the door.
"The ability to not give a shit about your [whatever type of] challenges because they've gone beyond the supposed competence cap for the setting" =/= "The inability to roleplay a deeply complicated character".
Of course, a lot of this has to do with the fact that most of my characters are defined as having "Hedonistic" tendencies, and want to get into all parts of the game system whenever possible, and possibly make my characters as competent as the system allows me to make those characters at their various abilities. I get bored easily, and want to explore the game and do new and exciting things.
Being able to say "yeah, I win this combat encounter" means that as a player I can get back to the roleplaying that I'm actually interested in.
Last edited by Judging__Eagle on Sun Feb 05, 2012 11:36 pm, edited 2 times in total.
This...
There is no comparison to Skyrim. Skyrim is a crpg, a game of shameless munchkinism and solo world-saving. You can always open the console, max about everything, and then kill the final boss with a shovel. That's because you're playing this game alone, and any companions are just puppets. If you project that kind of playing to your games... Well, that doesn't end well. I've kicked a few people from my groups for that, friendship aside.
Besides, even if you don't have to bother with one part of the game, be it combat, etiquette, or weasel juggling, you're either wasting the game's potential (some of us play also for the challenge), or someone else's fun (some of us play also for the challenge, again). So, making a character who can single-handed raise up to any challenge of a certain kind doesn't seem to be a good idea. Unless the other players are just extras, who are there only to deal with the other boring tasks. The 'freeing time for roleplaying' angle isn't holding up as well. I don't think playing a character who has a chance of failing, or has to struggle to succeed makes you less of a roleplayer. On the contrary - a well-rounded character is more interesting (and more reliable) than a narrow specialist. That's the idea of most character classes, archetypes, etc. - there is no 'Twohanded Swordsman in a Chainmail' class in DnD. There is a Fighter, who can wear chainmail, and wield a twohanded sword, but that's just one of his skills... Yes, you can have a 'Twohanded Swordsman' 'prestige class', but that doesn't make you less effective as a Fighter, than before.
... means you forgot about the rest of your group, and the GM. There's a team, and you've just spoiled their fun. The GM put some effort into the game, the other players were looking forward to playing it, and you've just nuked it, even if only partially.Being able to say "yeah, I win this combat encounter" means that as a player I can get back to the roleplaying that I'm actually interested in.
There is no comparison to Skyrim. Skyrim is a crpg, a game of shameless munchkinism and solo world-saving. You can always open the console, max about everything, and then kill the final boss with a shovel. That's because you're playing this game alone, and any companions are just puppets. If you project that kind of playing to your games... Well, that doesn't end well. I've kicked a few people from my groups for that, friendship aside.
Besides, even if you don't have to bother with one part of the game, be it combat, etiquette, or weasel juggling, you're either wasting the game's potential (some of us play also for the challenge), or someone else's fun (some of us play also for the challenge, again). So, making a character who can single-handed raise up to any challenge of a certain kind doesn't seem to be a good idea. Unless the other players are just extras, who are there only to deal with the other boring tasks. The 'freeing time for roleplaying' angle isn't holding up as well. I don't think playing a character who has a chance of failing, or has to struggle to succeed makes you less of a roleplayer. On the contrary - a well-rounded character is more interesting (and more reliable) than a narrow specialist. That's the idea of most character classes, archetypes, etc. - there is no 'Twohanded Swordsman in a Chainmail' class in DnD. There is a Fighter, who can wear chainmail, and wield a twohanded sword, but that's just one of his skills... Yes, you can have a 'Twohanded Swordsman' 'prestige class', but that doesn't make you less effective as a Fighter, than before.
Mariusz "Kot" Butrykowski
"The only way to keep them in line is to bury them in a row..."
"The only way to keep them in line is to bury them in a row..."
You're associating min-maxing with munchkinism.Kot wrote:Well, that was all according to his character concept, so I allowed it, even if I usually don't do that (to leave some room for improvement). And with the kind of story we're playing, he's bound to regret it a bit, since he can't be a Free Council mage without being the cabal outcast (they're mostly Mysterium, plus a Adamantine Arrow oath-bound to one of the NPC members) and loosing a lot of fun. I know, that's a bit arbitrary on my side, but to be honest, he's a fresh player in a freshly consolidated gaming group. We're still trying to work things out.
I could be considered to be a 'powergamer' too (I love finding ways to improve my character within the rules), but I always find some way to fit it into the story, and never do anything for the sake of 'having the largest dice pool/damage/whatever'. That's silly at best.
As for the accusation of 'trying to have it both ways', it's true, sure (I'm not claiming that anyone doing it is a munchkin, though). But trying to find some balance between optimizing your character, and exploiting the game for one-shot wonders isn't a bad thing. These discussions (arguments
In the previous Mage campaign I've GM'd one player made up three min-maxed characters. One he just decided is not fun to play anymore, the second one walked into an obvious trap alone and couldn't best his opponents, and the third one couldn't really fit into the party. But maybe he just wasn't good at min-maxing. I don't know. What I do know, is that if he made those characters considering themselves, the story and other players, with or without min-maxing, he still would play the first one he made up. Just as he does this time.
So, if you can dish out 60 dice on your character's trick, you're a silly munchkin. But if you can do it without making said character seem a puppet with just having 60 dice in 'trick x', that's another story. I just don't find the idea of 'Minmax the Unstoppable Warrior' funny, except for the webcomic it comes from. And I bet the party doesn't too. Especially when for example combat is dominated by the guy with 60 dice, and all they have to do is sit back and watch him rolling, hoping they won't get caught in the blast (or that he'll somehow will be down before his Initiative comes up).
Munchkinism is disruptive, competitive gameplay where other players are treated as obstacles or minions.
There are degrees of disruptive Min-maxing (Pun-Pun is the most famous example of D&D), but Min-maxing is not automatically "become so strong that I can solo everything." Min-maxing can be as simple as a Ventrue with a lot of dots in Presence and Intimidation, or a Mekhet with high Perception and Auspex. Both are powerful characters, but they can't do everything and overcome all challenges.
Now, I can understand your apprehension towards Min-Maxing, given that many douchebag gamers care about character power so that they can feel big in the pants, but the desire to make a powerful character can gell well in a team game. Played properly, a min-maxed character can cover holes in a group's weaknesses and supplement roles.
I've created conversations about these issues on the Min-Max Boards if you're interested:
The idea that teamwork invalidates optimization
The Muchnkinmaxer Fallacy
TL;DR The problem isn't powerful PCs so much as PCs stepping on the toes of other characters and making them feel useless.
Last edited by Libertad on Sun Feb 05, 2012 10:28 pm, edited 4 times in total.
-
TheFlatline
- Prince
- Posts: 2606
- Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2010 11:43 pm